Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

[Carbon]

VI
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 that He preached was not an 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 for the preaching and offering of the kingdom to the Jews and had the Jews accepted His offer, an earthly, visible kingdom would have been immediately established.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

There are dispensations, (time periods in which certain things exist) but dividing the covenant of redemption into dispensations and using those dispensations as an interpretive tool as is done in dispensationalism does just that---the divides redemption and actually creates two peoples, Israel and Gentiles, and two means of redemption.

In Dispensationalism, God deals with the church, which does include Jew and Gentile believers, and national/ethnic/geopolitical Israel. He supposedly then removes this church up to heaven while he goes back and deals with national Israel by returning to the old form of worship and sacrifice. When this is finished, then is the fullness of time-or the completed work of Christ in destroying sin and death and bringing in the age to come as seen in Rev 21:1-6.

This is what I do not like about Dispensationalism. It is wrong and cannot be supported by Scripture. The "fullness of time" in the context is "when the time was right" Jesus came and when the time is right, all things will be fulfilled.

Ah! Okay! I was totally confused regarding all this so thank you kindly for your explanation.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

It is only that the F of G is a part of the F of times.

Thanks. I’ll go read about it.

 

[CrowCross]

Well here is the place to present it and defend it if you want to.

You will just have to wait patiently. I'm sure we will get there.

 

[Carbon]

You will just have to wait patiently. I'm sure we will get there.

Yes, of course. take your time.

 

[Carbon]

VI
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 that He preached was not an 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 for the preaching and offering of the kingdom to the Jews and had the Jews accepted His offer, an earthly, visible kingdom would have been immediately established.

VII
The postponement 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 postphoned until the millennium because of the Jews's 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 pre-tribulation rapture), which will bring judgment on a Christ-rejecting Gentile world and the purification of His people, the nation of Israel.

 

[EarlyActs]

Thanks. I’ll go read about it.

I believe there is a rabbinic commentary that was already using the phrase. Judaism did believe in a mission to the nations, but through the Law.

 

[Carbon]

VII
The postponement 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 postphoned until the millennium because of the Jews's 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 pre-tribulation rapture), which will bring judgment on a Christ-rejecting Gentile world and the purification of His people, the nation of Israel.

VIII
The Church as the work of God.

A. Covenant Theology believes the calling out of an elect people, that is, the forming 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 dispensationalist's 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 conversation 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 rapture passages of the Bible which would lead a dispensationalist to a pre-tribulation 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. Dispensationalism 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 by 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.

 

[Carbon]

IX
The fulfillment of the New Covenant.

A. Covenant Theology is convinced that the promises of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 ff are fulfilled in the New Testament.


B. Dispensationalism is divided over the fulfillment of the Jeremiah 31:31ff passages. Darby held that the new covenant in Scripture was made with Israel and Judah and not the Church. Fulfillment will be at a later time. Mention of the new covenant in the New Testament has no reference to the Church. C.I. Scofield held there is one new covenant with a double application: one to the Church now and one to Israel in the future. Another view believes that there are actually two new covenants in the New Testament, one with Israel and the other with the Church. The Biblical references must be divided into three distinct and separate applications. Those in the gospels which refer to the new covenant, along with the references in Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 10:29, and 13:20 have application to the new covenant with the Church. Those references in Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16 would refer to a new covenant with Israel. Finally. Hebrews 12:24 would refer to both.

 

[Carbon]

X
The problem of Amillennialism versus Pre-Millennialism

A. Covenant Theology historically has spawned for the most part an amillennial theology. That is the say, it has defined the kingdom as strictly spiritual, invisible, and present now in this era. However, it is not correct to say that all Covenant Theologians are amillennialists. Some of recent years have been strong premillennialists. that is to say, they not only hold the kingdom to be present now in its spiritual form, but they would also hold that there will be an earthly kingdom in the future, but without the return of the Old Testament trappings which dispensational premillennialists would see. They would also hold that God will deal with Israel once again, but not outside of the Church.

B. Dispensationalism has always gone hard in hand with premillennialism, though in many senses, a different brand than one would find in a covenant premillennialist. It would be true to say that all dispensationalists are premillennialists and that all dispensationalists are pretribulation rapturists. But it would not be true to say that all premillennialists are dispensationalists or that all premillennialists are covenant theologians.

