Covenant vs. Dispensation

[Iosias]

Do you interpret the Bible using Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, or neither because you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Dispensationalist!

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Okay, finally have time to come back and respond. I'm going to switch some of the order to what I think is best.

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

Don't worry No reformed Christian would ever claim that their child believed on Christ as an infant.

My wife is pregnant with our first child and I've been assured by my reformed friends that I will never truly understand the doctrine of total depravity till I am the father of an infant. My understanding is that there are two crowds in the infant baptism group:

Roman Catholic doctrine states, I believe, that infant baptism takes away original sin and begins the journey towards salvation. Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine states that infant baptism is a seal of the convenat. That we as believing parents are pledging to raise the child in a Christian environment. Having been Baptist most of my life, I would liken this baptism to a baby dedication other than the water.

Coming from a Baptist perspective, I had a lot of questions concerning the whole idea of a covenant. I've heard the scriptures in support of them, which I will address below. Some of the intellectual arguments I've heard are as follows. Unbelieving children should not be considered members of church until they profess faith. Parents should not teach them to pray to God, or to Jesus or even teach them Bible stories until they profess faith. Granted, few parents do this, but this is perhaps what should be done. They should only be told that they are sinners who must believe on Christ and repent. However, by bringing them into God's everlasting covenant, parents can teach their children about God and how to pray to him.

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.

Agreed! Infant Baptism into God's covenant amounts to absolutely, positively nothing if the parents are unfaithful in their promise to raise the child in both church and a godly environment. Also, such a covenantal seal means nothing if, in spite of the diligence of the parents, God's electing grace is not present.

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.

As stated above, we don't advocate that infant baptism is anything more than a an introduction into the covenant. I would not say that the concept is foreign to the scriptures completely. There is neither a verse which specifically prohibits or commands such a baptism. However, there are verses that imply baptism on non-professing infants.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

We consider infant baptism to be God's promise of covenant to the children of believing parents.

Acts 16:15 And after she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33 And he [The Phillipian jailor] took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

Both of these verses speak of whole households being baptised. We are not necessarily told if all did or were old enough to make a profession of faith.

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.

This verse speaks of believers baptism. This verse does not command that only belivers may be baptised.

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

Well, thats my 2 cents worth!

 

[Ebb]

I wonder if you understand what progressive dispensation and hyperdispensation even are.

I am a classic dispensationist. I beleive God progressively revealed His plan of salvation.

I guess I was confused by the second quote, especially since I have just recently heard of these terms. I did some reading and classic dispensationalists are more in line with Scofield. Progressive dispensationalists, like the "revised" dispensationalists have addressed some of the soteriological problems of Scofield and are closer to Covenant Theology. I guess hyper-dispensationalists could be dispensationalists who are easily agitated or use bigger fonts (ha ha!), but they are actually dispensationalists who believe in certain cut-off times in the book of Acts.

I am a Calvinist, and have studied dispensationalism from that perspective, particularly from J. Vernon McGee, who is of both camps. I still listen to McGee, and am still learning and feel his soteriology is correct. As long as salvation is by Jesus alone in both the OT and NT, that is my test as to what is truth and what is error in today's dispensationalist thought.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I believe in 7 dispensations

but I also believe we are under the covenant of

#1
Luke 1:67-72
Gal 3:15-16,29
Gen 22:16-18 seed is singular meaning Christ is this seed then read Gal 3:29

#2 1 cor 11:25 new covenant

#3 eternal covenant Hebrew 13:20

But we are not under abrahamic covenant or davidic covenant since Gal 3:15-16

we as christian can not pick a promise and say hey that mine promise when it is given to someone else

 

[@@Paul@@]

[/color][/size][/font]
I guess I was confused by the second quote, especially since I have just recently heard of these terms. I did some reading and classic dispensationalists are more in line with Scofield. Progressive dispensationalists, like the "revised" dispensationalists have addressed some of the soteriological problems of Scofield and are closer to Covenant Theology. I guess hyper-dispensationalists could be dispensationalists who are easily agitated or use bigger fonts (ha ha!), but they are actually dispensationalists who believe in certain cut-off times in the book of Acts.

