Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

[HankD]

Again, you cite a similarity between theologies of CT and Replacement theology, but this shows your ignorance. I am afraid that your misunderstanding of our viewpoint should be rectified before we proceed.

I also do not think you know what the analogy of faith. If you want to debate the analogy of faith then I would love to engage. The issue is obviously imperative as it relates to how we engage in exegesis. how we interpret most things in the Bible.

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

The analogy of faith was a key principle of interpretation taught by the Reformers which teaches that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession (1.9) in this manner: ‘The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly’.

‘There must be a consistency in all revealed truth because it represents absolute truth in the mind of God. Therefore each passage can have only one certain and simple sense. As the infallibly inspired word of God, the Scriptures are reliable, self-consistent and carry within them all that is needed for clarity. Since all that God makes known fits with what He knows perfectly, it is always proper to assume that no contradictions or dual realities can be attached to what He speaks.’ Bob Burridge.

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, has expressed the idea this way: ‘If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject’

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

 

[Ruiz]

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."

 

[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

 

[JesusFan]

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."

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!

 

[ituttut]

Didn't Jesus Himself tell woman at the well that salvation was "Of the Jews?" QUOTE]

Yes, he told the Samaritan woman the Jews (Judah and Benjamin), in their religion worshipped in Jerusalem. The Northern Kingdom of Israel did not worship where God resided in those days. Salvation is of the Jew (Jesus Christ). The lost sheep of Israel (all Israel) had no further to look than to Jesus Christ for their salvation.

This may not make sense to you, and correct me if I am wrong. I see Israel as a Nation, and the name Jew is a Religion. So salvation is of the Jewish religion. At that time Jesus tells us when He sent out His Apostles (at first) don't go to the Samaritan, or Gentile with His message. We can see in scripture that God knew the minds of all the Tribes of Israel. We can see, I believe the Grace of God in action, for He saw those of the Jewish religion in Jerusalem/Judah would not accept Him Where the Temple that has the Holy Place, and the Holly of Holies.

We can then as we read further, that the message of the Jewish religion kept expanding, but Iisrael did not accept Messiah. So we see in scripture the gospel of Paul came about, and that gospel as we know is now given by Gentiles. I claim something, and scriptures shows to be true, that something New happened on Damascus Road.

Sounds like God was involved in the selection process even back then!

Can't be more agreeable that Jesus came to save the people of Israel. I can't find where Jesus before the Cross, or afterwards while on this earth said, now it is the Gentile to spread my gospel of by the grace of God, through faith is the gift of God, and no works of any type, by anyone, other than myself will be accepted. Didn't this knowledge, and work of salvation become known only after Damascus Road? I believe we need to keep in mind that John wrote his gospel 25 to 30 years after Paul wrote His Epistles.

 

[Ruiz]

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

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.

 

[HankD]

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 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.

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

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​

 

[Ruiz]

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.

 

[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​

 

[JesusFan]

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?

 

[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

 

[thomas15]

I have read much of Dr. Kaiser and while I have never read this point. Yet, I cannot answer to just accusations without a specifics. Rather, I think most agree, even Dispensationalists, say they hold to differing hermeneutic for the various dispensational structures.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

All believers should be covenant theologians....because God has revealed Himself as a covenant keeping God.

How you view the covenants seperate the reformed believers into different camps.

Dispensationalists have sought to answer the same issues......but they fragment the word of God and teach opposed to God's design.

The seperation of Israel and the church that they maintain is error.

The sevenfold division of the scripture is error.

The seperation of law and grace is error.

The teaching of the church as amystery, and a mystery form of the kingdom is error.

The teaching of a heavenly people ,and an earthly people is an error.

They "wrongly DIVIDE" the word of truth.:type:

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

 

[Iconoclast]

I am surprised by the amount of criticism for Dispensationalism by Covenant people who do not support their claims with specific points, but are very long on claiming they know dispensationalism is bad in many ways, they just don't bother to tell you what those many ways are.

It's like they know of someone who is a "learned one" and we are to just trust the learned ones out there somewhere. I would rather be given the information to wrestle with the subjects myself.

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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

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?

 

[T Alan]

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

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

I would be interested to hear/see some examples of the differences between the supposed literal interpretation and supposed non-literal interpretations.

It seems that every person uses inferences when interpreting the bible, not matter what their eschatology view.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

All believers should be covenant theologians....because God has revealed Himself as a covenant keeping God.

How you view the covenants seperate the reformed believers into different camps.

Dispensationalists have sought to answer the same issues......but they fragment the word of God and teach opposed to God's design.

The seperation of Israel and the church that they maintain is error.

The sevenfold division of the scripture is error.

The seperation of law and grace is error.

The teaching of the church as amystery, and a mystery form of the kingdom is error.

The teaching of a heavenly people ,and an earthly people is an error.

They "wrongly DIVIDE" the word of truth.:type:

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!

 

[Iconoclast]

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: