Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant... 3 views

[thomas15]

So can chose the theology to discuss with you that you identify yourself with!

Does that mean you want to discuss theology with little old me?

 

[George Antonios]

Dispensationalism, in its attempt to dissect everything like an anatomy lab, misses the forest in order to inspect the trees.

I agree that that's a potential weakness of dispensationalism; as is running through the forest and leaving a trail of blood-stained trees for running smack into them is a weakness of non-dispensational theology.

 

[AustinC]

I agree that that's a potential weakness of dispensationalism; as is running through the forest and leaving a trail of blood-stained trees for running smack into them is a weakness of non-dispensational theology.

Every tree relates to the covenants.

 

[thomas15]

Have a nice day gentlemen.

 

[Mikey]

I was a Scofield Dispy, to a MacArthur one, now stuck in guess progressive CT, as still hold to premil, but no pre trib!

Where does MacArthur stand on the dispensationalist spectrum? i assume he isn't progressive dispensationalist since MacArthur was preaching 20ish years prior to its inception, unless he changed/adopted it later.

Thanks

 

[thomas15]

The 3 views that the book I mentioned in the OP are:

1. the church has no legal relationship to or participation in the new covenant.
2. the church has an indirect relationship to the NC
3. the church has a direct relationship to the NC

Again, the book studies the issue(s) from a dispensational vantage point. It does not take into consideration the reformed covenant (theology) position except in passing or to illustrate a contrast. I believe it assumes that the reader is conversant with both dispensational and reformed thinking on the matter.

 

[AustinC]

The 3 views that the book I mentioned in the OP are:

1. the church has no legal relationship to or participation in the new covenant.
2. the church has an indirect relationship to the NC
3. the church has a direct relationship to the NC

Again, the book studies the issue(s) from a dispensational vantage point. It does not take into consideration the reformed covenant (theology) position except in passing or to illustrate a contrast. I believe it assumes that the reader is conversant with both dispensational and reformed thinking on the matter.

So the book is worthless because it doesn't see God as a covenant making God who is still working through his covenant. Why would anyone read a book whose very premise is wrong?

 

[John of Japan]

I have not, but I reject dispensationalism as a butchering of the fluidity of Grace, which flows from first page to last. Dispensationalism, in its attempt to partmentilize and reduce God into segments often results in abusive prooftexting and strained attempts to make scripture fit back together. My advice is to let go of dispensationalism as I did. Embrace the God who makes covenants with his chosen people and see how all the covenants flow beautifully from God as one amazing stream of his goodness.

This tells me that you don't really understand dispensationalism.

 

[John of Japan]

So the book is worthless because it doesn't see God as a covenant making God who is still working through his covenant. Why would anyone read a book whose very premise is wrong?

You are misrepresenting the theology. Dispensationalism absolutely recognizes the covenants of the Bible, and believes them to be still in force: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic.

 

[AustinC]

This tells me that you don't really understand dispensationalism.

Well, I was raised with it and went to a Bible college that emphasized it over the two years of theology courses, but sure...I don't really understand it...[emoji849]

 

[AustinC]

You are misrepresenting the theology. Dispensationalism absolutely recognizes the covenants of the Bible, and believes them to be still in force: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic.

I agree, they talk about the covenants. They give cursory acknowledgement, but mostly they see an age of law and an age of grace. They don't recognize the covenant of grace running from Adam onward, which over arches all other covenants. Instead, they see each covenant as entirely it's own entity.
In college we would take a peak at them and talk of them in past tense. We never read the epistles and recognized that Paul was drawing upon the covenants and teaching his readers how the covenants affected their relationship with God and established a particular relationship with God that is unique to the believer.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree, they talk about the covenants. They give cursory acknowledgement, but mostly they see an age of law and an age of grace. They don't recognize the covenant of grace running from Adam onward, which over arches all other covenants. Instead, they see each covenant as entirely it's own entity.