I am a Calvinist, and have studied dispensationalism from that perspective, particularly from J. Vernon McGee, who is of both camps. I still listen to McGee, and am still learning and feel his soteriology is correct. As long as salvation is by Jesus alone in both the OT and NT, that is my test as to what is truth and what is error in today's dispensationalist thought.

I believe the basic hyper-dispentational definition would be one who does not necessarily believe God "progressively revealed" His plan for this church age. The book of Acts was not a transition into the church age, but a final offer of the kingdom to Israel...

Most hyper-dispensationalist would say God plan for this age began somewhere between acts 26 & 28...

 

[Ebb]

How were those before the "dispensational cut-off point" saved? If they believe anything other than the finished, saving work of Christ, isn't this teaching a works-based salvation? After the "dispensational cut-off point", does God return to a works-based salvation?

Does God wait on us or depend on us to save us?

 

[@@Paul@@]

How were those before the "dispensational cut-off point" saved? If they believe anything other than the finished, saving work of Christ, isn't this teaching a works-based salvation? After the "dispensational cut-off point", does God return to a works-based salvation?

Does God wait on us or depend on us to save us?

Scripture clearly defines HOW grace was given (well it's clear to me ), not when it was given..... When did Law stop and Grace start?

Feel free to start a new thread or PM me.

 

[BT]

How were those before the "dispensational cut-off point" saved? If they believe anything other than the finished, saving work of Christ, isn't this teaching a works-based salvation? After the "dispensational cut-off point", does God return to a works-based salvation?

Does God wait on us or depend on us to save us?

Read Leviticus.

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color][/size][/font]

I guess I was confused by the second quote, especially since I have just recently heard of these terms. I did some reading and classic dispensationalists are more in line with Scofield. Progressive dispensationalists, like the "revised" dispensationalists have addressed some of the soteriological problems of Scofield and are closer to Covenant Theology. I guess hyper-dispensationalists could be dispensationalists who are easily agitated or use bigger fonts (ha ha!), but they are actually dispensationalists who believe in certain cut-off times in the book of Acts.

I am a Calvinist, and have studied dispensationalism from that perspective, particularly from J. Vernon McGee, who is of both camps. I still listen to McGee, and am still learning and feel his soteriology is correct. As long as salvation is by Jesus alone in both the OT and NT, that is my test as to what is truth and what is error in today's dispensationalist thought.

You are fairly close. Classic dispensationism beleives that God progressively revealed His plan of salvation. Progressive dispensationism sees only 4 dispensations, doesn't view the church as distinctive from Israel, and blend the Millennium with the eternal state as the final dispensation.

Hyperdispensationism is probably what Ryrie calls ultradispensationism, and I would call Pauline dispensationism. They beleive the church started around Acts 28, not at Pentecost. They also see the great comission as only to the Jews and that Israel is the Bride of Christ. I don't agree with pregressive disp. or ultradisp.

Classic dispensationism, per Charles Ryrie, sees salvation as having always been by grace through faith. “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”

One who had faith in God and who was under the Mosiac Law, followed the Mosiac Law. Abraham was not under the Law, but did receive the instruction of circumcism - so those after him, til Christ, needed to follow that instruction. Noah had neither the Law nor circumcism, but showed faith in doing what God asked of him.

You could say that that those before Christ had faith in God and His promise of a Messiah, and we have faith in God's fulfilled promise of a Messiah.

 

[Iosias]

Classic dispensationism, per Charles Ryrie, sees salvation as having always been by grace through faith. “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”

Ryrie is a revised dispensationalist!

 

[Iosias]

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s)
Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition. 9

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The “heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.” 10

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption. 11 In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer


2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985)
Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present)
What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another. 12 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13

“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.” 14

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

 

[FreeinChrist]

Ryrie is a revised dispensationalist!

I took my information from Ryries book "Dispensationism" where he compares dispesationism with progressive dispensationism, ultradispenationism and covenant theology.

He doesn't state that there is 'classic dispensationism' and 'revised dispensationism' but does make it clear that (classic) dispensationism has grown, and there have been varying ideas on exactly what are the dispensations themselves.

 

[Razorbuck]

Just gotta say I'm really glad I read this thread! My head is still reeling from all the information and I've got two pages of notes and my hand is sore. This ought to keep me digging for a month!

Thanks everone!

not worthy but His,

Razorbuck

 

[Ebb]

Scofield wrote in his 1917 Reference Notes for John 1:17:

(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation...

Doesn't this teach more than one way of salvation, salvation by legal obedience? Scofield obviously made a mistake here in his reasoning.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Scofield wrote in his 1917 Reference Notes for John 1:17:

Doesn't this teach more than one way of salvation, salvation by legal obedience? Scofield obviously made a mistake here in his reasoning.

Scofield just did a bad job of explaining grace in dispensationism.
From my notes that I took from Ryrie's book:
God’s Grace through the Ages

God has shown His grace since the beginning. He planned the future redemption of the world from the beginning (Gen. 3:15). He showed grace by selecting Israel – which was unmerited grace. He repeatedly forgave Israel, who broke the law before they ever received it. His covenant with David was an act of grace. And of course, the Incarnation, the death and resurrection of Jesus are all acts of grace. God continues to show unmerited grace in that all that believe in Jesus will be saved. (John 3:16).


We, of the church, are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We do not have to sacrifice animals or do all the ritual cleasnings of the Law. We are not under the curse of the Law. We are under a law of faith.

 

[Ebb]

Scofield just did a bad job of explaining grace in dispensationism.

I understand that this was true of the other "classic dispensationalists" too, such as Chafer and Darby. Chafer also misstated salvation in the Old Testament, just as Scofield did:

But Chafer's treatment of the subject of grace never arrives at the right view of the law of God. According to Dr. Chafer, the law was a condition of salvation placed upon the people of God in the Old Testament during a special and limited time period-the Dispensation of Law.

This condition, Chafer contended, no longer has application to the New Testament believer since we relate to God under a new dispensation, the Dispensation of Grace. Since, as he put it, "we are no longer under law, but under grace," Chafer argued that there is no necessary relationship between law and grace. Here is law without grace, and grace without law. Always and in every sense, law and grace are opposed to each other.

This teaching appears to be scriptural, but in reality it was the ancient error of Antinomianism (anti-law) which denies that the law has application to the Christian. Chafer defended this view by means of a radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures (p. 31).

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/EREIS1.HTM

It is these errors (or misstatements) of "classic dispensationalism" that Ryrie and others have tried to fix and explain, which would make Ryrie a "revised dispensationalist".

 

[bleechers]

Presbyterian doctrine states that infant baptism is a seal of the convenat. That we as believing parents are pledging to raise the child in a Christian environment. Having been Baptist most of my life, I would liken this baptism to a baby dedication other than the water.

"Seal of the covenant"? That is imposed on the scriptures. It is nowhere taught in the NT. A "dedication" is also essentially worthless. And even if I approved of "dedications" that is still far less than a "seal of the covenant" would imply.

They should only be told that they are sinners who must believe...

Of course they should be told this. I teach my children this. I do not allow them to call themselves Christians... but Timothy was taught the scriptures as a child and they were "able to make [him] wise unto salvation". The principle in Deut 6 states that my job is to teach my children the scriptures. I do not covert them, the scripture does.

"Infant baptism" is forced into this equation and has no biblical basis and is essentially meaningless.

Agreed! Infant Baptism into God's covenant amounts to absolutely, positively nothing if the parents are unfaithful in their promise to raise the child in both church and a godly environment. Also, such a covenantal seal means nothing if, in spite of the diligence of the parents, God's electing grace is not present.

You're half right... you should have stopped before the "if" statement. What on earth is the need for a ritual involving the baby? Can't a parent just do as commanded without a man-made ritual?

Even in your own theology, ALL is meaningless unless "God's electing grace is present." In this equation, the actions of the parents amount to nothing anyway. "Pledging to raise the child in a Christian environment" is meaningless is you hold to Covenant theology in any case. So why complicate your own theology bay adding a man-made ritual?

