Can you lose your salvation?

Are we both talking about romans 8?

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The foreknowledge comes BEFORE the predestination.I'm saying that and thats all im saying. He knew who would choose Him ahead of time, and predestined us.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying….maybe I worded it wrong.
I hope that this does not turn out to be a debate…. and I'm sorry if I came across at all rude or bossy.

I am a calvinist. I don't really know much about dispensationalism. MacArthur calls himself that because he is a dispensationalist but not fully.

Ok. Being a dispensationalist myself, I am curious why you would dissagree?

Okay, I'll try to explain a little more clearly what I mean. Yes, it is true that the foreknowledge comes before the predestination. But does God only "foreknow" those who are going to be saved? It seems that you are saying that God "foreknows" everyone–those whom He foreknows will believe in Him one day, He saves; those whom He foreknows will never believe in Him, He does not save. Am I correct?

Assuming that this is what you believe, I assert that you are contradicting this verse. The verse says that EVERYONE whom God foreknows, he predestines. Those He predestines, He calls, those He calls, He justifies, and those He justifies, He glorifies. So "foreknowledge" apparently means something different than you think it to mean, because this passage says that everyone whom God foreknows will be saved, not just those whom He foreknows will believe in Him.

Does that make more sense? :)

Because dispensationalists believe in different dispensations. While I believe in the New Covenant…not lots of dispensations.

The answer to the title of this forum is: No! John 10:27-29 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

I totally agree!!!

Yes. That makes more sense SBG. I believe that the verse means

Those he for knew (would choose him) them he predestined .

Good point. I Really did present that wrong.I don't believe that God saves everybody. But only because they didn't choose salvation.
Are you a Calvinist?? Covenant theologist? May I ask you what you have against dispensationalism?

Yes, I am both a Calvinist (though, I'd much rather just call myself a Biblicist) and a believer in covenant theology. And it's not that I really have anything against dispensationalism, it's just that I don't believe it agrees with the Bible. Of course, I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the subject, so I'd probably have to hear a little more about your view to make a better judgment on it. :)

Having read all these posts I have a question. If God has bought and elected someone, they can never be lost. If God has chosen someone, they can never be unchosen. Whatever God has made, no man can undo, no matter what. God never lies, he always tells the truth and is never wrong. He is not ambigous, not sneaky and does not hide behind alterior motives. If God has saved someone, then that someone is saved. But that can only be proved once they stand before God. We do have the Holy Spirit as a deposit gaurenteeing our inheritance. So Yip, we cannot tell if others are truly saved and our only way of making sure of our own salvation is our walk with Lord. For our walk must match the talk. One Question I have, If God chose someone, can they unchoose themselves? Because if so, well done to Israel as the ONLY nation and people to be able to unchoose themselves. We normal people cannot be unchosen once chosen but those crafty Israelites, they are a smart bunch. I wonder If God knew that when he Chose them as his people. Amazing, a nation that thwarted God.

I was reading back through this conversation and just came across this post. Sorry we didn't respond sooner :) I don't know if you are still on here though…

When God chooses someone then they cannot unchoose themselves. But because God has chosen them, saved them and given them a new heart they won't want to unchoose themselves. As to the nation of Israel…God choose them as His special people…He did not choose all of them to be saved. If God had chosen every single Jew to be saved then every single Jew would be saved. But God choose them as His people in the sense that He revealed Himself to them but did not save them all. They were His special people among all the nations but not His people in the sense of saved.

I think you're saying something different then I am saying…
Are you saying that God "looked down the corridors of time" and saw who would choose Him? Of are you saying that God choose who would be saved?

A few months ago I was saying the first….but I will admit I am re thinking my original belief, as I think I was trying to squeeze the bible instead of taking the bible at face value. I would appreciate help and verses in this area….I am struggling. My church and best friend are adamantly against Calvinism,so I just assumed that as correct.

Am I your best friend?

LOL…you consistently make me laugh….no….its actually my older brother…….you are anti Calvinist too?

Yes. I'm basically anti-EVERYTHING! ;)

How can I help you?

I don't know…I just need more time I think to think everything over

Yes. I'm basically anti-EVERYTHING! ;)

That's a lie! You're not anti-chimichanga!

