Archive for the ‘Covenant Theology’ Category

COVENANT THEOLOGY AND DISPENSATIONALISM: A COMPARISON Part 3

March 24, 2011

Part 3 – IMPLICATIONS

Go to Part 1 – A Look At Dispensationalism
Go to Part 2 – A Look At Covenant Theology

 A Weakened Church

I suppose this is a severely controversial statement that I’m about to make, but I cannot deny my conscience in this. 

I’m convinced that dispensationalism has weakened the Church. 

However, I ask the reader not to take that statement to an extreme, for it is a statement of degree, not an absolute.  For example, some of the people whom I believe to be among the greatest Christians of our era are dispensationalists; people like John MacArthur, Jerry Falwell, and Charles Stanley.  I do not advocate the proverbial throwing out of the baby with the bath water.  But do let us get to that bath water.

First of all, dispensationalism has weakened the Church by its inconsistent and disjointed hermeneutic, causing a latent uncertainty towards the Bible and shaking its adherent’s confidence. Now, I can hear the shouts of dispensationalists in my ear as I write this, because the most zealous Bible fundamentalists in the world are dispensationalists, and any accusation that they may have a weak position on the Bible would be totally perplexing to them.  However, I would point out that a strong attitude does not guarantee a strong position or doctrine.   

Inconsistency is really the hallmark of the dispensational approach to the Bible.  Its determined literalism is the root cause of this inconsistency.  A hermeneutic that presupposes that a given passage is to be taken literally unless one can be convinced otherwise, tends to have the opposite of its intended effect.  For example, when taken literally, certain passages can directly contradict other passages.  Well, if we are to take everything literally, by what means are we able to discern the truth when these apparent contradictions appear?  But when we let the scripture be what it is within a given genre and historical context, we can relax the tension between apparent contradictions because in fact those tensions don’t even exist in reality.

An example of dispensational inconsistence is given by Gentry:

“But when it supports their eschatological system, dispensationalists vigorously argue for literalism.  For instance, of Isaiah 9:7 the New Scofield Reference Bible explains:  “’The throne of David’ is an expression as definite, historically, as ‘the throne of the Caesars,’ and does not admit of spiritualizing.”  Yet dispensationalist Gordon H. Johnston writes: “God will fulfill His promises in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16) to establish the eternal Davidic dynasty over Israel through a single ideal Davidic King who will reign eternally (Ps. 89:20-37).”  But when we read this passage we discover it expressly mentions David himself, not a “Davidic King”: “I have found David My servant;/With My holy oil I have anointed him,/with whom My hand will be established;/My arm also will strengthen him” (Ps 89:20-21).”

 

Also, Gentry repeatedly notes that dispensationalists, in contradiction to their own rules of interpretation,  consistently interpret certain passages non-literally when the text gives no warrant for a metaphorical understanding whatsoever.  Such is the case in almost every mention of the term “this generation” in the Gospels, which dispensationalists immediately spiritualize to mean “a future generation” (see againstdispensationalism.com).

So we see that the dispensationalists must constantly be unsure as to whether the passage he is reading is to be taken literally or not, whether the passage is “applicable” or not, and whether he has indeed taken the right side of the debate or not. 

Most embarrassing for dispensationalists is the glaring fact that their literalism is the same literalism that the first century Pharisees practiced.  It was the Jews’ literalistic approach to the Kingdom of God that was their downfall.  It was the Pharisees that believed that salvation was by their ethnic identity, an idea that Jesus flatly condemned (“not of blood”, John 3:12; “you are of your father the Devil, John 8:44).  Dispensationalism commits the grievous error of endorsing the doctrine of the Pharisees by insisting that God will someday save all of the Jews based on their blood-relation to Abraham.

Secondly, dispensationalism has weakened the Church by its portrayal of the Church as a sort of afterthought, a temporary companion while God awaits the return of His true love, Israel.  As will be discussed more at length in the next section, the idea that modern Israel is God’s People in every since of the Old Covenant has led many Christians to expend great effort and funds on the political objectives of modern Israel.  And many of those churches that do maintain a spiritual attitude toward Israel are guilty of over-emphasizing the conversion of Jews, which has steered energy and funds away from other areas of ministry that should have equal or greater value.  After all, the “Great Commission” was the Lord’s command to “teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19).

