Covenant vs. Dispensation

[bleechers]

Dispensation theology denies that the death of Christ has completely done away with the types and shadows of the OT,

Romans 3
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Romans 3
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.


Really? The primary reason given for infant baptism by prominent Covenant theologians (RC Sproul, etc) is that it is the NT equivalent of circumcision. You will also see far more OT garb and leftovers in the covenant churches because they teach replacement theology.

The covenant theologians teach that babies are brought into some mystical union and covenant with God by baptism. They are part of the "Christian family" (although they must declare their own faith at another ritual called "confirmation" or similar).

The Law itself is a shadow, yet you see far more of the Law in covenant churches than in the most dispensational churches. This is bound to happen when you teach that Israel = church. For dispensationalists, we believe that the Law was given to Israel. It couldn't save them and has no claim on the church or on Christians. It is but a shadow.

The sacrifices in the millenium temple will not be for the remission of sin. They will be as a remembrance feast for Israel. Today, in the church age, our remembrance feast is the Lord's Supper. We would never confuse the Lord's Supper with the actual sacrifice of Christ, yet the covenant theologians who teach "consubstantiation" do.

Look at the Plymouth Brethren groups: no garb, no "holy days", no "church calendar", no "symbols", no priest-class, no "church" buildings, no "Sabbaths", no infant baptism or christenings or even dedications... etc.

Since dispenational theology teaches the clear distinction between the church and Israel, there is far less of a danger of Jewish "shadows" being introduced into the church than there is from theologians who believe that the church is Israel (see: Infant baptism).

 

[BT]

Well said, as usual, bleechers!

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

The greatest weakness that I see in dispensationalism is that it limits the grace of Christ to a limited time period, the "Church Age" (the past 2000 years), whereas Covenant Theology correctly spreads the same grace of Christ, Who is the Alpha and Omega, over all time, from the beginning to the end.

God decides who is saved thus he give grace to who He decided to give it too..

Church age as God's word says gets to be with Him

as for the Law Jews get the earth ...Still grace

Salvation has always been by Christ alone, even in Old Testament times. The means of grace in the Old Testament, such as animal sacrifices, the obedience of Abraham, and the building of Noah's ark, were a foreshadow of Christ to come. The Old Testament saints' faith was accounted to them for righteousness.

Jesus said I am the way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me. This was and is true for both Old and New Testament saints.

At the last judgement, there is only one book that matters (not seven), that is the Book of Life.

what?

 

[BT]

I think he's a bit confused and possibly referring to the usually accepted 7 dispensations... I could be wrong though and he could be talking about some other 7 books or something...

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

No longer considering myself Baptist, I realise that I am not to debate this issue. I must say, however, that terminology seems to be a bit confusing here.

Prior to attending a Presbyterian church, I had never heard the term dispensation or covenant theology (gotta love the lack of teaching at my old Southern Baptist church!). Our minister started out Baptist but is now an ordained PCA minister. In his sermons, I have understood covenant theology to be the following.

Christ died for both New Testiment saints and Old Testiment saints. God declared his intention to redeem His fallen creation in Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [4] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Old Testiment saints looked forward to the comming of Christ. One of the references I have seen is in the Psalms but I cannot remember where. God continued to reveal His plan through convenants.

1. Noadic covenant
2. Abrahamic covenant.
3. Mosiac covenant.
4. Davidic covenant.
5. The Covenant of Grace (Christ).

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. From glancing through many of these posts, my understanding of covenant theology seems to mix with other people's beliefs of dispensationalism.

Just my two cents.

 

[BT]

No longer considering myself Baptist, I realise that I am not to debate this issue. I must say, however, that terminology seems to be a bit confusing here.

Prior to attending a Presbyterian church, I had never heard the term dispensation or covenant theology (gotta love the lack of teaching at my old Southern Baptist church!). Our minister started out Baptist but is now an ordained PCA minister. In his sermons, I have understood covenant theology to be the following.

Christ died for both New Testiment saints and Old Testiment saints. God declared his intention to redeem His fallen creation in Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [4] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Old Testiment saints looked forward to the comming of Christ. One of the references I have seen is in the Psalms but I cannot remember where. God continued to reveal His plan through convenants.

