Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

Although there are many formal debate styles, before there is a debate the definition of terms must be given and agreed upon.

We all know that it is easy to say that a debate opponent does not understand a foundational term or phrase concerning one's debate position when there has not been an agreement as to the definition of the term or phrase.

The Analolgy of Faith

Found online in the public domain at:
http://www.theopedia.com/Analogy_of_faith

Please approve of, modify, expand, distill or replace the above summary definition with one which most clearly represents your position as the basis of a debate terminology concerning the Analogy of Faith as it pertains to CT vs. DT.


Thanks.

HankD

 

We have cited this earlier, but I would agree that the gloss definition is that Scripture interprets Scriputre, or as the WCF states, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself."

 

Thanks Ruiz,

Having said that then I agree completely with that premise.

However, I am what would probably be categorized as a "progressive dispensationalist" (I don't like either word).

The distinction having to do with the assignments of literal meanings to the allegorical or discerning when in scripture the literal is metaphorical (e.g. the 1000 year reign of Rev 20:2-7 ).

There would exist a difference in the interpretation of prophetic scripture and whether there can be more than one fulfilment at a later date or a partial fulfilment of a given prophetic scripture happening during/over the process of time.

Some therefore might want to disqualify me from a strict definition as a subscriber to the Analogy of Faith given above.

I don't see Israel as separate but distinct from the church.

That would be spiritual Israel of course, the faithful pre-incarnation believers.

All throughout all the ages are saved by grace through faith. The law being added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.

As to "fulfilment" versus "nullified" I personally believe in "fulfilment" as primary and "nullified" for the believer while walking in or led of the Spirit. The Spirit has never led me into sin - the trangression of the law - not that I can't/won't sin when I wander from His leading.

But, IMO, while this (fullfilment vs nullified) phraseology indicates a marked difference it would be on an academic level.

I don't think it affects the pragmatics of life to the regenerate who are walking in the Spirit whatever their theological bent.

I see this on a practical level when visiting and finding true fellowship in reformed and/or covenant churches (mostly of my relatives).

I have no need to engage in a debate. I am well aware of our differences and settled in on my own preference (that is not to say I can't possibly change).

I asked for the definition because I didn't see it going through the thread yet folks were questioning others of their apparent lack of understanding of the same.

Perhaps I missed it or it was refered to via a URL.

However if you wish to pursue any of the points of CT/DT theology differences I would do so.

FWIW, most knowledgable dispensationalist would say that dispensationlism is not a systematic theology but a method of interpreting scripture. I'm not sure I agree in light of Chafer's Systematic Theology.

These mostly informative threads (as opposed to mostly contentious) are good as they make clear our differences.


HankD

 

Again, Dispy like myself hold that indeed scriptures interprete scriptures, but MUST take into account history, grammer, styles of speech, contex etc...


To me biggest difference is tht your 'camp" HAS to have the Bible support a continuation, continuity btween Old/new, while i would tend to see the new Covenant supplanting the Old Covenant, as Grace now replaced Law...

NOT as the means to salvation, as in Both Covenants people saved by Grace of God, but in how God deals in His relationship with his people,,,

Old covenant mandated that the Lord related to Isreal via theLaw given thru Moses, but now in new Covenant, Church deals with God onbasis of Gospel of Grace, thru Jesus Christ!

 

Hank,

Most of my objectives have been against classical dispensationalism. While I disagree with progressive dispensationalism and other dispy views, I think classical dispensationalism is harmful whereas I do not think the progressive and the MacArthur type of Dispy is dangerous. Yet, many on here echo the Scolfiedian line on these issues.

I do believe fulfilled and nullified is more than academic, it is rich with meaning and does bear on interpretative differences.

 

I agree, Scofield was my first encounter with what is called dispensationalism and I was cautious from the beginning.

Classical dispensationalism is IMO a moving target depending upon one's view of the "originator".

I have done my own research and found that several of the elements of dispensationalism were found in the huge body of the writings of the early church fathers (over 20,000 pages) although not codified into a systematic theology by any one of them.

Ribera, Darby, MacDonald, Scofield, etc IMO have too much extra baggage to represent what is called dispensationalism.

In fact I don't even like the semantics of the word "dispensationalism" but for expediency's sake I wear the label.

Again, to an extent I agree. I'm refering to the end product - our Christian walk as not necessarily connected to the disection of verbs and nouns.

I look at it this way: You don't need to know and correctly define on an academic level all the laws and principles of digestion and assimilation to be healthy.

