Something you guys (S., maybe, maybe you other two) may not know

I've just been on some Dispensationalist websites. They are Christians who have a different understanding of the Bible, etc., etc. They are unteachable.

It made me think of something. Just as few people really understand the Work teaching in an on-the-mark systematic way (and in a way that only a person with Magnetic Center can understand it), biblical doctrine is similar. There are numerically very few people who hold to the on-the-mark understanding of the Bible and biblical doctrine.

What I present is the on-the-mark teaching. Five solas, Doctrines of Grace (TULIP), classical Covenant - Federal - Theology. That *is* what the Bible teaches, and it is *not* what 99% or more of all churches and theologians teach.

Now, Christianity as a whole can survive this situation because we are saved by faith and not total doctrinal understanding. The fact is as well: most Christians are not curious enough to study and find the on-the-mark teaching. Yet they can still have a simple effective faith that saves. (I presume, I'm actually being a bit generous in saying that, because I actually think - and I'm influenced by my understanding of time and recurrence - that a real Christian will gravitate towards real, complete understanding and become a prophet, a priest, and a king.)

There are things at stake though. It's not just different opinions. Justification by faith alone, for instance, only has meaning in a covenantal (Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace) context. Being able to stand against true evil can only be done when you know what it is you stand upon, legally, in this universe, which is the Covenant of Redemption, or Pactum Salutis. That sounds grandiose, but it's real. You have to know that you are legally in the Kingdom of God, with Jesus Christ as your King and that He protects you and gives you power over evil and the bondage of death and darkness that is the Kingdom of Satan. This is where doctrine becomes the actual armor of God.

The doctrine of Dispensationalists is shallow nonsense. The doctrine of Roman Catholics is simply not biblical. It's mixed with the traditions of man. The doctrine of what are generally called liberal theologians is man-centered and watered-down and silly and worse. This is not about 'triumphalism' and merely 'declaring' how I see things as being dominant and right. Go back to the Work analogy. There is on-the-mark and off-the-mark. Just as you can see the schools and teachers of the Work that are off-the-mark, silly, not understanding of the language of the Work, shallow...the same applies to schools of biblical doctrine and theologians who teach doctrine.

I'm currently reading a book written in 1672 titled the Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace (by Samuel Petto). Published by Tentmaker Publications, a British publishing house that looks like they have an interesting catalogue (maybe they're near Paul, who knows?). Petto came to conclusions about the Mosaic Covenant that I came to on my own (but there is nothing new under the sun). John Owen, a much more famous theologian of the 1600s praised Petto's book. I'm saying this because Petto's view is unique even among Reformed Theology, yet it is the on-the-mark view. I'm referring to something that is usually like the last lynch pin in seeing the 'whole' of the Bible's system of doctrine, or Federal Theology. I didn't need to be a big, famous theologians to see it, just as I didn't need to be some well-known Work teacher to figure out the Work language in a systematic way and be able to 'see' it and practice it. But it's rare!

I'm drawing an analogy between on-the-mark biblical doctrine and on-the-mark Work understanding in this email so you can see that what I'm saying about the Bible is valuable. I mean, me and Calvin and Boston and Vos. I.e. it's not like I'm alone. Don't want to give that impression. Yet still it is rare understanding. - C.