1. Noadid covenant
2. Abrahamic covenant.
3. Mosiac covenant.
4. Davidic covenant.
5. The Covenant of Grace (Christ).

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. From glancing through many of these posts, my understanding of covenant theology seems to mix with other people's beliefs of dispensationalism.

Just my two cents.

No you aren't too far off. One charge that is often given to dispensationalists is that we do not accept the covenants of the Bible as in the covenants given to Noah and Moses and Abraham etc. This is not true. We don't discount those covenants...those are part of the Bible which we wholly accept. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation... it's not like we delete any covenant of the Bible (which I'm not implying you were saying).

But you hit the nail on the head...with this

Old Testiment saints looked forward to the comming of Christ. One of the references I have seen is in the Psalms but I cannot remember where. God continued to reveal His plan through convenants.

This is the difference... ^

And this ...

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision.

That also goes somewhat with convenant theology ^

Yeah you're not too far off Wil.

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

No you aren't too far off. One charge that is often given to dispensationalists is that we do not accept the covenants of the Bible as in the covenants given to Noah and Moses and Abraham etc. This is not true. We don't discount those covenants...those are part of the Bible which we wholly accept. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation... it's not like we delete any covenant of the Bible (which I'm not implying you were saying).

But you hit the nail on the head...with this

This is the difference... ^

And this ...
That also goes somewhat with convenant theology ^

Yeah you're not too far off Wil.

I'm not trying to debate this, but to understand the dispensatinal system better, I must ask for a reply to this question (its probably buried in a previous post but I'm too busy/lazy to look for it). If Old Testiment saints were not putting their faith/looking forward to Christ, then how were they saved? My interpretation of Hebrews seems to rule out the sacrificial system.

As to infant baptism, a reformed baptist brother and I have both acknowledged that there are holes in both of our beliefs on this issue. Personally, I am convinced of it enough to accept it, but never to push it on another.

 

[bleechers]

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. From glancing through many of these posts, my understanding of covenant theology seems to mix with other people's beliefs of dispensationalism.

I never said they were circumsized... but you make my point: this doctrine that you have noted (infant baptism) is built upon an OT doctrine that Paul discards rather vehemently for the church. There is no equivalent given.

If an outward circumcision amounted to absolutely nothing in terms of either covenant or salvation when it came to grace, how on earth could a doctrine that is not even taught in the NT (infant baptism) profit anyone? Circumcision profits nothing. Infant baptism profits nothing.

In this thread, dispensationalists have twice been accused of bringing the OT into the NT church, when the exact opposite is true!

Do you want to bring infants into the Old Covenant?

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Do you want to put Christians back under the Law?

Romans 2
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


Circumcision amounts to nothing. Infant baptism amounts to nothing. At least circumcision is taught to Israel. The doctrine of infant baptism is foreign to the scriptiures.

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


I've got 4 kids. It's safe to say none of them believed with all his heart as an infant.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I no longer debate this issue. I have reached by view based on reading Scripture and books from both camps. I used to be dispensationalist. I can no longer accept that view in light of my research. I see covenantal theology to be closer to the teachings of Scripture, but don't fully agree with it either. I will not debate it, though, as such debates cause more heat than light.

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I never said they were circumsized... but you make my point: this doctrine that you have noted (infant baptism) is built upon an OT doctrine that Paul discards rather vehemently for the church. There is no equivalent given.

If an outward circumcision amounted to absolutely nothing in terms of either covenant or salvation when it came to grace, how on earth could a doctrine that is not even taught in the NT (infant baptism) profit anyone? Circumcision profits nothing. Infant baptism profits nothing.

In this thread, dispensationalists have twice been accused of bringing the OT into the NT church, when the exact opposite is true!

Do you want to bring infants into the Old Covenant?

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Do you want to put Christians back under the Law?

Romans 2
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


Circumcision amounts to nothing. Infant baptism amounts to nothing. At least circumcision is taught to Israel. The doctrine of infant baptism is foreign to the scriptiures.

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


I've got 4 kids. It's safe to say none of them believed with all his heart as an infant.

A perfectly good question. Like I have said, I am not big on debating this issue because I believe it to be of second importance. But if you wish, I will answer these questions.... later, I've got to go tour a few buildings for work....

 

[BT]

If Old Testiment saints were not putting their faith/looking forward to Christ, then how were they saved? My interpretation of Hebrews seems to rule out the sacrificial system.

That's an excellent, and common question. The answer. Read Leviticus. Though may I add that the OT saints were not saved per say. They were counted righteous right. However without the shed blood of Christ they could not be saved. So anyway to answer the question.. Read Leviticus and then study "Abraham's Bosom" aka Paradise....

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

That's an excellent, and common question. The answer. Read Leviticus. Though may I add that the OT saints were not saved per say. They were counted righteous right. However without the shed blood of Christ they could not be saved. So anyway to answer the question.. Read Leviticus and then study "Abraham's Bosom" aka Paradise....

Okay, I kind of see where you are going with this. Romans 4:5, Abraham believed, and it was counted unto him as righteousness. Basically, righteousness was imputed to Abraham, as with all believers, due to faith (which as I Calvinist I credit God with). So Abraham's bosom is kind of a holding room for the righteous of God until the final sacrifice, our risen saviour, came to Earth. At that point, the old testiment saved are transported to Heaven. My next question is what exacltly did Abraham believe? He believed the promise of God. Was it only God's promise of covenant, or was it the belief in the promise of the messiah as laid out in Genesis 3:15?

I am by no means knowledgeable in this area and I really appreciate the kind and curtious manner in which my quetsions are being answered!

 

[Ebb]

what?

I was referring to the "7 (for some it is less) dispensations" (or 7 "mini-covenants", as one poster has put it), versus the one "covenant of grace" of Covenant Theology.

 

[BT]

Okay, I kind of see where you are going with this. Romans 4:5, Abraham believed, and it was counted unto him as righteousness. Basically, righteousness was imputed to Abraham, as with all believers, due to faith (which as I Calvinist I credit God with). So Abraham's bosom is kind of a holding room for the righteous of God until the final sacrifice, our risen saviour, came to Earth. At that point, the old testiment saved are transported to Heaven. My next question is what exacltly did Abraham believe? He believed the promise of God. Was it only God's promise of covenant, or was it the belief in the promise of the messiah as laid out in Genesis 3:15?

I am by no means knowledgeable in this area and I really appreciate the kind and curtious manner in which my quetsions are being answered!

Abraham believed in exactly what God had told him (the extent of the revelation at that time). Abraham's bosom is where Christ went after He died.. he went there and led captivity free.... recall: after He had risen he said to the women "Touch me not for I have not ascended to the father yet" (John 20:17) So he went to where David and the rest of the OT saints were waiting, known as paradise, and or Abraham's bosom.

Each dispensation has an amount of revelation and responsibility, as the revelation progressed the responsibility changed.... I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not..

 

[FreeinChrist]

Abraham believed in exactly what God had told him (the extent of the revelation at that time). Abraham's bosom is where Christ went after He died.. he went there and led captivity free.... recall: after He had risen he said to the women "Touch me not for I have not ascended to the father yet" (John 20:17) So he went to where David and the rest of the OT saints were waiting, known as paradise, and or Abraham's bosom.

Each dispensation has an amount of revelation and responsibility, as the revelation progressed the responsibility changed.... I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not..

Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, {saying,} "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is {only} a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I beleive that Abraham had faith that God would keep His promise of a future Seed, that would come through his own seed, which was Issac. That is why he was accounted righteous...he had faith.

 

[BT]

Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, {saying,} "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is {only} a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I beleive that Abraham had faith that God would keep His promise of a future Seed, that would come through his own seed, which was Issac. That is why he was accounted righteous...he had faith.

You are absolutely right my friend! Abraham believed God! Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise! But you've quite missed the point of Galations 3. Paul is explaining this for probably the first time! They didn't understand, you see, this was a mystery. Abraham believed God and believed the promise of God, but he didn't understand what God was saying. Remember Abraham didn't have all of the information that we have. I know that this can be hard to understand, but let me give you another example from the life of Abraham.

Ok, follow this, because it's important.

