If you disagree with some of theses tenets then please list the numbers in you comments.
I have posted a list of Dispensational beliefs and Covenant beliefs from Dr. Kurt Daniel’s book “The History and Theology of Calvinism.” While I am sure no one will agree 100% with either side I would like to know from both camps if you think this is an accurate assessment of the basics of these two theological systems. Click the picture for the large version. Also if you can track down a copy of this book, I believe it to be a “must have” in anyone’s library.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
While I am from neither camp, I suppose his assesment of covenant theology seems right on, but I would say the dispensational points represent classic dispensational views, which have been morphing in recent decades. Perhaps I’m not running with many dispensationlists lately — those I do know would have a problem with a number of the points listed in their column. Just my view, based on anecdotal evidence.
Bo Salisbury
PietyHill Press
Notice there are 30 items for each side totalling 60. And it ends on page 66. Three sixes means something, doesn’t it?
According to this i am neither. But I consider my self a dispy. and if i had to make an honest assesment even of todays evangleical landscape, I dont think that is an accurate picture. Why, because there has been some changes there.
Why would there be changes?
Because, the herminudic is self corrective.
So honestly no I dont agree with it. Its a bit dated. Things have progressed and changed a bit sense it has been published.
I think a list of points from the ” Master’s Seminary”, or something recommended by them, might serve the discussion better.
Great idea though. More if this type of thing could be of great benefit.
As for the list I have to agree with Screaming Pirate In saying that it seems a bit dated.
It actually looks like someone took a list of points from scofield.
It looks pretty accurate to me.
“Also if you can track down a copy of this book, I believe it to be a “must have” in anyone’s library.”
True, and if you can’t find them, then go to Monergism.com and in the Sermons page search for Curt Daniel, you will find 70 lectures from Curt Daniel in mp3 format entitled “The History and Theology of Calvinism”.
And another though on this. If this is the dispensationalism your arguing against you had better re-evaluate some of you argements. I would even argue agains this type of dispensationalism.
Please do argue against it. And our job would be done.
This list may be found online here.
You can order a copy of the book here.
For those that have noted that the descriptions may be dated, keep in mind this is from a study that focused on history. Chafer’s systematic is referenced as the “representative” dispensational theology text.
I would agree that many of the points for dispensationalism have been dropped or modified, in part because dispensationalism is a fairly new theological system and is still being refined (not necessarily a bad thing – reformed, but always reforming).
What is fide-o’s ridiculous obsession with Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim? Almost every post is about one of these two topics. We get the point, let’s move on. Your beating the hell out of these two views all the time. They’ve had enough? Next topic please? Maybe something more unifying?
~Brian
I’m sorry, you act as if this is a public television station. There are 50,000,000,000 blogs out there. Since when did we not get to beat any dead horse we feel like. Not that I think we have.
time to move on from how we view the Gospel . . . wonderful
you guys are a trip…scott…i’m going to be laughing for a few days on that last comment!
but, my comment is in line with the initial ones…that you’re dealing with classic dispensationalism (old scofield version)…which much of the CT brothers tend to camp on. Some (CT) would hate to say that there is some commonality with Dispy’s so they have to stay camped on criticizing the old stuff. What I don’t see CT brothers doing is acknowledging the fluidity of dispensationalism today and dealing with the separate versions accordingly.
I agree with Scott. The reason the discussion can not continue is because although we have made our positions very clear, even to the point of making some people mad, the Dispys will not make their positions clear. Rather we just keep hearing the same old stuff like: we don’t all agree, or thats not what most of us believe, etc. Well, here is your chance. List for us which of this classic list you agree with and which do you not and why.
Thank you for this chart, it was very helpfull. I wish Curt Daniel’s book was for sale somewhere. His MP3′s are fantastic.
I agree with the dead horse beater
I know that the list is the overall views of classic or original dispensational theology. I would love to see a list of points from TMS or anyone who, for that matter, disagrees with the posted list.
I don’t know that you can call the list outdated. There are still a lot of people who would agree with a large percentage of the original list. The question I would like to know is if someone agrees with the list would they be called a dispensationalist.
Scott, yes they would. However, not every tenet of what is on that list is because of dispensationalism.
I think Dan put together a pretty good list of what is and what isn’t essential to dispensationalism.
Jason, when you say that “we have made our positions clear”, I assume you mean the felluz from FIDE-O and not CT as a whole.
St. Brianstine — What is fide-o’s ridiculous obsession with Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim?
It’s the “My-skanky-new-girlfriend-is-not-skanky-she’s-not-she’s-not-she’s-NOT” phenomenon.
Skanky? Is that really how you refer to covenant theology? I was thinking maybe old and wrinkly.
Hm; better check the OED on that one….
Only commenting on the dispensational side, and I consider myself a dispensationalist, I would say that 15-22 seem a bit off to me in varying degrees.