Also, dispensationalism’s propensity to advocate the local church at the expense of the universal or invisible church has led to unnecessary fractures and extreme separatism within the body of Christ.  In the local-church-only system, the biblical commandment to care for one another, being “members one of another” (Romans 12:5), applies only to those members of a particular church, and not necessarily to those of another church.  When that ethos is mixed into the fundamentalist movement, noble and courageous as it was, the result has often been an ugly form of separatism that demonizes any opposition to one’s particular view and discounts the faith and questions the orthodoxy, yea, even the salvation, of other Christians.  In the separatists retreat into the bunker, anti-intellectualism and doctrinal in-breeding can take place.  When one is eventually forced outside the bunker, one’s faith can be easily weakened, being unaccustomed to opposing viewpoints, unable to articulate one’s viewpoint in the face of opposition, and unable to function in an environment of diverse opinions.  Others simply stay in the bunker, never willing to take the risk of discovering that they may be wrong.

 

Christian Zionism

I am compelled by the possibility of being labeled as anti-Semitic to provide a strong disclaimer.  My interest in this treatise is strictly spiritual, not political, and the status of modern Israel concerns me only insofar as it affects the Christian world.  I have no qualms with the right of Israel to exist; I support it as a rational solution to certain political and societal problems caused by the lack of a Jewish homeland during the Diaspora of nearly two millennia. 

But many dispensationalists have adopted an irrational political view of modern Israel in which all of Israel’s political objectives are unquestionably supported, even to the point of supporting Jewish expansion to ancient borders.  This is Christian Zionism.  Dispensationalism is the theological rationale for Christian Zionism, and all dispensationalists are at least latent Christian Zionists, with many being overtly Zionist.  Some take it so far as to propose that if the United States were to ever go to war against Israel, Christians should defect to Israel’s side.  I offer no proof text of this, as it is not the official public position of any dispensational group, but I know this to be true by my own experience as a dispensationalist. 

Taking the dispensational view of Israel to its radical logical conclusion, Pastor John Hagee, a popular television evangelist, declares:

“Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus.  But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity”. (The Other Gospel of John Hagee, pfo.org, 2009)

 

So Hagee’s ministry unquestionably supports Israel politically, but does not support evangelism to the Jews based on his theory that Jews do not need Christ to be saved. 

Believing that modern Israel is the center of all prophecy, dispensationalists place great emphasis on the establishment of the modern state in 1948 as a prophetic fulfillment.  For example, Gary Demar notes that in Tim LaHaye’s first edition of The Beginning of the End, which was published in 1972, LaHaye says, “Carefully putting all this together, we now recognize this strategic generation. It is the generation that ‘sees’ the four-part sign of verse 7 [in Matt. 24], or the people who saw the First World War.”  But in LaHaye’s 1991 edition of the same book, he says, “Carefully putting all this together, we now recognize this strategic generation. It is the generation that ‘sees’ the events of 1948 (Response to Critic,  AmericanVision.com, 2010) .  The events of 1948 are so important to his theology that LaHaye was willing to edit his comments, subjecting himself to valid criticism for his change.  People that make prophetic declarations based on the news of the day are frequently given a pass on their failed prophecies.  Although most dispensationalists do not participate in this kind of pop-prophecy, they do theologically support it whether they intend to or not by their insistence that the events surrounding modern Israel are “signs of times”, and that the end must be near.

Conclusion

What does dispensational theology and its offspring Christian Zionism say about our attitude toward our Christian brethren, the Palestinian Christians?  Has the evangelical church become blind to their plight?  Have we, in our zeal to support Israel, made the mistake of demonizing all Palestinians, even the Christians?  Does their displacement have any place in our conversations?  Why are our churches sending money and people to relocate Jews to a disputed land and not sending help to Palestinian churches to aid them not only in their own economic plight but in their efforts to preach the Gospel in the land?  When is the last time we heard about a missionary going to Israel to witness to the Arabs?

