Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

The problem(s) I have with dispensationalism is that you have either one promise for two seeds, or two promises for two seeds. The seeds I am talking about are the nation of Israel(ethnic Israel) and the Church. God gave the promise to Abraham's seed, not seeds. We who are born again, receive the promise that was given to Abraham(Church).

 

Like any major theses against a belief, the points do vary from essential to outgrowths which vary in significance. However, I would be curious as to what points you think are "weak arguments." I will agree that there are some whose arguments are more towards the heart of dispensationalism and some who are attacking outgrowths. Yet, didn't Luther do the same thing in this theses?

As for specifics, I have noted on this board very specific issues of contention against dispensationalism. As a former dispy, I know why I rejected the belief and why I embraced Covenant Theology.

 

[

Before I read any further, I believe we should believe also, the heavenly gospel that we find our only Apostle tells us to spread, and that is his (Paul's) dispensational gospel. All I can offer is what we are told in the Bible, and not what theology offers (theology being the study of religion).

I see where this is leading, so I'll cut my reply short, as all that is needed, I believe is there is a difference between the Covenant, and the dispensational gospel. Dispensational is who said what, and when was it said; also why, where and how did it come about.

Covenant theology is certainly a study of a religion with all of its laws, rituals, and ordinances. That dispensation of God is now held in store, until further notice, which will come again after the rapture.

An interesting injection of Einstein here. It is not too well known that Einstein was thinking in the Box, or the Old accepted way of the past. Something New came to his attention, and that something New was what Edwin Hubble had found. He found other galaxies in 1923, and 1929. In the confines of Science of that day Einstein found himself to be wrong, for until Hubble found greater light, Einstein believed the universe always was; believing it had no beginning, and no end, thus no creator. In 1931 he said it was the biggest blunder in his life; this was just after viewing what could be seen through Hubble's telescope the expanding universe.

The Covenant with God's people was necessary, but we see in Acts 9, light (much more) came from above) showing God's every expanding Grace, to not only the Gentile, but it now, today, includes Israel in this bracket of time dropped down from heaven. But when this dispensation of Grace through faith is caught up into the air, prophecy will pick up exactly where it ended which was at the stoning of Steven. God is not through with His own people, or His creation.

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[/QUOTE]

Haven't read the book, but perhaps it may help. I have greatly narrowed my scope, and now us the best source available, which of course is the Bible. Once we know how to use it, it all becomes much clearer. I believe it begins in Genesis 1:1 where we find the beginning of creation and notice what God did. He divided the Heaven and the earth. With this theme we notice it continues all the way through as more light is given into how God changes things to bring about His purpose. What does this prove? God dispenses His grace as He sees fit, and when He wishes. There is a portion of the Bible that God gave for us to study and become knowledgeable about, as Peter tells his readers it is necessary to do so.

 

BOTH Covt/Dispy christians have their 'theological gridlock" to filter the scriptures through....

Honest differences come from interpretations of some times same verses being cited...


Ask yourself this...

When did God say that he "totaly cut off" isreal?
When did the Jews receive the blessings of their promised reign under their Messiah?
When did messiah set up his reign over the entire earth?

IF anytime, being consystant with the OT/NT would cause one to lean more towards being dispy, not other way around!

 

Are you referring to Hyper Dispy here?
Sermon of the Mount inter[retations?

NO Dispy would just say" its in OT, dont study it!"

 

First, I didn't say they would say "don't study it", I said they believe it is an Old Testament Law, not for the Church.

This is an actual reference from Scolfield's reference Bible on the Sermon on the Mount:

Again he says

Source: C. I. Scofield (ed.), The Scofield Reference Bible: The Holy Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), pp. 999-1000.

 

Here is a chart I found online. I posted it in another thread, but it should be useful here as well. I cannot say how accurate it is. The Dispensationalist view is always shown in Red, the Covenant Theology view in Blue.

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY
(Lewis S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tim LaHaye, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield)

COVENANT THEOLOGY
(Charles Hodge, Loraine Boettner, Louis Berkhof, John Murray, B.B. Warfield)

1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.
1.Always Calvinist. Usually 5-point.

2. Stresses rigidly 'literal' interpretation of the Bible.
2.Accepts 'normal' interpretation of the Bible text (allows both literal and figurative)

3. Usually does not accept the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.'
3. Almost always accepts the idea of The "Analogy of Faith."

4. 'Israel' always means only the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.
4. "Israel" may mean either literal, physical descendants of Jacob or the figurative, spiritual Israel, depending on context.

5. 'Israel of God' in Gal 6:16 means physical Israel alone.
5. "Israel of God" in Gal. 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2:28-29 , 9:6; Phil. 3:3.

6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).
6. God has always had only 1 people, the Church gradually developed.

7. The Church was born at Pentecost.
7. The Church began in O. T. (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the N. T.

8. The Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but was a hidden mystery until the N.T.
8. There are many O. T. prophecies of the N. T. Church.

9. All O.T. prophecies for 'Israel' are for literal Israel, not the Church.'
9. Some O. T. prophecies are for the literal nation of Israel, others are for spiritual Israel.

10. God's main purpose in history is literal Israel.
10. God's main purpose in history is Christ and secondarily the Church.

11. The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.
11. The Church is the culmination of God"s saving purpose for the ages.

12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.
12. The main heir to Abraham"s covenant was Christ and spiritual Israel.

13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.
13. The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect election.

14. There was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
14. God made a conditional Covenant of Works* with Adam as representative forall his posterity.

15. There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam.
15. God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam.

16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.
16. Israel was right to accept the Covenant Mt. Sinai.

17. The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31- 34 is only for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of Lk.22:20.
17. The "New Covenant" of Jer. 31 is the same as in Lk. 22; both are for spiritual Israel according to Heb. 8.

18. God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.
18. God"s program in history is mainly through related covenants.

19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O. T. sinners were saved by works.
19. No man has ever been saved by works, but only by grace.

20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their dispensation, but this did not include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.
20. All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.
21. O. T. believers believed in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer mainly by the sacrifices as types and prophecies.

22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after the Rapture.
22. The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, especially in the present N. T. era, and will not be withdrawn.

23. Jesus.made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed.
23. Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel but has gradually been accepted by spiritual Israel.

24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, not part of the Body or Bride of Christ.
24. Believers in all ages are all "in Christ" and part of the Body and Bride of Christ.

25. The Law has been abolished.
25. The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. The ceremonial Laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws continue.

26. O. T. laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the N.T.
26. O. T. laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the N.T.

27. The Millennium is the Kingdom of God. Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millennial and usually Pre-Tribulational.
27. The Church is the Kingdom of God. Covenanters are usually AMillennial, sometimes Pre-Millennial or Post-Millennial, rarely Pre-Tribulational.

28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millennium.
28. The O. T. sacrifices were fulfilled and forever abolished in Christ.

29. The Millennium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham. Israel has a future.
29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham. Some Covenanters believe in a future for literal Israel, most don"t.

30. David will sit on the Millennial throne in Jerusalem.
30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints rule under Him.

Copied, author unknown


* Some theologians such as A.A. Hodge hold to just 1 redemptive covenant - the (eternal) covenant of Grace, others to 2 redemptive covenants (New and Old). See the article The Two Testaments / Two Covenants by F. F. Bruce and The Two Covenants by Philip Mauro.

 

Great thread, lots of solid observations.

My take is very simple, the dispute has nothing to do with whether there were 7 or 5 or whatever dispensations, or differing ways God related to mankind. The actual dispute is over the Millennial Kingdom. Covenant Theology says there will be no actual literal thousand year reign on earth, that that reign is going on now spiritually in heaven. Thus the charge by the careful bible students that the Covenant folks do not take the bible literally.

As pointed out elsewhere, I am a dispensationalist, but a progressive dispensationalist, not a traditional dispensationist, which is the historical baptist view.

Paul makes it clear that when you refer to "Israel" you are not referring to "all" the descendants of Israel, Romans 9:6, but only to those God chooses to have mercy upon. In Romans 11:5 we see where God chooses some Jews who then become "all Israel" but hardens others.

Therefore, God chose corporately a "people," descendants of Abraham, and then during the period between the Abrahamic promise and the inauguration of the New Covenant, he placed individuals into that "chosen group" and collectively they are referred to as "all Israel" or children of the promise. But before that Abrahamic Promise, before creation, God had chosen corporately His people as those who are redeemed by His Chosen One, His Redeemer, His Lamb of God. Thus, the OT saints received the promise only after Christ provided the means of their justification and redemption, see Hebrews 11. So we do not have two groups, Jews and Gentiles, Israel and the Church, as traditional dispensationalism teaches, but one group that includes Jews and Gentiles "in Christ," for there is no difference. Paul does a pretty good job of laying this all out in Galatians chapter 3.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)

 

Could not agree more, for we are to study to make ourselves approved. I believe Paul means to study the scriptures, both Old, and New. It is very difficult to change even when truth is put before a person, as did Einstein, which was shown in my post. He believed what he saw and admitted it to the whole world.

I am a a dispensationalist of the Baptist faith. I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, for it is by the grace of God through faith, without any of our works. Isn't this what Baptists believe? If so then we should understand Jesus Christ did all of the work for us.

So what is it that I just said that sets so many Baptists teeth to grinding, and sending their blood pressure to new highs? I believe it is, to some, they see a separation from Israel (whom we Gentiles are not of blood of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and if nothing else that unholy, heretical word dispensation.

I see you are trying to put your finger on just this problem with the Covenant people, who believe they are Israel. To put it simply, many Baptist say they believe the gospel of Paul, but not when it comes to believing Paul was given a dispensational gospel. Of course this doesn't apply to just Baptists.

 

The main problem with dispensationalism is that it is neither biblical nor historical.

Dispensationalism is new.

Darby gave it to us as recently as 1830.

Historic premil is old- all the way back to the fathers- so it is fine as an eschatalogical system.

Post-mil and amil are fine because they have roots all the way back as far.

But dispensational premil is very problematic because it HAS NO HISTORIC ROOTS.

It did not do as postmil has done- be refined over time into its current condition. This is a good thing.

No. It popped up from nothing.

A severe skepticism of such doctrines is very healthy to the body of Christ.

Is it possible that it is right even though the historic church never believed anything like it? Maybe. But should it be held at arms length until rigorously tested. You'd better believe it.

I think, once rigorously tested by an open minded person it will fail to stand up to sound exegesis/.

It being so "literal" is not a mark in its favor at all.

Some pretend as though this is a good thing. It is never good to try to literalize that which God INTENDED to be figurative.

 

Are the roots of tradional dispensationalism racist? Were promises made to the "blood line descendants" of Abraham, or Israel, or David? Or were the promises made to the believers within and without the bloodline such as Ruth and Rehab? What verses actually give us the specific promises held by traditional dispensationalists to be reserved for bloodline folks only?

 

I believe you meant Rahab, not "Rehab."

Still...I had quite a laugh over "Rehab."

The Archangel

 

Sorry to come in on this a bit late.
For me the great truth of Covenant Theology is that it reveals the unity of the Bible. It teaches that in eternity past, God the Father gave to the Son a people whom He was to redeem (John 17:2; Heb 2:13; Isaiah 49:5-6 etc.). The rest of the Bible is to be read in the light of that 'Covenant of Grace.'

Dispensationalism seems to divide up redemption history, and also to give us two peoples of God which I don't see in the N.T. (John 10:16; Eph 2:14-22; 3:6). Covenant Theology, of course, is not 'Replacement Theology' but 'Inclusion Theology' (Gal 3:28 etc.).

Steve

 

Well in the OT days, God spoke to His people through the Prophets, and with Him speaking verbally to them. Now, after Jesus' finished works on the cross were completed, He now speaks to us through the Spirit. IOW, we don't have to go to a High Priest(natural man, btw), or a Prophet to hear from God, but we hear Him through our soul.

All those who God communes with now, are Jews inwardly, having had the circumcision of the heart, made without hands. All of these "Spiritual Jews" now are part of the body of Christ, New Jerusalem, the Chruch, etc.

 

Well, Rahab was a harlot, that realized she needed "rehab" when those men sent by Joshua spoke with her.......

 

Yes, I misspelled the Rahab, but are traditional dispensationalist viewing the promises of God through racist eyes?

 

Well, I can only speak for this covenant theology person, but no. Dispensationalism stands and falls by its doctrines and in my opinion, it falls.
I might add that in Britain I see very little hostility from C.T. folks towards Dispensationalists. It is more often the other way round in my experience.

I don't think so. You'll have to give me some examples for me to comment further.

Not as far as I'm concerned. Let me be clear. A literal hermeneutic is a good thing in general, but it is possible to be unduly literal as I tried to show in my earlier post. I certainly wouldn't press for an allegorical interpretation a la Origen.

You're welcome! I'm sorry I can't be more help. I hope you fnd what you're looking for.

Steve

 

Allegorical interpretation is simply putting a fancy dress on scriptural nullification.