Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim

[CrowCross]

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.

I find it ironic that you just admitted to a "dispensation" when you reference ----under law----.

One of the problem I have with CT is God made a promise to Abraham concerning the nation of Israel. Some of the CT'ers, maybe not you, seem to help God break that promise.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

You do know the millennial reign is mentioned 6 times in Rev 20?
What the CT'ers do is simply sign some sort of allegorical or figurative meaning to 1,000 years and force it to me a long period of time. If God meant a "long period of time"...why no simply say so? It's kinda like the use of the word "day" in Gen 1. Some feel the need to make the word "yom" into a long period of time rather than what it really means in that context.

Some CT'ers believe we are currently in this millennial reign and in doing so you have refuted them by saying... "they teach there will be sorrow and death in the Millennium."

Tell me @Carbon ....so I don't confuse you with the varying opinions presented by the other CT'ers...what is the millennial reign?

 

[Carbon]

You do know the millennial reign is mentioned 6 times in Rev 20?
What the CT'ers do is simply sign some sort of allegorical or figurative meaning to 1,000 years and force it to me a long period of time. If God meant a "long period of time"...why no simply say so? It's kinda like the use of the word "day" in Gen 1. Some feel the need to make the word "yom" into a long period of time rather than what it really means in that context.

Some CT'ers believe we are currently in this millennial reign and in doing so you have refuted them by saying... "they teach there will be sorrow and death in the Millennium."

Tell me @Carbon ....so I don't confuse you with the varying opinions presented by the other CT'ers...what is the millennial reign?

What is the millennial rein?

I’m Amillennial, that should answer it for you. Do you understand the A-mill stance on this?

 

[CrowCross]

What is the millennial rein?

I’m Amillennial, that should answer it for you. Do you understand the A-mill stance on this?

Apparently not...that's why I asked for your view.

From what I understand you take a Symbolic Interpretation of the Millennium.
There is No Future, Literal Millennium
You understand The Church as the New Israel.
There is No Distinction Between the Church and Israel.

 

[Arial]

I find it ironic that you just admitted to a "dispensation" when you reference ----under law----.

Ironic? Dispensationalism calls it a dispensation in which men are tested and judged, and they interpret scripture according to dispensations that they assign. By the technical definition it is a dispensation---a time period where God is working out his plan of redemption. But that is not how Dispensationalism defines dispensations in their interpretive method.

What I find ironic is that you, and no dispensationalist ever as far as my experience with them goes, actually refutes with scripture what I stated about the Covenant theology view. Your post is no exception. It just repeats its own view as though that is all that matters. That it is absolute and no proper hermeneutical work is done to even establish that redemption should be interpreted through their lens. IOW it never actually refutes the covenant view, it just says it is wrong.

So exactly, scripturally speaking, is wrong about the Covenant interpretive framework?

One of the problem I have with CT is God made a promise to Abraham concerning the nation of Israel. Some of the CT'ers, maybe not you, seem to help God break that promise.

Well, what some seem to be doing is not what defines Covenant theology. So why throw that baby out with the bath water. Because some people are wrong, does that mean that Covenant theology is wrong? Is it a reason to come against it without even knowing what it is and what the premise of it is?

Maybe it is that you are only looking through the presuppositional view of dispensations as an interpretive framework that it looks like Covenant theology is helping God to break his promise to Israel. Maybe that framework of dispensations has blinded one to the big picture and Israel's purpose? And are you aware that the Mosaic covenant of law was bilateral and the New Covenant is unilateral? Do you know why it is called a New Covenant that made the old obsolete--no longer needed?

Under the Old Covenant, God was only obligated to keep the promises if Israel did not break the covenant through disobedience to it. The underlying Covenant of redemption----salvation by grace through faith---was also given to the descendants of Abraham and further revealed in his covenant with David.

Has God broken either of those promises? No. Out of Israel came the King he has set on Zion (Ps 2). A descendant of David, having accomplished his purpose on the cross and rose from the dead, and ascended back to the Father to receive his crown.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

I read one version that said there was no one on earth at that time!

 

[CrowCross]

Ironic? Dispensationalism calls it a dispensation in which men are tested and judged, and they interpret scripture according to dispensations that they assign. By the technical definition it is a dispensation---a time period where God is working out his plan of redemption. But that is not how Dispensationalism defines dispensations in their interpretive method.

What I find ironic is that you, and no dispensationalist ever as far as my experience with them goes, actually refutes with scripture what I stated about the Covenant theology view. Your post is no exception. It just repeats its own view as though that is all that matters. That it is absolute and no proper hermeneutical work is done to even establish that redemption should be interpreted through their lens. IOW it never actually refutes the covenant view, it just says it is wrong.

So exactly, scripturally speaking, is wrong about the Covenant interpretive framework?

Well, what some seem to be doing is not what defines Covenant theology. So why throw that baby out with the bath water. Because some people are wrong, does that mean that Covenant theology is wrong? Is it a reason to come against it without even knowing what it is and what the premise of it is?

Maybe it is that you are only looking through the presuppositional view of dispensations as an interpretive framework that it looks like Covenant theology is helping God to break his promise to Israel. Maybe that framework of dispensations has blinded one to the big picture and Israel's purpose? And are you aware that the Mosaic covenant of law was bilateral and the New Covenant is unilateral? Do you know why it is called a New Covenant that made the old obsolete--no longer needed?

Under the Old Covenant, God was only obligated to keep the promises if Israel did not break the covenant through disobedience to it. The underlying Covenant of redemption----salvation by grace through faith---was also given to the descendants of Abraham and further revealed in his covenant with David.

Has God broken either of those promises? No. Out of Israel came the King he has set on Zion (Ps 2). A descendant of David, having accomplished his purpose on the cross and rose from the dead, and ascended back to the Father to receive his crown.

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Arial]

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

Are you able to show that it is just an opinion with no credibility?

 

[CrowCross]

Are you able to show that it is just an opinion with no credibility?

I already have...several times.

Because you disagree doesn't mean I haven't.

 

[Arial]

I already have...several times.

Because you disagree doesn't mean I haven't.

No, you have never done so. You can't do it without addressing what is said. Simply saying your way is correct and only presenting that view doesn't say why Covenant theology has no credibility. It is you who simply doesn't accept or even consider what is claimed by Covenant theology, and therefore, simply say it is wrong because it does not answer your questions about specific verses according to your view.

You have not even shown why the interpretive framework of dispensations is correct. And keep in mind, this thread is not about the details of interpretations of prophecy. It is about Dispensationalism vs. Covenant theology. You have not even defined the dispensations, what they mean, what God is doing in them, or given the scriptural basis to interpret through dispensations instead of covenant.

Those are things that need to be done.

 

[Carbon]

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.

Yes, there are some tough situations here. But if you study into these things, you will surely find it is mainly the dispensationalists who claim it is anti-Christian if someone was not a dispensationalist. They were pretty (maybe still are) with this, Christians are really frowned upon if they are not dispensational.

I myself won't tag a dispensationalist as a heretic, but I do believe it is walking the fence. I also believe that if many actually understood what was taught, they wouldn't stay with the system.

But as we go forward here, much should come out.

 

[Carbon]

I already have...several times.

Because you disagree doesn't mean I haven't.

Where?

Think you have some catching up to do, bro

 

[Carbon]

No, you have never done so.

I'm not so sure he can.

You can't do it without addressing what is said. Simply saying your way is correct and only presenting that view doesn't say why Covenant theology has no credibility.

Agreed

It is you who simply doesn't accept or even consider what is claimed by Covenant theology, and therefore, simply say it is wrong because it does not answer your questions about specific verses according to your view.

You have not even shown why the interpretive framework of dispensations is correct. And keep in mind, this thread is not about the details of interpretations of prophecy. It is about Dispensationalism vs. Covenant theology. You have not even defined the dispensations, what they mean, what God is doing in them, or given the scriptural basis to interpret through dispensations instead of covenant.

Those are things that need to be done.

 

[Carbon]

It is about Dispensationalism vs. Covenant theology. You have not even defined the dispensations, what they mean, what God is doing in them, or given the scriptural basis to interpret through dispensations instead of covenant.

@CrowCross
A description of dispensationalism.

Dispensational theology looks on the world and the history of mankind as a household over which God is superintending the outworking of His purpose and will. This outworking of His purpose and will can be seen by noting the various periods or stages of different economies whereby God deals with His work and mankind in particular. These various stages or economics are called "dispensations." Their number totals 7, and these 7 are named as follows:

1. Innocence
2. Conscience
3. Human Government
4. Promise
5. Law
6. Grace
7. Kingdom


@CrowCross - Would you agree?

 

[Carbon]

Tell me @Carbon ....so I don't confuse you with the varying opinions presented by the other CT'ers...what is the millennial reign?

I'll make it easier on you by just explaining for you incase you do not understand Amillennialism.

As an Amillennialist, I understand the millennium mentioned in Rev 20:4-6 as describing the present reign of the souls of deceased believers presently with Christ in heaven.

I believe Satan was bound at the cross and will remain bound the entire period between the first and second coming of Christ.

I believe that the kingdom of God is present in the world as the victorious Christ is ruling His people by His word and Spirit.

Also, I believe the Second Coming of Christ to be a single event, not one that involves two phases as dispensationalists teach.

 

[Carbon]

@CrowCross
A description of dispensationalism.

Dispensational theology looks on the world and the history of mankind as a household over which God is superintending the outworking of His purpose and will. This outworking of His purpose and will can be seen by noting the various periods or stages of different economies whereby God deals with His work and mankind in particular. These various stages or economics are called "dispensations." Their number totals 7, and these 7 are named as follows:

1. Innocence
2. Conscience
3. Human Government
4. Promise
5. Law
6. Grace
7. Kingdom


@CrowCross - Would you agree?

@CrowCross
Also, the New Scofield Reference Bible (a dispensational bible) divides biblical history into seven distinct dispensations. These are periods of time in which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.
I realize that in each dispensation, there is only one basis for salvation, ie, by God's grace through Christ's work on the cross. I also understand that they teach that the differences between the dispensations do not concern the way of salvation.


But wouldn't this be true, then man in every period needs to be saved by grace because he is not able to obey God's will perfectly, and cannot save himself through his own efforts?
Why then does man need to be tested anew in every dispensation, according to dispensationalism? Was man not tested by God at the very beginning, in the Garden of Eden? And did he not fail the test?

And isn't it for that reason that salvation through grace is now his only hope?

@CrowCross do you mind explaining this one?

And if so, instead of being repeatedly retested, as dispensationalism implies, wouldn't he rather be shown in every era of his existence how he can be delivered from his spiritual impotence and saved by grace?

 

[Arial]

What the CT'ers do is simply sign some sort of allegorical or figurative meaning to 1,000 years and force it to me a long period of time.

Are you sure that is what they do? Covenant theology is Reformed theology. Calvinism can be Covenant or Dispensational. If I am not mistaken, you consider yourself Calvinist or Calvinistic. So, for you to make such a claim is remarkable as sure you know how careful the Reformers were to get it right according to Scripture.

The book of Revelation is written with allegorical and figurative symbols. It makes perfect sense to interpret it just as it is written instead as though it were historical narrative.

The millennium (a thousand years) is logically a representative number for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that no one is able to know the time of Christ's return except God himself, according to the scriptures. One thousand as a literal number is countable---not unlike dispensationalist counting all the numbers in Daniel to try and second guess God's decree and find out when the Christ will return.

So where does CT look to find what 1000 is representing? Within the Bible itself for it uses numbers symbolically but in a literal way throughout. Sevens, threes, tens, twelves and multiples of these numbers.

In Scripture the number 10 represents divine completion and God's almighty power and government.

It is often used as a marker of time (waiting, duration, completion, or testing)

Dan 1:12-15--ten-day test
Rev 2:10 ten days of tribulation
Gen 25:55 Delay before departure etc. etc

Generations as a time span" Adam to Noah, Shem to Abram.

Ten times (repeated duration) Gen 31:7; Numbers 14:22

The broader biblical use of ten is a number of completion and accountability, especially in covenantal contexts.

Ten as a time measurement carries a theological significance rather than merely a mathematical significance. And in case you think this is unreasonable and unfounded, consider God himself. There is not one idle word or number in the historical account of redemption. It comes from a God who has no idleness or arbitrariness in anything. Everything counts for more than we can see on the surface. His use of numbers is never without theological significance. The number 10 functions as a symbol for completeness in testing, probation, and covenantal accountability---a full period determined by God, after which judgement or vindication follows.

It marks covenantal accountability. Ten is tied to law and covenant (ten commandments). When used in time, it indicates a moral evaluation period.

Why 1,000 is read symbolically.
Revelation is apocalyptic genre where numbers are symbolic.

• 7= divine completeness
• 10= completeness/fullness
• 12=covenant peoples
• 1,000=10x10x10 fullness raised to it highest intensity

Biblical precedent for symbolic "long time"

• Psalm 50:10 – “the cattle on a thousand hills”
• Psalm 90:4 – “a thousand years…as yesterday”
• 2 Peter 3:8 – “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years”

The millennium is the period between the two advents.

Jesus teaches of to ages. This age (after first advent) and the age to come (arrives at his second coming). Matt 12:32; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:30.

Marriage belongs to this age. Resurrection life belongs to next age (Luke 20:34-36).

Harvest at the end of this age (Matt13:39-40,49).

The apostles teach two ages. (Eph 1:21; Gal 1:4; 1 Cor 4:4)

No intermediate age between resurrection and consummation is mentioned.

 

[Arial]

I'll make it easier on you by just explaining for you incase you do not understand Amillennialism.

As an Amillennialist, I understand the millennium mentioned in Rev 20:4-6 as describing the present reign of the souls of deceased believers presently with Christ in heaven.

I believe Satan was bound at the cross and will remain bound the entire period between the first and second coming of Christ.

I believe that the kingdom of God is present in the world as the victorious Christ is ruling His people by His word and Spirit.

Also, I believe the Second Coming of Christ to be a single event, not one that involves two phases as dispensationalists teach.

My view of the millennium differs slightly from yours. I understand it to be this age---the time between the two advents. I believe Satan was bound from one thing during this time and at the cross---and that is from deceiving the nations. Meaning, he is unable to stop the gospel from spreading to all nations. And I believe Rev tells us that he will be allowed to deceive the nations for a short time just before Christ's return. How long "short" is, I don't know. But to me that indicates during that time there will be worldwide, governmental, persecution of the church. I think the gospel will still be preached but at great risk

 

[Carbon]

My view of the millennium differs slightly from yours.

Does it?

I understand it to be this age-

Same

--the time between the two advents.

Yes, Christ's first and second coming.

I believe Satan was bound from one thing during this time and at the cross---and that is from deceiving the nations.

Agree. I should have been more clear.

Meaning, he is unable to stop the gospel from spreading to all nations.

Agree

And I believe Rev tells us that he will be allowed to deceive the nations for a short time just before Christ's return. How long "short" is, I don't know. But to me that indicates during that time there will be worldwide, governmental, persecution of the church. I think the gospel will still be preached but at great risk

Agreed. Things will heat up near the end.