Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

Think points out one major difference betwen reformed/non

reformed tend to see in some sense OT law in continuity, as that Christians still living under it, while non reformed tend to see it as being under law, and that under new Covenant, we are now under Grace!

 

Dispensationalism is a theological term used to describe a method of interpreting the Bible. Progressive Dispensation is one version of many that differs from Traditional Dispensationalism, which is the view held by my church. Dispensationalists believe Christ will govern upon David’s throne here on earth for one thousand years, or in other words they take those passages literally. Therefore Dispensationalists like to excoriate the “Reformed, Replacement Theology, Amillennialists” as not interpreting the Bible literally and therefore we stand on higher ground. And so it goes in theological debate.

Sadly the first thing to grasp is that the main difference between Covenant Theology (errant Amillennialists) and we, the virtuous Dispensationalists, has little to do with the idea that God governs man in differing ways. Both schools of thought agree God deals with man in different ways, no the chief difference is in our views of an End Times dispensation. Basically both schools agree on: 1) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with man before the fall; 2) Dispensation of Conscious or how God deals with man without the Law; 3) Dispensation of the Law or how God deals with man with the Law; 4) Dispensation of Grace or how God deals with man in Christ Jesus before the Second Coming; 5) the Millennial Kingdom or how God deals with all Israel on earth after the Second Coming; and 6) the Eternal Kingdom or how God deals with his children in eternity. Now the chief difference is that the Amillennialists believe the fifth age is going on right now in heaven so the Second Coming will inaugurate the sixth dispensation. Hence, Amillennialists are against the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, they hold to the idea that the Church replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) and the promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled in heaven during the dispensation of grace.

Let me say here that the above represents my understanding of the issue and I am quite sure I have missed the mark in the details, but I believe the above properly represents the general idea. But now to the heart of the post, what is the difference between a traditional dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist?

“Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.” (Tim Warner)

Progressive dispensationalists see the Church Age as a progression where God deals with the faithful in a new covenant in the blood of Christ, and this Dispensation of Grace applies to those with the Law (Israel) and those without the Law (Gentiles). Old Testament promises apply to the church now, and are not being held in abeyance pending the Second Coming. Thus I can read Galatians 3 and it matches my theology perfectly. Same for Romans 9.

 

I'm writing this under a time pressure, kindly excuse spelling/syntax errors.

This is correct. The attitude of reformed thinking leaves open some questions that they cannot answer. For example, If Jehovah is done if the Israelites due to disodedience, what makes the Church secure in Christ, WSAS when we are no better than the Jews were with respect to obedience? Then there is the whole question about the covenants of works, redemption and grace which have basically no foundation in the Word of God.

Read any covenant defense of reformed theology (Horton, Sproul, Riddlebarger and so forth) and very quickly the historical confessions are used to defend the theology, followed by the ECF's. Ironically, Dispensationallism has two things going for it that Covenant theology doesn't but should, and they are: 1. Dispensationalism takes a literal approach to the actual covenants in the Bible (Abrahamic, Davidic, New) and 2. in appealing to the covenants of grace, works and redemption, covenant theology tosses Sola Scriptura to the wind while Dispensationalism cannot function without it.

 

Van, good analysis.

Allow me to fill in a few blanks. My understanding of progressive vs. classic dispesationalism, the main point is that progressive borrows the covenant a-mil term (not the concept) "already, not yet" to explain some of the kingdom blessings that the church now enjoys as a partial fufillment of end times prophecy. A classic dispensationalist looks at the same blessings and attributes them to Jehovah's simply showing his love and giving a preview of things to come. Of course the a-mil thinks that the individual believer, once born again enters the millennial kingdom administered by the church. The progressive dispensationalist does not hold the firm future Israel that the classic does and as such is a little more comfortable with the reformed crowd when involved in end times discussions. Progressives, taking the lead from John Piper stop reading Romans at the end of ch 9 leaving out Romans ch 11.

I lean more toward the classic camp. When I read the Gen 13, 15 and 17 and take in the Abrahamic covenant, I note that Jehovah first spells out the terms of the covenant (land promises and all), then he ratifies the covenant in blood (Gen 15 vs 9 thru 18) but the fufillment is future. This is the same way treaties are worked out in modern times. Overlay this with the New Covenant terms (Jer ch 31) which is ratified at the cross but still not fufilled in any literal sense.