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Disregarding that this is in a Jewish context, are you suggesting we baptize a group of people who have not professed faith in Christ, who have not "believed with their whole heart" merely because they are "far off"?

Should I go to India and baptize unbelievers into "the Covenant" even before they believe? Why only read "for your children" into the baptism of 38, what about those "who are far off." You can't have one without the other.

Sure "the Promise" is for all men. "For the promise" has nothing to do with the "be baptized" in the previous verse. It does violence to read it that way. You have to come to the text looking for infant baptism to see verse 39 as an extension of the baptism mentioned in verse 38.

Follow the logic: if you hold that verse 39 refers back to the baptism of 38, then you MUST hold that there is such a thing a "far off baptism".

Also, if you hold that "the promise" is for those who "the Lord our God calls to Himself" means the elect, of what use is baptism anyway? You must see that creating "infant baptism" from these verses is frought with problems. Certainly, there is no "seal of the covenant" taught anywhere in either verse.

Both of these verses speak of whole households being baptised. We are not necessarily told if all did or were old enough to make a profession of faith.

So you want to institute a doctrine based on something we are "not necessarily told"? Acts 8 necessarily states that baptism is for those who believe. It makes no distinction from any other water "baptism".

This verse speaks of believers baptism. This verse does not command that only belivers may be baptised.

I don't believe the verse says "believer's baptism" anywhere. The NT makes no distinctions like this. Paul does not say in 1 Cor "I came not to do believer's baptism, but to preach the gospel." The distinction the "infant baptism" people want to force something never taught in the scripture on to the church.

When you come to the Bible with a doctrine, you get a pretext.

Also, you're admission that there is a separate "believer's" baptism denies the doctrine of infant baptism as taught in the Augsburg Confession. The AC teaches only infant baptism and condemns in the strongest terms "Ana-baptism". Calvin himself condemned Ana-baptism and persecuted the practice mercilessly.

He didn't just separate an "infant baptism" from "believer's baptism". The originators of the doctrines of Reformed infant baptism who condemned Anabaptism never accepted the second and the Bible does not teach the first.

The amalgamation of the both doctrines in some churches denies both history and the Bible.

1.5 Cents

 

[FreeinChrist]

I understand that this was true of the other "classic dispensationalists" too, such as Chafer and Darby. Chafer also misstated salvation in the Old Testament, just as Scofield did:


It is these errors (or misstatements) of "classic dispensationalism" that Ryrie and others have tried to fix and explain, which would make Ryrie a "revised dispensationalist".

I see Ryrie, in his book anyway, saying much the same as Chafer. When one is under the Law as given to Moses, showing faith meant following the Law. Not following the Law means you didn't really believe.
Ryrie wrote:
“The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”
'content of faith' in the days of the Old Covenant made at Mt. Sinai means following the Law was part of having faith. And God was not happy when Israel didn't follow His Law. They had stopped giving the land a Sabbath rest, and God punished them for that.


If Ryrie calls himself a "revised dispensationist", then he is. I haven't read that he calls himself this. The statements about classic dispensationism vs. revised disp. vs. progressive disp. posted earlier in one post do not have a source listing. I don't have any idea where it comes from.

 

[Ebb]

Even after these "salvation by the law" errors are addressed by revised dispensationalists for the Old Testament, there still is the problem of separation of two peoples and two plans of God for the Church and national Israel.

I believe that Covenant Theology correctly sees one grace in the OT and NT and one people of God, the Church, which is made up of both elect Jews and Gentiles of all ages and whose head is Christ.

 

[BT]

Even after these "salvation by the law" errors are addressed by revised dispensationalists for the Old Testament, there still is the problem of separation of two peoples and two plans of God for the Church and national Israel.

I believe that Covenant Theology correctly sees one grace in the OT and NT and one people of God, the Church, which is made up of both elect Jews and Gentiles of all ages and whose head is Christ.

The church is made up of both Jews and Gentiles, yet there is a clear division between the church and Israel. This is where we get into sticky territory. The Jews who were in the OT were not part of the church, because the church did not exist. Jews today and since the formation of the church, who have been saved by the belief in the Christ are part of the church. However there is a plan for Israel that has yet to be played out.