Street Preacher said:
A similar question was asked in the dispensational forum, so I thought I ask in here: Why do you believe covenant theology over dispensational theology?
I give a few points that I find troubling and I'm in the dispey camp.
1. literal method of bible reading - I find it hard to look at the bible in this way without using culture 'cling on's' such as post enlightenment outlook, rationalism, etc.
2. history - I find the roots of dispensational teaching foggy, or attacked outright
That's about it.
sp
Hooo boy, where do I start?
One of the difficulties associated with critiquing Dispensationalism is that there are so many different varieties of it. I would start by saying that the inherent inconsistency of the theology is one of the reasons why I reject it, but there are many others. In fact, the only consistent form of Dispensationalism is "Ultradispensationalism," or "Bullingerism." Bullingerism follows Dispensational theology to its necessary conclusions and ends up denying the Gospel in the process.
To begin, Dispensationalism starts with a false premise: its hermeneutic. Almost all adherents claim that Dispensationalism is nothing more than "Biblical Theology," and that the key to this label is the literal interpretation of texts. But what is it that the Dispensationalist does that the Covenantalist does not? Both agree that if a passage appears to be meant to be read literally, it should be read literally. Furthermore, both agree that an obviously figurative or metaphorical passage should be read in such a way. No one says that when Jesus said, "I am the vine," that he meant we should pick grapes from him (John H. Gerstner). Furthermore, both agree that we should take every pain to attempt to interpret a passage literally unless the text will not allow it. I believe Scofield himself wrote this and it perfectly parallels what Martin Luther wrote on the same subject.
So where is the distinction? It rests in prophecy. Ever since Darby, the Dispensational hermeneutic has been the militant literal interpretation of Scripture, which is what led to such flights of fantasy as Hal Lindsey's,
Late Great Planet Earth. But even in this the Dispensational frequently abandons his literal hermeneutic. Did Hal Lindsey portray the Russians as fighting in chariots using bows and spears? No, of course not. Again, the type of weaponry mentioned was seen as figurative
of weaponry, not the literal type to be used.
The primary difference is that the Dispensationalist rigorously applies a literal interpretation wherever he thinks he can get away with it, only conceding when the natural conclusion is purely absurd. Now, in the case of Dispensational Premillennialism and the invention of the Rapture, non-Dispensationalists would certainly call this absurd, yet the interpretation remains.
The truth is that we all have presuppositions concerning theology and every other subject before we even begin to study. Dispensationalists presuppose certain truths about the Bible when they interpret prophecy. They presuppose that a literal translation is superior to a figurative one, even though large portions of prophecy have been figurative. He presupposes the division between Israel and the church and reads this out of the texts, instead of presupposing the unity of God's decrees between the Old and New Testament dispensations, and seeing the harmony of God's plan being fulfilled in the church--the true Israel.
That leads us into the next topic with which I take issue. Dispensationalism teaches that Israel and the church are unequivocally separate. It teaches that God's plan for the temporal nation of Israel is different from that of the church. It teaches that the New Testament church is a
mystery, not predicted by Old Testament prophecy. It teaches that the reason for the church's existence is the rejection of the kingdom offered by Christ and
not because God had predestinated that the Gentiles should be saved. It places the cause of the redemption of the Gentiles on the rejection of the kingdom by Israel.
Furthermore, Dispensationalism, while claiming to be Calvinistic, is entirely Arminian in its soteriology. This is evident in the assertion that the Old Testament saints were
unregenerate. Any thorough-going Calvinist knows that salvation apart from regeneration is
impossible. According to Dispensational "Calvinistic doctrine,"
no one was saved prior to Pentecost because the Holy Spirit was not actively regenerating anyone. Unless the Dispensationalist falls back to a
Roman Catholic soteriology that teaches we can earn salvation by works (adherence to the law in the law dispensation), then his system is utterly inconsistent. If he says that Old Testament saints were saved by belief in Christ (as he must, or otherwise be labeled an heretic), then he must affirm regeneration by the Holy Spirit, as all men since Adam are born dead in sin.
There is also the grave spectre of Antinomianism inherent in Dispensational theology. Dispensationalism since Darby has taught that the human nature in man is not compromised at all. Instead, the believer is given a new nature that is the imputation not of Christ's righteousness, but of
Christ himself. That is, the believer is given a new, divine nature. This reaks of pantheism. More importantly, Dispensational theology teaches that the elect are eternally elect (as they are) and that
nothing exept faith is required for salvation: not works, nothing. This amounts to another Gospel, as the Epistle of James and others are quite clear that
faith without works is dead. The Dispensationlist refuses to acknowledge the two and must in order to consistently divide the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. The Dispensational system cannot support the idea of works being a necessary tenet of faith as this amounts to "legal ground," which has been abolished in the dispensation of grace. Therefore, in order to remain consistent with his system, the Dispensationalist must fall into Antinomian heresy and argue that faith alone saves, apart from any works whatsoever. A man may be a "carnal Christian" all his life and never once bear fruit, yet still be saved.
There are many more aspects that I could delve into, but I think these should sufficiently explain why I avoid Dispensationalism like the plague and encourage others to do the same.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
)