Abraham is walking up the mountain with his son Isaac. He tells Isaac we're going to make a sacrifice right? So then Isaac asks him where is the animal. Now Abraham gives a prophecy with far reaching implications that were not understood through the ages until the events of the book of Matthew. He says:

Genesis 22:8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

Ok... so the story goes on and at this time God provides a ram...they sacrifice it and life goes on..... ok so now skip to the events of Matthew... We've got John the Baptist ok? He's dunkin people in the river. Jesus comes strolling up and John says (something he didn't even understand...we'll come back to this later).. so John says:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Now we read this and it makes perfect sense. But, this is the key, the important thing to realize is that The people who said these things did not understand what they were saying at the time. We all know how Peter told Jesus (paraphrase).. "No way you're going to die, don't say these things" in fact the Bible says that Peter "rebuked" Him. Ack!

The Jews even at the time of the events of the Gospel did not understand that the Christ had to die!! How in the world could Abraham know that and believe on the Christ in this way!!?! It's impossible....

As I said John the Baptist (who was a prophet) didn't understand the "lamb of God" we see this because he later asked Jesus:

Luke 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

Pretty coool

 

[bleechers]

Excellent post, BT... and done in a very gentle way!

 

[FreeinChrist]

You are absolutely right my friend! Abraham believed God! Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise! But you've quite missed the point of Galations 3. Paul is explaining this for probably the first time! They didn't understand, you see, this was a mystery. Abraham believed God and believed the promise of God, but he didn't understand what God was saying. Remember Abraham didn't have all of the information that we have. I know that this can be hard to understand, but let me give you another example from the life of Abraham.

Ok, follow this, because it's important.

Abraham is walking up the mountain with his son Isaac. He tells Isaac we're going to make a sacrifice right? So then Isaac asks him where is the animal. Now Abraham gives a prophecy with far reaching implications that were not understood through the ages until the events of the book of Matthew. He says:

Genesis 22:8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

Ok... so the story goes on and at this time God provides a ram...they sacrifice it and life goes on..... ok so now skip to the events of Matthew... We've got John the Baptist ok? He's dunkin people in the river. Jesus comes strolling up and John says (something he didn't even understand...we'll come back to this later).. so John says:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Now we read this and it makes perfect sense. But, this is the key, the important thing to realize is that The people who said these things did not understand what they were saying at the time. We all know how Peter told Jesus (paraphrase).. "No way you're going to die, don't say these things" in fact the Bible says that Peter "rebuked" Him. Ack!

The Jews even at the time of the events of the Gospel did not understand that the Christ had to die!! How in the world could Abraham know that and believe on the Christ in this way!!?! It's impossible....

As I said John the Baptist (who was a prophet) didn't understand the "lamb of God" we see this because he later asked Jesus:

Luke 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

Pretty coool

No. I disagree. I beleive Abraham knew and had faith, and that is what Paul is expressing...and that the promise of the seed was given in Genesis 3:15 - and known.

In regards to Issac:


Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten {son;}
Hbr 11:18 {it was he} to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
Hbr 11:19 He considered that God is able to raise {people} even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.


Paul wrote that the gospel was preached to Abraham ahead of time...Abraham would have known of the promise of the seed (Genesis 3:15), Abraham had faith that if he sacrificed Issac, God woud raise him up because God promised that he would be the father of nations through Issac.

So I would say that the OT saints were saved by grace through faith in a future Messiah (seed) but that salvation was not realized until the death and resurrection of Christ:

Hbr 11:39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,

Hbr 11:40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

And don't forget that Abraham met Melchizedek (Genesis 14) before receiving the promise of a son (Genesis 15). consider that melchizedek was an example of Christophany in scripture:

Hbr 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

Hbr 7:2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all {the spoils,} was first of all, by the translation {of his name,} king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

Hbr 7:4 Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek - a priest king who Abraham met at Salem the future site of Jerusalem, and the king of righteousness and king of peace.

Hbr 7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

Hbr 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

just fillin' in some blanks above....


Galatians 3:9-3:15:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations:

even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.


Galatians 3:17: What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

in agreement, FreeInChrist.

and i believe that Jews today still believe the promise of Messiah (promised in the Torah) and are awaiting Him(they just dont believe Jesus is Him).