Phone: (817) 793-3060
Phone: (817) 793-3060
The first lecture outlines the teleology (purpose) and eschatology (fulfillment) which is built into the Creation at its inception, and which drives the Bible Story to its consummation. The second lecture looks at Zechariah 3:9ff. as an example of what that culmination might be expected to look like.
This lecture and the previous one set out how “Biblical Covenantalism“ takes what is good in Traditional Dispensationalism and expands its applicability by centering on the explicit biblical covenants as opposed to the problematical dispensations.
Biblical Covenantalism is an approach to the whole Bible which seeks to trace out the Program of God (‘the Creation Project’), through His own commitments in the Covenants of Scripture. This lecture and the next set out where “Biblical Covenantalism” takes what is good in Traditional Dispensationalism and expands its applicability by centering on the explicit biblical covenants as opposed to the problematical dispensations.
“
From what I have written in support of this definition several things come out:
1. Revelation is, for the most part, unambiguous clear communication or it is not good communication
2. The progressive revealing must be amenable to tracking so as to ensure it is cohesive and non-contradictory.
3. The idea of progressive revelation, then, also carries the notion of expectancy, based on the content of what God revealed.”
“
“This brings us to a fourth observation: the “progression” was merely that of historical pronouncements couched in types and shadows, not in plain language. All that is meant by “progressive” is “communication at different times.” Meanwhile, all “revelation” turns out to be is “obtuse disclosure” which would remain unclear and misleading until the “fulfillment” was announced!”
As previously noted here, I was asked to represent Traditional Dispensationalism for a set of interviews conducted by Lindsay Kennedy. Two far more noteworthy contributors; Darrell Bock (Progressive Dispensationalism), and James Hamilton (Historic Premillennialism), were also interviewed. After the interviews were completed, each man was given the opportunity to ask one of the others a… Continue Reading
“Our doctrine of revelation is the bedrock of what ever else we as Christians might want to say. Revelation entails clarity of intention. In speaking about “progressive revelation” we are always talking about the character and consistency of the Revelator.”
“leopard tracks lead to leopards, not to bears. It is no great help saying they are both animals and we are following animal tracks, because we are following definite animal tracks determined by the beast that made them. Their specificity cannot be ignored, and any asserted rough commonalities between leopards and bears will do nothing to disguise the fact that a leopard is not a bear…”
“A true progression must be tracked as such. This means the earlier revelation must in some way determine the boundaries of the later revelation. It cannot be that a set of disclosures, vitally linked together to reveal a certain subject (say, Messiah, or the land grant to Israel), may admit to wholesale ambiguities further along the line. Revelation is not a brainteaser written in code. Such would be a contradiction in terms.”
“Putting aside for the minute the problem of our common failure to reflect God’s truth in our every communication (something I’ll return to), the fact remains that communication; from God first and then to each other, is happening. So before we can get into our main subject of progressive revelation, we must initially ponder what makes for effective communication.”
There is no content to display.