Boanerges said:
I have read those sir! My point is that this discussion was about Scofield/Ryrie dispensationalism if your contention is that the "dispensational hermenuetic" used by BCT is the same as what Scofield/Ryrie use then then I stand by what I and others have said: "Its not the same." Having been taught Scofieldian theology I recognize its difference from what Fred Malone is teaching. However, I will respect your wishes and if I have anything further to say I will do it in the Fred Malone thread.

It is NOT the "same," (and I did not say they were) however the issues are RELATED in that there is either more or less continuity in the covenants in the different brands of the dispensational movements. A full Dispensationalist (FD) sees VERY LITTLE continuinty in the covenants, a BCT sees MORE continuinty than the FD, but less than CT, and the CTs more continuity then either FD or BCT. However the same arguments regarding the covenants, but to different degrees may be RELATED to the FD and the BCT and thus I did not desire to have to repeat myself. Of course, when it comes to FD, Covenant theology has more to say then just about the continuity of the covenants (other things like Pre-Mil; Israel/Church; law/grace, and in some forms they have even eliminated baptism and the Lordís table because these are in a past dispensation). However, all that said in FD you still have to deal with the continuity of the covenants as well.

Of course this (more or less continuity in the covenants) was alluded to here: Fred Malone a dispensationalist? i,e, Dispensationalism, in all its many brands, sees less continuity (some more than others) in the covenants than CT.

Reformed and Always Reforming,