This is consistant with classic dispensationalism, the Patriarchs received the terms and ratification of the covenants and some of the blessings, the cross was the the ratification of the New Covenant and some of the blessings are given to the church but in either case biblically speaking it is hard to argue that the Patriarchs, Israel or the Church are fully obedient to the will of God and or living in the theocratic kingdom which David spoke of as future and the Apostles asked Jesus if he would give it to them.

When Jesus ratified the New Covenant in the upper room, there was no mention of the church and in fact Jesus tasked the church with one job, spreading the gospel. To say that the new covenant of Jer 31 and Eze 36 is either history or a part of the church is not supported by the Bible, which Jesus told us cannot be broken.

 

Again, I note that analogy of faith. The "literal" cry is not really what it appears when you dispute the analogy of faith, thus I would rather be consistent with all the Bible than take everything literally but accept they are contradictory.

 

This is pretty good however a Methodist or a Lutheran would strongly disagree with #1. So would L.S. Chafer, C.I. Schofield, Carl McIntire, John MacArther, Erwin Lutzer, and many other calvinistic dispensationalists.

 

That's true. Academic dispensationalism is often very calvinistic. People tend to forget that Chafer was a presby.

 

We see the law as fulfilled, you see it as nullified. That is a huge difference in the two positions and a huge distinction in what you say we believe.

 

who sees this?

 

We being the Reformed believers.
"You" being Dispensationalists.

 

Then you have it wrong. You have just taken part in that which you condemned in the other thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1762191&postcount=2

 

Mandy,

I would invite you to explain how I am wrong. First, my viewpoint is my viewpoint; therefore, I do not think I am wrong on this view. Secondly, classical dispensationalists believe the Old Testament was nullified. I will provide sources below who have stated exactly what I have said (as well, I went to a dispensational seminary, where I was taught by some very classical dispensationalists that it was nullified). Dispensationalists say it was nullified unless repeated in the New Testament.

Here are some citations:

http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament (he writes from a dispensational view and cites several dispensational authors)

Ryrie, Charles, "Basic Theology." In this book, Ryrie points that the law is one unit and only applied to Israel, not applicable to the New Testament Church except where repeated in the New Testament.

Ryrie, Charles, "End of the Law".

Scolfield wrote in his original notes in the Scolfield Bible, "The Mosaic Law as an expression of his moral law has been "done away" in that it has been suspended by another law" (note for II Co 3:11)

Therefore, the two points I made that you responded to were that the Dispensationalists (classical in context) believes the law has been done away or nullified is accurate and is shown by citing primary sources of their most prominent scholars. My view, I assume, you believe I was accurate.

Therefore, I got it right and not wrong.

 

My friend, not saying that covenant/dispensationalism is an "either/or" but if you really believed what you say then you would be by necessity very uncomfortable defending Biblically "reformed covenant" theology, "a-mill ism", "replacement theology" and or it's nuanced cousins.

I understand though that the reformed position is that of the academic community and who wants to buck that crowd with tales of the rapture or a future nation of Israel? But regardless of which theological camp you decide to pitch your tent in, the self-imposed pressure to stay on location is quite strong.

I have an old friend who was my mentor in college, very evangelical, he is presby and pastoring a medium size church that is in the PCUSA. He finds it hard to be critical of the politics of the PCUSA because he has so much invested in it.

But that doesn't change the fact that the theology of the PCUSA and that of my friend are quite opposite. Whenever the subject of the PCUSA comes up, he changes the subject to a discussion on dispensational end times events of which he thinks are quite funny and he alludes to the fact that he graduated from Gordon Conwell Seminary with a masters. This of course prompts me to either ask what he thought of Walter Kaiser Jr. as a professor or if time permits ask him to draw a biblical comparison between circumcision and baptism, the Abrahamic covenant and being born again, the New Testament concept of assembly of believers with the Old Testament concept of nation. All this is good fun from my perspective.

 

Many Reformed REJECT covenant theology.