 

[Carbon]

XI
The Second Coming of Christ

A. Covenant Theologians view the coming of Christ as the culmination of God's one total plan - the calling out a people for Himself based on His everlasting covenant of grace. Some believe His coming will lead immediately to the final judgment and the eternal state. Others believe His coming will be followed by the millennial period and then the final judgment of all men will take place, to be followed by the eternal state.

B. Dispensationalism sees the second coming of Christ fulfilling a manifold purpose. It consists of His coming for His heavenly people, the Church at the rapture, and also consists of His coming in power and great glory to bring final judgment on the Gentiles, Christ-rejecting nations. The two comings are separated by a tribulation period where God purifies His people, the Jews, and begins His judgment on the nations. The Second Coming in power and great glory will be followed by the millennial period, which will then lead to the final judgment of all men and then the eternal state.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Thanks for all the very good information, @Carbon. We appreciate it a lot.

You deserve a flower.

~Pie

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Oops

 

[Mr GLee]

XI
The Second Coming of Christ

A. Covenant Theologians view the coming of Christ as the culmination of God's one total plan - the calling out a people for Himself based on His everlasting covenant of grace. Some believe His coming will lead immediately to the final judgment and the eternal state. Others believe His coming will be followed by the millennial period and then the final judgment of all men will take place, to be followed by the eternal state.

B. Dispensationalism sees the second coming of Christ fulfilling a manifold purpose. It consists of His coming for His heavenly people, the Church at the rapture, and also consists of His coming in power and great glory to bring final judgment on the Gentiles, Christ-rejecting nations. The two comings are separated by a tribulation period where God purifies His people, the Jews, and begins His judgment on the nations. The Second Coming in power and great glory will be followed by the millennial period, which will then lead to the final judgment of all men and then the eternal state.

I would offer.

It would seem Christ left when the unbelieving Jew in (1 Samael 8) gathered themselves together and demanded a King like all the other pagan nations (out of sight out of mind) As in who would serve a God reigning from heaven not seen ?

The abomination of desolation Kings in Israel.. The glory of God held prisoner in a temple made with dying's hands as a will of mankind .

That whole period of time setting it aside to be used as a parable until the time of reformation , when the shadow became sight and Christ again reigned from heaven (the second coming) He will depart like a thief in the night on the last day under the Sun.

At the time of reformation the Father as propmised in Isaiah 62 renamed his eternal bride presently calling her Born again Israel ( a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.)

Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, (deceiver) but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

In that way not all Israel is the bride.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

The promise to rename the bride

Isaiah 6;1_2 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch

Christian literally "residents of the heavenly city of Christ prepared for His bride" named after her founder and husband Christ.

Christian a more befitting name to name the bride made up of al the nations of the world .

Today its seems to has all but lost in meaning. Many say a derogatory word given by the world and the devil

In the same way not all that call themselves Christian are

 

[makesends]

Christian literally "residents of the heavenly city of Christ prepared for His bride" named after her founder and husband Christ.

Have a question for you, @Mr GLee —Do you consider the Christians to be only "residents of the heavenly city of Christ prepared for His bride", or something more?

 

[Mr GLee]

Have a question for you, @Mr GLee —Do you consider the Christians to be only "residents of the heavenly city of Christ prepared for His bride", or something more?

Yes the only bride .

 

[fastfredy0]

