The Theological Ruminator
I think Classic Dispensationalism is great. It is sucha well-thought out theological system which makes sense of so much of the Bible.
God Bless
Matthew
Thanks for the comment, Matthew. But I don't agree. I think classical dispensationalism has some major problems.
I want to clarify that while I'm not dispensationalist, neither am I covenant. One of the problems I see is too much of an attempt to box people in via eschatology. I refused to be boxed in 
I found some stuff on your topic but it will have to wait until I finish this paper on, you guessed it, Revelation!
But you are "something." In that once you state what you believe I can create a category for that. This is useful for discussion because rather than have you spend 2 hours describing how you see things you can use your category and we can understand (or misunderstand) each other instantly. Perhaps "Royism?"
I'm premillenial. That's about as much as I want to nail it down because I think the New Testament is vague on it. The more time I spend on the issue the more vague I think it is.
I don't think amillenialism is a good option from the NT and my anthropology would argue against postmillenialism, though I can see that argument easier than I can the amillenial one.
I don't think Revelation is a future newspaper and I think covenant theology is as inconsistent as dispensationalism. The issues between the two systems are completely uninteresting to me and not worth the sweat to bother with it anymore (though I have in much detail in some former life).
And, since I'm on a role, I don't care much for systematics in general!
You too can be part of my system and be a Royite. Then you can send me money when I write end times books and then I can sue the people who make movies of my books.
That's more detail than you usually get out of me about me, now isn't it?
Good.
Good what? You're sending me money? Do I still have to write the book?
Well friends, there is always progressive covenantalism! See The Theology Program's description at mms://media.bible.org/EE3d.wmv
By the way, I'm not necessarily advocating it, but I thought I would round it off (i.e. dispensationalism, PROGRESSIVE dispensationalism, convenantalism, PROGRESSIVE covenantalism).
Yea, I'm still voting for none of the above.
I think classic dispenstionalism is rediculous. I agree that DTS makes way to big a deal of it. As for premil dispensationalists that like to put stupid "in case of rapture..." stickers on their car and read Left Behind books - this just irritates me because it perpetuates an idea that is percieved as central to Christian doctrine (premil rapture) which is totally made up and a gross misreading and fabrication from Scripture. Long live the mighty George Ladd.
...and no, i'm not trying to poo-poo on people today. thanks john mark for actually posting, something which i have forgotten how to do.
Matt - you may be overstating your case.
If the pre-mil ideal is "totally made up" then why have many church fathers and believers through the centuries held to that view?
Those church fathers and believers already thought they were in the tribulation, not that they would be delivered from it.
Matt, I don't know any other way to say it other than to say your claim is just wrong. I don't know where you heard it, but you certainly didn't hear it from anyone who has spent time in the texts.
Are you aware that Ladd can no longer long live and that he was premillenial?
Also, Matt, I'm not saying DTS makes too big a deal over dispensationalism. I'm saying that it's opponents make WAY too big a deal out of oppossing it with the invective with which they do (you know, words like ridiculous, stupid, irritates). Seeing as you seem to fit that mold, what is it about the system that you find so offensive (keeping in mind that we already know you think it is ridiculous, stupid and irritating)?
Ooohhhh.... Matt, you're not going to take that are you? :-0
Also, perhaps distinguishing the issue might be helpful here. Are we discussing all forms of dispensationalism? I was kind of focused on progressive, but I noticed Matt brought in classical.
Two comments.
1. That there are similarities between dispensationalists and covenantalists is not surprising. Both are Christians. So, that I hold a lot of things in common with Roman Catholics (Trinity, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, etc.) doesn't make me Catholic. But even this is not that shocking, since I also share a lot of beliefs in common with non-Christians. That I believe in "family values" doesn't make me Mormon. That I believe in taking care of the environment doesn't make me a Democrat (not that there's anything wrong with that!!)
For people who have liked nice categories (usually they boil down to us vs. them) the edges are usually overstated and overlaps are often ignored. That is what has often happened in the "conversations" about dispensationalism vs. covenantalism.
2. I don't find the proliferation of labels very helpful. We now have classic, revised, essentialist, normative, non-normative, progressive, etc. dispensationalism. It gives me tired head.
As to the difference between dispensationalism and covenantalism, maybe it has something to do with whether or not the covenant or something else is the organizing motif, the center of the metanarrative. In my reading of the biblical story, I see that covenants are a concession to the unbelief of the creatures, not the "primary" way the Creator relates to his creatures, and this fits better into a dispensational scheme than a covenantal one.
Thanks for the great comments!
Hi Dr. Kreider,
Thanks for your comments! I appreciate the wise words in your thougts. I also have two questions:
1. Is not any communication with man a concession to unbelief? Is not Christ the ultimate concession to unbelief?
2. In stating that covenant is not the "organizing motif" or the "primary" way God relates, you seem to imply that there is an organizing motif or primary way. In dispensationalism would that not be testing? If testing is not primary, what is? If testing is, what makes testing superior to covenent?
Roy,
1. Yes and yes. My claim that covenants are a concession is not to say anything negative about them. It is rather to say that although God is a covenant making and covenant keeping God, he makes redemptive covenants with his creatures because that is the way the culture of the time related to one another and to their gods. Simplifying to the extreme, covenant theology is based (partly) on the conviction that God always relates to his creatures and mediates blessings through covenants. I don't believe that is accurate.
2. I do not think testing is the organizing motif nor a sine qua non of dispensationalism (Walvoord did, Ryrie does not). I do not find organizing motifs very helpful.
I believe that the story is the thing. God the Creator has chosen to exercise grace as the means of redemption/recreation in this world. As the story unfolds, we see a repetition of rebellion conquered by grace . . . In every case, God enters into the fallen culture and acts redemptively. One example of that is the use of covenants, another is circumcision, another is the incarnation of the Son, another is the definition of church as ecclesia, and the ultimate is the recreated heaven and earth, particularly the city where the streets have no name.
If pushed, my organizing motif would be grace, "blessings not just for the ones who kneel . . . luckily, luckily, luckily"
Hey guys - I've moved this conversation up into a new post as this one was getting too far down the page. I've copied Roy's comment and Kreider's response as well. Continue discussion as needed in the new post... Thanks.
roy - yeah, i know that ladd is pre-mil...he is post-trib pre-mil. there's a difference between pre-trib pre-mil and post-trib pre-mil. i thought you would have known that, but...
don't make my baylor look bad.
and, expand your reading...are you seriously telling me you have never heard of people thinking that the roman empire was the antichrist? seriously.
as for why pretrib dispensationalism frustrates me - because that is what does, classical doesn't b/c almost everyone realizes how false it is now - but it frustrates me because so many people identify christians with some pre-trib left behind like rapture, which is totally fabricated. also, perhaps the majority of american christians believe in a pre-trib rapture as a major part of the faith...this is equally frustrating - it's not that dispensationalism is a big deal at all - it is that the pretrib rapture has become so iconic in christianity and it has no basis.
did dr. krieder allude to catholics as non-christians? certainly there are some catholic christians...this should not be put on the level of mormons.
Matt - clarification question. Are you saying that your beef isn't with dispensationalists but with the idea of a pre-trib rapture? Also, I don't think Kreider's comment was intended to lump Catholics in with unbelievers - just to point out that points of commonality don't mean all things are common.
Matt,
Crap! I DIDN'T know that. I can't keep up with all this theology stuff.
No, seriously, I see what happened. You were always focused on the pre-trib stuff, but your post only mentioned pre-mill dispensationalism. John Mark said the Fathers were pre-mill. You responded that the Fathers thought they were in the tribulation. I thought you were saying they were amillenial. OK, I'll say they weren't pre-trib.
And, I actually have heard of people thinking that the Roman Empire was the anti-christ, I just don't think the Fathers thought so. I'll tell you what: I'll concede that point if you can find me clear instances of, say Irenaeus, equating the Antichrist with Rome. If you wonder why I'm so confident it's because I already know it's not there and that this is typical (though not exclusive) of the third century. Irenaeus in particular thought the Antichrist would arise from the 10 kingdoms that would succeed the Roman Empire(e.g., Adv. haer. 5.26.1). I could pile it here with other pre-4th century Fathers, but I'll refrain . . .
Don't you think this is rather surprising if your supposition is true? Now, what makes this even more surprising is that Revelation apparently makes use of the myth of Nero's return, a blatant statement about the Roman Empire (and one reason why preterists are decidedly wrong). So, I'm not saying that the view that the early Fathers thought they were in the tribulation is a totally made up view by covenant people to tweak dispensationalists . . . OK, yes I am. Anyway, you might be surprised to find just how a-political many of the early Fathers were.
Crap again! I just let on that I'm post-trib, premillenial, just like the no longer long-living Ladd.
oops . . . one of my sentences should read "typical but not exclusive IN the 3rd century."
Matt,
I thought my comments above about Roman Catholics were pretty clear, but apparently not. So, let me try again: Just because I share belief in justification by grace through faith with Roman Catholicism (and with all other Christians) doesn't mean I am Roman Catholic. I am a Protestant. Just because I agree with an amillennialist on some issue doesn't mean I accept everything she believes. I agree with pot smoking U2 fans that the music is great but that doesn't mean I smoke dope or support anyone else's right to do so. In fact I do not, since smoking pot (and even possessing it)is illegal.
So you're saying that pot smoking U2 fans aren't believers?
Roy (& JM) - cool, i totally see the miscommunication - yeah, i wasn't talking about all of pre-mil. I suppose both Ladd and Moo would point to Justin, Barnabus, and Shepherd of Hermas, but I'd also throw in Paul. You might try an experiment - actually read the Bible as it says and line the events up in sequence actually given - radical, I know. If you need some direction, I'd recommend looking at these Moo, Ladd, and Reymond. I really have no desire to do your research for you 
Kreider - i totally see - I read through all of these way to quickly - I just say "Catholics" "non-Christians" and "Mormans"
Matt, you're freakin' me out with this either/or thing!
I think we're talking past each other. That's my fault. I think I'm being witty and it comes off like a smart, well, you know.
i wish i could at least come off as smart.
Commenting by HaloScan
