Covenat Theology or Dispensationalist? Convince Me

[Marie]

I grew up in a Pre Millennial dispensationalist Church, than as a teen and adult spent years under Covenant theology and now neither one appear to be Biblically correct.

I see flaws in both. I am also bothered that Dispensationalism wasn't on the radar prior to the 1800's and what difference does it make, if the promises of the land in an earthly 1000 year Kingdom and salvation apply to both, and they do.

It seems problematic that the covenant theologian wants to go back wards and come up with un scriptural ideas or disregard that the number of the gentiles has yet to be fulfilled, and ignore that the Bible is divided into the covenants or testaments, of old and new and only go with the covenant of works pre the fall, and grace afterwards, or that the dispesationalist seems to ignore a ton of verses, that says were one vine, one church, one bride and that the blessings of Israel will benefit other nations. So why would I want to embrace either?

If your either one, than please provide some credibility form scripture alone. At present I think their both wrong, and I am not comfortable with either camp.

 

[Starman3000m]

I grew up in a Pre Millennial dispensationalist Church, than as a teen and adult spent years under Covenant theology and now neither one appear to be Biblically correct.

I see flaws in both. I am also bothered that Dispensationalism wasn't on the radar prior to the 1800's and what difference does it make, if the promises of the land in an earthly 1000 year Kingdom and salvation apply to both, and they do.

It seems problematic that the covenant theologian wants to go back wards and come up with un scriptural ideas or disregard that the number of the gentiles has yet to be fulfilled, and ignore that the Bible is divided into the covenants or testaments, of old and new and only go with the covenant of works pre the fall, and grace afterwards, or that the dispesationalist seems to ignore a ton of verses, that says were one vine, one church, one bride and that the blessings of Israel will benefit other nations. So why would I want to embrace either?

If your either one, than please provide some credibility form scripture alone. At present I think their both wrong, and I am not comfortable with either camp.

Hi Marie and Happy New Year!

Wow, my dear Marie, you've issued quite a challenge here and to be honest, if you have the feeling that both camps are wrong then I doubt either of them will be able to convince you to sway back to their side. Perhaps you could outline some of the flaws that you see in both and then share what you have found to be an accurate interpretation based on the context of what you have read in scripture.

 

[Marie]

Hi Marie and Happy New Year!

Wow, my dear Marie, you've issued quite a challenge here and to be honest, if you have the feeling that both camps are wrong then I doubt either of them will be able to convince you to sway back to their side. Perhaps you could outline some of the flaws that you see in both and then share what you have found to be an accurate interpretation based on the context of what you have read in scripture.

OK, so lets look at the Dispionsationalist beliefs first. I am not looking to debate or defend either one, as I believe bits and pieces of both, but Id like to get on one side of the fence or the other.

I feel their wrong in the way they have been explained to me, the dispensationalist has only been defined by the covenant theologian, as if its something on the bottom of his shoe that he just stepped in and apparently there are many different types, the question is why is this so new and so widely embraced, and not even a consideration till the 1800s by the church?

New teachings are never good. For 1800 years none of the theological greats ever came up with this?
Why do they reject all the verses that say the Gentiles are grafted in that we are one body and one church. That those of Abraham are more than just physical descendants?

<DIR>Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
</DIR>

Why do they embrace a separate plan for Israel (The 12 tribes) when Israel seems to been given a new name meaning all those in Christ. Perhaps that is the issue the current definition of Israel.

But why separate Israel as a nation if the blessings are the same for the Entire Church?
I like that the disponsationalist says he interprets scripture literally, where the covenant theologian says he's using an apostles hermeneutic.
I have a lot of material blasting dispensationalist but its hard to get past the arrogance and the fallacies they start out with for their presuppositions.

I am back in a dispensationalist Church, I go to a dispensationalist school and the commentary in my Bible is written by one as well. I guess I just don't understand the benefits to taking a strong stance as Israel as a nation when the benefits are the same for all believers

 

[2ndAmendment]

Marie,

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said both are not right.

I cannot convince you one way or the other since I do not believe one way or the other.

• I believe that Jesus will physically be on earth for His millennial reign.
• I believe that the tribulation will occur before the second coming.
• I believe that Israel refers to the Israelites and not the nation or Israel.

From my list, you can see that some is dispensationalist and some is not. I think my list is consistent with scripture. It is not consistent with the doctrine of the church I attend since they believe in a pre-tribulation rapture.

I advise you to read and pray for wisdom. Where doctrine departs from scripture or scripture must be taken out of context or twisted in some way to prove a doctrine, I think the doctrine must be in error.

 

[Marie]

Marie,

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said both are not right.

I cannot convince you one way or the other since I do not believe one way or the other.

• I believe that Jesus will physically be on earth for His millennial reign.
• I believe that the tribulation will occur before the second coming.
• I believe that Israel refers to the Israelites and not the nation or Israel.

From my list, you can see that some is dispensationalist and some is not. I think my list is consistent with scripture. It is not consistent with the doctrine of the church I attend since they believe in a pre-tribulation rapture.

I advise you to read and pray for wisdom. Where doctrine departs from scripture or scripture must be taken out of context or twisted in some way to prove a doctrine, I think the doctrine must be in error.

Well thank you for the reply, at least I am not the only one that isn't pigeoned hole neatly into one or the other. There is an option C New covenant Theology but that seems even more scary than the other to, with regards to being in error.

 

[Starman3000m]

...I advise you to read and pray for wisdom. Where doctrine departs from scripture or scripture must be taken out of context or twisted in some way to prove a doctrine, I think the doctrine must be in error.

Good advice 2A! ItalianScallion has previously brought up this dilemma where Christian doctrines disagree on certain points that are really not-essential to a person's receiving salvation through personal faith in Christ alone.

Marie: As long as both camps believe in personally placing faith in the same New Testament Jesus Christ and repenting and have become born again, as Jesus proclaimed, then the individuals who have done so are part of the family of God and can be counted as "Children of God." (Galatians 3:26)

There are definite scriptural conflicts in most organized Christian denominations and that is why they disagree and become doctrinally separated in their interpretations of such things as eschatology and God's Grace. Many times congregants are then placed back under the law and become obligated to systems of "works" that are imposed by the specific denomination. Trust the Words of Christ for your Salvation and for establishing your spiritual walk with Him:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:36)

BTW: At the Great White Throne Judgment, Jesus will not be looking at whether one was a Baptist; Methodist; Presbyterian; Episcopalian; Pentecostal or Non-denominational member, etc., because in the final analysis church "membership" does not guarantee Salvation!

Jesus will open the Book of Life and that's where one needs to be sure that their name is in there and has not been blotted out.

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Revelation 3:5)

 

[Marie]

Good advice 2A! ItalianScallion has previously brought up this dilemma where Christian doctrines disagree on certain points that are really not-essential to a person's receiving salvation through personal faith in Christ alone.

Marie: As long as both camps believe in personally placing faith in the same New Testament Jesus Christ and repenting and have become born again, as Jesus proclaimed, then the individuals who have done so are part of the family of God and can be counted as "Children of God." (Galatians 3:26)

There are definite scriptural conflicts in most organized Christian denominations and that is why they disagree and become doctrinally separated in their interpretations of such things as eschatology and God's Grace. Many times congregants are then placed back under the law and become obligated to systems of "works" that are imposed by the specific denomination. Trust the Words of Christ for your Salvation and for establishing your spiritual walk with Him:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:36)

BTW: At the Great White Throne Judgment, Jesus will not be looking at whether one was a Baptist; Methodist; Presbyterian; Episcopalian; Pentecostal or Non-denominational member, etc., because in the final analysis church "membership" does not guarantee Salvation!

Jesus will open the Book of Life and that's where one needs to be sure that their name is in there and has not been blotted out.

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Revelation 3:5)

I agree but this is the lens we tend to read the text through, it gives us a presupposition to interpretation of the text.

I am reading a book by two former DTS grads that have jumped ship and are coming down on dispositionalist as being errant, but it appears in some areas he's wrong and using way to broad a brush. One of the items he swept into the mix is that they reject Lordship Salvation, although I know some personally that don't. He goes on further to say that in their interpretation the embraces old heresies. Its an interesting book if you can get by the points you disagree with. I have quite a few.

The book is Dispensationlism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow
(By Curtis I Crenshaw & Grover E Gunn III)

One of the thoughts I had while reading it, is I wonder if the pre trib, premillennial view has caused people both to be lax in their spiritual walk as well as evangelism, because they are subliminally marking the end with things that still need to come to pass, like the one world government, were if they believed in a different view point and that Christ could come today, there would be more urgency.

 

[Zguy28]

Marie, you have to ask yourself a couple questions first.

Do you believe that the Law of Moses is totally gone now, or that parts of it are still applicable to the believer (not for salvation) in sanctification?

Do you believe there is one people of God (spiritual Israel, sons of Abraham, one vine, etc.) composed of Jews and Gentiles, OR two (being Israel and the church) with the New Testament church is just a parenthetical footnote unforeseen by the OT prophets?

Also, what's so scary about New Covenant Theology?


Here is an article from Desiring God describing the three.

What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? - Desiring God

Theopedia also has articles on the three theologies that are very informative, but knowing your history I'm sure you have already read them.

 

[Zguy28]

One of the thoughts I had while reading it, is I wonder if the pre trib, premillennial view has caused people both to be lax in their spiritual walk as well as evangelism, because they are subliminally marking the end with things that still need to come to pass, like the one world government, were if they believed in a different view point and that Christ could come today, there would be more urgency.

On both sides complacency can become normative.

The Pre-Trib dispie falls into escapism and the CT'er can become complacent due to the views on election and pre-destination.

By the way, I'm a former Pre-Trib dispie. When I grew enough spiritually to understand things, I concluded that there was no way that Israel and the church were two different people's of God and that there is not going to be future animal sacrifices (fulfilled by Christ...see Hebrews), new temple (our body is the temple...see Romans), etc.

 

[Starman3000m]

...One of the thoughts I had while reading it, is I wonder if the pre trib, premillennial view has caused people both to be lax in their spiritual walk as well as evangelism, because they are subliminally marking the end with things that still need to come to pass, like the one world government, were if they believed in a different view point and that Christ could come today, there would be more urgency.

Actually, the urgency of sharing the truths of God's Grace and Salvation through Christ should be at the top of the list for believers to be engaged in at all times. We should have a burden for those who are lost in deception and unbelief. That is partaking of The Great Commission that we are called to be engaged in(Acts 1:8) and as Paul exhorted in the following scripture:

2 Timothy, Ch. 4, verses:

1: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5: But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

We are also to be aware of the signs of the end times that the Bible has outlined and that in itself should give us even more urgency to warn others of the impending times of troubles that are coming against this world. Christians are not to become complacent in the security of their Salvation but should be active in helping others receive God's Gift of Salvation through Christ as we have.

As believers we should all see the coming One World Governmental system unfolding at a greater pace than ever and know what the Bible declares will be in store for those who are alive during that time. But, we should also be comforted that whatever takes place our souls are in God's Hands.

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (Luke 12:4-5)

 

[foodcritic]

I grew up in a Pre Millennial dispensationalist Church, than as a teen and adult spent years under Covenant theology and now neither one appear to be Biblically correct.

I see flaws in both. I am also bothered that Dispensationalism wasn't on the radar prior to the 1800's and what difference does it make, if the promises of the land in an earthly 1000 year Kingdom and salvation apply to both, and they do.

It seems problematic that the covenant theologian wants to go back wards and come up with un scriptural ideas or disregard that the number of the gentiles has yet to be fulfilled, and ignore that the Bible is divided into the covenants or testaments, of old and new and only go with the covenant of works pre the fall, and grace afterwards, or that the dispesationalist seems to ignore a ton of verses, that says were one vine, one church, one bride and that the blessings of Israel will benefit other nations. So why would I want to embrace either?

If your either one, than please provide some credibility form scripture alone. At present I think their both wrong, and I am not comfortable with either camp.

Dispensationalism seems to be read into scripture. Covenant are clearly stated in scripture. Jesus declares a "new covenant"

"This is my blood of the covenant1...." (Matthew 26:28)

"This is my blood of the covenant2...." (Mark 14:24)

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood...." (Luke 22:20)

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood...." (1 Corinthians 11:25)

I don't think the "new covenant" should have any bearing on end times are how we each view it. I believe that he church will go through the tribulation and be ruptured just prior to the wrath of God being sent. This position is pre-wrath.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Marie, I haven't spent much time studying those big "churchy" words like Covenant theology or Dispensationalism. It would just confuse me so I just try to follow what the Bible says in context.

I have to agree with all of you on this "Israel" issue. I was a pre-trib rapture guy back in the early 90's but no longer. I, too, believe that the 2nd coming will be the last coming of Christ and that the tribulation will happen before it.

People like John Hagee ("In defense of Israel") say there are 2 plans of salvation: One for the Jews and one for the rest. His problem actually comes from misunderstanding Paul's writings in Romans. There are 2 "apparent" contradictions to the casual reader but, in context, they're clearly not contradictions:

Romans 9v27 says: "...though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved". (BE like the sand by the sea? Did Paul use ebonics)?

Romans 11v26: "and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written..."

Fortunately we have many other verses that make it clear that: "in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". We really have to know what Isaiah was talking about because Paul quotes him a lot in Romans.

 

[Starman3000m]

...I don't think the "new covenant" should have any bearing on end times are how we each view it. I believe that he church will go through the tribulation and be ruptured just prior to the wrath of God being sent. This position is pre-wrath.

This would make an intersting thread for discussing the various views on the "tribulation period" mentioned in Matthew Ch. 24 also Revelation Ch. 13

 

[2ndAmendment]

...(BE like the sand by the sea? Did Paul use ebonics)?
...

That would be Old English.

 

[ItalianScallion]

I believe that he church will go through the tribulation and be ruptured just prior to the wrath of God being sent. This position is pre-wrath.

