Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism

[5stringJeff]

Greetings,

Can someone please explain the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism? To someone who has studied neither (i.e. me), they look to be very similar theories.

Thanks!
Jeff

 

[Ebb]

Briefly stated, Covenant Theology emphasizes the unity of the scriptures and sees one people of God and one plan of salvation for all, in contrast to Dispensationalism which sees a dichatomy, or permanent division, between the Church and Israel as two separate peoples of God, and divides the scriptures into 7 dispensations in which God deals with people in different ways.

 

[Antman_05]

Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Ones right and ones wrong in that order ,

Alot of the difference has to do with the people of Isreal and Church and its place regards to Isreal, some of it flows of to end times.

The truth is you can take the extreme of either as then you be come wrong either way, personally i hold to most of if not all covenant theology, but there are parts of Dispensationalism which i fit in around covenant theology.

 

[msortwell]

Covenant Theology has a high view of the unity in God's purpose in human redemption. It is called "covenant" theology not because of an emphasis on the Biblical/historical covenants as such but on certain theological covenants -- the covenant of works (Gen 2:16,17), the covenant of redemption (a necessary precursor to Gen 3:15), and the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is essentially the promise made in Gen 3:15 of the coming deliverer, and all of history is viewed as a progressive unfolding of this covenant. Thus, the New Covenant, in Covenant Theology, is not understood as a new covenant actually; it is rather a new administration (or dispensation) of the covenant of grace, as was the Mosaic Covenant before it. One covenant with various administrations is the essence of Covenant Theology on this point. Therefore, the Old Covenant is seen as an essentially gracious covenant, not a legal one. Further, with this emphasis on the unity of God's purpose there is a strong tendency in Covenant Theology to carry over the old order into the new: the church is the “Israel of God,” the law of circumcision in the Old Covenant is intimately linked to the baptism of the New Covenant.

Dispensational Theology emphasizes rather the various differences in God's dealings with men. A "dispensation" has to do with the various administrations of Divine truth. With new revelation come new responsibilities and/or privileges. This change results in a new "economy" or dispensation. With this emphasis on the various changes in God's program, Dispensationalism sees more emphasis upon the differences between the old and new economies or dispensations. For the (traditional) dispensationalist, there are two separate peoples of God running through all history and even eternity (National Israel and the New Testament Church), law is a thing of the past and largely irrelevant to the New Covenant believer, and so on.

Blessings,

msortwell

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Ones right and ones wrong in that order ,
.

LOL.

How right you are bro.

 

[msortwell]

In addition to the differences in perspective between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theology adherents that I previously described, I think it is reasonable to say that most Calvinists are Covenant Theology adherents, while comparably few Dispensationalists are not “full (5-point) Calvinists.” At least that has been my experience.

Why is that? What is it about a Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) that generally seems to lead one to a CT position? Is there a bona fide theological link between these elements of theology or is it simply a matter of tradition?

Mike

 

[Knee V]

In addition to the differences in perspective between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theology adherents that I previously described, I think it is reasonable to say that most Calvinists are Covenant Theology adherents, while comparably few Dispensationalists are not “full (5-point) Calvinists.” At least that has been my experience.

Why is that? What is it about a Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) that generally seems to lead one to a CT position? Is there a bona fide theological link between these elements of theology or is it simply a matter of tradition?

Mike

I don't believe there is that bona fide link. Actually, I'd say that I KNOW there's not. Dispensationalism is rejected by not only the Calvinists, but by the Catholics and the Orthodox as well. And with the exception of some Augustinian/Thomistic strains in the RCC, all of our soteriological theologies are pretty different (the Calvinist's soteriology being different from the RCC's being different from the EOC's). Yet we all have the same belief that there is but one people of God throughout all time, with Christ being the true seed of Abraham, fulfilling all that came before Him.

I'll agree that within protestantism, it is the Reformed camp that probably claims most of the adherants to CT. But within the realm of Christendom as a whole, they are a small percentage of those who adhere to CT.

So to answer the question, it is not a bona fide link, but a matter of tradition, or some other factor.

 

[msortwell]

Knee-v,

Good point. It is certainly true that my "default" frame of reference is within the protestant camp. But I still suspect that there is a strong link (beyond tradition) between a Sovereign Grace view and CT (or maybe its more of a tension between a Dispensational view and a Calvinistic view). While it is true that there are Calvinistic dispensationalists, they are relatively rare within the dispensational camp. I myself moved from a largely arminian soteriology (as an Indepenedent Fundamental Baptist) to a Reformed Baptist (CTer) view and I had no traditions directly influencing that transition. But (relative to "traditions) one thing I learned during that transition was that there were many things that I had held as biblical truth because I believed I "had seen it in the Sciptures." But what I learned was that occasionally what I "saw" was strongly influenced by the teacher's view.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Antman_05]

Covenant Theology has a high view of the unity in God's purpose in human redemption. It is called "covenant" theology not because of an emphasis on the Biblical/historical covenants as such but on certain theological covenants -- the covenant of works (Gen 2:16,17), the covenant of redemption (a necessary precursor to Gen 3:15), and the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is essentially the promise made in Gen 3:15 of the coming deliverer, and all of history is viewed as a progressive unfolding of this covenant. Thus, the New Covenant, in Covenant Theology, is not understood as a new covenant actually; it is rather a new administration (or dispensation) of the covenant of grace, as was the Mosaic Covenant before it. One covenant with various administrations is the essence of Covenant Theology on this point. Therefore, the Old Covenant is seen as an essentially gracious covenant, not a legal one. Further, with this emphasis on the unity of God's purpose there is a strong tendency in Covenant Theology to carry over the old order into the new: the church is the “Israel of God,” the law of circumcision in the Old Covenant is intimately linked to the baptism of the New Covenant.

