Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

[prov1810]

Dispensationalism gives people a false hope in Man, and is an easy set up for disappointment when the world is not "Christianized" in the last days as its proponents errantly predict.

Postmillennialism is the view that the world will be pervasively influenced by Christianity before Jesus returns. Dispensationalists are pre-millennial, and we believe that the Lord will return and establish the millennium himself. And, true to its Calvinist origins, dispensationalism has a rather pessimistic view of humanity. All the dispensations have human failure and divine judgment.

 

[RINO 72]

After Years of reading MacArthur I had become an accidental dispensationalist. The one thing that drove me crazy is the Ezekiel temple. The MacArthur study bible says about Ez 40:38-47 " Israel rejected their Messiah, but when they have received Him and are in His Kingdom, they will have a memorial of sacrifices that point to Him for 1000 years." That just doesn't seem to fit the Analogy of faith in any way. It was easy enough to take all the difficult passages in the OT and toss em into my millennial kingdom junk drawer but this temple just smelled like rot. Someone gave me a copy of Kim Riddlebargers book "A Case for Amillenialism" and I found that to be very helpful to understanding how the Apostles viewed the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

 

[RINO 72]

Calvin on chiliasm: “Not to mention that even in the days of Paul he began to assail it (1 Cor. 15), shortly after the Chiliasts arose, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. This fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation. Nor do they receive any countenance from the Apocalypse, from which it is known that they extracted a gloss for their error (Rev. 20:4), since the thousand years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but only to the various troubles which await the Church militant in this world.” Institutes 3.25.5

 

[Iosias]

Who were the Chiliasts Calvin mentions?

 

[AmericanSamurai]

'Chiliasts'? lol

 

[RINO 72]

I dig chili

 

[JM]

Rambling...

Riddlebarger points this out in his first lecture in a series found on his blog; a literal hermeneutic is just for show in Dispensationalism. Our hermeneutic principle should be 'the analogy of faith' or 'scripture interprets scripture' and not some artificial, semi-imposed literalness.

One example would be the '1,000 year reign of Christ.' The reign of Christ is not limited to 1,000 years.

Another would be the binding of Satan; if Rev. 20 is literal and the chain is literal how does a literal chain bound a spiritual being?

Are the locusts real, literal locusts or helicopters as Hal Lindsay suggested?

Another problem for me personally when studying this issue was Dan. 9. The language is clearly covenantal, it is the Messiah who is cut off, He is the one who makes the covenant. Dispensationalism teaches this covenant in Dan. 9:27 was made by Antichrist even when, literally speaking/using the analogy of faith, the one making the covenant throughout Dan. 9 was God.

Amil for example sees Christ in all of scripture. Christ fulfills the old covenant, Christ is the Temple, Christ is our Sabbath rest, Christ is the seed of Abraham and we in Christ receive the promises, etc. We look for nothing else in this life or the next except Jesus Christ.

Break times over,

jm

 

[prov1810]

Rambling...

Riddlebarger points this out in his first lecture in a series found on his blog; a literal hermeneutic is just for show in Dispensationalism. Our hermeneutic principle should be 'the analogy of faith' or 'scripture interprets scripture' and not some artificial, semi-imposed literalness.

One example would be the '1,000 year reign of Christ.' The reign of Christ is not limited to 1,000 years.

Another would be the binding of Satan; if Rev. 20 is literal and the chain is literal how does a literal chain bound a spiritual being?

1,000 years is the duration of the millennium. The reign of Christ isn't limited to the millennium.

Binding of Satan and other figures of speech: Biblical symbolism has been studied in a detailed and sophisticated way by Dispensational literalists. E. W. Bullinger published Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated in 1898. Here is an excerpt from Bullinger's The Apocalypse, or The Day of the Lord:

"There are chains that can bind flesh and blood; and there are chains that can bind spirits. We are asked, with a triumphant air: "Do you really believe Satan will be bound with an iron chain?" Our answer is, that there is not a word said about an "iron chain"! Our imagination and knowledge are so limited, that when God says "a great chain," we can think only of an "iron" chain, because the chains that we know of are mostly iron. But we are having great and wondrous facts and realities revealed to us here; and it behooves us to believe, where we cannot understand. It becomes us, as the recipients of such a revelation, to humbly receive it, and not to criticise it."

Amil for example sees Christ in all of scripture.

This does't make Amil unique. Spend some time in Dispensationalist commentaries and see for yourself. Just last week I was reading J. Vernon McGee where he sees nine similarities between the birth of Isaac and the birth of Christ.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

^So when Dispy's are questioned on whether their literal interpretation of scripture is truly literal, they vacillate into other explanations.

 

[prov1810]

^So when Dispy's are questioned on whether their literal interpretation of scripture is truly literal, they vacillate into other explanations.

Dispensationalists do not say that Scripture is devoid of symbols.

 

[JM]

Dispensationalists do not say that Scripture is devoid of symbols.

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?

This does't make Amil unique. Spend some time in Dispensationalist commentaries and see for yourself. Just last week I was reading J. Vernon McGee where he sees nine similarities between the birth of Isaac and the birth of Christ.

