Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim

[Carbon]

A Comparison between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

From my studies throughout the years, I have come to believe Dispensationalism really causes issues with the gospel; it does not harmonize with scripture. I also do not understand how a believer could be reformed (Calvinist) and be a dispensationalist, well, perhaps a confused one at best. Because it surely does not harmonize. The whole hermanumic is different.

There are a lot of issues that should be looked at. I'd like to go through some of them, and I look forward to everyone's thoughts and questions. This thread is not to insult or disrespect anyone who may be a dispensationalist, but I do hope you may think these things through and reconsider.
Through this thread, the most important thing is bringing glory to God alone.

 

[Carbon]

A comparison.


God's plan of salvation.

1. Covenant Theology believes that God has a plan of salvation for His people during the outworking of His one plan since the fall of Adam. That plan of salvation is a plan of grace, in that each covenant is an outworking of the everlasting covenant of grace. The content of faith of both testaments has been the Lord Jesus Christ, though obviously, the New Testament era has a deeper concept and understanding of its content of faith concerning Christ.

Such passages as John 5:39, where Christ commanded the Jews to search the Old Testament scriptures because they testify of Him, and John 5:46, where Christ said Moses and the prophets wrote of His, and Luke 24:27, where Christ began at Moses and the prophets and expounded the scriptures of things concerning Himself, convince the covenent theologian that the Old Testamant does have in its content the revelation of Christ, and therefore faith had for its content the person of Christ also. Thus, to deny the faith of the Old Testament saints was faith in the Messiah is to make them completely ignorant of the interpretation of the Old Testament revelation which they had received. Thus, covenant theology holds to one plan of salvation for God's one people as He works out His one plan throughout history since the fall.


2. Dispensationalism has been in some controversy over the years as to whether it believes in one plan of salvation or two. All modern Dispensationalists would argue for one plan of salvation (salvation by faith), yet some, like Charles Ryrie, have argued for a salvation by faith, yet meaning by such a statement a salvation by faith in God, without any content of Christ.

The controversy over whether dispensationalism has held to two plans of salvation or one may well go back to statements made by early dispensationalists. The first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible stated:
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.

Lewis Sperry Chafer appears to have made some very unguarded and unexplained statements on the subject of salvation, or he truly believed in two plans of salvation. He wrote as follows: With the call of Abrahah and the giving of the Law and all that has followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into the favor of God.

Under grace, the fruit of the Spirit is, which indicates the present possession of the blessings through pure grace; while under the kingdom, the blessing shall be to such as merit it by their own works.

In this age, God is dealing with men on the ground of His grace as it is in Christ. His dealings with men in the coming age are based on a very different relationship. At that time, the King will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross or of grace in the kingdom teachings.

Any view of two plans of salvation, however, would be strongly denied by modern dispensationalists. They, too, would argue for one plan of salvation, but note the modification above in the view of some, such as C.C. Ryrie.

 

[Carbon]

The place of eternal destiny for God's people.

A. Covenant theology believes that since God has one people and one plan for these people, and one plan of salvation concerning the redemption of these people, that God has one place in eternity for them. That place in eternity and for eternity will be in His presence for all those who make up the one body of Christ.

B. Dispensationalism has not been in agreement concerning the eternal state of the two peoples of God. Some dispensationalists would hold that the church will sit with Christ the King on His throne in the New Jerusalem as He rules over the nations of mankind, while Israel will continue as head of the nations of earth. Thus, the distinctiveness of the two peoples continuing throughout eternity is the conviction in one way or another of most dispensationalists.

 

[EarlyActs]

God's plan of salvation.

1. Covenant Theology believes that God has a plan of salvation for His people during the outworking of His one plan since the fall of Adam. That plan of salvation is a plan of grace, in that each covenant is an outworking of the everlasting covenant of grace. The content of faith of both testaments has been the Lord Jesus Christ, though obviously, the New Testament era has a deeper concept and understanding of its content of faith concerning Christ.

Such passages as John 5:39, where Christ commanded the Jews to search the Old Testament scriptures because they testify of Him, and John 5:46, where Christ said Moses and the prophets wrote of His, and Luke 24:27, where Christ began at Moses and the prophets and expounded the scriptures of things concerning Himself, convince the covenent theologian that the Old Testamant does have in its content the revelation of Christ, and therefore faith had for its content the person of Christ also. Thus, to deny the faith of the Old Testament saints was faith in the Messiah is to make them completely ignorant of the interpretation of the Old Testament revelation which they had received. Thus, covenant theology holds to one plan of salvation for God's one people as He works out His one plan throughout history since the fall.


