Why not covenantalism

[St. George]

Why did you reject covenantalism in favour of dispensationalism?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

both are going.....

 

[hindsey]

Maybe if you would define "covenantalism" I could give an answer...

 

[Jerrysch]

Why did you reject covenantalism in favour of dispensationalism?

Well, I did not plan to become a dispensationalist, I kind of fell into it. I have always felt that a literal understanding of the Bible is the correct one (one that takes into consideration figures of sepach). This is one of the tenants of Dispensational theology. Another aspect which I have just in the last year become aware of is the distinction between God's plans for the church and ethnic Israel. Each group glorifies God in a different way. Each have promices that the other does not share. But both gain their "favor" with God by way of the Abrahamic Covenant. Both groups are redeemed by way of faith.

I am rejecting Coventalism in that they distinguish covenants which cannot be supported by Scripture and their use of a mixed hermenunic, that is not a consistant literal hermenunic.The tecknique of "allegorization" also makes the allegorizer the authority over any Biblical text.

 

[Hedgehog]

what exactly would be the definition of covenentalism? Anyone have any links?
Im just curious, since I have no idea what the beliefs are.

 

[Jerrysch]

what exactly would be the definition of covenentalism? Anyone have any links?
Im just curious, since I have no idea what the beliefs are.

Yes I have a good link;

http://www.geocities.com/jeremyandrobin/systemsoftheology.htm

I can't verify its source, but most of what I have read seems to match up with other sources of information.

 

[St. George]

what exactly would be the definition of covenentalism? Anyone have any links?
Im just curious, since I have no idea what the beliefs are.

A Covenantalist will see three main covenants: (1) Covenant of Redemption - made between the Father and Son, (2) Covenant of Works - made between God and Adam, and (3) Covenant of Grace - from Genesis 3 onwards which has many dispensations. A good introduction is http://www.mbrem.com/covenant/covenant.htm

 

[Jerrysch]

A Covenantalist will see three main covenants: (1) Covenant of Redemption - made between the Father and Son, (2) Covenant of Works - made between God and Adam, and (3) Covenant of Grace - from Genesis 3 onwards which has many dispensations. A good introduction is http://www.mbrem.com/covenant/covenant.htm

Where are these covenants specified in the Bible?

 

[Hedgehog]

thank you
Im off to get my daughter to take a nap then I will check them out.

 

[Ebb]

A lot of it was the failure of proper doctrinal education among the churches. Added to that was the popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible, which more and more conservative Christians turned to in response to liberalism. But conservative Christians would eventually become the best critics of dispensationalism, as the errors in the system became more apparant with further study.

Here is an interesting study of the History of Dispensationalism in America.

http://www.reformationonline.com/history_dispensation.htm

This new dispensationalism in its unscriptural, unreformed, and uncalvinistic teaching came on the religious scene to fill a vacuum-a vacuum which existed because of liberalism. The churches had drifted away from the doctrinal roots expressed in the old confessions and creeds. Many of the best schools and seminaries had been taken over by liberals and modernists-beginning in the colleges and seminaries and spreading to the pulpits and the pews. Bible-believing Christians turned to those churches where the bible was believed and taught.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How could Dispensationalism be welcomed and embraced in strong Presbyterian churches whose confession teaches Reformed, Calvinistic, Covenant Theology? Though there is not a simple answer one thing is certain: the churches which were infected with Dispensationalism were those which had ceased teaching in any vital way the doctrinal distinctives of their own confession.[/font]

​

 

[Jerrysch]

Here is an interesting study of the History of Dispensationalism in America.



http://www.reformationonline.com/history_dispensation.htm

​

More like Biased, rather than interesting, Eb. I did notice that the article seemed more concerned with upholding the tradition of Covenant Theology than upholding the doctrine of the Bible. I think we could get a less biased description of dispensationalism from DTS than from your source, don't you?

