Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

Hi Van,

Progressive Dispensationalist Robert L. Saucy, asserts that this blessing for Gentiles is the same blessing that was prophesised in the Old Testament:

"Our discussion of the New Testament teaching concerning the inauguration of the new covenant and its contemporary application to Jew and Gentile alike in the church has already given clear evidence that the Old Testament prophecy of eschatological salvation for the Gentiles is being fulfilled in this present age" [emphasis added] (Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993], p.135).

Is the Old Testament prophecy of eschatological salvation for Gentiles being fulfilled at the present time? Here we see that according to prophecy the salvation of Gentiles will be according to the agency of national Israel:

"Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you...Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor" (Isa.55:3,5; NIV).

That is certainly not happening now and it has never happened in the past. In fact, the Apostle Paul states in no uncertain terms that it is through Israel's fall that salvation has come to the Gentiles:

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Ro.11:11-12).

How do you explain that?

Thanks!

 

[Greektim]

Hi Ruiz,

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

Thanks!

Not to answer for Ruiz, but my biggest grip is the discontinuity it makes w/ the OT, the Gospel accounts, and the NT. To put it another way, there is too much disconnect between the OT and Jesus' life, ministry, and teachings as well as too much disconnect from Jesus' life, ministry, and teachings and the NT. It sees Acts and forwards as so completely different and distinct (ignoring the fact that the gospel accounts were written as church documents; writers being unable to remove themselves from that mindset). Yet, there is also the discontinuity between Jesus' ministry and Israel's story. It just does an unsatisfactory job at explaining the grand story of Scripture b/c it slices and dices the Bible. It looks at the text w/ pre-arranged dispensations when the Bible is clearly unfolding through covenants.

 

[thomas15]

Van,

Bock and Saucy make very good arguements for the progressive point of view. Three central issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism is I'm sure on your shelf. Toussaint and Johnson have this habit though of plugging the holes Bock leaves exposed.

I think one of the main reasons for progressive dispensationalism appeal is that it tends to avoid discussion of a pre-trib rapture. The reformed brethern have been screaming for years that Romans 11 is no friend of the dispensational view of the church and israel but a careful reading of the chapter with an uncluttered mind teaches a different story.

I can't brag about having advanced degrees in theology and even an undergrad degree in theology so I rely on basic rules for english and read a lot of theology books. I think it is fair to say that dispensationalism of any stripe is on the waine and if the Lord tarries 50 years from now believers will be back to arguements on the attonement and baptism. A real pitty in my opinion.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Not to answer for Ruiz, but my biggest grip is the discontinuity it makes w/ the OT, the Gospel accounts, and the NT.

Thanks for your reply Greektim,

I believe that this "discontinuity" can be explained by the "gap" in the timeline found in Daniel's 70 weeks.

Charles Ryrie writes that "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

I believe that this "parenthesis" or interlude in the prophetic timeline can be explained by the following verse:

"and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things" (Eph.3:9).

Does not this provide a good explanation for the "discontinuity" of which you speak?

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Mandym,

Lets see what we can agree on, or clarify.:type:

We do see in scripture that God keeps His covenants but that is not evidence of the reality of covenant theology.

MM- The fact that God keeps His covenants, teaches several things.
1]God covenants within Himself
2]God makes covenants with man
3]God has revealed His covenants to man
4]Man is responsible before God to conform to the revealed terms of whatever covenant is spoken about....conditional/or unconditional
5]God speaks to us about studying His word ,and works in time.
6]To study the cross properly,a covenant theology has to occur.

14The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

Then your issue is with Paul in Romans 11
Well...for sure Romans 11 is very important here. I do not have an issue with Romans 11, because I believe a proper understanding of it shows not only what has happened in times past to national Israel, but what will happen before the last day. rather than keep them seperate as you might be thinking is taught.....i see it as believing Israelites will be grafted back in to the root promise....which is Christ....and all in Him....jew/gentile...one new man.....even in Romans 11 Paul does not say when believing Israelites are grafted back in that gentiles will just disappear!

Not everyone who holds to dispensationalism divides things this way.
Well that may be so, and if so that is good. I just remember how listening to tapes ,and books from dallas theological seminary what was being taught.
Corrections have been attempted, but it seems as if the system itself is fatally flawed. MM...once someone sees how other believers had understood these same passages....it seems like a open and shut case.
I do try and understand the basis for these other views, and that I at one time held them ,helps me to understand that real believers can lack understanding particularly. For example.....you and revmac are consistent with your position. I know you are sincere. ican rejoice that you also look for the blessed hope,and rejoice in the blood.....we do not see these things the same now.
Occasionally I do here a dispensational message on the radio...but I cannot be supportive of what i think has missed the scripture

Sometimes it is held in error by some.

Yes....one of the most distrssing things i have found on the BB is a large portion of posters have an incorrect view of law and grace...in both Ot/NT.
this is a seperate set of threads all by itself.



No such teaching in dispensational theology

Well.....maybe you are not familiar with this teaching ...but it is taught in much premill dispensational theology.....Israel the earth people, the church the heavenly people....that is one of the reasons i abondoned the teaching as clear error.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Well said brother.....this is a big issue on BB.:thumbsup::applause:

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Thw Law of The Old Covenant given by God unto Isreal was keep and fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, was NOT "nullified", but was kept perfectly by the Messiah, and whose life/death ablolished all of its provisions against us, and nailed them to the cross!

Law served its purpose, to lead to jesus, now under New Covenant its Grace , not Law of God to be the relationship basis between us and Him!

 

[Iconoclast]

Thw Law of The Old Covenant given by God unto Isreal was keep and fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, was NOT "nullified", but was kept perfectly by the Messiah, and whose life/death ablolished all of its provisions against us, and nailed them to the cross!

Law served its purpose, to lead to jesus, now under New Covenant its Grace , not Law of God to be the relationship basis between us and Him!

You repeat this error often. You post a partial truth but mixed with error.
The 10 commandments are always in effect...even before the nation of Israel was given the tablets of stone.
The law[tencommandments] is still in effect for all men everywhere.
Does Jesus take away the curse of the law......yes
was the law[ceremonial and judicial law] a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ, yes

the ceremonial and judicial laws were an expansion of the ten commandments......
Jesus fulfills those laws so we are no longer under OT Israels ceremonial and judicial laws.......the 10 commandments are still in effect.

There was law and grace in the Ot.....there is law and grace in the NT.
law and grace co-exist....

21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

JF.....there is a small paperback....True bounds of Christian freedom...by samuel bolton;
http://www.monergism.com/directory/...-Bounds-of-Christian-Freedom-3-MB-pdf/c-1492/

take a look....

 

[JesusFan]

You repeat this error often. You post a partial truth but mixed with error.
The 10 commandments are always in effect...even before the nation of Israel was given the tablets of stone.
The law[tencommandments] is still in effect for all men everywhere.
Does Jesus take away the curse of the law......yes
was the law[ceremonial and judicial law] a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ, yes

the ceremonial and judicial laws were an expansion of the ten commandments......
Jesus fulfills those laws so we are no longer under OT Israels ceremonial and judicial laws.......the 10 commandments are still in effect.

There was law and grace in the Ot.....there is law and grace in the NT.
law and grace co-exist....




JF.....there is a small paperback....True bounds of Christian freedom...by samuel bolton;
http://www.monergism.com/directory/...-Bounds-of-Christian-Freedom-3-MB-pdf/c-1492/

take a look....

Clear difference between those of us here reformed and non!

The Law was established By God for national Isreal, and was in place until the ONe who it foreshadowed was to come, the Messiah, and His work on our behalf freed us from its obligations in the sense that we now walk in the HS, and by yielding to Him, the law written in our hearts by God gets worked out into our lives!

So the Law brings us to Christ, His Cross paid all that we could not attain through the law, and now we are living as God intende, not by Law, but by Grace of the New Covenant!

 

[ituttut]

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?

It looks as though God made the choice of the bloodline, and not man. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are the bloodline.

These women have one thing in common. They are heavily involved with God's chosen people. In those days when God was talking and dealing directly with His people, He accepted any and all that fit into His purpose. What Rahab, and Ruth did being mentioned in scripture means all that happened was in the Will of God. Have you ever looked into what Tribe Jerusalem belongs to? There is Gentiles in there, way back there.

We know Rahab did a work along with her faith in God. She had faith that God would save her earthly life, through His (God) people. We read in Joshua that all in that area of the world were terrified at the mention of the Israelites. God had mercy on Rahab, and her family because of here faith, and the fear of God. She did a work acceptable to God, so He responded to the Gentile, through His people.

We look at the touching story of Ruth that came from idol worshippers (no different than Abram). From Abraham then on to Boaz we can see what God decided to do. Jesus was born because God decided in His written Word that a redeemer was needed. God knew, but no one else, which I believe includes Satan, what to make of this pair. God will use the heathen, as well as His very own to bring about His Will. We see this in various places in the Bible, viz. Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, and others. From Nebuchadnezzar until now (until further notice) we are living in the time of the Gentile. The world today does not live in terror of the Israelite.

Because of these women that God used, eternal salvation is now available to al, for sins are now not just covered, but completely forgiven. We know today the remission of our sins has nothing to do with our justification being connected with Jewish baptismal rites. It was some years after Damascus Road that the Apostles came to understand the gospel of Paul. In that day it was possible for the Israelite, and their proselytes to be under the law, and ordinances, and receive remission of their sins by repenting, and being water baptized. But we know later the same Apostles knew they would also be able to enter into the Body of Christ at some point for Peter says, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they", Acts 15:11.

 

[JesusFan]

It looks as though God made the choice of the bloodline, and not man. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are the bloodline.

These women have one thing in common. They are heavily involved with God's chosen people. In those days when God was talking and dealing directly with His people, He accepted any and all that fit into His purpose. What Rahab, and Ruth did being mentioned in scripture means all that happened was in the Will of God. Have you ever looked into what Tribe Jerusalem belongs to? There is Gentiles in there, way back there.

We know Rahab did a work along with her faith in God. She had faith that God would save her earthly life, through His (God) people. We read in Joshua that all in that area of the world were terrified at the mention of the Israelites. God had mercy on Rahab, and her family because of here faith, and the fear of God. She did a work acceptable to God, so He responded to the Gentile, through His people.

We look at the touching story of Ruth that came from idol worshippers (no different than Abram). From Abraham then on to Boaz we can see what God decided to do. Jesus was born because God decided in His written Word that a redeemer was needed. God knew, but no one else, which I believe includes Satan, what to make of this pair. God will use the heathen, as well as His very own to bring about His Will. We see this in various places in the Bible, viz. Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, and others. From Nebuchadnezzar until now (until further notice) we are living in the time of the Gentile. The world today does not live in terror of the Israelite.

Because of these women that God used, eternal salvation is now available to al, for sins are now not just covered, but completely forgiven. We know today the remission of our sins has nothing to do with our justification being connected with Jewish baptismal rites. It was some years after Damascus Road that the Apostles came to understand the gospel of Paul. In that day it was possible for the Israelite, and their proselytes to be under the law, and ordinances, and receive remission of their sins by repenting, and being water baptized. But we know later the same Apostles knew they would also be able to enter into the Body of Christ at some point for Peter says, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they", Acts 15:11.

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

Clear difference between those of us here reformed and non!

The Law was established By God for national Isreal, and was in place until the ONe who it foreshadowed was to come, the Messiah, and His work on our behalf freed us from its obligations in the sense that we now walk in the HS, and by yielding to Him, the law written in our hearts by God gets worked out into our lives!

So the Law brings us to Christ, His Cross paid all that we could not attain through the law, and now we are living as God intende, not by Law, but by Grace of the New Covenant!

Jf......the law was before national Israel and was for all men....

The Holy Spirit leads to law keeping...not lawlessness.....not to be saved...but because we are saved....

In the NC. God puts His law in our hearts JF.....love is fulfilling the law....
love to God...Love to man....

What is law keeping JF? What is "the royal law". What law is in a believers heart? I submit to you...it is the very same 10 commandments, not under Moses, but under Christ....so ..instead of mosaic ceremonial and judicial laws expanding the 10 commandments...we have the remainder of the Nt...which is really quotes from the Ot many times...expanding the 10 commandments for us.......
here from Lev.19

15Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

16Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

you see These repeated in the Nt.

Jf...get out a legal pad or notebook.....open your bible to Lev 19-21
look and see how many of these verses are repeated in the NT commands...

also..read that pdf file ...it is a helpful book...you respondede before you read the pdf file......give it a read JF.

 

[thomas15]

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.

Question: how many times does the aspiring reformed/covenant/replacement theologian have to read the Bible before the light bulb appears above the head and the analogy of faith becomes, you know, clear as day?

It must be more than twice a year for 30 years because that's how many times I have read the Bible cover to cover and I have to confess, I don't see the concept anywhere.