Again, my concern is not political, but spiritual.  After all, what does it say to the world of nations, whom we are commanded to win to Christ, when we allow ourselves to be drawn into political conflicts and with a confused theology declare that God is not on their side?  How can we claim to be sending missionaries just to preach the Gospel?  How can we overcome the suspicions of hostile governments that frequently accuse Christian missionaries of having a political agenda?

All of these questions provide a sober critique and represent significant obstacles that the Church must face, and it is my estimation that dispensational theology does much to build the obstacles, rather than providing means to overcome them.

In contrast, Covenant Theology provides the greatest motive to the Church in its efforts to win the Jews to Christ.  We see the urgency in that Christ is the only way to God in any dispensation, and that the Church is the only earthly hope for Israel and the Jews, being “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and according to Romans 11:30, “through your mercy [The Gentile Believers] they [The Jews] also may obtain mercy” (Romans 11:31).  Through Covenant Theology we also see that the Jews are not to turn back to Moses as their hope; they must turn to Christ and forsake the Old Covenant Temple in which God no longer dwells.  They must put their trust in Christ, not in land.  They must follow the faith of Abraham and our fathers, who “desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11:16).  Christ is the Jews’ Land, their Temple, their Sacrifice, their Hope.  Let us return to preaching of the Gospel to every creature, in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the world.

Advertisements

COVENANT THEOLOGY AND DISPENSATIONALISM: A COMPARISON Part 2

March 9, 2011

Part 2:  A look at Covenant Theology

Go to Part 1:  A look at Dispensationalism
Go to Part 3:  Implications

What is Covenant Theology?

Covenant Theology is the historic theology of the Church.  Certain basic tenets of it can be seen in the Church Fathers; however, it is difficult to recognize it as a crystallized body of teaching until Augustine at the earliest, and without doubt it was an important feature of the theology of the Protestant Reformers, especially Calvin.

It is an over-arching view of the Bible, providing a unifying thread and a consistent message throughout the entire Bible, from front to back.  This unifying thread is, as its name implies, the several covenants found throughout scripture.  

A covenant is, in simple terms, an agreement between parties.  It can be either a mutual agreement or an imposed agreement.  It is modeled after the suzerainty covenants of the ancient Middle East in which a stronger nation, perhaps a conquering nation, enters into agreement or covenant with a weaker nation to provide protection and certain other benefits in exchange for vassal loyalty and whatever benefits of economic goods and services may be provided.  Failure to meet the condition(s) of the covenants guarantees certain negative consequences.  So we see the end of all the covenants as either blessing or cursings.

It is important to keep in mind that in Covenant Theology, all the covenants are seen as conditional covenants (Hafemann, God of Promise, 2001, 58-60).  There are systems of theology among the evangelical family that espouse the existence of unconditional covenants, but these donot represent the Reformed Protestant tradition.  There are even variations on this issue even within the Reformed Protestant family, and so we will speak charitably as possible.

We can see a biblical proof of the conditionality of the covenants by a short study on John 3:18-21:

He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (19) And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (20) For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. (21) But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

 

Dispensationalists are quick to note that condemnation comes through the Law, but salvation come by grace, so they might be apt to jump right to verse 20 to emphasize John’s use of “deeds” to place condemnation squarely in the covenant of Law.  However, this conclusion requires a leap-frog over the foremost cause of condemnation highlight by the passage – “because he has not believed”.  Now one should ask, by what covenant is a man condemned  through unbelief?  Please note that the scripture says that the condemnation was in place, “already”.  How can a man be condemned already due to unbelief in a savior in whom he has not even heard, and in particular a pre-cross and a pre-resurrection Christ, by which all men would be drawn?  This passage makes sense only if Covenant Theology is applied – if we understand that from the very onset of grace in the protoevangelium the condition of its blessings was faith in a coming Savior, now on earth and proclaimed as Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  Those not meeting the faith-condition of the Covenant of Grace in fact fail of the grace of God, and are condemned.

Before I go on to list and describe the various covenants, I should point out that Covenant Theologians do not deny the existence of dispensations, and likewise, dispensationalists do not deny the existence of covenants.  As far as the Protestant Church’s historic position on dispensations, it has historically viewed time as being divided into two dispensations, obviously parallel to the Bible testaments, designated the Old Testament and the New Testament.  In addition to recognizing the existence of these two dispensations, it is also recognized that a difference exists between the dispensations in the “economies”, or ways in which God relates to the world and mankind.  However, in the Covenantal scheme, the differences between the dispensations are in degree, not substance.

Another preface I should make to my presentation of the covenants is to reveal where my preferred version of the covenants stands among the theological world.  It seems that most Reformed theologians equate the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace.  In a slightly different vain, my own view is somewhat similar to those of John Owen (Covenant of Redemption, apuritansmins.com, 2009), combined with those of R.B.C Howell (The Covenants, founders.org, 2009).  Owen separates the Covenant of Redemption from the Covenant of Grace and sets it first in logical order, as I do; and Howell views the Covenant of Redemption as an agreement involving all three members of the Trinity, as I do.

The covenants in order are:  1) The Covenant of Redemption; 2) The Covenant of Works; 3) The Covenant of Grace; 4) The Noahic Covenant; 5) the Abrahamic Covenant; 6) the Mosaic Covenant; 7) The Davidic Covenant, 8 ) The New Covenant. 

 

The Covenant of Redemption

The Covenant of Redemption is the covenant made between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, made in eternity, in which the Father elected to save a portion of mankind, the Son would meet the conditions, and the Spirit would apply them to the elect (see 1 Peter 1:2).  This covenant answers to the overall purpose of creation – the glorification of God through the redemption of a grateful race (see Ephesians, Chapters 1 and 2). 

 

The Covenant of Works

The Covenant of Works was made after the creation of man, between Adam and God, in which Adam would have everlasting life dependent upon the condition of Adam’s obedience to God’s command to abstain from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was the single prohibition in the Garden of Eden, and yet Adam chose to disobey it (Genesis Chapter 2 and 3).  This one condition was Adam’s “work” that was required for the covenant blessings, hence the name “Covenant of Works”.  As mankind’s natural father and representative, Adam’s failure was also our failure.  Reaping the cursing of the covenant failure, it condemned the whole human race, identifying it as a disobedient body (see 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:14). 

The Covenant of Grace

The Covenant of Grace is the covenant that is initiated in Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between thee [Satan] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

This is known by theologians as the “protoevangelium, the first promise of the Gospel” (Postmillenialsim,  2009).  The agreement is between “her seed” (Christ) and God.   Christ accomplishes the crushing of Satan (the serpent), and those “in Christ” share in the covenant blessings, while those that remain“in Adam” through disobedience and unfaithfullness continue in Adam’s failure and covenant cursings.  While all the persons and conditions of this covenant are not spelled out specifically in the protoevangelium, we find them progressively revealed in subsequent scripture.  As the Westminster Confession puts it:

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, [Galatians 3:21; Romans 8:3; Romans 3:20-21;  Isaiah 42:6] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, [Mark 16:15-16; John 3:16; Mark 16:15; Romans 10:6; Romans 10:9; Galatians 3:11] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:44-45] (Westminster Confession 2003, Ch VII, Para 2, pg. 42)

 

So the condition of this covenant is the defeat of Satan, which was accomplished by Christ, and by extension those who have faith in Jesus Christ reap the blessings of the covenant:  eternal life and those things that accompany God’s approval.  Those that reject Christ reap the cursing of the covenant:  eternal death and those things that accompany God’s wrath.  All other covenants mentioned from this point forward are out-workings of this central covenant, being expressions in one form or another of the gracious purposes of God in saving His elect for His eternal purposes, and man’s blessing or cursing in relation to these covenants is conditioned on faith in Christ.  However, there are specific conditions given in each covenant which serves as signs of the covenant, which are incidental to the salvific condition of faith; for example, Abraham’s requirement to be circumcised, which adds nothing to his salvation, but stands as a test of obedience and a sign of the covenant, and is a specific condition of the covenant. 

It is crucial to understanding Covenant Theology and to the Christian Faith itself that the single condition that man must meet to be in proper relationship with God is faith in Christ, and all other righteousness-based and ceremonial conditions are satisfied by Christ himself.  We, as his elect sheep and brethren, regenerated believers and followers of Christ, reap the blessing of the covenants through faith in Him alone.  This is the very heart of the Christian faith and the Gospel.

 

The Noahic Covenant

Now moving on to the other covenants, the Noahic Covenant is the covenant made between God and Noah in which God promises to refrain from ever destroying the earth with water.  This covenant is built on the covenant of grace, as we see in Genesis 6:8 that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”.  The specific condition of this covenant is that Noah and his descendants must “replenish” the earth and not take the life of others, with the blessings being the continuation of seed and harvest time, and the cursing being capital justice for murder (see Genesis chapters 6-9).

 

The Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant is the covenant made between God and Abraham in which God promises to make Abraham “the father of many nations”, and to give the land of the Canaanites to his “seed” forever (Genesis 12:7).  The word “seed” in this place is very important, and sadly many translations of the Bible uses the word “posterity”, which may seem synonymous at first, but not when it is seen the light of Paul’s discourse on the word “seed” in Galatians 3:16, as the word seed can carry both a singular and plural meaning, and theologically it’s understood that Abraham’s seed was his human posterity, which in turn was typical or representative of the seed, which was Christ himself.  The issue of the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, and the land in particular, will be dealt with at length later in this treatise.  One specific condition of this covenant was circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant to be passed on to Abraham’s descendants, and was the key issue with which Paul was tasked to deal with in the churches of Galatia.  Paul’s instructions make it clear that in the New Covenant, circumcision is still a condition, but it is circumcision of the heart that is the key condition, not circumcision of the flesh (Romans 2:28-29). 

 

The Mosaic Covenant

The Mosaic Covenant is that covenant given by God to the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of commandments or laws in which God’s standards of moral behavior are set forth as well as ceremonial requirements and laws concerning civil order.  These laws are known collectively as The Law of Moses.  The Ten Commandments are a summary of the moral law, describing how man is to behave toward God, toward his fellow man, and toward himself.  While man is cannot be saved from God’s wrath by keeping the law (because he cannot keep it in perfection, which is God’s standard), nevertheless the moral law remains a behavioral/ethical standard by which man is to live.  The ceremonial laws were fulfilled in finality by Christ and are therefore done away with in the New Covenant.  The civil laws may serve as points of reference for a Godly society, but the great majority of Bible scholars agree that the civil laws were tied to the nation of Israel and we have no direct application of them into the New Covenant.

The specific condition of the Mosaic Covenant is obedience, with the specific blessing being “life”, and the cursing being “death”.   This seems to contradict what I’ve said about the Mosaic Covenant being an outworking of the Covenant of Grace.  This can be very confusing, but I will attempt to clarify it in the simplest terms I can.

Even Israel under the Law of Moses was required to have faith to reap the blessing of the covenant, as we can quickly see from Hebrews 3:19, which speaking of Israel’s failure to enter the Promised Land says, “So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”.  Despite the popular notion that the Law stands in opposition to grace, the fact that the Law was given “to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24) shows that the Law ultimately has a graceful salvific purpose.

I believe we can understand this better when we keep in mind that before Israel was ever given the Law of Moses, they had already been God’s chosen people, their fathers being called out from among the heathen peoples and given a destiny of blessings.  God, having elected a people for His name’s sake, now regulates their earthly life, instructing them as to how they may please Him.

This pattern is no different than the New Covenant pattern, for those that have received the blessing of the New Birth through the Gospel are not left without instructions from God as to how to please him in our earthly lives.  In fact, the New Testament is FULL OF COMMANDMENTS!  We are not saved by works, but unto works.  Paul’s message to the Ephesians might have just as easily been God’s preamble to the Law:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

 

They were chosen and called by grace, but instructed in law, both them and us.

So how do we please God?  Let us look at some Bible verses:  It is evident that “they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8); “You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you… Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9); “you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more…For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus…For this is the will of God, your Sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 4:1-3).

So the formula is simple:  to please God, we must be 1) saved (i.e., in the Spirit); and 2) obedient.  Those who are called into God’s family by His grace have the privilege of pleasing Him through obedience to His commands.  Those who have not entered into a relationship with God through grace can only be condemned by the law’s requirements since they cannot meet its standards.