But after reading your article, that is the one you suggested, I came away with the feeling that Covenantalism and Dispensationalism were miles appart in doctrine, well they are not!!! As you well know. Covenant Christians and Dispensational Christians can rightly consider each other as being brothers in the faith, that is in a common faith. Your article seemed to suggest otherwise. There are two factors which divide the CC from the DC that being the distinction between Israel and the church and a consistant use of a literal hermeneutic. The fundamentals of our faith are the same. We both believe in the Virgin birth, we both believe that Jesus died to save us from the results of our sin. We both believe in the Ressurrection of Jesus. We both believe Jesus is God, and the list goes on and on. We do differ, it is true, but when it is all said and done, and we are all with Jesus and enjoying eternal bliss, one of us will be wrong and one of us will be right, but it really won't matter then will it?But indeed it does matter now, does it not? But I will present to you and all others gathered, that we have far more in common than that upon which we disagree. That article would have us believe otherwise, and isn't that true?

 

[Ebb]

I think we could get a less biased description of dispensationalism from DTS than from your source, don't you?

They aren't going to say anything against it, since it is in their doctrinal statement that all the faculty and board must annually agree to, isn't it? So there is no freedom to dissent among them.

Is the best way to find out about Mormonism from the LDS professors at Brigham Young University or from Christian researchers ouside the Mormon church?

 

[Jerrysch]

They aren't going to say anything against it, since it is in their doctrinal statement that all the faculty and board must annually agree to, isn't it? So there is no freedom to dissent among them.

Is the best way to find out about Mormonism from the LDS professors at Brigham Young University or from Christian researchers ouside the Mormon church?

I referred to a description of it not a value judgement of it Eb. DTS would be more qualified to describe thier belief system than a group which does not hold to it. What you presented is one group's bias regarding a belief system they do not hold. They would not be a good source of information regarding the beliefs that constitute dispensationalism. If you would like to go into the article in depth and discuss the real distinctions between the systems, I am game, but if you just want to post links to pages that resort to name calling copunt me out.

I do note however that you are willing to lump dispensationalism in with Mormons, a sort of guilt by association ploy no doubt. Is that the inferrence you are seeking to draw?

I further note that you have nothing to say regarding the doctrines Covenatal and dispensational christians share, it would almost seem as if you would like to downplay any agreement between the two camps? Is this so?

 

[Ebb]

I referred to a description of it not a value judgement of it Eb. DTS would be more qualified to describe thier belief system than a group which does not hold to it. What you presented is one group's bias regarding a belief system they do not hold. They would not be a good source of information regarding the beliefs that constitute dispensationalism. If you would like to go into the article in depth and discuss the real distinctions between the systems, I am game, but if you just want to post links to pages that resort to name calling copunt me out.

I do note however that you are willing to lump dispensationalism in with Mormons, a sort of guilt by association ploy no doubt. Is that the inferrence you are seeking to draw?

I further note that you have nothing to say regarding the doctrines Covenatal and dispensational christians share, it would almost seem as if you would like to downplay any agreement between the two camps? Is this so?

From their web site, I noticed that we do agree with what they require of their students:

http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/whatmakesdallasdifferent/missiondoctrinalstatement.aspx

• the Trinity
• the full deity and humanity of Christ
• the spiritual lostness of the human race
• the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
• salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
• the physical return of Christ
• the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

We can agree with those dispensationalists who hold to these "seven essentials" (as do other groups we strongly disagree with in other areas such as the Seventh Day Adentists.) It is only the faculty and board that must annually agree to the full doctrinal statement. It is too bad that the faculty does not have the same academic freedom as their students.

 

[Jerrysch]

From their web site, I noticed that we do agree with what they require of their students:



http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/whatmakesdallasdifferent/missiondoctrinalstatement.aspx

• the Trinity
• the full deity and humanity of Christ
• the spiritual lostness of the human race
• the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
• salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
• the physical return of Christ
• the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

We can agree with those dispensationalists who hold to these "seven essentials"

Thank you for pointing this out . Would you agree that we have more in common than in dispute?

 

[Dave Taylor]

From their web site, I noticed that we do agree with what they require of their students:



http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/whatmak...lstatement.aspx

• the Trinity
• the full deity and humanity of Christ
• the spiritual lostness of the human race
• the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
• salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
• the physical return of Christ
• the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

We can agree with those dispensationalists who hold to these "seven essentials"
Thank you for pointing this out . Would you agree that we have more in common than in dispute?

I would think that in the areas outside of eschatology; within Christianity; there is much in agreement.

