Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have heard claims that 1689 Federalism has the hallmark of dispensationalism, being that 1689 Federalism separates Israel and the church. It seems to me that that is an accurate assessment.
I understand that I could be very wrong in my understanding. Also, I understand that this post might not be accepted on the board, being that some people here hold to 1689 Federalism and that dispensational theology is looked down on very much so, and we want to practice charity.
If it is allowed though, I would like to hear from the seasoned saints on this issue. I might not add very much, being that I could be over my head here.
I saw where a board member names Brandon (Adams, I think) wrote a blog on this. He said it is not dispensational because dispensational theology has Israel and the church have two different eternal promises and destinies. He says 1689 federalism does not. Israel just had temporal promises and the church has eternal ones.
But does it have to be separate eternal promises for both Israel and the church to be classified dispensational? Isn't temporal promises for one Israel and Eternal for the church enough to classify it dispensational?
Here is a blog from the 1689 view concerning why 1689 federalism is not dispensational theology.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/
I would post one from a Presbyterian view, but I do not know of one.
I understand that I could be very wrong in my understanding. Also, I understand that this post might not be accepted on the board, being that some people here hold to 1689 Federalism and that dispensational theology is looked down on very much so, and we want to practice charity.
If it is allowed though, I would like to hear from the seasoned saints on this issue. I might not add very much, being that I could be over my head here.
I saw where a board member names Brandon (Adams, I think) wrote a blog on this. He said it is not dispensational because dispensational theology has Israel and the church have two different eternal promises and destinies. He says 1689 federalism does not. Israel just had temporal promises and the church has eternal ones.
But does it have to be separate eternal promises for both Israel and the church to be classified dispensational? Isn't temporal promises for one Israel and Eternal for the church enough to classify it dispensational?
Here is a blog from the 1689 view concerning why 1689 federalism is not dispensational theology.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/
I would post one from a Presbyterian view, but I do not know of one.
Last edited: