Comparing Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology
Chart: Dispensationalism vs Covenantalism, comparing the two theologies and providing a short list of proponents.
|
Dispensational Theology |
Covenant Theology |
|
Most are Arminian, but many are Amyraldian (4-point Calvinist). |
Usually Calvinist. |
|
Usually does not accept the idea of the ‘Analogy of Faith.’ There are many systems of hermeneutics utilized by Dispensationlists from hyper-symbolic to hyper-literal. |
Accepts the idea of the ‘Analogy of Faith’ (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) |
|
‘Israel’ always means the literal, physical descendants of Jacob (ethnic Jews). |
Depending on the context, ‘Israel’ may mean either physical descendants of Jacob, or “spiritual Israel” (who are people with faith in Christ like Abraham). |
|
‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16 means physical (national, ethnic) Israel alone. |
‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Galatians 3:29; Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; Philippians 3:3. |
|
God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly). Many do not believe in God’s sovereign election. But for those who do believe that God has an elect, they divide the elect by ethnicity (ie Jew, Gentile). |
God always had only one people, the Church who gradually developed through the ages, in accordance with a Covenant worked out in eternity past between the “Three Persons of the Godhead.” (The Cov. of Redemption) |
|
The Church was born at Pentecost after the Ascention of Christ. |
The Church began in the Garden of Eden and grew in the Old Testament with the OT covenants and reached fulfillment in the New Testament with the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. God has one family, one church, one flock, one baptism, one way of salvation whether before the Cross or after – by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. |
|
The Church was not prophesied as such in the OT but was a “mystery”, hidden until the NT. |
Recognizes that there are many OT prophecies of the NT Church, and that the NT writers also affirmed this fact (1 Peter 1:10-12; Acts 2:16-35; 3:22-25). |
|
All OT prophecies for ‘Israel’ are for the physical nation of Israel (ethnic Jews), not the Church. |
Some OT prophecies are for national Israel, others for spiritual Israel based on context. |
|
God’s main purpose in history is national, ethnic Israel. |
God’s main purpose is His own glory, which is revealed in Christ and then through the Body of Christ – the New Covenant Church. |
|
The Church is a parenthesis in God’s program for the ages. |
The Church is the culmination of God’s saving purpose for the ages. |
|
The main heir to Abraham’s covenant was Isaac and literal Israel (ethnic Jews). |
The main heir to Abraham’s covenant was Christ, the Seed, and spiritual Israel which is “in Christ” (Galatians 3:16). Thus all who have faith in Christ (are “in Christ”) are the participants in the Abrahamic Covenant. |
|
God’s program in history is mainly through separate dispensations. |
God’s program is history is mainly through related covenants, but all those covenants were derived from the eternal covenant that the Trinity made in eternity, the Covenant of Redemption. |
|
Most teach that men in the OT were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their Dispensation. |
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. |
|
The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the Dispensation of Grace, not OT and not after the “Secret Rapture.” |
The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, and He indwells the Body of Christ in a special way in the present NT era as an anointing upon the Church for ministry from the glorified Head of the Church who is established on the Throne in heaven, and the Spirit will not be withdrawn from God’s people. |
|
Jesus made an offer of an earthly Kingdom that is defined nationally/ethnically to Israel. Since Israel rejected it, it is postponed till a future time when God will remove the Church from the world, and then God will reinstitute OT Israel via a Great Tribulation for seven years, and then Christ will return. At which time, God will send glorified OT saints to join living Jews on the earth to have national dominion over the world for 1000 years. Then Christ will judge the living and dead, destroy creation and make a new earth and bring a golden heaven down to sit upon it. |
Jesus’ Kingdom is not defined nationally/ethnically but morally and spiritually. That Kingdom was rejected by national Israel but has been accepted by spiritual Israel who are Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ (Galatians 3:29). Christ rules and reigns over His kingdom now as King of kings and Lord of lords. His kingdom will be consummated and fully realized at the Second Advent, in which all the unbelievers will be judged and removed from the earth. The curse of the Fall will be removed from the earth resulting in a “new heavens and new earth” of which believers will enjoy as their inheritance for all eternity. |
|
OT believers were not ‘in Christ,’ nor part of the Body or Bride of Christ even now. |
Believers in all ages are all ‘in Christ’ and part of the Body and Bride of Christ now. |
|
God’s laws as given in the Old Testament are no longer in effect unless repeated in the New Testament. |
God’s moral laws are eternal and are thus in effect forever. OT laws for the government of Israel and temple activity are no longer useful since the inauguration of the New Covenant. |
|
Proponents: |
Proponents: |
Jason-
Excellent chart. Good to see some Baptists on the CT list to dispel the straw men.
Where would you put the NCT men? Since they’re kind of in the middle, more towards Dispy in my opinion, do they deserve their own chart in your mind?
Nathan, please don’t force me to offend the dozen or so NCT’ers that are out there.
Jason,
Thanks so much for re posting this chart. Do you think that there are enough “serious” dispy teachers on the list to satisfy the critics?
Jason while the chart is very nice in a general way can you actually say that someone like Blaising and Bock who are progressive dispensationalists are in the same camp as Darby or Scofield? Also you list Hagee who is an extremist amongst dispensationalists. How can you include him with someone like MacArthur who would have nothing to do with his extreme views? I mean seriously under the Covenantalists why not list Harold Camping?
Understand I hold to covenant theology (baptist) but I would like to see a fair assessment of my brothers in Christ in which I disagree with.
Peter, While I understand you concern, my object here was not to deal with all of the different strands of each category (and there are many for both). Thus I had to lump names together. And I used the most popular of personalities, thus Hagee makes the list because his influence in Dispy circles today is undeniably influential. In fact, I would say there are more people today who know Hagee and affirm his beliefs than there are people who know Blaising and Bock.
As a dispensationalist, I’m disappointed by the chart. It bears little resemblance to the dispensationalism I grew up in.
Again, this chart is not designed to address every strand of theology people have “grown up with.” This chart sufficiently defines these two theological systems considering the purpose of this chart. It is designed to be a glimpse, a comparison, and simple. That way new students of theology are able to get a fair understanding of the two optional systems. I was never given such a fair comparison, even through my decade of higher learning.
[...] put together a helpful comparison between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Read it here. [...]
Here is my perspective on this chart. While this chart tries to be fair to Dispy it clearly was written by a CTer who favors CT. A better chart would allow a proponent from each position handle the questions in each category. Also the chart assumes a monolithic understanding of Dispy. The points in each category actually represent classic dispy and leans more toward the revised classic dispy. Most modern dispy’s lean toward the progressive end of the spectrum and I think this represents a much more careful and reasoned position. I will comment on each point in the dispy side based on this latter perspective.
1. Many 5-pointers
2. No. Hermenuetics a thorny issue for both sides.
3. Israel not just ethnic, but national.
4. Yes
5. Misleading, more continuity.
6. Yes
7. Yes, but needs clarification. Church alluded to in OT
8. Yes, but Church benefits
9. No. Same as CT but with some differences
10. Misleading
11. Yes, but Christ also and NT believers – “all nations blessed”
12. No
13. Misleading, OT faith pointed to Christ.
14. Misleading, HS did indwell OT saints. Hazy topic.
15. Garbled. CT position has some truth.
16. Yes, but misleading. Christ’s death source of atonement/ redemption for OT saints.
17. Overly simplistic. Read Doug Moo articles.
1. Many 5-pointers??? Come on, Scott. Many compared to what? There are Masters Grads right now that are even laughing at that claim.
And from point two down, your responses seem a bit confusing. Take #2 for example: you say “no” but then say that Hermeneutics is “thorny.” Then how is it a “no”?
From that point I see that you affirm 13 of the remaining 15. Maybe not to your “scholarly” standard since you are the more serious Dispy than most
. But it looks to me like you give this chart a passing grade, especially since you use a sliding scale for us CT’ers.
The chart ought to be based on points that are sine qua non issues for the system. One’s position on the doctrines of grace have never been a sine qua non for dispy in spite of your bold protests to the contrary. Cite me one Dispy who has said so and I will reconsider.
[just deleted a comment]
Oh no, did you just try to lump Historic Premillers in with Dispys so that you could get a longer list????
Scott, I can’t let you do that. It is completely inaccurate and you know it.
If you send me a list of just Dispys I will take a look at it and let you post it. email me.
I did not claim they were all Dispy’s just as you cannot claim that Calvin was a CTer. Calvin probably held something like a nascent form of CT and probably is within the stream of thought from which the system developed. Same with the list I provided. Many historic Premillers see a future for Israel (including Spurgeon – see Barry Horner, “Future Israel”, B&H). In fact, the lastest work by a group of Historic Premillers from Denver Seminary (i.e. “The Case for Historic Premillennialism”, ed. by Craig Blomberg, Baker) state that their position is not too far removed from that of Progressive Dispy.
You need to distance yourself from monolithically lumping all dispy’s together as if all preceded from Darby, Scofield, Chafer and Walvoord. Many modern Dispy’s find much in common with Historic Premiller’s; even George Ladd who was an ardent openent of Classic dispys. Many Progressives are indebted to Ladd for his development of the “already/ not yet” tension that most evangelical scholars agree to today including many CTer’s who never thought of such tension before the 1960/70’s.
There is a greater degree of continuity in thought from Post-Reformation premillers to the present developments in dispy, not-withstanding some awkward departures by classic dispy, then you are willing to grant. You are bent on placing everything in your straight-jacket, but it doesn’t work so well. You must not put the development of historic theology in such tight and neatly packed boxes. Intellectual history cannot be reduced to such. The ebb and flow of theological articualtion is much more dynamic then your reductionism will allow.
Nonetheless, if you want censor my list, that is your perogative; it is your blog. But I suggest you let the readers decide for themselves what to think.
Scott, when I read your comments I am afraid that you are missing the forest for the trees. And that is not good… especially since the forest is on fire.
John Piper claims to be closer to NCT than CT.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1439_What_does_John_Piper_believe_about_dispensationalism_covenant_theology_and_new_covenant_theology/
Also, unless you define “Covenant Theology” to a strict Westminster Confession definition, saying that “Covenant Theology” is usually Calvinist is not accurate by a long-shot. What about all the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists?
Also, James Montgomery Boice is a mixed bag. He was a pretrib premil, rebuilt temple a la Ezekiel in the millennium with regard to eschatology (see his commentary on the Minor Prophets and his book Last and Future World), but covenant theology in regards to his soteriology.
Jason,
Can you briefly address some differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism?
the following is not original with me, but the best I can give you with short notice and brevity:
1. The Lord’s Supper. Lutherans generally believe that somehow Christ is bodily present at the sacrament, a view often times referred to as “consubstantiation,” alhhough I have heard some Lutherans reject that term. The Reformed, on the other hand, believe that Christ is present at the Supper by his Spirit (and is not bodily present). This means that that the Supper is more than just a memorial and a real means of grace (for those who receive the Supper by faith, God strengthens them spiritually). While Christ is not bodily present, there is a “Real Presence” in that He is present spiritually.
2. Baptism. I have understood that the general Lutheran view of baptism is regenerational. In other words, by the administration of the sacrament a person is regenerated and made to be “born again”. The Reformed, however, believe that, certainly, God is able to regenerate a person at baptism, but He does not necessarily do so.
In other words, God is not so restricted that He must regenerate a person at baptism. He may regenerate a person whenever He wants – before, during, or after baptism. Of course, another option is that God may decide not to regenerate a person at all! The Holy Spirit is sovereign, and like the wind, He may blow when and where he pleases (see John 3).
3. The Law/Gospel distinction. Lutheranism tends to draw a very distinct and pronounced divide between Law and Gospel (as well as between Old Testament and New Testament). The Law is generally seen as an oppressive thing by Luther. The Law, for him, only seems to have one primary purpose; i.e., to act as a schoolmaster to lead a sinner to Christ, faith, and repentance.
The Reformed, while affirming fully this purpose of the law, also teach other uses of the law. For instance, the Law is a guide even for the unbeliever. Luther seems to dismiss this use of the law. He also seems to believe that since the Christian is free from the law for his justification, somehow he is also free from the law for his sanctification.
Calvin believed that the Law was a way in which God administers his common grace, using the law to suppress wickedness even among pagan peoples, and also promoting righteousness and social orderliness. And for Calvin the third use of the law is the “principal use, which pertains more closely to the proper purpose of the law [and] finds its place among believers in whose ‘hearts the ‘Spirit of God already lives and reigns” (Calvin’s Institutes, II. vii. 12). This is in keeping with the Psalmist’s statements, “I find my delight in your commandments, which I love” (Psalm 119:47, English Standard Version) and “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalm 119:97, ESV), and with the Apostle Paul’s statement, “I delight in the law of God, in my inner being” (Romans 7:22, ESV).
So, to summarize this point, for Luther the covenant God make with man seems to be completely one way. God makes covenant with man to save him and that’s it. The covenant has no stipulations for man, whereas in Calvin’s view of the covenant, it is a two-way street. Yes, God sovereignly administers his covenant to his people by grace alone, but every covenant has obligations. Every covenant has, in other words, Law AND Gospel. So the Reformed tend not to separate Law and Gospel as dramatically as do the Lutherans.
Jason R.,
You don’t even look like you’re trying to be objective on this one. You come across as having an axe to grind. That’s fine… unless you ignore evidence which contradicts your conclusions.
I know a lot of guys who are five-point Calvinists and dispensational. Misrepresenting a position always does damage to the truth. Always.
Jason, you are making a common mistake: you are making conclusions based on inductive reasoning or anecdotal evidence (i.e. evidence in the form of hearsay or casual observations). My statement is based upon research. In fact, my chart is similar to Dr. Curt Daniel’s chart in his infamous book on the “History of Calvinism” that I was told to buy some years ago by Phil Johnson. Dr. Daniel’s doesn’t make his statement based on anecdotal evidence, rather he makes his statement in light of historical facts.
Listen, Jason, I understand that you may know many Dispy Calvinists. But that is “a lot” in comparison to what?
I can say “a lot” about a lot of things that aren’t necessarily “a lot.” There are a lot of Muslims who become Christians. There are a lot of Catholics who don’t pray to Mary. The Minor League Elsinore Storm baseball team has a lot of fans. And sure, there are a lot of Dispy’s who are 5-point Calvinists. But, Jason, can you tell me how many? A few hundred? A few thousand? And how many Dispy’s are not 5-pointers? Uh oh.
And if you said that CT has a lot of 5-point Calvinist, could you also say that Dispy’s a “a lot” with the same standard or definition of “a lot”? Dr. Curt Daniel’s didn’t think so.
Jason,
You say “Most are Arminian, but many are Amyraldian (4-point Calvinist).” One would come away thinking that 5-point Calvinism is inconsistent with dispensationalism. Your previous posts suggest that you believe this to be the case.
That’s fine. But saying it doesn’t make it so. So out with your arguments. I’m curious to find out why you think the two are incompatible.
There’s nothing illogical about saying “look, my corner is full of ‘em.” You can either say it’s not true, or you can argue why we are not 5-pointers or not dispensational. Those are the only real choices.
Jason, thanks for continuing this discussion. This subject is very helpful to many who are working through these issues theologically.
But we need to finish points before we move on to new ones. So, what are your answers to my questions in the comment above this one? Are you familiar with Dr. Daniel’s? Do you know how many 5pt-Dispy-Calvinists there are compared to how many are not?
I have to agree with Scott Christensen. I read the descriptions in the left column and then the names below and really felt someone was getting mislabeled…badly. I think you did a disservice to whatever you were actually trying to accomplish.
Granted, no one may have even looked twice at your list if you hadn’t offended more than a few of the men in the Dispensational column.
You need to at least be more careful by breaking down each category according to the five major labels: Dispensation, Progressive Dispensation, CT, NCT and Kingdom Theology.
THAT would be a well-visited web-page.
And, good luck with that.
I have done several such comparisons before and will be posting some here on FIDE-O. But I will not be breaking down Dispy into all of its sub-categories. You know that all systems have sub-categories and why Dispy’s insist that they must have their subs defined is obvious — the brief history as a system is embarrassing. But here is the irony: Dispy is morphing so often that if I were to break down their subs, even then they would not be satisfied and my chart would be outdated by the end of the year most likely.
Jason R.,
I have no idea what the ratio is. Neither do you. But the point is irrelevant. Your presentation suggests that for the large part, there are no five-point dispensationalists.
I was a 5-point Calvinist Dispy at one time. What year did Dr. MacArthur finally affirm Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption? Do you know why it took him so long? I do. It is an interesting story. But I will not tell it here because I don’t think this debate should be about personalities but about theology.
Jason,
Don’t leave us hanging … I would love to know the story about MacArthur and particular redemption!
Ken, it is time to update your blogroll so that your link to FIDE-O goes here to fide-o.com not to the old blogspot site.
Concerning Dr. Mac’s theological journey, I love and respect that man too much to say too much about it. I would never want to misrepresent him. And when one tries to tell another man’s story without the explicit help of that man then the possibilities of misrepresenting him are just high. When I get a chance, though, I may see if there is an article or media online where he talks specifically about that subject.
Jason,
Thanks for the info on Lutheranism/Calvinism and thanks for re-posting the DT/CT chart. Sorry about the follow up fireworks from some of the dispys.
Have you talked about your journey from DT to CT? I would like to read about that.
Good stuff.
Add Matt Chandler, http://hv.thevillagechurch.net/sermons to the CT group.
Kern
Nice chart, Jason – I just linked to it on the A-Team Blog. I’ll also second the motion for a Dispy, Porgressive Dispy, CT, and NCT chart when you get the time!
[...] shared between covenantal and dispensational positions. I’d probably suggest a list like this: Comparing Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology | The Fide-o Blog It’s not perfect either. However, I’d probably qualify that "row 2", while valid, is [...]
Where do you get the idea that most Dispensationalists are Arminian? That is garbage. Most of us believe in election. God’s sovereignty overrules everything, including man’s “free will,” such as it is.
By the way, you need to add Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum to your paltry list of Dispensational proponents.
The Church was NOT seen in the OT, unless Paul was a liar. While the prophets DID see and understand that the gospel would be extended to Gentiles, they saw NOTHING about the Church at all. Their view likely was seen in the fact that the Gentiles would come in greater numbers to God THROUGH the nation of Israel. They had no other reference point at all.
It would be good if you re-read Romans, especially 9-11 again. When Paul speaks of two Israels, he is NOT speaking to Gentiles at that point. He is comparing unregenerate Jews with regenerate Jews (the real Israel). Everything about that section is dealing with Jewish individuals. He deals with Gentiles elsewhere.
The Church is NOT made up of spiritual Israel made up of Jews and Gentiles. The Church is the Bride of Christ made up of men, women, Jews and Gentiles.
The ONLY benefit Gentiles receive based on the Abrahamic Covenant is salvation. All other promises are related to Jews who become regenerated.
Funny how God cannot lie, but Covenant Theology has Him breaking His promises to His wife (Israel is often referred to as the wife of Jehovah).
Moreover, while Covenant Theology charges that Dispensationalism espouses two (or more) methods of salvation, based supposedly on new responsibilities given to humanity (like a job description) which is taken to refer to SALVATION by CT, it is actually CT which unabashedly espouses TWO methods of salvation; Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.
It is stated that Adam and Eve had to earn their salvation based on some covenant that is not at all detailed in the text. Because they were disobedient to God, they failed and supposedly lost their chance at eternal life (cf. Berkhof or Shedd).
The actual fact of the matter is that Adam and Eve did NOT have to earn anything. Their test was based SOLELY on whether they would continue BELIEVING God, or if they would switch their allegiance to Satan.
They chose to accept Satan’s argument that God was a liar. Hence, they then began to DISBELIEVE God, instead believing the Tempter. This was where their sin BEGAN (and both James and John (cf. 1 John), make this absolutely clear.
Salvation has ALWAYS been by believing God’s Word, whether it was spoken or written. Adam and Eve chose to disregard God’s Word, choosing instead to believe a REAL liar. The actual act of disobedience was the natural outgrowth of the sin that already existed within them through their lack of faith (or lack of continued believing in God’s Word).
If CT could see a higher purpose than salvation, they might actually “get it.” To the CT, God’s highest purpose for everything He does is found in salvation. This makes it MAN-Centered.
In truth, God’s highest purpose for everything He has done, is doing and will do is found in His absolute and unwavering SOVEREIGNTY.
It is recognition of His sovereignty that ultimately brings Him the greatest glory. While salvation is EXTREMELY important and a magnaminous blessing from God that we do NOT deserve and it does point to His sovereignty, it is only one vehicle which God uses to direct EVERYTHING to His sovereignty.
Even those who will NEVER receive His salvation wind up glorifying Him. Why? Because they have ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be under His sovereignty. They just did not know it in this life. They WILL know it in the next life because Romans 9:17 says that ALL will bow the knee.
The reason God started the whole ball of wax going at all was so that His absolute sovereignty (and everything that comes under it) would be on display for all that He created.
This is WHY the CT constantly thinks that the Dispensationalist is changing methods of salvation from one dispensation to another. However, this is patently false.
It is His sovereignty. It is His sovereignty. It is HIS absolute, unswering, unwavering sovereignty, as God’s highest reason for everything.
We have two choices in this life:
1) Voluntarily submit to His will, His plans and His purposes thereby recognizing NOW that He IS sovereign. This can only be done by authentic Christians, or
2) Resist Him, fight against Him and think that you are captain of your own life, making decisions and guiding your direction. It will be in the afterlife that you will realize that your life was STILL guided by His sovereignty. It will be THEN that the knee is bowed.
I would prefer to bow the knee NOW, as a Christian, giving Him all I possess, because He gave it to me anyway. He is GOD, He is SOVEREIGN and there is NO ONE who can even attempt to sit on His throne, much less rise above it.
Even Satan, the Antichrist, Judas, Pharaoh of old and everything else (good and bad) IS under His sovereignty. Nothing can circumvent it. Not one thing.
We either love Him immensely for it, or hate Him just as much, BUT we will never change or escape His sovereignty.
The quicker Christians get used to that, the better off they will be because they will be glorifying Him more and more each and every day. Sorry this is long. I have been busy doing research for another book I’m writing in defense of Dispensationalism. I have been reading what people think about Dispensationalism and I guess I’m tired of being referred to as a heretic, or a “false religion” or whatever.
I’ll stop now. If you’ve read this far, thank you.
In Christ,
Fred
(The Dispensational Heretic)
My apologies. When I quoted Romans 9:17, I actually meant Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:9-11.
The Romans 9:17 passage is referring to God’s sovereignty in the case of Pharaoh, who was brought into this world for that very purpose.
Fred, I appreciate your passion and humor. Your desire for truth is wonderful and I am sure is a blessing to all who know you personally.
I would encourage you to read a commentary that I have just recently read. It is a true blessing to me and dealt with some of your concerns with clarity and biblical exegesis. It is Schreiner’s commentary on Romans. Concerning your statements above I would refer you to pages 38-39 just for starters.
God bless you. And I hope you keep reading and studying and pursuing truth.
Let me quote from pages 44-45, as Schreiner exegetes the text of Romans 1:1-7. He is showing how Paul was making the theological case that Jesus is the true Israel, the son of David by Flesh and the son of God by Spirit. He notes, “The resurrection of Jesus indicates, therefore, that God has begun to fulfill his promises to Israel. The saving promises made to the nation have become a reality in and through the true Israel, Jesus the Messiah.” He continues, “Paul contends that Jesus is the true Son of God. He is the true Israel. The OT promises regarding the vindication of Israel have been fulfilled through him. The promise of a Davidic king and a Messiah also apply to Jesus. Thus the expectation that God would vindicate his people through a Davidic ruler has also become a reality (Ps. 2:7-12; 89; Isa. 11; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-18; Ezek 34:23-31; 37:24-28). Jesus reigns from heaven as the messianic king… the resurrection of Israel has dawned as well (Ezek 37). Jesus as the Son of God is the true Israel who has been resurrected from the dead. God has fulfilled his promises made to Israel through and in the Messiah Jesus. One becomes a recipient of the blessings of Israel, therefore, by incorporation into the Messiah (cf. Gal 3:16). Since the Messiah and true Israel (i.e. the Son of God) has come, the OT promises that speak of blessing the whole world through Abraham (e.g., Gen. 12:3) are now being fulfilled (cf. C. Anderson 1993:37-38). Paul as an apostle of the Messiah has received a commission to bring the good news of the fulfillment of God’s saving promises to the whole world, in order to bring about the obedience of faith among all nations.”
I have a few questions:
1: Is there a term for those who see Biblical points on both sides of the chart? I’ve been taught and believe that it’s more important to be Biblical than to hold to any particular theological system. Do you believe it is possible to believe there are Biblical points from both camps or do you think that would indicate that one’s theology is contradicting itself?
2: Do CT’s really believe that OT saints were saved by works?! (I got this impression from the 8th Paragraph on post #32 by Fred-Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace)
3: How does the last point on the chart (God’s Laws being in effect today) differ between Dispensational and Covenant Theology- aren’t the only OT laws that are repeated in the NT the moral laws? What’s an example of a moral law in the OT that is NOT repeated in the NT?
I appreciate the chart you’ve created and this disucussion. I have been curious about this subject for some time as I have strong influence from both sides- both my previous and present pastors are 5 point Calvinists but tend toward Dispensationalism (with maybe some Covenant beliefs). Some good friends with whom we love to discuss theology attend a church pastored by Bill Ascol (Tom Ascol’s brother) and are very involved with the Founders group so they are definately in the Covenant camp.
Thanks again for your time and for this discussion!
Aliecia,
It is true that it is more important to be Biblical than to hold to any particular theological system. That is why I was able to discard Dispensationalism after years of believing it and even preaching it. The more I studied the Bible the more I became convinced the Dispensationalism is completely wrong and even damaging to the church . As a student of church history I have been amazed, in fact, at how much Dispensationalism has been one of the major factors in the current condition of the Western Church. But I am confident that the things are changing (possibly because of the internet and the age of information). Even Christians in rural communities now have access to expository preaching and sound exegesis that is turning the tide theologically across the globe.
Concerning your second question, I think you are misunderstanding Fred’s rants. CT is thoroughly a “salvation by grace alone through faith alone” theology.
Concerning your last question there are many moral laws in the OT that aren’t repeated in the NT such as bestiality.
Dr.John MacArthur is a 5 pointer and believes in Limited Atonement
From his sermon “Whom did Christ die for”
Someone will say, “Wait a minute. You believe in a limited atonement.” Yes I do believe in a limited atonement and so do you. Let me help you with that.
We know the atonement is limited because not everybody believes. People die without believing in Christ. They die rejecting the gospel. They die without ever hearing about Christ and the only way to be saved is through faith in Christ. Sinners perish every minute and have through all of history. We all know the atonement is limited. Scripture is explicit about hell. Jesus said many are going to go there. So when somebody accuses you of saying, “You believe in limited atonement,” of course you do. The atonement does not apply to everyone.
And that leads to a second question…how is it limited? Well simply because not all are saved…not all believe. The only remaining question is…who limits it? Who limits it? The popular idea is that sinners limit the atonement because it’s a universally available atonement, limited only by sinners. But there’s a sense in which God limits it because God limits it to those who believe and nobody can believe unless He gives them faith. So what the New Testament really teaches is that God has limited the atonement by His sovereign election and sovereign grace.
Любопытно! Только не могу понять как часто обновляется этот блог?
I thought that I should help in this one.
The above post by Haym is Russian and it says:
“Curious! Just can not understand how often this blog is updated?”
Answer: As often as needed.
Jason,
I am fairly new to Reformed Theology, just over a year. Been a believer for 20 years. Can you recommend a book that refutes dispensationalism?
Also, why does it seem that MacArther is on the wrong side of your chart?
Thanks
Steve
Steve,
Some good books that help see through the flaws in dispensational theology…
1. A Case for Amillennialism – Kim Riddlebarger
2. Man of Sin – Kim Riddlebarger
3. MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto – Sam Waldron
4. Goldsworthy Trilogy – Graeme Goldsworthy
Hope that helps! You can also check out this website http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/ for free resources.
You have John MacArthur in the wrong column. You need to check out his theology a little better.
This is a good chart. There is only one Church that has believed and taught the Gospel one way throughout the ages and has remained unchanged.
The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
And it ain’t Roman Catholicism…
John MacArthur calls himself a leaky Dispensationalist. Why’s ? Israel, it’s all about Israel to him
Let me add my own “Thanks!” for putting together this helpful chart of comparison. As a former dispy, I know they won’t like it, but then again it was resources like this that drew me away from dispy chaos and into a right understanding of covenant theology. So a heart “Well done!” to ya!
@Pete (Comment #901): No, MacArthur is in the right column. He’s a firm dispensationalist and infact virulently anti-ever-other-position. How else could he have the temerity to preach his sermon, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Pre-millennialist” at the Shepard Conference. He even said that “if Calvin were here he would join our movement” because of Israel has lasted this long and is now being re-established as a nation. For an excellent response to John MacArthur’s inane dispy rant at the Shepard Converence, see: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/