Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

[JM]

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."

MacArthur was right about that.

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

That is the secondary application of the Sermon on the Mount. Sco clearly states the first reason is, "pure Law!"

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

Chafer's Postpone Ethics

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.

Cute, but that dog don't hunt. Dispensationalism teaches the arbitrary separation of God's people along ethnic lines while CT expounds the biblical idea of being saved by Christ Jesus from eternity because of the pactum salutis. They are different ways to read the Bible.

jm

 

[prov1810]

Dispensationalism teaches the arbitrary separation of God's people along ethnic lines

Among Christians there is neither Jew nor Greek. But God has made promises to Israel, including promises about land, and He is going to keep them because He is faithful to Himself and He does not change. Then comes the eternal state and in the end there is only saved and unsaved.

 

[JM]

Among Christians there is neither Jew nor Greek. But God has made promises to Israel, including promises about land, and He is going to keep them because He is faithful to Himself and He does not change. Then comes the eternal state and in the end there is only saved and unsaved.

Is that why you believe Dispensationalism and Covenant theology are compatible? I mean, that was the original question...

What you wrote above proves CT and DT are miles apart. God's promises to Israel were given to Christ and all who are in Christ receive them.

jm

 

[prov1810]

Is that why you believe Dispensationalism and Covenant theology are compatible?

I believe that Calvinist soteriology is compatible with Dispensationalism. But Covenant theology and Dispensationalism are different and I hoped to make that clear with my first post, the excerpts from Ryrie.

I can't blame the Presbys for kicking out the Dispys. What else could they have done? Throw away Covenant Theology? They had every right to do what they did.

 

[prov1810]

That is the secondary application of the Sermon on the Mount. Sco clearly states the first reason is, "pure Law!"

The Gospel is nowhere to be found in the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[JM]

prov, I'm not saying you or other Dispensationalists are not Christians, we just disagree on a very important issue. No hard feelings.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

 

[DanielRB]

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.

Thanks for the clarification, OB!

 

[DanielRB]

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.

Actually, Walvoord and others taught that David would reign as Prince under Christ during the millennium...see Scofield Ministries: WILL DAVID BE CO-REIGNING WITH CHRIST IN THE KINGDOM? for a quick look at what many Dispensationalists believe.

 

[JM]

More discussion about Dispensationalism here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7765807/#post63905197

(at least I hope)

 

[Iosias]

Among Christians there is neither Jew nor Greek. But God has made promises to Israel, including promises about land, and He is going to keep them because He is faithful to Himself and He does not change. Then comes the eternal state and in the end there is only saved and unsaved.

Hi prov, are these promises not re-worked around Christ by Paul? Is Jesus not portrayed as the new Israel in the Synoptic gospels?

As an aside, have you read much of the work by Tom Wright? His Romans and the Theology of Paul is well worth a read.

Have you read God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts or According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy?

If you get round to any of them, do let me know what you think. Having been a dispensationalist, I can say looking backwards that these make far more sense than dispensationalism.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

An Arminian heart is at the center of Dispensationalism.

 

[Iosias]

An Arminian heart is at the center of Dispensationalism.

Such statements are wholly inaccurate and go nowhere to foster an open and productive dialogue.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Reformed folks are a bold bunch and usually don't subscribe to the PC way of thinking.

 

[Iosias]

Reformed folks are a bold bunch and usually don't subscribe to the PC way of thinking.

In my experience Reformed Christians are respectful of the opinions of others and exhibit a gracious and welcoming attitude, being well-versed in good manners.

 

[JM]

An Arminian heart is at the center of Dispensationalism.

Reformed folks are a bold bunch and usually don't subscribe to the PC way of thinking.

I agree with both statements. Neither Luther or Calvin would shrink from defending the faith and sometimes they could be vicious...especially with those who will not accept correction.

That stated we should keep in mind at the center of every man is a sinful heart.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Iosias]

Dr. Thomas Ice has written a helpful article in which he notes:

If systematic Dispensationalism is rightly understood it logically makes sense only within a theocentric and soteriologically Calvinists theology. Dispensationalism teaches that it is GOD who is ruling His household, as administered through the various dispensations of history. Though Dispensationalism, or elements of Dispensationalism have been disseminated throughout a wide diversity of Protestant traditions, this system of theology is best seen as a system of theology that views God as the Sovereign ruler of heaven and earth; man as a rebellious vice-regent (along with some angels); Jesus Christ is the hero of history as He is saves some by His Grace; history as a lesson in the outworking of God’s glory being displayed to both heaven and earth. In essence, Dispensationalism is a theology properly derived from biblical study and lets God be God.

From "The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AmericanSamurai

An Arminian heart is at the center of Dispensationalism.
​

Such statements are wholly inaccurate and go nowhere to foster an open and productive dialogue.

In what way is that inaccurate?



.

 

[Iosias]

In what way is that inaccurate?

For a start Arminianism is primarily a soteriological system whereas dispensationalism is an eschatological hermeneutic. Also, to say that dispensationalism is Arminian is to ignore its Calvinist heritage.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I agree with both statements. Neither Luther or Calvin would shrink from defending the faith and sometimes they could be vicious...especially with those who will not accept correction.

Speaking of Reformers, check out this recommendation: Amazon.com: Theology of the Reformers eBook: Timothy George: Kindle Store

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

For a start Arminianism is primarily a soteriological system whereas dispensationalism is an eschatological hermeneutic.

I would almost agree except that there are soteriological points of contact in most if not all other categories of systematic theology. For example, infant baptism makes no sense according to an Arminian hermeneutic.

Also, to say that dispensationalism is Arminian is to ignore its Calvinist heritage.

I believe that is overstating the case, just a wee bit of exaggeration.