Lol

Okay. But if I can help in any way please let me know!

True! And we're not anti-wolverine! Though they wont let us go out with Rogue. :(

Can you guys please stop making these random comments? They're very distracting.

Can you guys please stop making these random comments? They're very distracting.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^What he said!

Just a quick question and I may be a little off, but is it not better to associate the Death of Christ and its atoning work in reference to the foreshadowing in Leviticus?

Because Christ's death and the saving work was foreshadowed in Leviticus should we not look for the purpose there and then find its fulfillment in the New Testament?

Was the atoning sacrifice for all of Israel or just some of the israelites? Was everyone atoned for after the sacrifice or only those who were predestined to be atoned for?

The only reason I bring this up is because I have seen many arguments for "whom did Christ die" and "losing salvation" and using atonement and salvation as synonyms but never do I see a reference to Leviticus. The only reference that the apostles had concerning the atonement was leviticus. Should we not use the same references? Or is the Book of Leviticus outdated or misunderstood that we steer clear of it completely in case we are labled legalistic.

Just a thought and I chuck it out there in hopes of a response. This may not be the best place to ask these questions but if I cannot ask my fellow christian brothers then who can I ask.

Yours in Christ,

Philip

What exactly do you mean "I believe in the New Covenant?" Are you trying to say that you believe in the New Covenant rather than dispensations… because they are not either/or choices.
There are at least five major theories on the New Covenant… and they all believe in the New Covenant. The disagreement is whether it is Isreal's New Covenant, the Church's New Covenant, TWO New Covenants, Dual Fulfillment (the Church AND Israel fulfill), or The Church does not fulfill but does participate in the blessings.
So rather than simply saying "I believe in the New Covenant" you must answer which New Covenant theory do you hold to and why?

Modified and Progressive Dispensationalism are the same thing…
I am a Traditional (or to use Ryrie's term) a "Classical" Dispensationalist.
(I am also a Calvinist!)

Maybe you could share some reasons why Dispensationalism "doesn't agree with the Bible." I am a Biblicist also, and as a traditional dispensationalist I would love to interact with your reasons for thinking the Bible does not agree with it.

You know, I'm really not sure why I said that. I'm not at all knowledgeable enough on the subject to be sure one way or the other which side I'm on; I guess I just said that because that's what some people I greatly respect believe. I'd have to look further into it myself; but I would love to know what your view on the subject is, so I can see whether I think it fits with Scripture. :)

First of all let's answer the question of what dispensationalism is. Dispensationalism is an approach to theology and the Bible that is based on dividing history into “dispensations” or “economies,” which are seen as different phases of God’s progressive revelation. The word comes from the Greek oikonomeo and its derivatives, which are found about twenty times in the New Testament and refer to the management or regulation of a household. When used of God, the word means God’s sovereign plan for the world (see Lk 16:1-2; Eph 1:10, 3:2, 9; and Col 1:25). Or, as Ryrie puts it, “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose on the earth.” [1]

Ryrie says that, “Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In this household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these economies are the dispensations. The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.” [2]

Primary Characteristics of a dispensation:


1. The revelation from God
.
2. The governing relationship between God and the world or a portion of the world.
   
3. The corresponding responsibility of man.

Dispensationalism holds to:

1. A fundamental, theological distinction between Israel and the church
.
2. The consistent use of literal or normal interpretation of Scripture
.
3. An eschatological and doxological unity in Scripture and goal for history.

In order to keep this post from getting completely out of hand I will confine myself to discussing the relationship between Israel and the church which is certainly one of the most critical issues in the debate.

As mentioned above dispensationalists do not believe that the church has replaced Israel or that the church fulfills any of its promises (such as the New Covenant of Jerimiah 31:31-34). We believe that we God promised Israel an “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:13, Ps. 105:10, Ez. 32:40). He didn’t mean only everlasting so long as Israel was faithful. Nor did He mean that Israel was only a temporary part in God’s plan. Paul tells the Romans, “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’” (Romans 11:26-27)
The only way to explain away this passage as meaning that God was going to give Israel literal blessings is to say that Israel really means the church (as Covenant Theologians do say). They believe that “true Israel” and the Church are just other names for the people of God through history. However, we must ask whether this is a tenable position.

Since the Old Testament never speaks of “the church” we must ask whether the New Testament really supports the idea of a “true Israel” which equals the church as opposed to the apostate Israel, or whether this sets up a false dichotomy. Another important question whether the New Testament speaks of Israel in purely ethic terms (as I believe it does) or whether Israel is ALSO used in a spiritual sense (as the Covenant Theologian believes).

John Walvoord, another prominent Dispensationalist, says,

“In the attempt to disfranchise Israel of her promises, however, it is claimed that the church composed of both Gentiles and Jews takes Israel’s place of blessing completely. It is pointed out that there has always been an inner circle of Israelites who were the “true Israel” and that these were the genuine inheritors of the promises, not the nation as a whole. It is the purpose of this dicussion to inquire into only one phase of the problem-Is the church ever identified with true or spiritual Israel, that is, are Gentile Christians ever included in the designation Israel?” [3]

However Walvoord points out that, “In every case, the term [Israel] is used either of the nation Israel as such, still in unbelief, or of that believing remnant which is incorporated into the church without destroying the national promises to Israel in the least.”
I personally, have never found a passage in the Bible which supports the idea of the Church being the new Israel, but please, if you know of such a verse let me know.
In the mean time I’ll throw out a few more reasons that I believe in dispensationalism:
Dispensationalism makes sense of the way the Bible is divided up (why new rules if the covenant stays the same?)
Dispensationalism allows for a consistently literal hermeneutic (I don’t have to read the New Testament meaning into an Old Testament text to come up with a spiritualized meaning).
Dispensationalism allows for the understanding that God is working with man through history in a progressive way.

I’ll stop there because I don’t want to overwhelm you all, and its pretty late here. So lets get this discussion rolling, ask some questions, critique me, and hopefully we will all grow in our knowledge of the Bible.

[1] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 29

[2] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 31

[3] John F. Walvoord, Eschatological Problems V: Is the Church the Israel of God? BSac 101:404 (Oct 44) p. 411

[4] Ibid.

Yes, I do hope we will grow in our knowledge of the Bible here! I've been wanting to learn more about this subject, and your post has been greatly beneficial. But I have to disagree with you on a number of points. I won't be the best debate opponent, but I will try to keep up and put up good arguments for my position. :)

As I assume you will explain in further detail the two other main tenets of Dispensationalism later, I will simply reply to your comments on the first tenet: the fundamental, theological distinction between national Israel and the church. I believe that the church is the continuation of–notice, NOT the replacement of–"true Israel". I believe that this can be drawn from the New Testament, at a few places at least. You asked for a specific reference. This is one of my favorites, Romans 2:28-29–
"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter."
I believe that this indicates strongly that a true Israelite was never one by birth only, and not every member of national Israel was/is a member of true Israel, which received so many promises from God in the OT.

You mentioned that you believe that God promised Israel an "everlasting covenant," and this was not a covenant to be kept or revoked on the basis of Israel's faithfulness or lack thereof. Well, I believe the same thing. But true Israel is always faithful to God, because He makes them faithful by changing their hearts–the "circumcision of the heart" mentioned in Romans 2. (Physical circumcision was the sign of participation in national Israel {which did, I do not deny, receive some promises from God}, and circumcision of the heart was the sign of participation in true Israel {which received certain other promises from God that continue on in the church}.)

You also gave Romans 11:26-27 as a support for your position; but you fortunately also gave my explanation of this passage. ;) I am not trying to "explain away" the passage, but I do in fact believe that this promise was given only to true Israel, not to national Israel. All Israel will be saved; but all true Israel, not all national Israel.

Granted, the OT never specifically refers to the church, at least not in those words. But it does refer to God's true people within the nation of God's people, and implies that these are those who will receive the fulfillment of many (or most) of God's promises to Israel in the OT. I am not at all attempting to "disenfranchise Israel of her promises"; I am only saying that the Israel to which these promises were made is not the visible nation of Israel.

(BTW, I am sorry if my arguments aren't flowing logically; I kinda struggle with that, but I hope I'm being clear enough to understand. :})

Now in response to your final three reasons for why you believe in Dispensationalism.

1. What new rules? No rule that God has established for the church was not a rule for the nation of Israel; please give me an example if you know of one. :) Granted, the nation of Israel had many rules which it had to follow which we as the church do not have to follow, but those were only to distinguish national Israel from the other peoples of the world, and to make them "God's peculiar people". They were never part of God's everlasting moral standards any more than was the rule against eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.
2. I don't have to come up with a spiritualized meaning for the OT either; I am quite the literalist myself. The difference between us is not literal vs. spiritual interpretation of the OT, but whether or not many of the promises of the OT were ever intended for national Israel.
3. I believe that Covenant Theology also allows for "the understanding that God is working with man through history in a progressive way." I don't see how it at any point does not do so. If you do, please inform me of it, and I will respond accordingly. :)

I apologize if that was longer than necessary; once I get into my debating mood, I tend to be long-winded. xP I also truly hope that this discussion will be greatly beneficial to all of us involved! :)

I believe in the New Covenant meaning that there are not Dispensations and because of Christ we are no longer under the Old Covenant that was given in the OT. I don't exactly know what all those terms mean…So maybe you could explain each one if you have the time?

Yes, I do hope we will grow in our knowledge of the Bible here! I've been wanting to learn more about this subject, and your post has been greatly beneficial. But I have to disagree with you on a number of points. I won't be the best debate opponent, but I will try to keep up and put up good arguments for my position. :)

I expected you would disagree, and that last post was mainly to outline my position and so I didn’t spend a lot of time defending it, but here goes…

As I assume you will explain in further detail the two other main tenets of Dispensationalism later, I will simply reply to your comments on the first tenet: the fundamental, theological distinction between national Israel and the church. I believe that the church is the continuation of—notice, NOT the replacement of—"true Israel". I believe that this can be drawn from the New Testament, at a few places at least.

You are correct, I will defend the other tenants later. I figure that Israel and the Church will be enough for now. Okay, so to clarify your position, you believe that places like: Jeremiah 3:12
“Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: ‘“Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,’ says the LORD; I will not remain angry forever.’”
Does Israel here refer to the true people of God?

You asked for a specific reference. This is one of my favorites, Romans 2:28-29—"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” I believe that this indicates strongly that a true Israelite was never one by birth only, and not every member of national Israel was/is a member of true Israel, which received so many promises from God in the OT.

You, along with many other Covenant Theologians, believe that this passage shows that the term “Jew” has now been transferred to include Gentile members of the church.

Theologian Michael Vlach says, “It is within the immediate context of Romans 2:25–29 that Paul defines the essence of a true Jew. In doing this, he addresses the erroneous but common Jewish understanding that physical circumcision guaranteed salvation…. When the context is fully considered it becomes evident that Paul, in Romans 2:28–29a, is making a distinction between Jews who have believed in Christ and Jews who have not. He is not broadening the concept of “Jew” to include Gentiles.” [1]

You mentioned that you believe that God promised Israel an "everlasting covenant," and this was not a covenant to be kept or revoked on the basis of Israel's faithfulness or lack thereof. Well, I believe the same thing. But true Israel is always faithful to God, because He makes them faithful by changing their hearts—the "circumcision of the heart" mentioned in Romans 2. (Physical circumcision was the sign of participation in national Israel {which did, I do not deny, receive some promises from God}, and circumcision of the heart was the sign of participation in true Israel {which received certain other promises from God that continue on in the church}.)

Yes, I understand what you mean, but is God still fulfilling His promises if He hands his promises off to someone else (assuming the promises were given to ethnic Israel)? The alternative (which Covenant Theologians embrace) is that is that the promises were only given to “true” Israel. But this hardly makes sense of the original context. Consider just the first part of the classic New Covenant passage in Jeremiah 31,

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:31-32)

Would “true Israel” (i.e. the remnant who follow God) have broken God’s covenant?

You also gave Romans 11:26-27 as a support for your position; but you fortunately also gave my explanation of this passage. ;) I am not trying to "explain away" the passage, but I do in fact believe that this promise was given only to true Israel, not to national Israel. All Israel will be saved; but all true Israel, not all national Israel.

If this passage refers only to “true Israel” then how do you explain the fact that Paul (who is certainly a part of true Israel; see Romans 11:1) distances himself from “Israel.”

Allow me to quote a rather long but critical passage,

“I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Romans 11:1-7 (and its hard to stop there because the whole chapter is great).

This passage shows us that many ethnic Israelites have joined the Church during this dispensation but this remnant does not replace ethnic Israel. If the remnant which became the church is simply another name for Israel (that is God’s followers through history) and NOT national Israel then how does one make sense of Paul’s statement that Israel was blinded.

There should be no promises for an ethnic Israel in the New Testament if Israel is really not an ethic term and just means the Church. How does Romans 11:1 make any sense if there is not an ethnic Israel that God has not cast away. Notice Paul calls Israel “His people” if these were just the Jews who had rejected God (i.e. the opposite of “true Israel”). If there is no ethnic Israel separate from the Church before Pentecost, as you believe, then there should certainly be no ethnic Israel after Pentecost. You would say that God’s division is between “true Israel” and everybody else with both groups containing both ethnic Jews and Gentiles. But this wreaks confusion on every use of the terms Israel or Gentile throughout the Bible. For example consider Romans 11:7, Paul says “What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” How can this passage make sense if Israel means the Church? If so, who are the elect?

Howard Ferrin notes that, “the ‘rest’ here consists of the mass of Israel out from whom the remnant had been chosen by the election of grace. It is this “rest” that has fallen. Spiritually blinded and physically scattered, Israel is here treated as one who is fallen, and whose fall has been used instrumentally to bring salvation to the Gentiles and riches to the world. She is seen as one who has been cast away in a restricted sense only, since it is plainly stated that she can be received again and restored to her former place.” [2]

Granted, the OT never specifically refers to the church, at least not in those words. But it does refer to God's true people within the nation of God's people, and implies that these are those who will receive the fulfillment of many (or most) of God's promises to Israel in the OT. I am not at all attempting to "disenfranchise Israel of her promises"; I am only saying that the Israel to which these promises were made is not the visible nation of Israel.

Here is where we disagree… (see my arguments above)

(BTW, I am sorry if my arguments aren't flowing logically; I kinda struggle with that, but I hope I'm being clear enough to understand. :})

Don’t worry you are perfectly clear.

Now in response to your final three reasons for why you believe in Dispensationalism.
1. What new rules? No rule that God has established for the church was not a rule for the nation of Israel; please give me an example if you know of one. :) Granted, the nation of Israel had many rules which it had to follow which we as the church do not have to follow, but those were only to distinguish national Israel from the other peoples of the world, and to make them "God's peculiar people". They were never part of God's everlasting moral standards any more than was the rule against eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.

Is it really possible to divide God’s rules in a particular time as if some are just rules of differentiation and others are God’s everlasting moral standards. Paul uses nomojs (nomos “law”) 119 times, always in the singular and never in the plural. By this means he apparently denotes the Law as a single entity and not simply as a series of commands. The penalties are always spoken of as being for the whole law (or any part) it is not as if there were different levels of failure when disobeying the law (cf. Romans 4:15; 2 Corinthians 3:7; Galatians 3:10).
Noted theologian Alva J. McClain says, “for one to be ‘under the Law’ in the biblical sense is to be under the law of God – the entire Mosaic legal system in its indivisible totality – subject to its commands and liable to its penalties.” [3]

How then can we make the claim that the change between Israel and the church is just a little change? In reality it is a HUGE change because it requires the abolishment of the totality of God’s previous laws with Israel and the institution of a whole new system. If the Church is really just a continuation of Israel after Jesus, then there should be very little difference between the two groups. For example, before and after the time of the kings the people of God remained basically unchanged. We see the same thing before and after the Exile, there is no major change between the people of God. Conversely, after Pentecost, there is huge changes (the Church is no longer set up on an ethnic basis (that is she there are no more ethnic based laws)). So to prove that the Church is still Israel you would need to demonstrate that the changes are minor enough so that the essential purpose and essence is the same. Also, why are the OT ethnic distinctives (sacrificing, making vows, circumcision) still practiced by Jews both inside and outside of the Church after Pentecost? This should not be an ethnic distinctive (just among the Jews) after Pentecost if it had been a non-ethnic distinctive before Pentecost. That is to say that if Israel of the OT was more than just the Jews (if Israel = followers of God through history) then why does Paul act as if the OT customs are still applicable to the (ethnic) Jewish people. Consider for example Paul having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). How would this act even make sense if the act of circumcision does not have a ethnic foundation? You will likely say that the big difference is between the two covenants. But does a change in covenants change the whole make up of who the people of God are? To make that argument you have to say that people of God went from almost entirely ethnic Jews to being almost entirely non- (ethnic) Jews simply by the change of a covenant. This idea seems very far-fetched.2. I don't have to come up with a spiritualized meaning for the OT either; I am quite the literalist myself. The difference between us is not literal vs. spiritual interpretation of the OT, but whether or not many of the promises of the OT were ever intended for national Israel.

So to answer your initial question, I believe the new rules are 1. a lack of the old rules to Israel (Romans 7:1-7; Galatians 2:16-20), and 2. the law of the spirit (Gal. 5:22-23 cf. v. 18-23). This is also known as the “law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21)

2. I don't have to come up with a spiritualized meaning for the OT either; I am quite the literalist myself. The difference between us is not literal vs. spiritual interpretation of the OT, but whether or not many of the promises of the OT were ever intended for national Israel.

I am glad to hear that. But for Covenant Theology to have a literal hermeneutic (interpretation) they must assume that the original authors of the OT believed that the promises and covenants were NOT to national (ethnic) Israel, but rather to some sort of “spiritual” Israel; however, as I have argued above, this is quite implausible. In addition Covenant Theology takes the eschatological promises (New Covenant, Tribulation, Millennium, etc.) a reapply them to the church, even though this goes against the literal fulfillment of the first coming and assumes an allegorical fulfillment of the second coming.

Paul Jewett who is no friend of Dispensationalists, explains that, “If allegorizing be defined as the interpreting of one thing in terms of another (and neither Dr. [O.T.] Allis [a prominent Covenant Theologian] nor any other writer on the subject, to our knowledge, offers a better definition) then, obviously, to interpret the acts and institutions of the history of Israel as types of spiritual truths under the gospel dispensation is a form of allegorizing.” [4]

So that is why I would claim that Covenant Theologians must spiritualize or allegorize OT prophecies in order for their theory to make any kind of exegetical sense. One of the major examples of this is explained by Ernest Pickering, “In a word, dispensationalism holds that the same hermeneutical principles should be followed in the study of prophetic portions as are used to interpret non-prophetic portions. Covenant amillennialists, on the other hand, tend to adopt Augustine’s approach and treat prophecy in a special category, refusing to employ the same principles they use in other areas of Scripture.” [5]

(I will explain more about this later but it is getting really late here so I am going to stop for today).

3. I believe that Covenant Theology also allows for "the understanding that God is working with man through history in a progressive way." I don't see how it at any point does not do so. If you do, please inform me of it, and I will respond accordingly. :)

I’m afraid I wasn’t terribly clear with that statement. Let me give an example to show you what I mean. Why does God not allow humans to eat meat before the flood, but in Genesis 9:3 man can suddenly eat all animals? Also, why does Jesus tell the disciples to not go to the gentiles in Matthew 10:5 but later in Matthew 28:19 He tells them that they should go to the gentiles? To both of these questions the dispensationalist answers that in each case between the first and the second references a new dispensation has begun.

I apologize if that was longer than necessary; once I get into my debating mood, I tend to be long-winded. xP I also truly hope that this discussion will be greatly beneficial to all of us involved! :)

I tend to be pretty long winded too so there is no need to apologize.

[1] Vlach, Michael J., “Has The Church Replaced Israel In God’s Plan? A Historical and Theological Survey of Replacement Theology,” CTJ 4:11 (April 2000), 24-25

[2] Howard W. Ferrin, All Israel Shall Be Saved, BSac 112:447 (Jul 55), 239

[3] Alva J. McClain, Law and Grace (Winona Lake: BMH, 1954), 43.

[4] Paul K. Jewett, Concerning The Allegorical Interpretation Of Scripture,WTJ 17:1 (Nov 54), 7

[5] Ernest Pickering, Dispensational Theology, CenQ 4:1 (Spring 1961), 30

I am, to my knowledge neither a Covenanter nor a Dispensationalist, but I am a biblicist; meaning I hold the word of God to be the supreme authourity for theology, life and practice. This may be my opinion, merely because I had knowlede that this was debated; and therefore did not want to be associated by such.
I like a good debate, however; because done right they will build us up if by nothing but the research required to build one's own opinion.
I think that the position I take, would not be Dispensationalism, or Covenant theology, but would include major and/or minor parts of either or both.

As a matter merely of note, I would like to leave eschatlogical matters out of the debate for now, and go through biblical history, to produce my veiws on this subject.

I believe that God's plan for the world has been in place, and has been implemented since the foundation of the world; and will continue to do so througout eternity (Ps 119:89-91, Isa 46:9-10, 1 Pt 1:18-20).
In Genisis we see the promise of a saviour to Adam and Eve (Gen 3:15, 4:25). Later we see more of the promises of God revealed to Abram, again giving the promise of a saviour through his descendants (Gen. 12:3). We aslo see covenants, between God and people; Noah (Gen 9:13), Abram.
Genisis 17:7-8 KJV
[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
[8] And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

In the instance of this covenant with Abram, we see that it is one that is with the descendants of Abraham, God says that the covenant is everlasting in its nature, this rules out the position that says that the church entirely replaces Israel. This (church replaceing Israel) could only be possible if the covenant was either dependant upon another party than God, or if God wasn't faithful to keep his covenant.
In the prophets, we have more prophecies of the messiah, (Isa. 7:14), Isaiah 61, seems to be a good example of an everlasting covenant which God made with Israel, but also applies to all believers in Christ;
Isaiah 61:11 KJV
[11] For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all nations.

Isaiah 59:20-21, Is another promise of the messiah, along with another everlasting covenant to Israel. This is the passage cited by Paul, in Romans 11:26-27, which is a passage already mentioned in this discussion. Earlier in the chapter, Paul seems to show us the answer to some questions, he calls Israel the natural branches of God's olive tree, and says that Christians are the branches grafted in. The whole tree wasn't cut down, certain branches were cut off, because of unbelief, and are able to be grafted in again if they believe.
Christ does not end OT covenants and promises, but fulfills them.

The Old Testement is full of pictures, types and prophecies, all pointing to Christ. Jesus himself uses the wayward (at the time) prophet Jonah's time spent in the fish, as an example of his own burial.
The bread and water miraculously provided by God in the wilderness (Neh 9:6-15), was a picture of the bread (Jn 6:35) and water of life (Jn 4:14), which God provides all who believe.

The implementation of God's plan is dispensation; which Webster defines as "a dispensing or dealing out", God also makes covenants with his people, both are part of his soveriegn plan for His creation. Some of the covenants are made to those before Israel, some to Israel, and some to the Church; while others still, seem to be not only to the physical Israel, but to the Spiritual Israel, which is, God's people, whatever their nationality.

Ow, my brain hurts.

I hope that this doesn't sound like I'm trying to slip out of a debate without putting much effort into it, but I really don't think I can go on with this. As I said before, I do not know a lot about this topic, and my last post basically drained the extent of my knowledge. Your reply was a very good one, and may have won me over to your "side" if not for Proverbs 18:17–
"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
So, I'll be pulling out of the debate for the present, until I gain enough knowledge to actually argue for one side or the other–not just state what I think and fight for it till my last breath even if I'm totally and obviously wrong. :P I'm sorry if it seems like I'm deserting somehow, but I think this is the wisest decision for me. Thank you so much for your time, and I will put into consideration all that you have said. :)

@Cari OK, I see what you mean, I thought that that was what you meant but I wanted to double check to make sure I wasn't assuming anything! :)

One cannot lose their salvation. Eternal security is true, but those who fall away finally show that they have never been truly saved to begin with. All true believers will persevere to the end, being kept by God’s grace. (Ephesians 1:13-14, Romans 8:30; Matthew 24:14, Philippians 1:6-7, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Jude 1:1, 24-25, 1 John 2:18-19)

Okay.

I actually believe that you can't lose your salvation, but what you can lose is your place in God's kingdom. I mean, people make mistakes, right?