Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Are there as many variations of Covenant Theology as there are Dispensationalism?

I suppose it could depend on how you define Covenant Theology; there is New Covenant Theology, Covenant theology as understood by the Continental Reformed, there is the Covenant theology of Gill, then within standard covenant theology we have mono-covenantalism and bi-covenantalism. Then each theologian within each strand will differ on something, so yes, I'd say there are as many variations of CT as there are of DT.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,852.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
One issue that people differ on would be the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

Was it a mixed covenant of works and grace?

Particular Baptists and a minority of paedobaptists have historically said it was a mixed covenant, a covenant that required obedience that only Adam before the fall could have maintained, therefore, this covenant can only condemn it its current form. I'm still digesting Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ by Coxe and Owen but I would highly recommended it. You can read Owen's commentary on Hebrews 8 online without buying the book.

Modern 'Reformed' Baptists would agree with Gill and the Westminster about one covenant with many administrations given in time to the people of God but Coxe/Owen would say the elect are always saved by the promise of grace given in Gen. 3...BUT, it wasn't until the death of Christ that we have the substance of the (eternal) covenant (of redemption). {'The death of the testator'} That allows for a mixed, national covenant given to national Israel, until the time of Christ when the substance of things hoped for arrived.

Studying the covenants will give a new depth to your theological understanding and will take a lifetime to study!

Check out Pink's work:
Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink-Contents

To understand the Particular Baptist view at a glance check out this comparison:

Predestinarian Network - Modified Covenant Theology : A Comparison between CT, NCT, and MCT

The difference between the historic Particular Baptist view and 'Modified CT' is the continued use of the Law in the life of the believer. MCT denies the Decalogue, same with New Covenant Theology (NCT).

Yours in the Lord,

j
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,852.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Upvote 0

JustAsIam77

Veritas Liberabit Vos
Dec 26, 2006
2,551
248
South Florida
✟30,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Taken from the website Theologica under the heading Calvinist Dispensationalists, I found it interesting.

The theological system known as Calvinism takes its name, of course, from 16th-century Protestant Reformer John Calvin (July 10, 1509 - May 27, 1564). His masterful tome was The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

The Five Points of Calvinism, however, developed somewhat later. The first step was that another theologian, Jacobus Arminius (Oct 10, 1560 - Oct 19, 1609), rejected Calvin’s teachings. Then in 1610 Arminius’ students drafted five articles (The Remonstrance) in opposition to Calvin’s theology of salvation. It was in reaction to and rejection of this that in 1619 the Synod of Dort formulated five points of refutation into The Canons of Dort – which since then have come to be known and recognized by the acronym TULIP.

Calvinism has been believed, defended, and propagated by numerous scholars, denominations, mission organizations, schools, and outstanding individuals – too many to list here. The list includes, though, such well-known pastors as Reformed Baptist writer and preacher John Bunyan (Nov 28, 1628 - Aug 31, 1688), Anglican pastor and hymn writer John Newton (Jul 24, 1725 - Dec 21, 1807), Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon (Jun 19, 1834 - Jan 31, 1892), pastor and prolific author Arthur W. Pink (Apr 1, 1886 - Jul 15, 1952), and Anglican minister of Westminster Chapel (London) David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Dec 20, 1899 - Mar 1, 1981), as well as missionaries such as Baptist minister and “father of modern missions” William Carey (Aug 17, 1761 - Jun 9, 1834) and American Baptist missionary (to Burma) Adoniram Judson (Aug 9, 1788 - Apr 15, 1850).

The history of the USA demonstrates the great influence of Calvinists – especially in colonial days. The Pilgrims, New England Puritans, New York Dutch, Pennsylvania German, and Southern Huguenots were all strongly Calvinist. Three famous Calvinists stand out from early American history – namely, Puritan preacher Cotton Mather (Feb 12, 1663 - Feb 13, 1728), pastor and theologian Jonathan Edwards (Oct 5, 1703 - Mar 22, 1758), and leader in the Great Awakening and Anglican priest George Whitefield (Dec 16, 1714 - Sep 30, 1770). It is estimated that 50-80% of American churches were Calvinistic in 1780 – sometime after their peak influence.

Significantly – especially for this discussion – many (probably most) of the early proponents and adherents of dispensationalism were Calvinists (more or less)! It is generally agreed that the modern formulation and initial propagation of dispensationalism should be credited to John Nelson Darby (Nov 18, 1800 - Apr 29, 1882) and other Plymouth Brethren – all holding to Calvinist soteriology. Trained at Princeton Theological Seminary, Presbyterian pastor James H. Brookes (1830-1897) not only had Darby speak in his pulpit but also trained another famous Calvinist dispensationalist, C. I. Scofield.

Scofield (Aug 19, 1843 - Jul 24, 1921), the editor-in-chief of The Scofield Reference Bible (1909) and co-founder with William L. Pettingill (a Presbyterian, Aug 27, 1886 - Sep 15, 1950) of Philadelphia College of the Bible (1913), was an ordained Presbyterian minister. So was his student Lewis Sperry Chafer (Feb 27, 1871 - Aug 22, 1952); thus, in the Calvinist dispensationalist mold was the school Chafer founded in 1924 (Dallas Theological Seminary) –at least for the first quarter century or so of its history. Others of like theology who were instrumental in starting that school include William L. Pettingill and W. H. Griffith-Thomas (an Anglican, 1861-1924).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,852.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Two quick points to think over:

Joshua 24 = we see the land promise to Abraham fulfilled, allegorically - we do see land mentioned again in the OT so what is it all about? Hebrews 11 tells us it is a picture of heaven. DT would prevent us from seeing the land promise fulfilled since Joshua isn't allowed to use allegory. :)

Eph. 2 = read it literally, we are told that Israel and gentiles believers are ONE, the wall that separated us has been removed. if you approach this text with a predetermined, false I might add, idea of the separation of the church and Israel you will miss the point.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
Consider Acts 15.16 where the church, the believers gathered are spoken of as the rebuilt Tabernacle of David...a reference to Amos 9.
The issue at hand in Acts 15 is Gentile inclusion in salvation. It is soteriological and not eschatological. The New Testament develops Old Testament teaching but it does not redefine or nullify promises to Israel. God can do more than He promised, but He cannot do less.

Why do you insert all kinds of events into the 1,000 year millennial reign when, if read literally, they do not exist?
Sorry, I don't know what you mean here.


Could the millennial reign be symbolic...just as the chain binding Satan was symbolic of limiting his power (to that of a roaring loin? I imagine a lion on a chain used by God for His glory)?

Could the 1,000 years be 1,001 or 999?
I don't think of the millennium as symbolic, but even symbols have literal referents (if you're a literalist). The millennium refers to a distinct period. I am not comfortable with saying, gee, does it have to be 1,000? I am assuming a 1,000 year period because that is how it's written.

If dispensationalists were consistent they would all hold to transubstantiation.
(Matt. 26:29) But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,852.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Brother prov, I pray all is well.

If you remove the separation of the church and Israel, read the text literally, everything changes.

MacArthur said something like, 'if you get Israel right you get biblical prophecy right.' I think that is a reverse of what is true. If you get the nature of the church right you will get Israel right.

Covenant theology is not Israel driven, it is Christ driven and in Him we find the meaning of all things.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
Joshua 24 = we see the land promise to Abraham fulfilled, allegorically - we do see land mentioned again in the OT so what is it all about?
Hebrews 11 tells us it is a picture of heaven. DT would prevent us from seeing the land promise fulfilled since Joshua isn't allowed to use allegory. :)

I see no allegory in Joshua 24.

Abraham anticipated the eternal state, but this does not cancel the land promise. God showed Abraham the physical land of Israel, saying, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever." (Gen 13). He did not later say, "Just kidding. I meant heaven." The land promise will be fulfilled because God promised it and He is faithful to Himself. The "I will" makes the promise unconditional.

Eph. 2 = read it literally, we are told that Israel and gentiles believers are ONE, the wall that separated us has been removed. if you approach this text with a predetermined, false I might add, idea of the separation of the church and Israel you will miss the point.
There was a wall in Herod's Temple courtyard that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Jews. There is no wall of separation between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ.

Formerly, God dealt with humanity by working with and though the Jews and Judaism. But with the death of Jesus Christ God began a new dispensation or administration in His dealings with humanity. Jews and Gentiles alike have access to God through faith in Jesus. Gentile believers are no longer aliens; they are fellow citizens with Jewish believers who lived before the Pentecost.

None of this spiritualises the promises God made to Israel concerning land and a King. These promises will be fulfilled for the Jewish remnant in the millennium.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,852.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I see no allegory in Joshua 24.

Abraham anticipated the eternal state, but this does not cancel the land promise. God showed Abraham the physical land of Israel, saying, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever." (Gen 13). He did not later say, "Just kidding. I meant heaven." The land promise will be fulfilled because God promised it and He is faithful to Himself. The "I will" makes the promise unconditional.

The land promise was fulfilled, we read that in Joshua, but you can't see because of your literalisms. That was my point.

DT ignores prophecy for its system.

There was a wall in Herod's Temple courtyard that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Jews. There is no wall of separation between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ.

My point exactly. There is only one way of salvation and that is in Jesus Christ so there is no longer a distinction between ethnic Israel and the gentiles under the new covenant. The Mosaic covenant had national, ethnic implications but now, we have a better revealed covenant.

Formerly, God dealt with humanity by working with and though the Jews and Judaism. But with the death of Jesus Christ God began a new dispensation or administration in His dealings with humanity. Jews and Gentiles alike have access to God through faith in Jesus. Gentile believers are no longer aliens; they are fellow citizens with Jewish believers who lived before the Pentecost.

None of this spiritualises the promises God made to Israel concerning land and a King. These promises will be fulfilled for the Jewish remnant in the millennium.

CT does not spiritualize the promises. We see them fulfilled in Christ and use the same interpretive method the Christ and the Apostles used.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
P

prov1810

Guest
The land promise was fulfilled, we read that in Joshua

The tribes of Israel received their allotments but their occupancy of the land depended on their covenant faithfulness. Israel’s disobedience, judgment, exile from the land, and restoration to the land were foretold before the people were even in the land (Lev. 26 and Deut. 30). Through a new and better covenant God will create new hearts in the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30-31, Ezekiel 36-37) and they will possess their land forever, as He promised.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
prov, it seems only you and I are interested in CT v. DT. lol

I'm interested, it's just I'm interested in so many different things, and so very little time these days. Spend most of my time caring for my son Calvin. :) I think this topic will remain important to me, I know it prevailed with the Puritans. Did you ever get around to reading any from "An Ark for all of God's Noah's" by Thomas Brooks? I love reading the Puritans, though I struggle understanding, all good though. I laugh when people suggest or suppose moderns to be superior, more "scholarly" and such.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
P

prov1810

Guest
I laugh when people suggest or suppose moderns to be superior, more "scholarly" and such.
The way they would pull Scripture verses from all over, without reference books or computer software, it just shows mastery of the text, like a Jewish illui. They were passionate and brilliant - can anyone match Gill? How did he find the time to do it all?? Charnock, Matthew Henry.. an embarrassment of riches. I am always provoked to study more when I think of my heritage.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I laugh when people suggest or suppose moderns to be superior, more "scholarly" and such.

It depends surely on what we mean by superior; when we consider that 95% of what is known now was unknown two-hundred years ago, it seems strange to privilege what was written in the past. Of course, we ought recognise that we are standing upon the shoulders of giants.

Prov1810 is correct that Gill was a giant of learning. But, the information he made use of is severely limited when compared to what we now have available. In this sense, his commentaries are useful when engaging in understanding his views, but they have been surpassed by modern commentaries who have access to material that he did not and who are making use of those commentators who have come after Gill.

Just think of the development of modern astronomy: It began with the introduction of the Sun-centered Solar System by Copernicus, and concludes with Newton's synthesis of the laws of motion in the heavens and the Earth, and Einstein's revision of Newton's ideas in the Relativity Theory. In reality, the danger of what your comment says is that you would rather stick with Copernicus rather than Einstein because it is snobbery to suggest that in the post-Einstein world we know better than the pre-Copernicus world.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums