kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ba2iqq9m1b6skpc.html

@@leecooper6411 Thank you for this reference. Gone through it. Too abstract for me.

@@leecooper6411 the problem is the sabbath It becomes arbitrary in the way that you obey it today.

@@mrhartley85 are you on the 7th day grind?

@@TheGopukumar for a more full presentation of 1689 Federalism, read Samuel Renihan's The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, & His Kingdom. He makes things much more concrete and accessible, especially though his application of typology.

Hey there Adam, you can ask the Center for Faith and Culture to see if they might have it by emailing cfc@sebts.edu. Thanks for watching!

He continues his reply by saying, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." So the covenantalist will interpret this to mean that Jesus is answering their question about the coming of the kingdom, that it will come through Jesus as the church spreads. A more dispensational approach would say that Jesus, instead of answering their question, is telling them what they are to do in the meantime.

@@getjiped I would ask the dispensational approach why it can't be both/and. I read Acts 1 alongside Matthew 28. Since all authority has been given to Christ as he ascends they go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. In the Father's time, he will come back for those same disciples living and dead and usher them into his kingdom where death has no power.

So to add more clarity concerning my question, it basically comes from reading a response to progressive covenantalism from Darrell Bock. I'm not sure where I'd place myself with regard to the debate. I can tell you I'm not a dispensationalist of the Walvoord-Ryrie brand, nor would I call myself a progressive dispensationalist. I admire Dr. Bock greatly, I'm just not prepared to align myself with his system. The work he's done is great, but I humbly think he should have dropped the term dispensationalism. I read his paper Why I'm a Dispensationalist with a Small "d", and I think I understand what he means. It's just that the changes he made were so great and beyond Ryrie's sine qua non that I struggle to see the need for retaining the name dispensationalism at all. (Cf. Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of Traditional Dispensationalism, ed. Ron Bilgalke). I like the work of George Ladd and G. K. Beale. Dr. Roy Metts also wrote an excellent article on the kingdom of God in the Criswell Theological Review (N. S. Volume 2 NO. 1, Fall 2004) entitled The Kingdom of God: Background and Development of a Complex Discourse Concept. Having said all that I think I need to study more and actually read Stephen Wellum's work on Progressive Covenantalism. Like I said, it's very appealing to me. It's just that I'm a little apprehensive about adhering to a system. Forgive me if my thoughts are disorganized, I'm just trying to sift through the various subtle nuances that I've come across from various authors of various persuasions concerning the subject! Your response is appreciated and I welcome any further dialogue.

@@jameswillison7195 I appreciate your interaction with me on this subject. I definitely plan to read through all of Wellum's and Gentry's works. I'm excited to read the forthcoming book by Benjamin Merkel as well. Thank you for that recommendation. As far as my stance on systems I dont disagree. I was a dispensationalist for some time, but after struggling to see a pretrib rapture I knew the system was deficient and I had to abandon it. So went towards a more covenant premillennial interpretation which now I even unsure about premillennialism in general. I may perhaps find myself more like Greg Beale and his amillennial position (I love his commentary on Revelation and his work in biblical theology). As far as soteriology I definitely consider myself Calvinistic, though not entirely (I'm not too sure about limited atonement). So I do adhere lightly to a system thought I'm still in the process of further delineating it and refining it. As I study further with regard to progressive covenantalism I may very well have found a system that jives with me, though I want to be careful not to jump into something without adequately navigating through it. The reference by Merkel sounds awesome and I look forward to reading it asap. If you have any other comments or references feel free to send them my way. I'm not a seminarian thought I did spend some time doing undergraduate studies in biblical studies at Criswell years ago. I guess I'm trying to be the "mythical, theologically well-educated laymen" my NT prof. Dr. Metts would frequently joke about! Lol Thanks again for the dialogue. I enjoy these sorts of conversations very much.

Barry Horner - Future Israel. Wonderful book!

@@d.torrent1822 Hi Deric, they do tackle it in Kingdom through Covenant 2nd edition (2018). But more specifically, in another work edited by Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker, there is an essay by Richard J. Lucas entitled, "The Dispensational Appeal to Romans 11 and the Nature of Israel's Future Salvation."

@@jameswillison7195 thanks so much James, Your comments are so edifying to me.

Repent and believe, doesn’t have too much room for infant baptism, and that was the message of the forerunner that was the message of the apostolic church. The kingdom of God is at hand repent and believe don’t think discussing infant baptism would be necessary. I would trust a good righteous HOLY God to do good righteous holy ALTOGETHER and whatever he decides whatever he does will be just and right. BAPTISM I would believe is for believers and the regenerated man making profession, what would you view it as? Love you brother or sister may we have edifying communication

Savage.