Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology Questions

[Rhetorician]

Questions:

Why does it ultimately matter if "Dispensationalism" is right?

Why does it ultimately matter if there is a "literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth?"

Why does it ultimately matter if God "has two peoples" or only the ones who have been saved by grace throughout time?

Help me here if you will please?

"That is all!" :type:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Who says it matters?

 

[revmwc]

Questions:

Why does it ultimately matter if there is a "literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth?"

Help me here if you will please?

"That is all!" :type:

Does it ultimately matter what a writer of a book in the bible said? Does it matter what God promised King David?

If it doesn't matter that John would be proven a false prophet and the Holy Spirit would be proven a liar I guess it doesn't matter.
But if John must be a true prophet and the inspired writting from the Holy Spirit matters then the teaching of it matters.

 

[asterisktom]

Does it ultimately matter what a writer of a book in the bible said? Does it matter what God promised King David?

All the promises of God to David were "Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus". He (Christ) was all the fulfillment and reward that David ever wanted, not some imagined pseudo-reign of Jews returning to an obsolete form of worship.

Yes, it matters what God promised David. The promise fulfilled is/was for believers of all ages. Christ made them all one when He tore down the middle wall of partition.

 

[revmwc]

Rhetorician, does it matter?

 

[TomVols]

Do these questions of eschatology matter? Yes. They are part of a theological teaching in Holy Writ.

However, these are used as tests of fellowship and orthodoxy. That's where too much energy is used. This is not a "first tier" doctrine worth dividing over, to borrow Dr. Mohler's imagery and language.

 

[StefanM]

The hermeneutical approach is the most important aspect, IMO.

I can see the arguments for both sides.

I have two major issues with covenant theology:

1) The use of "theological covenants"

2) The division of the Mosaic law into ceremonial, civil, and moral components.

I don't really see enough evidence in scripture to establish the legitimacy of these concepts in my mind. I don't agree with the covenantal approach to the Sabbath, for instance.

Another somewhat related issue is the use of the reformed confessions. Covenantalists tend to adhere to one (or more) of the reformed confessions. I have no problem with the use of a confession of faith, but IMO the reformed confessions are far too specific. It always seemed to me that theological discussions among the reformed at times had the potential to focus as much on exegesis of the confession as exegesis of the scripture.

 

[asterisktom]

The hermeneutical approach is the most important aspect, IMO.

I can see the arguments for both sides.

I have two major issues with covenant theology:

1) The use of "theological covenants"

2) The division of the Mosaic law into ceremonial, civil, and moral components.

I don't really see enough evidence in scripture to establish the legitimacy of these concepts in my mind. I don't agree with the covenantal approach to the Sabbath, for instance.

Another somewhat related issue is the use of the reformed confessions. Covenantalists tend to adhere to one (or more) of the reformed confessions. I have no problem with the use of a confession of faith, but IMO the reformed confessions are far too specific. It always seemed to me that theological discussions among the reformed at times had the potential to focus as much on exegesis of the confession as exegesis of the scripture.

These comments are well taken, and remind me that the question of the OP is somewhat insufficient: It is often not a matter of either/or but neither/nor. There are a number of Christians who are neither Dispensational nor Covenantal in the sense brought up by the above response.

For the record, I believe that creeds and confessions have assumed a much greater importance than is warranted. Also, there is no unilateral Reformed position on the Sabbath. This can be seen by this month's issue of Tabletalk. Four views within the Reformed camp were showcased - and I still didn't see my view. Historically, the Sabbath view among Reformed differed between Continental and British Reformed.

 

[StefanM]

These comments are well taken, and remind me that the question of the OP is somewhat insufficient: It is often not a matter of either/or but neither/nor. There are a number of Christians who are neither Dispensational nor Covenantal in the sense brought up by the above response.

For the record, I believe that creeds and confessions have assumed a much greater importance than is warranted. Also, there is no unilateral Reformed position on the Sabbath. This can be seen by this month's issue of Tabletalk. Four views within the Reformed camp were showcased - and I still didn't see my view. Historically, the Sabbath view among Reformed differed between Continental and British Reformed.

I know there are distinctions within the tradition, but all of the confessions I have seen that speak to the issue state the the Sabbath has been moved to Sunday and is still binding.

I reject this view. I believe that the Sabbath rest post-Mosaic law is a rest in Christ, not a particular day.

 

[TomVols]

I deeply appreciate the Reformed confessions. However, they can date themselves in that the WCF, the 1689, etc., tend to all refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ.

 

[Jim1999]

He is still the anti-christ isn't he?

The WCC is moving in that direction under the Pope.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jerome]

1689 London Baptist Confession:
the Pope of Rome. . .is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

The Reformers thought the currect pope in Rome was THE antichrist and it changed from pope to pope - it was the office, not the individual. They were wrong.

 

[thomas15]

..........

I have two major issues with covenant theology:

Covenant theology teaches 3 covenants: works, redemption, grace

The Bible contains a few covenants, easy to find, these covenants have terms and conditions and clearly spell out who the two parties of the covenant are. The only exceptions to this are the covenants of works, redemption and grace.

Why Jehovah God would be specific with respect to covenants that according to covenant theology don't have any real meaning to man today and yet be so vague with respect those 3 covenants that covenant theologians base their entire theological system on is a mystery to me.

So StefanM, I also have issues with Covenant theology.

Tom

 

[glfredrick]

Both theologies have fatal flaws.

Time for a new or modified position that deals with ALL of what Scripture records. (And it already exists...)

 

[revmwc]

He is still the anti-christ isn't he?

The WCC is moving in that direction under the Pope.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim how can the Pope be the anti-christ when Revelation spells out that the Beast will be over the False Prophet (anti-christ) of Israel? Now the Pope might be the beast.

 

[revmwc]

Both theologies have fatal flaws.

Time for a new or modified position that deals with ALL of what Scripture records. (And it already exists...)

Instead of dispensation lets take them as ages like Paul talked about the ages. Paul of course didn't label them he just called them past and future ages and that in the past ages the mystery wasn't revealed.

Age of Innocence,
Age of Conscience,
Age of Human Government
Age of Promise
Age of Law,
Age of Grace.
Age of Tribualtion
Age of the Kingdom

Ephesians 2:

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


Ephesians 3:

4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


20Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen

Colosians 1:

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

26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Seems Paul saw that there were past ages and future ages, that the age we live in is the mystery not revealed in other ages (aion) a period of time. Sounds a little bit like a dispensation of time, but we can just call them ages. Ages or periods in which God dealt with mankind in different ways.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Both theologies have fatal flaws.

Time for a new or modified position that deals with ALL of what Scripture records. (And it already exists...)

& thats why I dont consern myself with either. I hope Guy that they get it done quickly....only 5 days left (according to H. Camping) :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JesusFan]

Both theologies have fatal flaws.

Time for a new or modified position that deals with ALL of what Scripture records. (And it already exists...)

Well...

UNLESS it is either Jesus or one of the Apostles Inspired by the HS to give us this "revelation" on just what would be a better system to understand how the scriptures fit together...

Think the 2 prominent ones will still remain Cal/Arm, and really don't see a way to "harmonize" them together into a "blended" theology for the 21st Century!