# Continuity vs Discontinuity



## blhowes (Oct 31, 2005)

One of the things that turned me away from dispensationalism (classic) was the fact that I just couldn't see the scriptures making the distinctions that are the starting points or prerequisites needed to come to their conclusions. As I just tried to focus on the facts (or events) as presented, it just didn't seem that the scriptures were driving me to divide those events into 7 periods, have a radical discontinuity between the OT and the NT or between each dispensation, to make such a distinction between Israel and the church, etc. As I tried to be as objective as I could and let the scriptures speak for themselves, I just couldn't see the discontinuity that is a given for that theology.

Lately, I've been giving continuity vs discontinuity more thought as I think about non-dispensational ways of looking at the scriptures. With dispensationalism, the discontinuity is assumed; with CT and, to a lesser degree, reformed baptist theology, continuity is assumed. As I said, with dispensationalism, the discontinuity doesn't seem to jump out at you. Do you think the scriptures speak out more loudly for a continuity between the OT and NT, Israel and the church, and between the various covenants? How? Why?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 31, 2005)

The same God, the same Holy Spirit, the same Christ, is the Author of both the Old and the New Testaments. Unless we presuppose discontinuity within God Himself, we should not presuppose that His Word is at enmity with itself.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 31, 2005)

Continuity.

The way Christ and the apostles quoted the O.T. seems to present continuity.

Having been delivered from dispensationalism myself, I found that to be the first step in my understanding of CT.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The same God, the same Holy Spirit, the same Christ, is the Author of both the Old and the New Testaments. Unless we presuppose discontinuity within God Himself, we should not presuppose that His Word is at enmity with itself.


To play devil's advocate (and hoping its not too 'out in left field'):

I doubt if any dispensationalist would say this or has, but what if they said something along these lines:

"On the first day, God created light. On the second day, God made the firmament. On the third day, God made the dry land, the seas, and grass...

God created different things at different times, yet it doesn't make us presuppose discontinuity within God. In the same way, God can have different dispensations at different times and it doesn't bring into question continuity within God.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Continuity.
> 
> The way Christ and the apostles quoted the O.T. seems to present continuity.


Dispensationalists would agree with you that Christ and the apostles quoted from the OT. Is there something you see specifically in the way that they quoted that would argue more heavily for continuity over discontinuity?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



That isn't their argument. They argue that God has different salvific economies for different periods of time, and that not all people are redeemed in the same way (calling into question the justice of God, philosophically speaking).


----------



## blhowes (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> That isn't their argument. They argue that God has different salvific economies for different periods of time, and that not all people are redeemed in the same way (calling into question the justice of God, philosophically speaking).


You know, in my limited exposure in dispensational churches, I've never known anyone who'd admit to that. With regard to salvation, they've always (perhaps inconsistently) said that OT saints were saved by looking forward to the cross, just as we're saved by looking back.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



That isn't dispensationalism.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> That isn't dispensationalism.


Perhaps its more leaning towards the progressive brand...or maybe its just 'selective dispensationalism'. 

Regarding different salvific economies for different periods of time, is that something many admit to? I've been to some Dispensational sites that try and address this claim that non-Dispensationalists make about this. In their minds, there are not different ways of salvation.

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 31, 2005)

Well if there are not different ways of salvation, then there is only one COVENANT by which God has GRACE on sinners to the end of salvation. Welcome to Reformed theology!


----------



## blhowes (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well if there are not different ways of salvation, then there is only one COVENANT by which God has GRACE on sinners to the end of salvation. Welcome to Reformed theology!


Can I get a hearty AMEN from my Dispensational brothers/sisters?...anyone?

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well if there are not different ways of salvation, then there is only one COVENANT by which God has GRACE on sinners to the end of salvation. Welcome to Reformed theology!



 indeed! But does anyone suppose that there are two covenants of grace?

Martin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 31, 2005)

Not that I am aware; unless you mean the dispensational view in that there are two different ways to be saved. I've not heard anyone say "two covenants of grace."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 31, 2005)

My experience has been that there are very few true Scoffield dispensationalists left.

I think most evangelicals today have a confused sense of theology to begin with. As many do not understand basic doctrines: nature of the Godhead, justification, etc we should not be surprised that there is a really confused sense of covenant as that is a core doctrine.

It is a great sadness inded that the only doctrine that many evangelicals seem to know is some sort of end times "Left Behind" theology. It's almost axiomatic that those that I know that are sadly ignorant in their basic theology have some sort of basic knowledge of the Rapture, the Antichrist, etc. 

Key, of course, to their basic understanding is that the Jews are still God's chosen people and that the Temple will be rebuilt. "How are they still God's chosen people", I usually ask along the lines of the "one tree" analogy used in Romans. Most don't really know.

So I guess the continuity/discontinuity doesn't really occur to most because they haven't even gotten as far as considering what Covenant they're in right now to be able to compare it to anything else. I'm not even talking just about your average congregant but many pastors who find _40 Days of Purpose_ to be the landmark work on Ecclessiology.


----------



## blhowes (Nov 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> So I guess the continuity/discontinuity doesn't really occur to most because they haven't even gotten as far as considering what Covenant they're in right now to be able to compare it to anything else. I'm not even talking just about your average congregant but many pastors who find _40 Days of Purpose_ to be the landmark work on Ecclessiology.


Its always boggled my mind that so many churches are taught things based on presuppositions that are never proven and don't seem to be questioned. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a study on Daniel 9, Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, and Revelation 20 that begins with "In order to come to a biblical (ie., dispensational) understanding of these passages, we need to keep in mind..." and then they go on to talk about the need to interpret the Bible literally, about keeping straight the distinction between the church and Israel, etc., etc. With that unquestioned framework, of course you'll come to the dispensational conclusions.

Not to get too far off topic, but I'm really curious what is taught in the dispensational colleges/seminaries about these givens. Hopefully the way the 'truths' are taught there is different from how they're taught in the churches (starting with the givens). I wonder if they explore why they make all these distinctions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Its always boggled my mind that so many churches are taught things based on presuppositions that are never proven and don't seem to be questioned. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a study on Daniel 9, Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, and Revelation 20 that begins with "In order to come to a biblical (ie., dispensational) understanding of these passages, we need to keep in mind..." and then they go on to talk about the need to interpret the Bible literally, about keeping straight the distinction between the church and Israel, etc., etc. With that unquestioned framework, of course you'll come to the dispensational conclusions.


Good point. If I only had a nickel for the number of people that tell me "...my Pastor only preaches what's in the Bible..."

How about another example of a "presupposition". First heard this in a Calvary Chapel service at a friend's Church as he was sharing the Gospel and explained about our free will because "...God didn't want us to be robots...." I fondly call it the Calvary Chapel Robot Theology.  I remember that same friend telling me how their Pastor had a special service on Sep 11, 2001 in reaction to the WTC attacks. The subject of his sermon that gave comfort to the people? How it all fits the end times scenario predicted by their fanciful theories. Calvary Chapel is a perfect example of a system all about its Eschatology and little else.


----------



## blhowes (Nov 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Good point. If I only had a nickel for the number of people that tell me "...my Pastor only preaches what's in the Bible..."


I think that's a good thing when contrasted with many 'churches' that put so little emphasis on the Bible, who don't believe it to be authoritative or as authoritative as their church traditions. It elevates the Bible's importance in determining our beliefs. Unfortunately, when someone says their pastor preaches what's in the Bible, there's the underlying assumption that anyone who doesn't believe the same way doesn't preach what's in the Bible. With orthodox churches who share the same love/respect for God's word, that's an unfortunate attitude to have.


----------

