Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,724.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Contra Johnny Mac: Against Dispensationalism | For the Love of His Truth

Quote:

Prominent teacher John F. MacArthur, Jr., president of The Master’s Seminary, is quoted “That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God’s promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)”. MacArthur further states that this literal system got more and more compounded in time as distinctions arose between: a) Israel and the church, b) the new covenant for the Church and the new covenant for Israel, c) the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, d) the teaching of Jesus between what he said for the church and the millennial age, e) some books in the New Testament are for Jews and some for the church, etc. MacArthur doesn’t believe in distinctions c) – e). He asks for Biblical proof that the Israel is the church. (Source: Grace Church 70-16 tape, reported by Middletown Bible church.org.)

Several assumptions of the different system are presented and discussed. These assumptions come about from a literalistic interpretation of the scriptures and not from an a-priori theological overview. These assumptions are:

  • Assumption 1. There is a strong dichotomy between spiritual Israel and the church.
  • Assumption 2. The church age was an absolute mystery in the Old Testament.

  • Assumption 3. Because physical Israel, physical gentiles, and the church are kept separate in scripture they cannot be the same.
  • Assumption 4. The new covenant of Je 31 is for Israel in a Jewish millennium, not for the New Testament church in the church age.
  • Assumption 5. None of Gods people who died before Pentecost can be in the church universal.

  • Assumption 6. There is a ”parenthesis” or significant time gap in the Jewish kingdom program prophesied in the Old Testament.{end quote}
 
Upvote 0

intojoy

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,612
54
✟2,069.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schofield - Schafer - Ryrie - Fruchtenbaum -

I'd say frucht deals with this the best. The first 680 pages of this 1200 page book deals with every possible assumption made by Covenant Theologians.
 

Attachments

  • image-3716848847.jpg
    image-3716848847.jpg
    47.6 KB · Views: 53
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,724.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others

At the very least intojoy, you have to admit, the church receives the promises made to covenanted Israel? I know some Messianics believe in a double covenant theory, where the church is a mystery and saved by some unknown covenant, but most have abandoned this idea.

Christ is the seed of Abraham. Easy enough.

All in Christ are new creations, no ethnicity remains, neither Jew nor Greek. Pretty simple so far.

Christ is our Canaan rest, our sabbath, we find rest in Him alone. :thumbsup:

We are the Temple of God.

The church receives the covenant promises to Israel made in Jer. 31, the church is the fulfillment of Israel.

jm
 
Upvote 0

intojoy

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,612
54
✟2,069.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
JM said:
At the very least intojoy, you have to admit, the church receives the promises made to covenanted Israel? I know some Messianics believe in a double covenant theory, where the church is a mystery and saved by some unknown covenant, but most have abandoned this idea.

Christ is the seed of Abraham. Easy enough.

All in Christ are new creations, no ethnicity remains, neither Jew nor Greek. Pretty simple so far.

Christ is our Canaan rest, our sabbath, we find rest in Him alone. :thumbsup:

We are the Temple of God.

The church receives the covenant promises to Israel made in Jer. 31, the church is the fulfillment of Israel.

jm

The false view is that Gentiles, when they become believers in the Messiah, become "spiritual Jews." Another false view is that when a Jew and a Gentile become believers in the Messiah, all distinctions between the two are erased. The Gentile loses his "Gentilism," to coin a word, and the Jew his Jewishness, for there is no difference between the two whatsoever. Before the basis of the Messianic Jewish distinctive can be fully understood, we first need to deal with these two false views.

1. Gentile Believers Are Spiritual Jews The first false view is that Gentiles become "spiritual Jews" upon believing in the Messiah. Logically, if believing Jews are spiritual Jews and believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews, then in the Christian realm there are no distinctions, since all are spiritual Jews. Yet the Bible presents no such picture.

a. The Meaning of Spirituality Perhaps the greatest problem with the term spiritual Jew is its use of the word "spiritual" to indicate some kind of national or racial transformation of the Gentile to a Jew. However, the Bible never uses the word "spiritual" in this sense.