Lewis Sperry Chafer is one of the leading dispensational theologians. In his seven volume systematic theology, he gives more space to the Biblical covenants than he does to the dispensations. (See Vol. 1.) He actually gives space there to the covenants of covenant theology which you are referencing, though he doesn't indicate agreement, but just says "the theologians say." Personally, I reject the existence of a so-called covenant of grace, because it is not mentioned in Scripture.

On the other hand, I fully admit that God has always had grace towards mankind, so much so that I tell my students that I prefer the term "Church Age" to "Age of Grace." Dispensationalism does teach this, but Ryrie in his textbook doesn't mention a "covenant" of grace, because the Bible never calls grace a "covenant."

In college we would take a peak at them and talk of them in past tense. We never read the epistles and recognized that Paul was drawing upon the covenants and teaching his readers how the covenants affected their relationship with God and established a particular relationship with God that is unique to the believer.

I have no idea where you went to college or how they taught dispensationalism, but I gather they did not emphasize the Davidic Covenant in your classes. I have a whole lecture on it; it is that important in the theology.

Now, I suggest that you back off on the incendiary rhetoric ("butchering," "partmentalizing"--whatever that is--, "abusive," etc.), and we can discuss the subject in a mature way.

 

[John of Japan]

Book: Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant Three Views 2012, Regular Baptist Press Edited by Mike Stallard

Has anyone read this book and if yes, what is your impression?

I don't have it, but I just looked it up on Amazon. The authors look to be good scholars. (Rod Decker certainly is, though he's in Heaven now!) I'm sure it's helpful.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I believe I'll order it.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I was raised with it and went to a Bible college that emphasized it over the two years of theology courses, but sure...I don't really understand it...[emoji849]

Tell you what, I will apologize and retract if you can properly define "dispensation" for me.

 

[AustinC]

Lewis Sperry Chafer is one of the leading dispensational theologians. In his seven volume systematic theology, he gives more space to the Biblical covenants than he does to the dispensations. (See Vol. 1.) He actually gives space there to the covenants of covenant theology which you are referencing, though he doesn't indicate agreement, but just says "the theologians say." Personally, I reject the existence of a so-called covenant of grace, because it is not mentioned in Scripture.

On the other hand, I fully admit that God has always had grace towards mankind, so much so that I tell my students that I prefer the term "Church Age" to "Age of Grace." Dispensationalism does teach this, but Ryrie in his textbook doesn't mention a "covenant" of grace, because the Bible never calls grace a "covenant."


I have no idea where you went to college or how they taught dispensationalism, but I gather they did not emphasize the Davidic Covenant in your classes. I have a whole lecture on it; it is that important in the theology.

Now, I suggest that you back off on the incendiary rhetoric ("butchering," "partmentalizing"--whatever that is--, "abusive," etc.), and we can discuss the subject in a mature way.

I have his seven volume set. It was used as the main textbook for the two years of doctrine classes. I have many things underlined. When focusing on the trees, Chafer can be very beneficial. However, his inability to see the overarching covenants as guide to understanding the fullness of God's work in humanity leads to a very chopped up understanding of eschatology which misses the mark. His misunderstanding of the covenant cause him to imagine that God saved in different ways at different times so that his soteriology is incomplete. Such a position is responsible for the many legalistic, law-based teachings of Protestant churches as so many misunderstand God as primarily a Covenant making God with mankind whereby salvation has always been by grace through faith.

I suggest Sproul's "What is Reformed Theology" as a very basic starting point. Robert H Mounce has also been helpful as well as "Reformed Systematic Theology" by Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley. Mostly, however, I suggest reading the Bible in light of the covenants as the guiding principle to biblical exegesis.

 

[AustinC]

Tell you what, I will apologize and retract if you can properly define "dispensation" for me.

I'm not asking you to retract, nor am I feeling it necessary to fit into your definition.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not asking you to retract, nor am I feeling it necessary to fit into your definition.

Thought so. I find that most who pontificate on dispensationalism here can't even define it correctly. (I didn't ask for my own definition, but the commonly accepted one--in Greek, theology, whatever.) You may be able to correctly define it, but I see no need to interact further if you refuse the challenge--accepting it would prove that you knew what you were talking about, of course.

Catch you somewhere else sometime.

 

[George Antonios]

I agree, they talk about the covenants. They give cursory acknowledgement, but mostly they see an age of law and an age of grace. They don't recognize the covenant of grace running from Adam onward, which over arches all other covenants. Instead, they see each covenant as entirely it's own entity.
In college we would take a peak at them and talk of them in past tense. We never read the epistles and recognized that Paul was drawing upon the covenants and teaching his readers how the covenants affected their relationship with God and established a particular relationship with God that is unique to the believer.

Peter Ruckman's book: "How To Teach The Bible" says that teaching the covenants is the best way to teach dispensations.
He sees dispensations as marked by covenants.
That elements of certain covenants still apply in the church age he also acknowledges and knocks the hyperdispensationalists who hermetically seal off the church age from even spiritual applications of O.T. principles.
You may disagree with his take, but dispensationalism doesn't ignore the covenants.
My background was partly Catholic and thus more akin to Reformed Theology - I fell in love with the harmony of the Bible when I learned the dispensations and it solved, to my mind, apparent "contradictions" thus strengthening my faith. So I praise God for it.

 

[AustinC]

Thought so. I find that most who pontificate on dispensationalism here can't even define it correctly. (I didn't ask for my own definition, but the commonly accepted one--in Greek, theology, whatever.) You may be able to correctly define it, but I see no need to interact further if you refuse the challenge--accepting it would prove that you knew what you were talking about, of course.

Catch you somewhere else sometime.

The problem here is that you think your definition is supreme and thus you look down on anyone who doesn't express your opinion. Swallow your pride and realize that I understand dispensationalism, but I couldn't care less if I define it the same way as you.

 

[John of Japan]

The problem here is that you think your definition is supreme and thus you look down on anyone who doesn't express your opinion. Swallow your pride and realize that I understand dispensationalism, but I couldn't care less if I define it the same way as you.

Um, I specifically said I wasn't looking for my own definition. It's a word with a standard definition. Why would I give my own instead of the standard definition? Here are some definitions by scholars, but they all pretty much agree, if you understand the vocabulary they are using.

Friberg defines the Greek word οἰκονόμος thus: “(1) literally, relating to the task of an οἰκονόμος (steward) in household administration stewardship, management (LU 16.2); (2) figuratively; (a) of the apostolic office in God's redemptive work task, responsibility, trusteeship (CO 1.25 ); (b) of God's arrangements for mankind's redemption plan, arrangement, purpose (EP 3.9); 1T 1.4 may mean (divine) training, but (divine) plan is also possible.”[1]

One Bible encyclopedia defines it as “a stewardship, the management or disposition of affairs entrusted to one.” [2] The revised version of that work defines it: “The term refers to the action of giving out, specifically referring to God’s dealings with men. In 2 Cor. 3 Paul contrasts the brightness of Moses’ face in the giving of the OT law (v. 5) which brought death (v. 7) with the ‘greater splendor’ (v. 8) of the giving of the Spirit which brought righteousness (v. 9).”[3]

Chafer says: “A dispensation is a specific, divine economy, a commitment from God to man of a responsibility to discharge that which God has appointed him.”[4]

Charles Ryrie: “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.”[5]

[1] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 279.
[2] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition), accessed through e-Sword software.
[3] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev., Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 962.
[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. VII (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 122.
[5] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 33.

I'll even add on a covenant theologian. Louis Berkhof rightly disagrees with Scofield's mistaken definition of "dispensation" as a period of time, and calls it "a stewardship, an arrangement, or an administration" (Systematic Theology), 299.