more info... source unknown

DISPENSATIONALISM	COVENANT THEOLOGY
1. Originally Calvinist; now it may be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.	1. Always Calvinist. Usually 5-point.
2. Stresses “literal” interpretation of the Bible. Note: ALL prophecy that has been fulfilled has done so in a natural, literal and grammatical sense without exception. There are over 400 prophecies of which, perhaps, seven could arguably be fulfilled allegorically.	2. Accepts both literal and figurative interpretation of the Bible. Note: ALL prophecy that has been fulfilled has done so in a natural, literal and grammatical sense without exception.
3. Usually does not accept the idea of the “Analogy of Faith.” (the interpretation of each passage in conformity with the whole tenor of revealed truth)	3. Almost always accepts the idea of The “Analogy of Faith.” (the interpretation of each passage in conformity with the whole tenor of revealed truth)
4. “Israel” always means only the literal, physical descendants of Jacob. (see Israel and the Church Compared)	4. “Israel” may mean either literal, physical descendants of Jacob or the figurative, spiritual Israel, depending on context.
5. “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 means physical Israel alone.	5. “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 means the spiritual Israel, parallel to Galatians 3:29; Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6; Philippians 3:3.
6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).	6. God has always had only 1 people, the Church gradually developed. (see note at bottom) The dispensationalist argues: Why the direct and unconditional demand of a new birth upon one with the Judaist character that Nicodemus represented? Why the emphasized account of the salvation of Saul of Tarsus who had lived in all good conscience before the law (Judaism) Why the salvation of the apostles and 3,000 Jews on the Day of Pentecost and many obedient priests. Would not one of these be saved through Judaism?
7. The Church was born at Pentecost at the coming of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2	7. The Church began in O. T. (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the N. T. (This contradicts Matthew 16:18 in which Jesus say “I will (future tense) build my church”
8 The Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but was a hidden mystery until the N.T.	8. There are many O. T. prophecies of the N. T. Church.
9. All O.T. prophecies for 'Israel' are for literal Israel, not the Church.'	9. Some O. T. prophecies are for literal Israel, others are for spiritual Israel.
10. God's main purpose in history is literal Israel.	10. God’s main purpose in history is Christ and secondarily the Church.
11. The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages and was initiated and will end in the current dispensation.	11. The Church is the culmination of God’s saving purpose for the ages.
12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel. (Christians are Abrahams spiritual seed (Galatians 3:29) because when one believes, he is baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ, who is the seed of Abraham.	12. The main heir to Abraham’s covenant and was Christ and spiritual Israel.
13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.	13. The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect election.
14. There was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.	14. God made a conditional Covenant of Works with Adam as representative for all his posterity.
15. There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam.	15. God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam. Not found in scripture.
16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.	16. Israel was right to accept the Covenant Mt. Sinai.
17. The “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31:31- 34 is only for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of Luke 22:20. Characteristics of this covenant have been applied by God on believers.	17. The “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the same as in Luke 22:20; both are for spiritual Israel according to Hebrews 8.
18. God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.	18. God’s program in history is mainly through related covenants.
19. Some dispensationalists have said that O. T. sinners were saved by works. "There are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen may come into the favor of God ... To such a degree as the soteriology of Judaism and the soteriology of Christianity differ, to the same degree do their eschatology’s differ.	19. No man has ever been saved by works, but only by grace. Salvation is through Christ alone.

 

[fastfredy0]

continued

20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their dispensation, but this did not include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.	20. All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.
21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.	21. O. T. believers believed in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer mainly by the sacrifices as types and prophecies.
22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after the Rapture.	22. The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, especially in the present N. T. era, and will not be withdrawn.
23. Jesus made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed.	23. Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel but has gradually been accepted by spiritual Israel.
24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, not part of the Body or Bride of Christ.	24. Believers in all ages are all “in Christ” and part of the Body and Bride of Christ.
25. The Law has been abolished. Dispensationalists maintain that if one is required to keep the moral aspect of the Law, he is required to keep all the civil and ceremonial regulations as well.	25. The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in Godliness. The ceremonial Laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws (10 commandments) continue.
26. O. T. laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the N.T.	26. O. T. laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the N.T.
27. The Millennium is the Kingdom of heaven in classical Dispensationism; current version regards Kingdom of Heaven and “of God” as the same. Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millennial and usually Pre-Tribulational.	27. The Church is the Kingdom of God. Covenanters are usually Amillennial, sometimes Pre-Millennial or Post-Millennial, rarely Pre-Tribulational.
28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millennium.	28. The O. T. sacrifices were fulfilled and forever abolished in Christ.
29. The Millennium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham. Israel has a future.	29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham. Some Covenanters believe in a future for literal Israel, most don’t.
30. David will sit on the Millennial throne in Jerusalem.	30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints rule under Him.
31. “Kingdom of heaven” and “Kingdom of God” are NOT that same. The first is earthly, the second is spiritual.	31. “Kingdom of heaven” and “Kingdom of God” are that same.
32. The theme of the Bible is the glory of God through the demonstration that He alone is sovereign. Dispensationalists believe the salvation of man is an important part of God’s purpose, but that God has many other programs contributing something to the ultimate purpose of history. Thus, the ultimate purpose of history has to be large enough to incorporate all of God’s programs, not just one of them; that God alone is sovereign is the only purpose of doing that.	32. The theme of the bible is the glory of God by the salvation of man
33. Saints are differentiated. There are Old Testament, Church, Tribulation and Millennial saints.	33. Saints are the same in all time periods
34. The Resurrection – Christ became what in Himself He had not been before, the federal Head of a wholly new order of beings and these the primary divine objective as this is set forth in the New Testament	34. The Resurrection – His necessary return from the sphere of death back to the place which He occupied before; thus of little doctrinal significance. Why should any emphasis be placed on the limitless achievements of Christ’s present ministry when, according to C.T., saints of former ages were equally blessed with the saints of this age? This would bring disorder and confusion to this man-made theory.
35. The Ascension and Session - Exercise of Universal authority, Head over all thing to the Church, Bestower of Gifts, Intercessor, Advocate, Builder	35. The Ascension and Session – His necessary return from the sphere of death back to the place which He occupied before; thus of little doctrinal significance. Why should any emphasis be placed on the limitless achievements of Christ’s present ministry when, according to C.T., saints of former ages were equally blessed with the saints of this age? This would bring disorder and confusion to this man-made theory.