 

Thomas,

Your statements really does attack the heart of what I have stood against for all my life. I was trained in dispensational camps, achieved three post-graduate degrees from a Dispensational School, two in Religion/Theology. My undergraduate was from a Dispensational School. In fact, all my connections when I rejected Dispensationalism were in Dispensational Circles as I was in the ministry in a dispensational church, married a woman who was trained under Ryrie and other Dispensationalists. I lost several dear friends in the Pastorate because I am no longer a Dispensationalist. My view has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with conviction.

Yet, I went to where I saw the evidence. You see, I don't continue to embrace Covenant Theology because it was "politics." I rejected Dispensationalism because it was unBiblical.

Now, can you show me one person in the classical dispensational model who embraces the Analogy of Faith?

 

Reply to Thomas15.

This rebuttal supporting traditional dispensationalism against progressive dispensation makes general assertions but contains only vague references to biblical support.

Yes, we say some of the blessings now reflect "partial fulfillment" of promises made to Israel. This in now way conflicts with the "preview" perspective.

Yes, a progressive does not hold to the view of a separate future Israel, but to a future Israel that includes Jews and Gentiles, i.e. everyone born again.

No, progressives read Romans 11 which is fully consistent with our view.

Lets breeze through the chapter and make some notes, shall we?

1) Combining believing Jews and Gentiles does not reject the OT chosen people. "Israel" were chosen corporately, descendants of Abraham, but to become a child of the promise a descendant had to be a believer.

2) Notice how God conditionally chose 7000 to be a remnant who had not bowed their knees. In the OT the blood line got you to the door, and exposure or knowledge of the promises, but only believers were chosen and placed in "Israel."

3) Paul then says today, i.e. first century, a remnant also exists, "chosen" not by bloodline" but by grace.

4) Notice that some of "Israel" were chosen based on belief in God, but the rest were hardened temporarily to facilitate spreading the gospel to Gentiles.
Therefore the church neither replaced. nor set aside the chosen Israel. Also notice that after this temporary hardening, Israel will enjoy "fullness" or full inclusion, i.e. will get the same dispensation without specific hardening that the Gentiles were enjoying.

5) Progressives are not "arrogant" toward the natural branches, Jews, thinking of the them as separate, but rather seeing them as brothers in Christ.

Now at verse 17 and following lets slow down a tad and see if a problem with progressive dispensation appears to exist?

6) Progressives do not think the Jews were broken off to make room for us to be grafted in, an either or situation, rather we accept that we were added after the wall of separation was torn down. Traditional dispensations seem to think the wall still exists in altered form.

7) God did not spare the unbelieving natural branches and He will not spare the unbelieving wild branches either.

8) According to "once saved, always saved" doctrine, once a person is born again, God will protect their faith such that they will endure to the end. Thus the warning about being broken off refers to those who perhaps have not fully committed to Christ, i.e. they do not believe from the heart with their whole heart.

9) An interesting and important point, even if you reject Christ, all is not lost because if you subsequently come to your senses and fall on your knees before God, He will certainly graft you back in. This is a good memory verse for those who "rededicate" their lives to Christ.

10) I understand the partial hardening ended when the Gentiles "fullness of the Gentiles" had come in. This means once the gospel had taken hold among the Gentiles, leaders trained and churches planted, then the temporary hardening ended, and our evangelism should be focused everywhere including among Jew.

11) In verse 28 we see the hardened first century Jews as enemies of God,
but this condition will not last, in fact Paul says that they may receive mercy, so it seems like once Paul had planted churches among the Gentiles, God inspired him to tell us to be progressives.

 

Pick me!!!

I also reject Dispensational theology

 

Man that story sounds familiar (minus the post-grad degrees, still working on my first). I am finding w/ many dispo's (especially in the fundamentalist camp) this is a very divisive issue.

 

As Walter Kaiser Jr. professor at Gordon-Conway Theological Seminary and certainly not a dispie has said (correctly) reformed covenant theology relies on two hermeneutics, one for the Old Testament, another different one for the New Testament.

 

Hi Ruiz,

What is the most unBiblical teaching that you found in Dispensationalism?

Thanks!