<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dispensationalism Defended</title>
	<atom:link href="http://daveyboyd.com/2008/09/22/dispensationalism-defended/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://daveyboyd.com/2008/09/22/dispensationalism-defended/</link>
	<description>a blog for when facebook just won&#039;t do</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:10:18 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: This Space is Now Happening &#187; InFocus</title>
		<link>http://daveyboyd.com/2008/09/22/dispensationalism-defended/comment-page-1/#comment-721</link>
		<dc:creator>This Space is Now Happening &#187; InFocus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daveyboyd.com/?p=80#comment-721</guid>
		<description>[...] are some preachers (one of them in Australia) having an amicable discussion about Covanent vs. Dispensational [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] are some preachers (one of them in Australia) having an amicable discussion about Covanent vs. Dispensational [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davey Boyd</title>
		<link>http://daveyboyd.com/2008/09/22/dispensationalism-defended/comment-page-1/#comment-719</link>
		<dc:creator>Davey Boyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daveyboyd.com/?p=80#comment-719</guid>
		<description>@ Armen. I look forward to continuing our discussion.

@Andrew - Thanks for the comment. Indeed, the outworking, or where we end from our common statements is rather different. I&#039;ll be posting more on the topic in the coming weeks and months (DV) so do come back.

Anyway, I hope I don&#039;t come across as if I can deliver the silver bullet to end all questions. I&#039;m interested in knowing more about Covenant Theology and where it differs from Dispensationalism which is the position I hold to... and love.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Armen. I look forward to continuing our discussion.</p>
<p>@Andrew &#8211; Thanks for the comment. Indeed, the outworking, or where we end from our common statements is rather different. I&#8217;ll be posting more on the topic in the coming weeks and months (DV) so do come back.</p>
<p>Anyway, I hope I don&#8217;t come across as if I can deliver the silver bullet to end all questions. I&#8217;m interested in knowing more about Covenant Theology and where it differs from Dispensationalism which is the position I hold to&#8230; and love.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://daveyboyd.com/2008/09/22/dispensationalism-defended/comment-page-1/#comment-718</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:47:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daveyboyd.com/?p=80#comment-718</guid>
		<description>I enjoyed reading your thoughts on dispensationalism and the challenges made to Covenant Theology. I don&#039;t really wish to argue for Covenant Theology here as I think this would require a much longer comment.  Yet I would like to make a few observations.

Whether we believe in a form of dispensationalism or a form of covenant theology, whichever is not merely an  appendage to an otherwise unrelated body of doctrine. 

The Reformed doctrine of Covenant Theology developed with particular relation to the purpose, application and extent of the atonement, the significance of Adam, of course the relationship of Israel to the Church and as a corollary the authority and application of the Old Testament with relation to the New Testament.

Assuming, therefore, that much Calvinistic dispensationalist theology derives much from the development of  Reformed orthodoxy  it is not simply the case that Covenant Theology can be supplanted by dispensationalism without the need for further change within the system of theology. This is particularly so with Presbyterianism, the undergirding Westminster Standards or Three Forms of Unity and independency as conceived in the Savoy declaration or approximating standards.

This may seem somewhat elementary, certainly the last remark asserting that a Dispensationalist cannot be a Westminster Presbyterian is bordering on stating the obvious. But if I am stating the obvious it is only to emphasise that this is an issue of great importance. These competing systems are mutually exclusive, parts may remain to be sure, we may find agreement in umbrella statements such as justification by grace through faith alone, the sufficiency of Scripture and that Christ will certainly come again to judge the living and the dead, but beyond these general statements the detailed outworking is somewhat different.

I&#039;m am not read wide enough in dispensationalist literature to know how this has been dealt with but I presume dispensationalist systematics should give some guidance. I would be interested with your thoughts on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I enjoyed reading your thoughts on dispensationalism and the challenges made to Covenant Theology. I don&#8217;t really wish to argue for Covenant Theology here as I think this would require a much longer comment.  Yet I would like to make a few observations.</p>
<p>Whether we believe in a form of dispensationalism or a form of covenant theology, whichever is not merely an  appendage to an otherwise unrelated body of doctrine. </p>
<p>The Reformed doctrine of Covenant Theology developed with particular relation to the purpose, application and extent of the atonement, the significance of Adam, of course the relationship of Israel to the Church and as a corollary the authority and application of the Old Testament with relation to the New Testament.</p>
<p>Assuming, therefore, that much Calvinistic dispensationalist theology derives much from the development of  Reformed orthodoxy  it is not simply the case that Covenant Theology can be supplanted by dispensationalism without the need for further change within the system of theology. This is particularly so with Presbyterianism, the undergirding Westminster Standards or Three Forms of Unity and independency as conceived in the Savoy declaration or approximating standards.</p>
<p>This may seem somewhat elementary, certainly the last remark asserting that a Dispensationalist cannot be a Westminster Presbyterian is bordering on stating the obvious. But if I am stating the obvious it is only to emphasise that this is an issue of great importance. These competing systems are mutually exclusive, parts may remain to be sure, we may find agreement in umbrella statements such as justification by grace through faith alone, the sufficiency of Scripture and that Christ will certainly come again to judge the living and the dead, but beyond these general statements the detailed outworking is somewhat different.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m am not read wide enough in dispensationalist literature to know how this has been dealt with but I presume dispensationalist systematics should give some guidance. I would be interested with your thoughts on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