2. Dispensationalism has been in some controversy over the years as to whether it believes in one plan of salvation or two. All modern Dispensationalists would argue for one plan of salvation (salvation by faith), yet some, like Charles Ryrie, have argued for a salvation by faith, yet meaning by such a statement a salvation by faith in God, without any content of Christ.

The controversy over whether dispensationalism has held to two plans of salvation or one may well go back to statements made by early dispensationalists. The first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible stated:
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.

Lewis Sperry Chafer appears to have made some very unguarded and unexplained statements on the subject of salvation, or he truly believed in two plans of salvation. He wrote as follows: With the call of Abrahah and the giving of the Law and all that has followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into the favor of God.

Under grace, the fruit of the Spirit is, which indicates the present possession of the blessings through pure grace; while under the kingdom, the blessing shall be to such as merit it by their own works.

In this age, God is dealing with men on the ground of His grace as it is in Christ. His dealings with men in the coming age are based on a very different relationship. At that time, the King will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross or of grace in the kingdom teachings.

Any view of two plans of salvation, however, would be strongly denied by modern dispensationalists. They, too, would argue for one plan of salvation, but note the modification above in the view of some, such as C.C. Ryrie.

The rod of iron
I have always found this to be the D'ist system at its worst. You'd have to go against the grace of the Gospel, for one thing. If you go literalist, you have this ugly piece of equipment as the emblem of the kingdom.

As metaphors go, it communicates something that is strong and unchallenged. When I realized that the resurrection was the enthronement event of Christ, and that it was not that his kingdom was news to look for but rather that it was imperative (that all mankind should honor the Son), I pretty much found that I had a 'rod of iron.'

 

[Carbon]

The Birth of the Church.

A. Covenant theology holds that the church existed prior to the New Testament era, even back to the Old Testament period, and included all the redeemed people of God since the fall of Adam. Certainly, this view would agree, there are two testaments, but not two peoples of God. There are two different sets of ordinances for the two testaments for the local manifestation of the body of Christ, but there is still only one body. What took place on the day of Pentecost was not the birth of the Church as the body of Christ, but the empowerment of the New Testament manifestation of the body of Christ.


B. Dispensationalism believes that the Church was born on the day of Pentecost, and that it did not exist before that point of time in history. The body of Christ is strictly New Testament and not to be found in the Old Testament. The Old Testament saints do not make up or are part of the body of Christ.

 

[Carbon]

The rod of iron
I have always found this to be the D'ist system at its worst. You'd have to go against the grace of the Gospel, for one thing.

Yes, and that is pretty serious. What becomes of the gospel?

If you go literalist, you have this ugly piece of equipment as the emblem of the kingdom.

As metaphors go, it communicates something that is strong and unchallenged. When I realized that the resurrection was the enthronement event of Christ, and that it was not that his kingdom was news to look for but rather that it was imperative (that all mankind should honor the Son), I pretty much found that I had a 'rod of iron.'

 

[Carbon]

The purpose of Christ's first coming

A. Covenant theology states that the purpose of Christ's first coming was to establish the New Israel, that is, the New Testament era or New Testament manifestation of the Church. Actually, this was a continuation of God's past plan with a definite historical change as the Church was now related to God in a new and better covenant, yet which was still a manifestation of the Covenant of Grace. The kingdom which He preached was not the offer of an earthly kingdom, but the authority of the King over the life of the one who would accept Him. Thus, the kingdom Christ spoke of and offered was a present, spiritual, invisible kingdom and not an earthly and visible one.


B. Dispensationalism believes that the purpose of Christ's first coming was to establish an earthly kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Israel. Christ came forth preaching and offering the kingdom to the Jews, and had the Jews accepted His offer, an earthly visible kingdom would have been immediately established.

 

[Carbon]

God's people.

A. Covenant Theology
Believes that God has one people, the Church, with two manifestations of it, one in the Old Testament and the other in the New Testament. What God has been doing since the fall of man concerns the calling out of a people to be His own. Thus, the saints of God of the Old and New Testament eras compose the one body of Christ.

B. Dispensationalism
postulates that God has two peoples -- Israel, the Old Testament people of God (God's earthly people), and the Church, the New Testament people of God (His heavenly people) -- with a strong antithesis between the two. Never do the two meet as far as equalling each other or including the one in the other.

 

[Carbon]

The Postphonement of the Kingdom.

A. Covenant Theology has no concept of a postponed kingdom because it does not believe Christ offered the Jews a literal and visible kingdom at his first coming.


b. Dispensationalism believes that the kingdom Christ offered the Jews at His first coming has been postponed until the millennium because of the Jews' rejection of the King. That is to say, when God's first plan, an earthly kingdom for the Jews, was rejected, God moved to put plan one (the kingdom) in temporary abeyance, while at the same time He began the unfolding of plan two (the Church). The Church is only a parenthetical period until God can get back to plan one, the kingdom. Therefore, before God returns to unfurl plan one again, plan two must be brought to a close by the Rapture of the Church from the earth. The rapture will be followed by a tribulation period (thus the Church's rapture is a pretribulation rapture), which will bring judgment on a Christ-rejecting Gentile world and the purification of His people, the nation of Israel.

 

[Carbon]

The Church As The Work Of God.


A. Covenant theology believes the calling out of an elect people, that is, the formation of the ekklesia, has always been God's primary work. "Therefore, those of covenant persuasion who hold to a rapture of the church from this world would place it at the end of the tribulation period."
They would argue that it is only the dispensationalists' strong antithesis between Israel and the Church, which created in historical theology a pre-tribulation rapture. That is, the dispensationalist has to get the Church (plan two) out of the world before the tribulation so God can get back to plan one, the conversion and purification of Israel. On the other hand, the one holding to a covenant view may (not all do) see that God will deal with Israel again in the future, but that what He does, He shall do through the New Testament manifestation of the Church. Therefore, the Church will pass through the tribulation and will be God's instrument of redeeming Israel, some Covenant theologians would argue. Those saved during the tribulation will be added to the one Church and will be part of the body of Christ. These men would argue that it is not the trapture passages of the Bible which would lead a dispensationalist to a pre-tribulational rapture, but his concept of the church as standing totally antithetically to Israel and not capable of being on earth during the time God works with His so-called earthly people.


B. Dispensationalsim, as it has already been stated, sees the church as the secondary work of God. Hypothetically, if there had been no rejection of the kingdom of Israel, there would have been no Church. And before God gets back to that primary work of a kingdom for Israel, the secondary work must come to an end, and it does with the rapture of the Church at the beginning of the tribulation period.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Any view of two plans of salvation, however, would be strongly denied by modern dispensationalists.

Are we sure?

I ran into people elsewhere recently (two different places in fact) teaching two plans of salvation - actually explicitly teaching it.

Is that not something taught then generally by dispensationalism?

Because there's a lot of this two gospels, two plans of salvation thing going around and it seems, at least surface level, like it's directly connected to this dispensationalist teaching.

What is that then and why is it not dispensationalism and what it teaches?

Has anyone else noticed that talking to heretics is like talking to people who are stoned? They do, all the reactions to what you say seem not like the reasoning of a sober mind, but a drug addled stupor.

 

[Carbon]

Are we sure?

Well, personally, no.
But I have talked with a few dispensationalists, and it seems they just can't be nailed down to believing there are two plans of salvation.
It does seem odd that they would go against Ryrie, one of their leaders. Maybe they just know better inside and won't dare admit to it?

I ran into people elsewhere recently (two different places in fact) teaching two plans of salvation - actually explicitly teaching it.

Wow. I never actually heard anyone say such. But I don't doubt what you're saying; because it's written in their textbooks.

Is that not something taught then generally by dispensationalism?

Yes it is.

Because there's a lot of this two gospels, two plans of salvation thing going around and it seems, at least surface level, like it's directly connected to this dispensationalist teaching.

What is that then and why is it not dispensationalism and what it teaches?

Has anyone else noticed that talking to heretics is like talking to people who are stoned? They do, all the reactions to what you say seem not like the reasoning of a sober mind, but a drug addled stupor.

 

[CrowCross]

@Carbon ...I've read through your post and say you pretty much posted Bravo Sierra.

As a Dispensationalist I believe there has always been one plan of salvation. Basically in the OT Saints from the age of promise and the law looked forward to the cross and in current NT age of grace times we look backwards to the cross.

Unlike the Covenant Theology people I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel.

 

[Carbon]

@Carbon ...I've read through your post and say you pretty much posted Bravo Sierra.

As a Dispensationalist I believe there has always been one plan of salvation. Basically in the OT Saints from the age of promise and the law looked forward to the cross and in current NT age of grace times we look backwards to the cross.

Unlike the Covenant Theology people I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel.

Well, do you agree with dispensationalism here:

B. Dispensationalsim, as it has already been stated, sees the church as the secondary work of God. Hypothetically, if there had been no rejection of the kingdom of Israel, there would have been no Church. And before God gets back to that primary work of a kingdom for Israel, the secondary work must come to an end, and it does with the rapture of the Church at the beginning of the tribulation period.

 

[Arial]

Well, personally, no.
But I have talked with a few dispensationalists, and it seems they just can't be nailed down to believing there are two plans of salvation.

What I have found in discussing it with dispensationalists on the forum is that when it is pointed out to them that beyond deniability, and scripturally speaking, is that they simply deny that it is two plans of salvation. In much the same way that an A'ist will deny that choice is a work or merit. And they refuse to engage with the evidence. IOW, they know that it is biblically unsound for there to be two plans of redemption, so they simply say it isn't two plans.

The usual comeback if there is one is that Jews (Israel) and the Church are both saved by grace through faith in Christ. Never the less they have the Church absent while Christ reigns on earth from Jerusalem saving geo/political Israel and the Jews. The union of Jew and Gentile does not happen in premil, pretrib rapture Dispensationalism until after the 1000-year earthly reign of Christ. And at least in some Dispensationalism (MacArthur among those) the animal sacrifices are reinstated in the rebuilt temple during these thousand years, as a backward looking. To me----that is blasphemous.

 

[Carbon]

What I have found in discussing it with dispensationalists on the forum is that when it is pointed out to them that beyond deniability, and scripturally speaking, is that they simply deny that it is two plans of salvation. In much the same way that an A'ist will deny that choice is a work or merit. And they refuse to engage with the evidence. IOW, they know that it is biblically unsound for there to be two plans of redemption, so they simply say it isn't two plans.

The usual comeback if there is one is that Jews (Israel) and the Church are both saved by grace through faith in Christ. Never the less they have the Church absent while Christ reigns on earth from Jerusalem saving geo/political Israel and the Jews. The union of Jew and Gentile does not happen in premil, pretrib rapture Dispensationalism until after the 1000-year earthly reign of Christ. And at least in some Dispensationalism (MacArthur among those) the animal sacrifices are reinstated in the rebuilt temple during these thousand years, as a backward looking. To me----that is blasphemous.

Agreed.

I believe their system is a total disaster.

 

[Carbon]

Couple quick things.
Dispensationalism teaches all will be perfect under the reign of Christ, but then acknowledges there will be death, the need for law and order, and in the end, a revolt against the Royal Reign of Christ.


Dispensationalism affirms a literal interpretation of Scripture, especially regarding the Millennium, but denies the words of Isaiah which says there will be NO weeping, and NO voice of crying in Jerusalem. They teach there will be sorrow and death in the Millennium.

 

[Arial]

Unlike the Covenant Theology people I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel.

Covenant theology does not believe the Church replaced Israel. Some individuals may believe that and may even understand covenant theology as teaching that. It may have even been true at times in history--though that may also be a misunderstanding of what was being said. I don't know.

Covenant theology in essence teaches one unified story of redemption playing out in history. Israel is part of that story and an important part. God's covenant with Israel laid the foundation for the arrival of Christ through Israel---under law--as the perfectly righteous and faithful Israel. The law became the standard of righteousness to which Jesus adhered perfectly. But national Israel and Jews alone were never the goal.

So, Covenant theology sees the Church (his called-out ones) made up of people of all nations as Christ fulfilling the Covenant of Redemption with over lays all of the plan of redemption in history.

 

[Carbon]

Covenant theology does not believe the Church replaced Israel. Some individuals may believe that and may even understand covenant theology as teaching that. It may have even been true at times in history--though that may also be a misunderstanding of what was being said. I don't know.

Covenant theology in essence teaches one unified story of redemption playing out in history. Israel is part of that story and an important part. God's covenant with Israel laid the foundation for the arrival of Christ through Israel---under law--as the perfectly righteous and faithful Israel. The law became the standard of righteousness to which Jesus adhered perfectly. But national Israel and Jews alone were never the goal.

So, Covenant theology sees the Church (his called-out ones) made up of people of all nations as Christ fulfilling the Covenant of Redemption with over lays all of the plan of redemption in history.

Yes. There are lots of misunderstandings. Nice job trying to straighten some of the nonsense out.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, do you agree with dispensationalism here:

B. Dispensationalsim, as it has already been stated, sees the church as the secondary work of God. Hypothetically, if there had been no rejection of the kingdom of Israel, there would have been no Church. And before God gets back to that primary work of a kingdom for Israel, the secondary work must come to an end, and it does with the rapture of the Church at the beginning of the tribulation period.

The Church was grafted into the vine.

Israel wasn't "rejected" by God but rather Israel "rejected" the fullness of Christ when He died on the cross.

God is currently working on what you have described above as the "Kingdom of Israel", that is the restoration of Israel that began in 1948 as fulfillment of prophecy.

After the rapture and the tribulation begins the means of salvation will still be "John 3:16". This includes the Jews.
During the tribulation God will use this time period to bring the "chosen people" back to Him through Jesus Christ.

Dispensationalist don't believe God deserted Israel like some of the Covenant theologist seem to believe.

The problem I see with some of the Covenant Theology minded people is the discontent and aberrant behavioral attitudes displayed to dispensationalist. This is almost always seen in their mockery of the 1 Thes 4:16 rapture of the Church.
I've seen some CT'ers suggest that DT is heretical and void of salvation.