Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

This blog states

"...Today, you can't serve as a Presbyterian elder or pastor if you are a dispensationalist. Many (not all) Presbyterians regard dispensationalism with suspicion and/or contempt, and treat it as either a heresy, or as heresy's dim-witted, bucktoothed cousin. "

Since there are Reformed Baptist churches and speakers like John McArthur who become friends with Covenant/Reformed/Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul, we Baptists are influenced by the rift between Covenant/Presbyterians and Dispensational Baptists, and we are left to sort out which position should Baptists hold.


I'm trying to understand the underlying causes of why Covenant Theology opposes Dispensational Theology. Here is a list I've come up with so far. Please help shed more light on this question for me. Thanks in advance.

1. Dispensational Theology takes a strict, left brain, logical, "Literal" interpretation method of scripture, rather than accepting interpretations that view words as "figures of speech" through inferences and intuition.

a. Certainly there are words and ideas in the Bible that are types of Christ, parables, and figures of speech, but we must use caution to not let that justify using texts to build inferences, using intuition that is not tested carefully by logic.

b. Since Covenant Theology is held tightly by Presbyterians who believe in Paedobaptism, they also rest on using an interpretation method that allows for inferences to support their views on Paedobaptism.

R.C. Sproul says in his footnotes in his Reformation Study Bible on page 37:

"Rather, the scriptural case for baptizing believers infants rests on the parallel between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism as signs and seals of the covenant of grace (Ge. 17:11; Rom. 4:11; Col 2:11,12), and on the claim that the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community (the church, as it is now called) was not affected by the transition from the "old" to the "new" form of God's covenant brought about by the coming of Christ. Infant children of believers have the status of covenant children and therefore should be baptized, just as Jewish male infants had previously been circumcised. The Old Testament precedent requires it and there are no divine instruction explicitly revoking this principle."

Thus the case for paedobaptism does not rest on direct literal command in scripture, but a "parallel" derived, and inferred from other things.


2. Covenant Theology, similar to Calvinist/Reformed/Doctrines of Sovereign Grace, seeks and yearns to grasp and understand a unified, self contained systematic theology that explains the councils of God on Salvation or Soteriology.

a. Since Covenant Theology is tightly held by Presbyterians who hold tightly to Calvinism, which tries to capture the whole counsel of God with a theory that explains many verses that are hard to reconcile, therefore inferences need to be used to understand verses, where a literal interpretation makes it difficult to reconcile and create a unified system that supports itself. (I'm not debating Calvinism here, just showing the fact that inferences support the explanations for some words in Calvinism. For example the word "all", is inferred to mean "all tribes and people", rather than all individual people). So inference methods of interpretations are very important to Calvinists and strict literal interpretation methods present new problems.

b. Strict, literal interpretations undermine the inferences relied on in Calvinism for Limited Atonement when interpreting some verses.

I'm not debating if these inferences are valid or invalid. I actually tend to cautiously agree that some inferences are a "most likley" best interpretation. I'm just pointing out that strict literal interpretation methods undermine the inference methods relied on.

c. Following the desire to build a complete, systematic unified explanation for God's single, mono, plan, Covenant Theology wants to fit all of God into that single mono explanation, rather than having a God that is more complex, in ways we can't fit into a singular explanation.

Eistein did a great job of simplifying what seemed to be complex into the simple equation E=mc2. The ability to simplify things down into simple formulas that explain a wide variety of known phenomenon is a great thing of beauty to see how God is behind something in nature.

However it seems we must be cautions to seek to put God in a box and say everything God creates must be part of a theory of everything, that we can understand with our own understanding from Scripture inferences. This can cause us to over-infer about things where we should be cautious to infer, and should rather use a literal interpretation.


So these are my "hypotheses" above. I am thinking about buying this book to learn more about the underlying reasons:
The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift: The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944
By: R. Todd Mangum

I see this book above reviewed on this blog, but there are not too many summaries of the conclusions in the book.

These are some hypotheses I've come up with so far. Please help me and correct me where I'm lacking understanding.

If anyone has read the book referred to above, please let me know a summary of the conclusions of the book. Thanks in advance

 

Thanks for sharing your conclusions about errors. What are the supporting reasons for your conclusions?

 

Yes. I guess it's the degree of reliance on inference vs literal interpretation. Here is more from Wikipedia on the Dispensational method of interpretation.

 

Here is an interesting quote:

It looks like the word "dispensation" is not new.

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

 

Agreed, always depending on the context.

I'm trying to understand something further.

Do these literal hermeneutic methods become an important root cause for the oppostion towards dispensationalism by some covenant theology people?

Do these methods of literal interpretation threaten other doctrines that the same people are relying on?

Are some covenant theologians pushing for their agenda on other doctrines that would suffer under scrutiny of the more literal method, and thus they oppose other methods that push towards more literal methods?

I don't know the answer. I'm in search for more insights. Thanks in advance.

 

Thanks Ruiz,

It does seem that non-classical dispensationalism has become in a state of flux, which makes it difficult to understand.

I thought that C.I. Scofield was a strong advocate of the "Analogy of Faith".

Scofield's Reference Bible had sparse notes because of this belief that Scripture should interpret scripture.

Where do you see their outright rejection of the Analogy of Faith principle?

Where does dispensationalism violate the London Baptist Confession?

Trying to learn.

 

I'm trying to understand why this author and this author believes dispensationalists don't accept that Scripture should interpret scripture (Analogy of Faith).

Does anyone know specifically where dispenationalists say themselves they don't agree with this principle?

Or could this be an accusation from critics?

Based on what I've studied in the Scofield Study Bible, I find it hard to believe that C.I. Scofield did not believe in the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture.

 

Here is an interesting quote

 

Wow! That's the first time I've heard that C.I. Scofield thought that Matthew is not valid today.

I just got out my Scofield Study Bible and looked through all the notes in Matthew to see if there was anything remotely close to that. On a quick scan I don't see anything.

In the introduction to the 1988 Edition it says this:

"For Scofield there were two overriding guidelines that directed him in his study:
(1) The most accurate understanding of the Bible comes when it is allowed to shed light on itself, and
(2) in the final analysis all Scripture is to be related to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is in keeping with the biblical principle enunciated in Rev. 19:10: "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

And his note on Rev 19:10 is

"All the prophetic themes are to be studied with care, but never in such a way as to obscure the fact of the centrality of Jesus Christ."

Scofield seemed to be very careful to strive that scripture interpreted scripture. Much more careful than the many study Bibles that exist today and promote various theological doctrines (for example, the Reformation Study Bible by R.C. Sproul, with it's article on Infant Baptism on page 37, and other related lengthy articles).

Please let me know what you find in your search for the sources of these ideas that Scofield thought Matthew is not valid for today. It would be good to understand how this idea came into being.