What is spirituality? Spirituality involves three things: first, regeneration, second, the Holy Spirit, and third, time. This means that spirituality only involves the believer; it is produced by the Holy Spirit who brings the believer into a mature relationship with God; and, obviously, this takes time. As Dr. Charles Ryrie states, "Spirituality is a grown-up relation to the Holy Spirit."

A spiritual person is a believer who is under the control of the Holy Spirit. It is nothing more than that. So, if a Gentile is under the Spirit's control, he is a "spiritual Gentile." Likewise, a Jew who is under the Spirit's control is a "spiritual Jew." There is no crossing of national lines; a Gentile remains a Gentile, and a Jew remains a Jew. Their spirituality is based on their relationship to the Holy Spirit.

But some will argue that all this is mere semantics and will use certain Bible texts to show that in some way Gentiles become Jews, whether by spiritual transformation or by some other mystical act. One of these passages is Galatians 3:6-9: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham. Thus, if Gentile believers become "the children of Abraham by faith," does that not make them spiritual Jews? Not at all! Even in the physical realm, not all the children of Abraham are Jews. Arabs are as much the descendants of Abraham as Jews, but in no way can they be classified as Jews. What is true of the physical realm is also true of the spiritual realm; being children of Abraham by faith is not enough to make one a Jew.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage? To begin with, it should be noted that the context is concerned with the question of whether salvation is by works or by faith. The Hebrew term for "children" or sons often has the meaning of "followers." The point is that Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of faith and not on that of works. The true followers of Abraham, then, are those who are considered righteous on the same basis as Abraham, who practiced faith rather than works to attain salvation. The Gentile Galatians were never said to become Jews, rather, children of Abraham. Being a child of Abraham is not enough to make one a Jew.

Another verse often used is Galatians 3:29: And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. Since Gentiles become part of "the seed of Abraham," does this not in some way make them spiritual Jews? Again, the answer is negative; there are members of the physical seed of Abraham who are not Jews. The same is true in the spiritual realm.

The meaning of this verse can best be understood if compared with Ephesians 2:11-13: Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

And Ephesians 3:6: to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

These Ephesians passages clarify what is meant by the Galatians statement of becoming heirs to the promises. It does not mean that Gentile believers become Jews in a mystical way, but rather that they become partakers in the blessings of the Jewish covenants and receive this privilege by faith. This act does not make them spiritual Jews, but spiritual Gentiles. Even by being partakers, they do not share in all the facets of the covenants but only in the spiritual blessings involved in them. Things such as inheritance of the Land and circumcision, among others, are not appropriated by believing Gentiles. These elements are exclusively for the Jew.

The third passage for this idea is Romans 2:28-29: For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Since a "true Jew" is someone who is so inwardly, does not a believing Gentile meet that standard and so, inwardly at least, become a Jew? But to say this of Romans 2:28-29 is to ignore the entire structure of the Book of Romans. The basic outline of the first three chapters is as follows: Salutation 1:1-7 Introduction 1:8-15 Theme 1:16-17 The World Under Condemnation: 1:18-3:30 Gentiles 1:18-2:16 Jews 2:17-3:20 Conclusion 3:21-30 The section in which Romans 2:28-29 is found is strictly a Jewish context; the Gentiles are nowhere in view, for Paul has finished with them in 2:16. This verse can be better understood if taken as the words of a believing Jew speaking to non-believing Jews. In doing so, he is using a play upon words. "Judaism" has the root meaning of praise. What this Messianic Jew is saying to non-Messianic Jews is that outward Judaism is not enough to make one righteous before God; this requires a "Judaism of God." The verse can be paraphrased: "Whose Judaism is not of men, but of God." The true Jews are those Jews who are so, both "outwardly" and "inwardly."
 
Upvote 0

intojoy

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,612
54
✟2,069.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
2. Male and Female Seven passages of Scripture show that all distinctions between male and female certainly have not been erased. Subjection is the keynote to them all, as seen in position and function.

I Corinthians 11:3-10 points out that the woman should keep her head covered in the assembly: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

In I Corinthians 14:34-35, women are forbidden to speak in the church. This is to the extent that if she has any questions at all, she is to seek answers from her husband at home: let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also says the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-25 points out the key idea of subjection: Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it.

In Colossians 3:18-19 we again have the idea of subjection. The husband is admonished to love his wife as the means of subjecting her. Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

In I Timothy 2:11-12, women are forbidden to teach men, for in so doing they are exercising authority and overstepping their place of subjection: Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
 
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

intojoy

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,612
54
✟2,069.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In Titus 2:1 and 3-5, the teaching of younger women to be in subjection to their own husbands is part of sound doctrine, and violation results in the word of God being blasphemed. Verse 1 states: But speak you the things which befit the sound doctrine. Verses 3-5 state: that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

I Peter 3:1 again points to subjection: In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives. Verse 7 states: Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.

Now if all distinctions between male and female are erased, there would be no need for all these separate rules and injunctions. Do these passages, then, contradict the others, which indicate no distinction between the male and female? Obviously not. Again, in the areas of membership in the Body of the Messiah, justification, and spiritual maturity , the formula is the same for both. There is not one way of salvation for the man and another for the woman. Spiritual maturity does not have separate systems, one for the male and another for the female. Both have entered the Body in the same way. But once in the Body, the man is still a man, and the woman is still a woman; and they differ in position and function.

To summarize, we have seen that the Bible does not support the idea of Gentiles becoming "spiritual Jews" when they believe. Rather, they are "spiritual Gentiles" when they are controlled by the Holy Spirit. Spiritual Jews are Jews who believe and who have a proper relationship to the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, the Bible does not say that all distinctions between Jew and Gentile are erased when they believe. While it is very true that the way is the same for both, this does not mean that all other distinctions have been eradicated as well, any more than all distinctions between bond and free, and male and female, have ceased to exist. The way of salvation, Body membership, and spiritual maturity is the same for both Jews and Gentiles, but in other areas, distinctions remain.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
intojoy, I understand your passion, but this particular section of the forum is reserved for Calvinists, it is not intended for debate with Calvinists. I am fine with responses from Calvinists whom are also dispensationalists, and questions from non-Calvinists are fine, but arguing and debating is not. There is a section within Semper for debate with Calvinists, and perhaps that would be more suitable for you. No I do not feel threatened by opposing views, I post in other places from time to time. I started the thread with learning intentions, and going off into details about Jews and Gentiles will bring me no closer to dispensationalism than a discussion about infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism would bring you to Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

intojoy

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,612
54
✟2,069.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Apologetic_Warrior said:
intojoy, I understand your passion, but this particular section of the forum is reserved for Calvinists, it is not intended for debate with Calvinists. I am fine with responses from Calvinists whom are also dispensationalists, and questions from non-Calvinists are fine, but arguing and debating is not. There is a section within Semper for debate with Calvinists, and perhaps that would be more suitable for you. No I do not feel threatened by opposing views, I post in other places from time to time. I started the thread with learning intentions, and going off into details about Jews and Gentiles will bring me no closer to dispensationalism than a discussion about infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism would bring you to Calvinism.

Thx I am Calvinist to four points only.
 
Upvote 0

Arete

Soli Deo Gloria
May 4, 2009
44
5
50
Alaska
Visit site
✟7,699.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
This may be too much nitpicking. If so, please forgive me.

Calvinism is summed up in 5 points. So to be a Calvinist is to affirm those 5 points. I just don't buy those who want to redefine this ancient and biblical doctrine by calling themselves "moderate Calvinists" or 3, 3 1/2, or 4 pointers. Be clear and be a Calvinist or be clear and be something else.

My 2 bits (m2b), YMMV
 
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

intojoy

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,612
54
✟2,069.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Arete said:
This may be too much nitpicking. If so, please forgive me.

Calvinism is summed up in 5 points. So to be a Calvinist is to affirm those 5 points. I just don't buy those who want to redefine this ancient and biblical doctrine by calling themselves "moderate Calvinists" or 3, 3 1/2, or 4 pointers. Be clear and be a Calvinist or be clear and be something else.

