Você está na página 1de 2

Abraham's Four Seeds

http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Abrahams_Four_Seeds_intro.html

Abraham's Four Seeds


by John G. Reisinger
(New Covenant Theology)

Introduction Background and Reason for Writing


This book originated as a short presentation for public discussion. A group of Amils and Premils got together (along wit us who are not convinced of any prophetic position) and discussed each other's view in the same session. Three different me the subject "Who is Abraham's Seed." This was followed by a long and profitable discussion period. I was one of the three s was assigned the "middle" position) and my preparation led to the start of this book. Several years later I gave a twenty page paper entitled "Abraham's Four Seeds" at a Reformed pastors' meeting in Toronto was encouraged to enlarge it and develop some of the applications to Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. The result much a study of the basic presuppositions of these two systems of theology as it is a clear cut study of Abraham's seed. This for the lack of logical flow at times and the long digressions. However, since the real purpose of the book is not Abraham's own sake, but rather to demonstrate how a correct understanding of that subject is a key to harmonizing Scripture, it seemed digress as far as was necessary when either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology was directly involved. This approach s made necessary a lengthy discussion of the basic position of either, or both, of these systems of theology. Some of these digr appear as an appendix. Appendix number one is a very brief outline of Covenant Theology using the Westminster Confession of Faith as a sourc Appendix number two does the same thing with Dispensationalism using the Scofield Reference Bible and Major Bible Them Lewis Sperry Chafer and edited by John F. Walvoord. If the reader is not familiar with those systems, it might be well to read appendices first. Appendix number three deals with Covenant Theology's insistence on using theological terms instead of Scripture texts. appendix repeats some of the material in the main text. I am not suggesting that we must never use theological terms, but I am that we not use theological terms as the foundational blocks of our system as both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism basic presuppositions of any system of theology must be established with specific texts of Scripture and not with theological this is not done, then our basic building blocks will be the product of logic and not the Word of God itself. We must not pro theological lingo arrived at only by "good and necessary consequences" deduced from our system and then force those theolo terms into the Scripture and refuse to allow the words used by the Holy Spirit to mean what they actually say. Human logic become a tool more valuable than texts of Scripture in either establishing or teaching truth. Logic is a good mistress but a ve master. Appendix number four is a short exposition of Acts 2:39 showing how it cannot be used as a proof text for infant baptism We believe that historic Dispensationalism, as a system, is not Biblical (even though it contains truth and is held by many go simply because its basic presuppositions are either assumed or wrongly deduced from their theological system. We are also that Covenant Theology, as a system, is just as unscriptural (even though it also has truth and many godly exponents) for the reasons. Until recently most people felt that you had to believe one or the other of these two systems. Many people today, especially young pastors from various backgrounds, are exegeting the Word of God and discovering t not have to be locked into either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology. They are also discovering that the Reformation, was, never totally got rid of all of Rome's errors. Some great men brought some "priestcraft" over into their basic presuppos the time of the Reformation. Their view of the relationship between Church and State (the doctrine of Sacralism) is the logi conclusion and application of their Covenant Theology. It was this view that kept the Puritans from establishing churches th live and worship consistently in the spirit of the New Covenant. Their view of the ordained ministry ("holy orders") made an use of the "priesthood of believers" impossible. This is also the reason that present day Presbyterian groups, such as the P.C effectively deal with the issue of Theonomy within their ranks. The Theonomists have both the Westminster Confession and history on their side. Reformed Baptists are among the leaders in the present day revival of Calvinistic literature. On the one hand, we gladly acknowledge our debt to the Reformers and Puritans and do not hesitate to own them as our forefathers in certain aspects of However, on the other hand, we also know that those same men, almost without exception, bitterly persecuted, and in some i actually killed some of our other forefathers among the early Baptists. We find ourselves in the odd position of being stepch both the Reformers and the Anabaptists, but the true heirs of neither.

1 de 2

5/24/2009 12:35 PM

Abraham's Four Seeds

http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Abrahams_Four_Seeds_intro.html

Our clear-cut view of the Doctrines of Grace and the unity of the Scriptures aligns us with the Reformers and the Puritan Anabaptists will never teach anyone the Doctrines of Grace. Our view of the unity of the Scriptures make it impossible for u accept the Dispensationalism set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible. On the other hand, our Baptistic view that the New C in Jesus Christ has replaced the Old Covenant at Sinai makes it just as impossible for us to accept the Covenant Theology se the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was that very Covenant view of Scripture that was used by the Puritans to justify the the steel sword against our Baptist forefathers. The true heirs of the Puritan view of Covenant Theology are those who toda what is called Theonomy. Some people feel that if the Theonomists were to gain control, Baptist blood along with other would once more be shed in the name of "God's holy truth." More and more writers and preachers are demonstrating that both historic Dispensationalism and classical Covenant Theo bankrupt as far as being complete systems. Both systems are being greatly modified today, and there is a move toward "seein truth in both systems." In no sense does this mean there is an attempt to "synthesize" the two systems. It means that people in camps are starting with the Scriptures and discovering two things. They are seeing that (1) their own system is not totally con with many texts of Scripture, and (2) those same texts are forcing them to accept some things held by the other system. This i happening simply because honest men are admitting that they simply cannot prove some of their basic presuppositions with a of Scripture. They realize that they "assume" the basic system before they ever get to the Word of God itself. Many young me seeing that both of these systems "assume as facts" their basic presuppositions without any clear Biblical proof. The Word of God itself is once more becoming the final authority in the conscience of Christians. The footnotes in Bible pronouncements of men with papal personalities, and the creeds of our fathers no longer exercise unqualified control over th and hearts of many sheep. The cry, "What saith the Scriptures themselves?" is being heard in the land as it has not been since of the Reformation. Some of us dare to believe that this may be the generation that shall see the remaining vestments of Rom removed from our Calvinistic churches. There is no question that we are seeing a reformation of the church. It is the prayer of many that our generation will emul great things that the Puritans and Reformers did and avoid the tragic mistakes they made. We need a "reformed" reformation just a repeat of the sixteenth century. I would say here what I wrote in my booklet When Should A Christian Leave A Church Let us not make the same mistakes that the Reformers made. They thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justificatio but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but held on to sanctification They rejected the Church's authority over your soul, but hung on to the Church's authority over your conscience. They discar priestcraft and substituted clericalism. They rejected the authority of Church tradition (which taught Papal infallibility) but r with man-made creeds that soon became as authoritative as Scripture. In reality they replaced a two-legged Pope with a pape They cried sola Scriptura while waving a creed in one hand and a sword in the other.

Sovereign Potter Abrahm's menu Appendix 1

2 de 2

5/24/2009 12:35 PM

Você também pode gostar