But yes, of course, one must subscribe to a proper diet although the body is resilient and can overcome some blunders.

As I said previously , I have met many believers from all camps who bear the fruit of the Spirit which has more to do with our walk rather than our talk.

Not that the "talk" is of no importance, although it conveys our belief, on another level it indicates the condition of the heart and it's root source.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.​

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.​

HankD​

 

Hank,

While I think premillenialism is noted in early church fathers and the word "Dispensation" was prevalent, they did not advocate dispensationalism. Several scholars have looked into this issue including Gerstner and I have personally read many references most have used to claim "dispensational" believe in the early church fathers. They are truly a stretch.

 

True, the ECF had no one-size-fits-all definition of what is modernly called dispensationalism.

They simply viewed all ages (aeion) in the light of one God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past without taking a focused note upon the requiremental differences in what is modernly called God's "dispensational economy" .

e.g. the post deluvian world was not officially restricted to "clean" or "kosher" food sources until the law of Moses was given to Israel.

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.​

Deuteronomy 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.​

Today it would seem that the diet of the Noahide covenant is back.

Acts 10

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.​

etc...​

HankD​

 

Did the early Church fathers hold to the view of pre Mil as their dominent position though, and isn't that Dispy?
And that many of them still affirmed that God had a plan still in place for national Isreal of the promise God made to them through Abraham?

 

They didn't seem to be as as tightly grouped as today probably because many modern dogma were being formulalted pre-Nicea and certainly not concerning eschatology.

For the most part the assumption was pre-millenial and even amillenial (Christ returns, destroys anti-christ, judges the world and we enter the eternal state).

I don't remember any ECF writing about national Israel but that doesn't mean these writings don't exist.

HankD

 

Well I've been too busy to respond but I thought I could help you here at this late date, to help round out your knowledge some. I direct you to a book Israel the Land and the People H. Wayne House ed. 1988 Kregel

Chapter 8 titled The Land of Israel and the future return (Zech 10:6-12) essay by Walter C Kaiser Jr. On pg 219-223 he deals with the topic under consideration.

Allow me to offer a choice nugget on pg. 219 we read "It is widely held that the most obvious corollary to the Christocentric hermeneutic is the theologia crucis that the New Testament must always be our guide to interpreting the Old Testament. But why would a rule be imposed on the revelation of God that demands that the OT passages may not become the basis for giving primary direction on any doctrines or truths that have relevancy for NT times? This is only to argue in the end for a canon within a canon. Or to put it in theological terms, this is to use the analogia fidei ("analogy of faith") as an exegetical device rather than as the tool it was designed to be: the process of collecting all texts on a particular doctrine in the formation of the contents of systematic theology."


Seems stright forward to me Ruiz, according to W. Kaiser to read the NT into the OT is to have two separate hermuneutics, one for the old, another for the new.


Mr. Ruiz, the specifics you asked for. You are welcome Sir, BTW, this is not a cut and paste job, I typed this quote especally for you. Let me know if you require additional Kaiser source material or if you would care to read any on loan, I have several books by this author.

 

Lays out the errors of dispensationalism about as well as I have seen.

 

CFI,
The specific arguments take alot of time ,and verses to look at.....this format does not lend itself to an easy explanation of all the points at issue.
Read some postmill writers,with some amill men and you will see the issues very quickly.

 

Dispy hold that the law was given specially for nation of isreal, but that those saved in either OT/NT saved same way, by the Cross of Christ...

Dispy hold that the Bible interpretes itself, and that we need to seek the literal/primary meaning of the scriptures, not spiritualizing/allogoricalising the passages... "plain meaning of the texts"

Dispy hold that isreal had promises made unto them as a people by God, and though the Church shares in some of those promieses, NOT ALL of them, and isreal still to see them fully fulfilled

Dispy hold that jesus will one day make a physical lieral return to earth, to set up Kingdom ogf God in its fulness upon the earth, that Will of God shall indeed be done on earth as it is in heaven


Any questions?

 

This tread was linked from a thread on Facebook. I returned to read it and thought I would leave my footprint.

 

Where is your footprint? I do not see it.

 

How do the strict literalists disopensationalists justify their non-literal interpretation of the following:

John 6:48-59
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

 

Couldn't have said it as well myself! But then you pulled yourself out of the jaws of dispensationalism. Or God Did!

Paged up and found I had already responded years ago. Well it is worth a double post!

 

I took several years to understand the system.....then several more to unravel it...:thumbs: