Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

[JM]

That book is awful. He calls dispensationalism an unChristian doctrine and repeats the lie about "two ways of salvation."

Old Dispensationalism did teach two ways of salvation. see Larkin

Dispensationalism denies all 5 points? Do you agree with this?

No, not really. The majority of the proponents of Dispensationalism have denied Calvinism. The strong holds are Fundamental Arminian Baptists. I believe Dispensationalism flourishes among Arminians because there exsists more continuity.

jm

 

[prov1810]

Old Dispensationalism did teach two ways of salvation. see Larkin

Scofield:

“Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer.” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1245).

“It is exceedingly important to observe that the law is not proposed as a means of life.” (Ibid., 93).

William Pettingill:

“Salvation has always been, as it is now, purely a gift of God in response to faith. The dispensational tests served to show man’s utter helplessness, in order to bring him to faith, that he might be saved by grace through faith plus nothing.” (Bible Questions Answered. Wheaton: Van Kampen, n.d., 470).

Chafer:

In the various dispensations certain elements remain the same such as God's holy character, basic morality, and the way of salvation. Though salvation is by faith and by grace in every age, the manner in which that faith is demonstrated in life differs." (Systematic Theology, 2:210)

The majority of the proponents of Dispensationalism have denied Calvinism. The strong holds are Fundamental Arminian Baptists. I believe Dispensationalism flourishes among Arminians because there exsists more continuity

.
Scofield was the only study Bible of its time, it sold very well, and its influence was wide. There's no problem with someone being Arminian and Dispensationalist, but Dispensationalism isn't inherently Arminian.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Let me first ask that we maintain a Berean Spirit, a love for one another as brothers and sister in Christ. Please understand, I am not wanting to stir anything up, neither desire to arouse bickering, keep it civil.

With that said, please explain how CT and Disp are not and cannot be complimentary or compatible, and how or if CT refutes Disp?

Also as a secondary, I would like to know how they effect or contact other biblical doctrines.

Keep in mind, I am not an expert in either, and for a long time I have been curious about this "issue". Please try to make it simple as possible, I would like to learn. Thank you, and God bless.

I prefer covenant theology to dispensationalism. I believe there is not a distinction between Israel and the church. The church is the place for Gentiles to become Jews (worshippers of the true God). I believe entering the church through baptism enters one into the covenant of grace (a Jewish covenant new and everlasting in Christ's blood that God graciously opened to Gentiles as well).

Before that was a covenant of works where Jews would try to obey the law and earn their salvation by being Godly. This was a lesson to demonstrate the greatness of God's grace to his people who are utterly unable in their fallen state to obey the law.

The only dispensations that exist are those of the grace of revelation. As prophets came and went revelation grew as it was dispensed in measure for the time.

 

[DanielRB]

I prefer covenant theology to dispensationalism. I believe there is not a distinction between Israel and the church. The church is the place for Gentiles to become Jews (worshippers of the true God). I believe entering the church through baptism enters one into the covenant of grace (a Jewish covenant new and everlasting in Christ's blood that God graciously opened to Gentiles as well).

Before that was a covenant of works where Jews would try to obey the law and earn their salvation by being Godly. This was a lesson to demonstrate the greatness of God's grace to his people who are utterly unable in their fallen state to obey the law.

The only dispensations that exist are those of the grace of revelation. As prophets came and went revelation grew as it was dispensed in measure for the time.

Forgive me, but wasn't the covenant of works more properly the time before the fall? Jews trying to obey the law and earn their salvation were not under the "covenant of works" but under a misunderstanding of the covenant of grace under the Mosaic law, correct?

I may be mistaken, so please be kind in your response.

 

[Iosias]

There's no problem with someone being Arminian and Dispensationalist, but Dispensationalism isn't inherently Arminian.

You're absolutely correct, the originators of the dispensational hermeneutic were stalwart believers in the sovereignty of God as becomes clear when their work is read.

The question of whether Darby held to limited atonement is a complex one since one must take into account all of what he said, not just cherry-pick some statements that sound like they deny LA. Darby states "But it will never be found in Scripture that Christ bore the sins of all. Had he done so they never could be mentioned again, nor men judged according to their works" in his Collected Writings Vol. 27:319.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Forgive me, but wasn't the covenant of works more properly the time before the fall? Jews trying to obey the law and earn their salvation were not under the "covenant of works" but under a misunderstanding of the covenant of grace under the Mosaic law, correct?

I may be mistaken, so please be kind in your response.

Technically salvation has always been by grace looking forward or backward at Christ because man cannot be perfect. If he could be perfect though without any blemish of sin original or otherwise he would be worthy by his works.

However it is clear that the Jews understood a legal system of works. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to gain eternal life. Jesus informed him of the impossibility of legal perfection on his part.

So yes before the fall man violated the covenant of works. After the fall man tried to earn salvation by the law. Each epoch is a response to varying degrees of revelation. When Christ finished his work on the Cross we entered a new age with more revelation into Gods gracious plan for us.

 

[Iosias]

However it is clear that the Jews understood a legal system of works.

This myth has been discredited since the pioneering work of E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism. He followed this up with Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.Sanders showed conclusively that the pattern of second Temple Judaism was one of “covenantal nomism”. By this he meant that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

This myth has been discredited since the pioneering work of E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism. He followed this up with Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.Sanders showed conclusively that the pattern of second Temple Judaism was one of “covenantal nomism”. By this he meant that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.

That's not true. If it were, then the New Testament writers wouldn't have had to go into so much detail clarifying for the people the doctrine of grace alone through faith in the person and work of Christ alone.

 

[Iosias]

That's not true. If it were, then the New Testament writers wouldn't have had to go into so much detail clarifying for the people the doctrine of grace alone through faith in the person and work of Christ alone.

Where is this detail? Perhaps an example would facilitate dialogue?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Where is this detail? Perhaps an example would facilitate dialogue?

You're a liberal. I don't really want to dialog with you because I reject virtually all of your ideas and am not open to any of them at all.

However, my understanding historically from studying the bible is that the gospel of Christ is such good news because it is the revelation of salvation by grace.

 

[Iosias]

However, my understanding historically from studying the bible is that the gospel of Christ is such good news because it is the revelation of salvation by grace.

I agree with all of that, but none of this negates the insights of E. P. Sanders et al who have engaged in a complex and detailed analysis of first-century Judaism and discovered that it was a religion of grace. This analysis is supported by the work in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree with all of that, but none of this negates the insights of E. P. Sanders et al who have engaged in a complex and detailed analysis of first-century Judaism and discovered that it was a religion of grace. This analysis is supported by the work in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.

The bible is sufficient to overrule any complex study 2000 years removed by a bunch of flawed men working on an agenda. I simply don't believe or trust them and their work.

The bible is clear that the good news is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and that the yoke of the law has been thrown off because it is fulfilled in Christ who accomplished all needing accomplished for us.

 

[JM]

I'll post as timer permits.

Here is an example of the hypothetical atonement Darby taught:

He is a propitiation for the whole world. All has been done that is needed. His blood is available for the vilest whoever he may be. Hence the Gospel to the world says “Whosoever will, let him come.” In this aspect we may say Christ died for all, gave Himself a ransom for all, an adequate and available sacrifice for sin, for whoever would come – tasted death for every man. (27:319).

But it will never be found in Scripture that Christ bore the sins of all. Had he done so they never could be mentioned again, nor men judged according to their works (27:319).
​

He is confusing. To be the propitiation for the whole world means the wrath of God has been removed from sinners. To say Christ died for all as their ransom and some end up in hell means His atonement is ineffectual.

Another chart comparing the two: Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology

jm

 

[prov1810]

Another chart comparing the two: Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology

30. David will sit on the Millennial throne in Jerusalem.

This is just completely wrong. No one is preaching the second coming of David. The fervent hope of pre-mils is King Jesus ON the throne of David.

 

[prov1810]

Getting back to this

Old Dispensationalism did teach two ways of salvation. see Larkin

Citation, please? I am presently sifting Dispensational Truth by Larkin to find something hair-raising.

Found this: "Now the penalty of Adam's sin was both spiritual and physical death, and the only way the human race can be saved from spiritual and physical death is by some one paying that penalty for them. This Christ came into the world to do."

Sounds like one way of salvation to me.

 

[Iosias]

The bible is sufficient to overrule any complex study 2000 years removed by a bunch of flawed men working on an agenda. I simply don't believe or trust them and their work.

You will permit me to chuckle won't you? The volume I linked to was edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid!

The bible is clear that the good news is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and that the yoke of the law has been thrown off because it is fulfilled in Christ who accomplished all needing accomplished for us.

This is part of the problem isn't it? The way we interpret what Paul says depends very much upon what we envision the context was that Paul was addressing. If we can establish that the Judaism of Paul's day was not that of doing works to earn salvation then we must ask what Paul was seeking to address. Briefly, the Jews understood that those who would be saved are those who are marked out by belonging to the covenant community and this is identified by works of Torah, namely - circumcision, food laws, and sabbath-keeping; these were the boundary-markers indicating who belonged to God's family and who partake in eschatological salvation. Because with the coming of Christ the Spirit brings in Gentiles into God's family, these 'Works of Torah' were done away with, that is one was not marked out as a covenant member by circumcision, food laws, and sabbath-keeping (salvation by the law) but by faith (salvation by faith). Paul's soteriology was both related to ecclesiology and eschatology. We are justified (declared to be righteous) by being marked out by faith, not by works of Torah (circumcision, food laws, and sabbath-keeping).

 

[Osage Bluestem]

You will permit me to chuckle won't you? The volume I linked to was edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid!

]

I don't care. Do what you like. I don't trust you so if you recommend something I think there must be something wrong with it from the beginning. Scripture and prayer is enough and is the reformed solution against mistrust and false brethren.

This is part of the problem isn't it? The way we interpret what Paul says depends very much upon what we envision the context was that Paul was addressing. If we can establish that the Judaism of Paul's day was not that of doing works to earn salvation then we must ask what Paul was seeking to address. Briefly, the Jews understood that those who would be saved are those who are marked out by belonging to the covenant community and this is identified by works of Torah, namely - circumcision, food laws, and sabbath-keeping; these were the boundary-markers indicating who belonged to God's family and who partake in eschatological salvation. Because with the coming of Christ the Spirit brings in Gentiles into God's family, these 'Works of Torah' were done away with, that is one was not marked out as a covenant member by circumcision, food laws, and sabbath-keeping (salvation by the law) but by faith (salvation by faith). Paul's soteriology was both related to ecclesiology and eschatology. We are justified (declared to be righteous) by being marked out by faith, not by works of Torah (circumcision, food laws, and sabbath-keeping).

It's not Paul we listen to when we read those letters. It is the voice of God.

 

[JM]

prov,

We are getting way off topic. AW wanted to know why Dispenationalism and Covenant theology cannot work together and they cannot. Each one is a hermeneutic. The overarching theme in Covenant theology is the salvation of God's elect from eternity pasted by the covenant of grace. Dispensationalism's overarching principle is the separation of God's people into the Church and Israel. The actual term Dispensation and use of dispensations is secondary.

Sources for quotes: Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism | The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress

Darby says:

All this [the Westminster Confession’s statement on the covenant and on the law of God] is a fable and a mischievous fable. And I notice it because it is the foundation of the whole religious system to which it belongs. … The basis of the entire system of moral relationship with God in Presbyterianism is false; and it has tainted the whole Evangelical system everywhere.
​

1944 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.

It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism as defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily or simply in the field of [e]schatology, but because it attacks the very heart of the Theology of our Church, which is unquestionably a Theology of one Covenant of Grace. As Dr. Chafer clearly recognizes, there are two schools of interpretation here which he rightly designates as “Covenantism” as over against “Dispensationalism.”
​

John Macarthur was mentioned in an earlier post. He is and other 'progressively' minded Dispensationalists have adopted aspects of covenant theology because Dispensationalism was lacking in many areas. Even true Dispensationalists deny MacArthur's 'isms' so he can't be all that bad.

John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

Some helpful quotes on the subject:

Quote, “Progressive Dispensationalism is perhaps a misnomer, since it probably has much more in common with Covenant Theology than Classic Dispensationalism, with a few notable differences.

Progressive dispensationalism has departed from one of the historical distinctives of normative dispensationalism, that of the offer, rejection, postponement, and exclusively future fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom. It has also failed to include a related distinctive, the church’s separateness from the Davidic kingdom. Dispensationalists from the successive periods of history have repeatedly emphasized these distinctives, an emphasis that nondispensational critics have also noted. Progressive dispensationalism, on the other hand, has not advocated these distinctives, raising the question of whether that movement deserves the label “dispensational” or whether it belongs more in the category of nondispensational historical premillennialism.” – Stephen J. Nichols

“Progressive dispensationalism is clearly not your father’s dispensationalism (nor your favorite televangelists).

Radical changes distinguishing it from its antiquated forbears include:

(1) A rejection of simplistic literalism in hermeneutics. Progressive dispensationalists pretty much adopt a genuine grammatical-historical-theological theory of interpretation like the rest of the evangelical world.

(2) A revision of the Israel-Church distinction, allowing that Israel and the Church are two phases of the one people of God. Classic dispensationalism argued for a radical distinction between Israel and the Church that would even continue into eternity; revised dispensationalism maintained that distinction only in terms of the earthly outworking of redemption.

(3) A breaking down of the walls of separation between the dispensations. Their dispensations are not discrete, unmixed time frames, but rather evolving stages of historical development. Contained within any particular dispensation are the seeds of the next dispensation so that the dispensations gradually progress (hence the name). This allows that Christ is now enthroned as king in anticipation of his coming earthly-millennial rule.

Numerous additional issues could be highlighted. But these three are sufficient to establish a radical (and welcome) transformation within dispensationalism.” – Ken Gentry

Dispensationalists should just give up, come back home to covenant theology and let Dispensationlism pass into church history as a bump in the theological road.

from a summary for Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by Gerstner “…dispensationalism promotes dubious evangelicalism, spurious Calvinism, and overt antinomianism.”

 

[JM]

Also as a secondary, I would like to know how they effect or contact other biblical doctrines.

The early Dispensationalists were rabid antinomians. Darby's influence on the Keswick movement cannot be denied. The whole 'let go and let God' teaching is still promoted by folks calling themselves Pauline Dispensationalists. The problem with nailing down the errors of Dispensational theology is the sheer plethora of variations.

Some of the major views were:

- Darby and the Gospel Hall Brethren
- Barker, Larkin
- Scofield, Chafer
- Wolvoord, Ryire
seeing the weaknesses of the traditional Dispey views some started to adopted covenantalism
- Blaising, Bock

You find huge variations in theology among those grouped above. Some believe you shouldn't apply anything before Acts 2 to the church!

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[prov1810]

John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

Macarthur:
I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it."

Scofield:
[The Sermon on the Mount] "clearly has a beautiful moral application for the Christian."

Chafer:
"A secondary application to the church means that lessons and principles may be drawn from it."

The Sermon was a call to Israel to a change of heart required for establishing the messianic kingdom. It is also God-breathed-out Scripture for all believers, but that opens a debate about how it can be applied now. This Scripture is not ignored by Dispensationalists.

Dispensationalists should just give up, come back home to covenant theology and let Dispensationlism pass into church history as a bump in the theological road.

When Covenant Theology was developed in the sixteenth century, I am sure there were people who told them to come home. Catholics accused the Reformers of novelty.

I believe in the 5 solas and the 5 points. I'm probably closest to Gill on the sovereignty of God. I am saddened by the historical breach with the Reformed because we may never see another systematic theology as magisterial as Chafer's within Dispensationalism. Now that this hermeneutic is pretty much owned by fundamentalists, we can kiss deep thought goodbye. But I'm staying because I'm fully convinced.