Of the 7 bullets, I would think that bullets 1, 2, 3, 4b, and 7 are usually held in complete 100% agreement.

Bullet 6 (the physical return of Christ) has huge differences in regards to when, and to the characteristics of the world following His return.

Bullet 4a (the substitionary atonement of Christ) is different in that many within dispensationalism will only make that application to the group they refer to as the 'post-pentecost/pre-trib raptured church'; and would not apply the substitionary atonement of Christ fully to what they call OT Saints, Trib Saints, and Mill Saints. In many dispensational views; people outside of 'the church' (as they define it) have differing ways of atonement.

Similarly, Bullet 5 (Salvation by faith alone in Christ alone) likewise, is not applied consistently and evenly to humans they would classify as OT Saints, Trib Saints, or Mill Saints...and 'faith alone in Christ alone' is something that is only applicable to their dispensational definition people belonging to the post-pentecost/pre-trib rapture group known as the 'church'.

Now, also, many 'slight' dispensationalists, or 'progressive' dispensationalists; or any who would fall closer to the covenantal viewpoint; and further from the extreme traditional, classic, or hyper dispensational view very well often would match-up much closer if not totally on all but point 6; (the details of Christ's return). There is much more common ground with dispensationalists who fall into that category (on points 4a and 5); because of the soteriolocal effect on 'all mankind' vs dispensational sub-groups.

 

[LukeBritt]

Dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation that distinguishes between seven distinct periods or dispensations:
1) Innocence - before the fall
2) Conscience (from the fall to Noah)
3) Human Government (from Noah to Abraham)
4) Promise (from Abraham to Moses)
5) Law (from Moses to Christ)
6) Grace (the church age)
7) the Kingdom (the millenium)
They also place an emphasis on a difference between ethnic Israel and the Church.

Covenant Theology
Two main covenants are agreed upon from most Covenant Theologians:
1) The Covenant of Works and 2) the Covenant of Grace.
1) this is the covenant between God and his people, which includes commands to obey law. Example: Gen. 2:17 "You must not eat from the tree..." Before Christ the overarching covenant of works was in place. Many tried but failed, so we need a Covenant Mediator to fulfill these commands, which he did.
2) This covenant was established in Gen. 3:15 when God promised the Redeemer to crush the Serpent. This covenant was also fulfilled in Christ and we enjoy the benefits for ever.
This view also places emphasis that Israel and the Church are synonymous.

I take to the latter view.

 

[Jerrysch]

Bullet 4a (the substitionary atonement of Christ) is different in that many within dispensationalism will only make that application to the group they refer to as the 'post-pentecost/pre-trib raptured church'; and would not apply the substitionary atonement of Christ fully to what they call OT Saints, Trib Saints, and Mill Saints. In many dispensational views; people outside of 'the church' (as they define it) have differing ways of atonement.

Now, I will only speak for myself, in that I did not set out to become a dispensationalist, it just sort of fell upon me. My initial intent was to understand the Bible from a consistantly literal hermeneutic, well as you might know, I was then one step removed from being Dispensational, but having said all of this this issue of the substitionary attonement of Christ is quite often misrepresented by those who do not hold to dispensational doctrine. Dispensationalism does not teach two ways of salvation, nor does it teach that the Jews were/are saved any way differently than gentiles, nor does it teach that OT saints were saved any differently than NT saints. But on your point of the church, OT saints wer not members of the church, that body of believers who were/are baptized in/by the Holy Spirit. OT believers are justified by faith, yet they are not members of that church which Jesus stated that He was going to build.

 

[Jerrysch]

Bullet 6 (the physical return of Christ) has huge differences in regards to when, and to the characteristics of the world following His return.

I agree, and yet neither of our views will impact in the slightest the plans which God has set out for His program! Happily, His will is not constrained by our understanding, or lack there of.

 

[Jerrysch]

Similarly, Bullet 5 (Salvation by faith alone in Christ alone) likewise, is not applied consistently and evenly to humans they would classify as OT Saints, Trib Saints, or Mill Saints...and 'faith alone in Christ alone' is something that is only applicable to their dispensational definition people belonging to the post-pentecost/pre-trib rapture group known as the 'church'.

No one will experience eternal life nor salvation form their sins appart from the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Redemption comes only through His completed work.