This assume I have not studied Dispensationalism. I own and have read Bullinger's Companion Bible, How to Enjoy the Bible, his commentary on Revelation and the Great Cloud of Witnesses. I have Chafer's Systematics, the old Scofield Bible, a bunch of self-published mid-Acts titles, Dispensationalism Today by Ryrie, etc. None of it makes sense since they all reject the analogy of faith for a false sense of literalism.

"If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject." Charles Hodge
​

DT ignores what the passages teaches to maintain a separation of 'earthly Israel' and the 'spiritual church.'

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[prov1810]

The OT prophecies about the birth of Christ were fulfilled literally (born of a virgin in Bethlehem, etc.). Dispensationalists are saying that the eternal, unconditional promises to Abraham and David will also be fulfilled literally. Covenantalists take the messianic prophecies literally and spiritualize the promises to Israel, even when they occur in the New Testament. So Dispensationalists say that they are consistently literal.

 

[JM]

The OT prophecies about the birth of Christ were fulfilled literally (born of a virgin in Bethlehem, etc.). Dispensationalists are saying that the eternal, unconditional promises to Abraham and David will also be fulfilled literally. Covenantalists take the messianic prophecies literally and spiritualize the promises to Israel, even when they occur in the New Testament.

So Dispensationalists say that they are consistently literal.

No, they are not. It just isn't true.

Consider Acts 15.16 where the church, the believers gathered are spoken of as the rebuilt Tabernacle of David...a reference to Amos 9. Why do you insert all kinds of events into the 1,000 year millennial reign when, if read literally, they do not exist?

The claim that DT is consistently literal just isn't true.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Iosias]

The OT prophecies about the birth of Christ were fulfilled literally

Not really, certain statement in the OT were re-read in the light of the Christ-event, they did not foretell Jesus.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

If dispensationalists were consistent they would all hold to transubstantiation.

 

[Keachian]

My main contention with dispensationalism is that it limits even in its most tame incarnation the fulfillment of prophecy through its unnatural and unheard of separation of the Church from Israel.

I have been asked to unpack this, and so here is a post in which I do.

In the presupposition of the separation of the Church and Israel, one must come to the conclusion that the Scriptures must be separated along these lines for true understanding. And so when we come to a book like the Acts of the Apostles where in its historical context the main point is to show continuity between Judaism and Christianity, Israel and the Church through the succession from the Priests/Pharisees to the Apostles/Church leaders we must deny this essential thrust for this book which is its apology to the claim that Christianity is merely a new cult and shouldn't have the benefits afforded to Judaism because of its antiquity.

We also run into problems where the New Testament authors (especially Paul, Peter and John) see Old Testament prophecy fulfilled by the Church (cf. Any allusion to Jer 31:31ff in the NT, any allusion to Abraham as the father of the faith) to get around this problem the Dispensationalist will generally hop around trying to find some way to apply this Scripture to Jews only. Notable examples of where this cannot be done include Rom 2:14-16, Eph 2, Hebrews 1-10 (In comparing Christ to Melchizedek the author essentially ties up the Princely figure and the Priestly figure in Ezekiel's eschaton and makes it apparent that he views the fulfillment of the same in Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice on the Cross) 1 Pe 2 (In which Peter talks about the believers being the Temple of God, an allusion again to Ezekiel's eschaton, this time it is quite apparent that there is no "third" temple)

The viewing of the New Covenant and ultimately the Church as a parenthesis in God's dealing with his "true" people ultimately denies the Unconditional Election of God's people, denies the Limited Atonement of the Cross, the Irresistable Grace that God shows his people and it leaves us open as has been suggested to flagrant heresies such as Open Theism.

 

[Keachian]

If dispensationalists were consistent they would all hold to transubstantiation.

If Dispensationalists were consistent they would hold to a lot more things than what they do, but in reality the only thing they are consistent on is that Church =/= Israel. Everything else must bow to that presupposition that cannot be found in Scripture.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Are there as many variations of Covenant Theology as there are Dispensationalism? Not trying to argue for or against one or the other, surely we recognize the shades of difference within Calvinism on certain aspects (single/double predest, infra/supra, credo/padeo etc.) , I am just curious.

 

[JM]

Are there as many variations of Covenant Theology as there are Dispensationalism? Not trying to argue for or against one or the other, surely we recognize the shades of difference within Calvinism on certain aspects (single/double predest, infra/supra, credo/padeo etc.) , I am just curious.

A lot less. Within Reformed theology you'll find brothers disagreeing on a few issues here and there but it isn't even close to the division in DT. Some DT proponents say the church started in Acts 2, others 9 or 12 and the most consistent will say 28. CT views the Bible through covenants and therefore sees one people of God, being saved by God, in unity. Some questions have been raised about the eternal covenant of redemption but even the great Dispensationalist Lewis S. Chafer agreed that the eternal covenant of redemption, made within the godhead outside of time, exists.

Lots to think about...follow your understanding of predestination and all will be well.

jm

 

[Keachian]

Are there as many variations of Covenant Theology as there are Dispensationalism? Not trying to argue for or against one or the other, surely we recognize the shades of difference within Calvinism on certain aspects (single/double predest, infra/supra, credo/padeo etc.) , I am just curious.

As JM has answered the differing views don't have as much animosity towards each other. I think the most significant disagreement in CT adherents is whether or not a Covenant is a pact between equals and then therefore whether or not God can make a true Covenant with his People.