My 2 bits (m2b), YMMV

Out
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟18,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
:thumbsup: Brother Daniel, thank you for the great explanation above! Yes "the interpretive methods of the apostles should be normative for our understanding of the Old Testament". Could you explain further especially the first key difference above?

I wish I could give you a bunch of quotes, but I remember reading many different Dispensationalist books in my day. One, for example, by Fienberg, was quite literal when it came to Ezekiel's temple, clearly stating the necessity of re-establishing the bloody sacrifices in a millennial temple. Key to this, though, was the complete removal of the Church from earth during this period of time, since this would imply the New Covenant people going back to the "weak and beggarly elements". The whole doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture and the seventieth "week of Jacob's trouble" is predicated on the belief that the Church Age is a "parenthesis" between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel 9. The Church was a complete mystery in the Old Testament; only the blessings of Gentiles in their participation with Israel in the Millennial age was spoken of in Old Testament prophecy (for example, Isaiah 56).

Indeed, the whole position of the mid- or post-tribulation rapture Dispensationalists is questionable to "orthodox" Dispensationalists because it lessons the sharp distinction between the Church and Israel. Once the literal hermeneutic is adopted, one will find precious little that would suggest the Church as we understand it today in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Ironically, when I discovered this, initially I started questioning my faith rather than questioning my hermeneutic. A literalistic hermeneutic of the Old Testament will either result in becoming a Dispensationalist (and somehow giving a "pass" to New Testament authors for not following this hermeneutic and "misapplying" Scripture to the Church Age), or becoming a Karaite Jew (Rabbinical Jews have a decidedly non-literal hermeneutic.)

I remember some time ago hearing about John Hagee's view of Israel, that all of Israel will be saved, even apart from Christ, which surprised me (perhaps the source misunderstood him?), that any Christian would hold a belief like that, or could arrive to such a conclusion. How would a dispensationalist interpret:

Romans 9:6 "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." (NKJV)

It seems they must draw from other texts, but even so, I do not see them reconciling with the above. Seems to outright contradict Jesus when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." How do dispensationalists believe Old Testament Saints were saved? Sorry if my thoughts here come off as dense, I am feeling dense tonight.

The literature that I remember says it was faith, and that the dispensations were not means of salvation, but channels of grace. One was never "saved" by obedience to the Law of Moses, but one who trusted in the God who gave it was saved by virtue of that faith. But Hagee's comments are truly outside of the pale of Orthodoxy, because it suggests that one can knowingly reject Jesus and still be saved.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,724.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
intojoy, I understand your passion, but this particular section of the forum is reserved for Calvinists, it is not intended for debate with Calvinists. I am fine with responses from Calvinists whom are also dispensationalists, and questions from non-Calvinists are fine, but arguing and debating is not. There is a section within Semper for debate with Calvinists, and perhaps that would be more suitable for you. No I do not feel threatened by opposing views, I post in other places from time to time. I started the thread with learning intentions, and going off into details about Jews and Gentiles will bring me no closer to dispensationalism than a discussion about infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism would bring you to Calvinism.

Good of you to point that out brother. intojoy is a Christian brother but we disagree on what is fundamentally important to us; the sovereignty of God in all things.

The posts made by intojoy only point out the different designations of the people of God IN THE NEW COVENANT of GRACE.

The passages I alluded to and intojoy posted only make this more clear; in Christ we have different jobs to do on earth. In the body of Christ we have different roles as His people but spiritually, we are all united in Him, our federal head.

They do not teach there is a different prophetic plan for different people of God under the same (or two different covenants depending on which Dispensational system you are dealing with) covenant.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am saddened that the term "dispensation" is so connected solely with "dispensationalism". I believe God is a God of order and there's no inherent fault with believing that God is a Covenantial God as well as One who used dispensations to order time.

Just as the term "fundamentalist" used to represent a pretty solid Biblical view but now has changed into "fundamentalism" -- something that raises eyebrows (and for good reason), I find the same with dispensations and dispensationalism.

Perhaps it is all part of Satan's plan to keep the target moving and confuse new believers and caused angst with long-time believers?

Must be near the time of his demise. ;)
 
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