Dispensational Theology emphasizes rather the various differences in God's dealings with men. A "dispensation" has to do with the various administrations of Divine truth. With new revelation come new responsibilities and/or privileges. This change results in a new "economy" or dispensation. With this emphasis on the various changes in God's program, Dispensationalism sees more emphasis upon the differences between the old and new economies or dispensations. For the (traditional) dispensationalist, there are two separate peoples of God running through all history and even eternity (National Israel and the New Testament Church), law is a thing of the past and largely irrelevant to the New Covenant believer, and so on.

Blessings,

msortwell

This your own work or did you copy/past this from some wear or retype it ??

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

In addition to the differences in perspective between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theology adherents that I previously described, I think it is reasonable to say that most Calvinists are Covenant Theology adherents, while comparably few Dispensationalists are not “full (5-point) Calvinists.” At least that has been my experience.

Why is that? What is it about a Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) that generally seems to lead one to a CT position? Is there a bona fide theological link between these elements of theology or is it simply a matter of tradition?

Mike

Most 5 Pointers understand from Scripture that God purposed to save one people, the Elect, and that the Elect are not distinct from Israel. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, subdivide the One people into two distinct groups, Israel and the Church. One with an earthly kingdom to come, the Jews, and the other with a heavenly kingdom to come, the Church.

That is probably the biggest reason very few 5 Pointers are dispensationalists.

 

[5stringJeff]

Thank you for your replies. I had never really considered that area of theology before.

 

[msortwell]

This your own work or did you copy/past this from some wear or retype it ??

This started with someone else's work. The original work was "A Brief Explanation of 'New Covenant Theology'" by Fred G. Zaspel. It was not identified as copywritten material although I may have been more wise to give him the credit in the post. The complete work can be found on line. It seemed to provide a concise, high level, description of each school of thought. It is good that you asked.

However, if you have any misgivings regarding any specific positions within it don't immediately blame Mr. Zaspel. You would have to compare the two. I made some adjustments, feeling compelled to clarify / adjust a few points.

Blessings,

msortwell

 

[ddub85]

@ AWC

Most 5 Pointers understand from Scripture that God purposed to save one people, the Elect, and that the Elect are not distinct from Israel.

The "elect"? Wouldn't the elect just be whomever God elected? Wouldn't "elect" just be generic for all (Jew, Gentile, ...), who were elected? You seem to be saying that the "elect" are Israel. Is that a correct assessment of what you're saying?

God Bless!

 

[msortwell]

@ AWC


The "elect"? Wouldn't the elect just be whomever God elected? Wouldn't "elect" just be generic for all (Jew, Gentile, ...), who were elected? You seem to be saying that the "elect" are Israel. Is that a correct assessment of what you're saying?

God Bless!

Correct me if I'm wrong AWC but . . .

I believe that what my brother is saying is that the elect includes both the Old Testament and New Testament saints.

Mike

 

[Knee V]

I myself moved from a largely arminian soteriology (as an Indepenedent Fundamental Baptist) to a Reformed Baptist (CTer) view and I had no traditions directly influencing that transition.

I had a very similar transition, from a non-denom arminian church to a Reformed Church (PCA). Part of what helped make that transition easier was my belief that the Church was the "Israel of God". I was raised at arminian/dispy churches till I was 17, but I had always thought that Paul made it pretty clear that there are not 2 peoples, but one, the true Israel. The "5-point" stuff took me another year or so to swallow.

 

[Knee V]

Correct me if I'm wrong AWC but . . .

I believe that what my brother is saying is that the elect includes both the Old Testament and New Testament saints.

Mike

I agree with that as well.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

@ AWC


The "elect"? Wouldn't the elect just be whomever God elected? Wouldn't "elect" just be generic for all (Jew, Gentile, ...), who were elected? You seem to be saying that the "elect" are Israel. Is that a correct assessment of what you're saying?

God Bless!

That is what I am saying, the Elect are all those who are in Christ whether OT or NT, with no distinction of race, color, sex, etc.

My comment that 5 Pointers realize there is one people God has purposed to save and is not distinct from Israel, is directed to the dispensationalist's false ideas that God has purposed to save two distinct peoples, the Church composed of Gentiles and Jewish Israel.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Correct me if I'm wrong AWC but . . .

I believe that what my brother is saying is that the elect includes both the Old Testament and New Testament saints.

Mike

You are correct.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The "5-point" stuff took me another year or so to swallow.

WOW, coming from an arminian dispensational setting and it only took you a year to come to grips with the 5 Points?

Dude, you done real good. Most coming from that background take years.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

I'll agree that within protestantism, it is the Reformed camp that probably claims most of the adherants to CT. But within the realm of Christendom as a whole, they are a small percentage of those who adhere to CT.

That is for the most part true, though Anglicans represent a good number who adhere to CT.