 

[Josheb]

This topic has been discussed for a while now, and I think it's a good idea to go over the beliefs of each system. I will be using the book: A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.
auther: Richard P. Belcher.................

Ooooo..... I wish I'd seen this earlier.

Before a comparison of the two theologies begins it should first be observed that the word "covenant" is a word the scripture itself actually uses to parse itself, whereas the word "dispensation" is not used by scripture itself to parse itself. For that one simply, objectively verifiable fact of scripture the two theologies depart. There are problems with both theologies and the problems begin with individuals assinging extra-biblical meaning to the two terms, "covenant," and "dispensation." The Bible never actually states the period of time between Adam and Noah, or Noah and Abraham is a dispensation, but neither does the Bible ever define a covenant as a "covenant of works," or a "covenant of grace." That being said a theology that is made of inferences based on what is actually explicitly stated is always going to be a better theology then one that is based on invented definitions that are never based on anything ever stated explicitly. A "covenant" can and should be defined in accordance with the explicit specifics provided by scripture. So, too, should a definition. If we're going to do a fair and just comparison then scripture is the measure. The problem is scripture never uses the term "dispensation" as a measure and never provides a definition for a term it never uses to divide scripture! ALL of it is a man-made invention.

Following on the heels of those observations is the fact that if Dispensationalism is correct then most of what Christianity has taught for two millennia is wrong. The two theologies are irreconcilable. Only one can be correct, true, and scriptural; veracious and efficacious. It cannot be said a dispensation exists irrelevant of the covenant(s) when the entire history of orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice has inherently understood any and all dispensations occur within the context of the explicitly stated covenant(s). It is impossible for there to be one "God's people," and there to be two "God's peoples." Not only is the latter premise not found in scripture, it is unavoidably contradictory to the premise of what is found in scripture (both in explicit statement and overt precedent); God has one people, His people, and His people stand in juxtaposition to those who are not His people, not in juxtaposition to another group of people that are also His people.



While I think Belcher has done a fair job of presenting the differences, I think it best to present the views of CTers in their own words in comparison to the views of Dispies in their own words. Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Vlach, and other Dispies have presented their own report of differences between CT and DP, but I don't find any of them well-representative of CT. For that reason, when I have time, I will try to post a few examples of Cters speaking as CTers and DPers speaking on the same matter as DPers.

For now, the presuppositional difference (that dispensations actually exist as something stated in scripture) is where the two theologies depart. Because the divide exists at a presuppositional level, it's not likely the two theologies will ever reconcile (despite Progressive Dispensationalist efforts to bring DPism more in line with historical Protestant theology). Fix the presuppositional errors in DPism and the theology ceases to exist.

 

[Alive]

BTW…I reached out to Kim Riddlebarger and he gave me permission to quote his book, A Case for Amillenialism.
I will like do so many times in the future, as I have both in written form and in my Accordance Bible Software.