The analogy of faith. Does that answer the question "what must I do to be saved?" Does it pull out out of the pages of Scripture the doctrine of the covenant of works/redemption/grace? Does this analogy allow me to apply covenants Jehovah clearly made with the Jews to the gentile church? Does this analogy allow a God who claims to be the ultimate truth and all knowing over the vast expanse of time past present and future to break his promises already made? If I get the analogy of faith, will it allow me to claim on the one hand Sola Scriptura and on the other, allow me to win debates with dispies by claiming that the WCF teaches covenant theology so it must be true?

Can you give me an anaolgy of the analogy of faith?

 

[ituttut]

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

To me, I see covenant as a promise, and it is God that promises certain things to certain people, at certain times. In time God offered to Israel a contract, a covenant with His people, and they accepted. I really can't see where God offered to anyone else other than His chosen people to enter into a covenant with Him.

What you say is true in your use of the words. "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". In that dispensation of time, Boaz and Ruth, who understood it? How could anyone understand the book of Ruth until the Redeemer came, crucified, in the earth for three days and three nights dead, arising, ascending and being seated on the right hand of His Father?

John 10:16? Are Gentiles referred to in scripture as being of the house of Israel, the sheep that Jesus said He came far? Jesus tells us in Matthew, and other places that He only came for His sheep, thus of His own people.

; Eph 2:14-22; 3:6? It looks to me this should convince everyone that Paul did have a dispensational gospel, trying to explain to us what happened at the Cross. Who is cognizant of these truths before Damascus Road?

Has no one here ever started in the beginning of the Bible and thought, 'what if I read all the way through to the Gospels, skipping then to James then through to Revelation? Leaving out Acts, and the Epistles of Paul can we find any of the Fathers, Prophets, or Apostles that are given the gospel to a Gentile world?

Where is the Body of Christ to be found, the Rapture, the gospel of by the grace of God, He gave a gift of salvation to those who believe Him, and come through faith, and it cannot include work that we do on our own.

The purpose of God could not be completed until the Cross, Israel refusing again Messiah, and then Light from above speaking to one Jew, and saying, You are the Apostle to Gentile, and the Jew, until I come for those that accepted the gift, and sealed in My Body.

 

[Ruiz]

Thw Law of The Old Covenant given by God unto Isreal was keep and fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, was NOT "nullified", but was kept perfectly by the Messiah, and whose life/death ablolished all of its provisions against us, and nailed them to the cross!

Law served its purpose, to lead to jesus, now under New Covenant its Grace , not Law of God to be the relationship basis between us and Him!

I am not saying it was nullified, I am saying that Dispensationalists say it is nullified. I quoted many of them.

 

[Ruiz]

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.

Covenant theology is not replacement theology, it never has been and never will be. There is a huge distinction between the two and the stereotyping of the two either misunderstands our view or replacement theology. So, do you know the difference?

As for the rest, I want to stick with theology instead of individuals.

 

[Ruiz]

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.

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.

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,

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

Thanks!

The Most? That is difficult to say. While their ecclesiology is harmful, I think their hermenetic leads to many issues.

 

[Ruiz]

Question: how many times does the aspiring reformed/covenant/replacement theologian have to read the Bible before the light bulb appears above the head and the analogy of faith becomes, you know, clear as day?

It must be more than twice a year for 30 years because that's how many times I have read the Bible cover to cover and I have to confess, I don't see the concept anywhere.

The analogy of faith. Does that answer the question "what must I do to be saved?" Does it pull out out of the pages of Scripture the doctrine of the covenant of works/redemption/grace? Does this analogy allow me to apply covenants Jehovah clearly made with the Jews to the gentile church? Does this analogy allow a God who claims to be the ultimate truth and all knowing over the vast expanse of time past present and future to break his promises already made? If I get the analogy of faith, will it allow me to claim on the one hand Sola Scriptura and on the other, allow me to win debates with dispies by claiming that the WCF teaches covenant theology so it must be true?

Can you give me an anaolgy of the analogy of faith?

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Clear difference between those of us here reformed and non!

The Law was established By God for national Isreal, and was in place until the ONe who it foreshadowed was to come, the Messiah, and His work on our behalf freed us from its obligations in the sense that we now walk in the HS, and by yielding to Him, the law written in our hearts by God gets worked out into our lives!

So the Law brings us to Christ, His Cross paid all that we could not attain through the law, and now we are living as God intende, not by Law, but by Grace of the New Covenant!

Here is another read for you jf......are you familiar with JOHN MURRAY?

http://www.the-highway.com/lawgrace.html