OMG Foodcritic; that's an hillarious typo!

That would be Old English.

So then the people from Massachussetts speak "New English"??

 

[Zguy28]

Marie, I haven't spent much time studying those big "churchy" words like Covenant theology or Dispensationalism. It would just confuse me so I just try to follow what the Bible says in context.

They are just methods of making a systematic organization of the unity found in the bible.

I have to agree with all of you on this "Israel" issue. I was a pre-trib rapture guy back in the early 90's but no longer. I, too, believe that the 2nd coming will be the last coming of Christ and that the tribulation will happen before it.

People like John Hagee ("In defense of Israel") say there are 2 plans of salvation: One for the Jews and one for the rest. His problem actually comes from misunderstanding Paul's writings in Romans. There are 2 "apparent" contradictions to the casual reader but, in context, they're clearly not contradictions:

Romans 9v27 says: "...though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved". (BE like the sand by the sea? Did Paul use ebonics)?

Romans 11v26: "and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written..."

Fortunately we have many other verses that make it clear that: "in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". We really have to know what Isaiah was talking about because Paul quotes him a lot in Romans.

And indeed all Israel will be saved, when you look at Israel as the elect of God, both Jew and Gentile, the true son's of Abraham.

Romans 4:1-17

1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
The Promise Realized Through Faith
13For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

 

[Starman3000m]

Marie: Here is a link to an article that may help and this is the conclusion:

Many more things can be said regarding Covenant Theology, but the important thing to keep in mind is that Covenant Theology is an interpretive gird for understanding the Scriptures. As we have seen, it is not the only interpretive grid for reading Scripture. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have many differences, and sometimes lead to opposite conclusions regarding certain secondary doctrines, but both adhere to the essentials of the Christian faith: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory!

What is Covenant Theology?

 

[Marie]

On both sides complacency can become normative.

The Pre-Trib dispie falls into escapism and the CT'er can become complacent due to the views on election and pre-destination.

By the way, I'm a former Pre-Trib dispie. When I grew enough spiritually to understand things, I concluded that there was no way that Israel and the church were two different people's of God and that there is not going to be future animal sacrifices (fulfilled by Christ...see Hebrews), new temple (our body is the temple...see Romans), etc.

Funny you should bring up the sacrifices, as Christ was the final payment for sin, then I read in the Bible that their suppose to start again, but this time just as a part of worship. That seems odd and barbaric, especially after the verse
<DIR>Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

And Hebrews 9 and 10, but Johnny Mac and my pastor are saying its not for sin just for worship. With the high regard to the blood and life, it doesn't make sense.
</DIR>

 

[Zguy28]

Funny you should bring up the sacrifices, as Christ was the final payment for sin, then I read in the Bible that their suppose to start again, but this time just as a part of worship. That seems odd and barbaric, especially after the verse
<DIR>Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

And Hebrews 9 and 10, but Johnny Mac and my pastor are saying its not for sin just for worship. With the high regard to the blood and life, it doesn't make sense.
</DIR>

I love John MacArthur, but this is where we diverge paths. I use his materials often for issues of essential doctrines, like when I taught 1 Corinthians. Memorial sacrifices of animals seems outlandish to me as well.

 

[Starman3000m]

Funny you should bring up the sacrifices, as Christ was the final payment for sin, then I read in the Bible that their suppose to start again, but this time just as a part of worship. That seems odd and barbaric, especially after the verse
<DIR>Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

And Hebrews 9 and 10, but Johnny Mac and my pastor are saying its not for sin just for worship. With the high regard to the blood and life, it doesn't make sense.
</DIR>

I doubt that it is referring to the Christians that start up the Temple Worship and blood sacrifices. IMO, this is what Orthodox Judaism will reinstate once they have been able to build the Third Temple of God which they anticipate in doing during these present days. Orthodox Judaism does not accept the Blood Atonement of Jesus, as you know, but they do insist that they need to build the Third Temple and start up the sacrifices as their high priests used to do before the Second Temple was destroyed in 70AD. Some thoughts in Orthodox Judaism are that they personally have to build the Third Temple before Moshiach can return and the other thought is that when Moshiach ben David returns he will build the Temple.

That's why I think that this is an event that happens during the first 3 1/2 years of when antichrist (the Big "A") enacts a pseudo peace-pact with Israel and, thus, gives them time to build the Third Temple. Jewish priests are prepared right now, temple artifacts have been set in place by Orthodox Jews and the Temple's architectural design is already drawn out. Orthodox Jews are now just waiting for the right moment and time when they get the go-ahead to start building - but, it can't happen unless there is some kind of concessionary peace agreement and that's where the deception of antichrist comes into play. (The first 3 1/2 years)