 

The Davidic Covenant

The next covenant to be discussed is the Davidic Covenant, which is the one in which David and his seed are promised monarchial establishment forever and a throne to all generations.  The fulfillment of this promise was in the person of Christ, the son of David, and King of Israel forever.  The conditional nature of this covenant is readily seen in that there was no legitimate King is Israel after Jechoniah due to King Manasseh’s sins, leading to the Babylonian captivity and the dissolution of the Kingdom.  Jesus reclaimed the throne through His obedience, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.  Those today who meet the covenant condition of faith in Christ claim Him as their King as well as Savior, and are citizens of His everlasting Kingdom.

 

The New Covenant

The last of the covenants is the New Covenant.  It is that covenant in which God promises to give His people a new heart and to gather them together into one body.  It is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

 

The writer of Hebrews explains the meaning of this covenant to us in Hebrews chapters 8 and 9.  After giving us a verbatim quote of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in chapter eight, he goes on to tell us in chapter 9 verse 1, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.”  This shows us that the focus of this covenant is on the “ordinances” of the old covenant, and how they are replaced in the new.  Hence, the difference between the old and new covenant is not in substance, but in administration.  In other words, the sacrifices of the old covenant are not replaced with non-sacrifice in the new, but rather the temporal animal sacrifices of the old are replaced with the eternal messianic sacrifice of the new.  Essentially, in the old covenant God’s wrath was temporarily mollified by the blood of bulls and goats, but in the new covenant God’s wrath is forever satisfied by the blood of Christ (see Hebrews 9:12).  Hence, God will “remember their sins no more”.

The Holy Spirit applies the benefits of the new Covenant by writing the law in the hearts, and teaching each person affected to “know the Lord”.  This phenomenon is called “the new birth”, or being “born again”. 

This covenant was made “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”, but in God’s mercy, the “door of faith” was opened to the Gentile peoples, and they were grafted in and became God’s people along with the believing Jews.  This new body, initially purely Jewish, then a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, and now is still mixed but includes very few believing Jews, is God’s Israel of the New Covenant, the Church.  It is not an annihilation of Israel, but a redefinition, an expansion, a reorganization, if you will.

 

The Covenantal View of the Bible

Like dispensationalists, most covenant theologians accept the Bible as the Word of God – infallible, and literally true.  However, they are more likely to allow the context and genre of a biblical passage determine how it should be interpreted, as opposed to the flat literalism of a typical dispensationalist.

Dispensational polemists often accuse the covenantalist of “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” scripture, implying that the covenantalist is only one step from being a “liberal”, denying the literal truth of the whole of scripture.

But nothing could be a greater misrepresentation.  The covenantal view IS the view of the Church Fathers, through Augustine, and seeing its crystallization in the Reformers and the Reformed confessions.  And it does see the Bible as literally true, and allegorizes nothing that is not allegorical.  However, it does take in to account that some scripture is poetic, or apocalyptic, or visionary, or some other symbolic genre that is not to be taken literally, which is basic to any proper hermeneutic applied to any form of literature.

The key feature of Covenant Theology’s view of scripture is its over-arching theme of redemption and grace which unifies its message and provides a near-seamless flow from beginning to end.    

Whereas a dispensationalist might ask, “Does the Old Testament apply to us today?”; the covenantalist would ask, “How does the Old Testament apply to us today?”  In Covenant Theology, there is no scripture that is irrelevant to Jews or Gentiles or Church people.  It is God’s revelation of Himself to man, to all of mankind, with a single epical message, that message being that a redeeming and rescuing savior is given to a weak and failing people, who through faith may be saved from their failings – who may have eternal life with God through his gracious provision in Christ.  

Also important in the covenantal system is the application of two crucial rules of interpretation:  1) The New Testament interprets the Old Testament, and 2) Christ is the ultimate subject of all scriptures.  The New Testament repeatedly quotes Old Testament scriptures and then applies them to Christ or the New Covenant administration.  This is so common in the New Testament that providing an example would be pointless, but for those that need a proof text, I would just recommend that in opening to the first page of the New Testament, one would not read five minutes before finding Matthews favorite phrase, “as it is written”, followed by his application of the prophecy to Christ and His works. 

 

The Covenantal View of the Church

Covenant theologians are careful to define the Church in its two aspects: the invisible, and the visible.  Again, we’ll turn to the Westminster Confession:

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (emphasis mine) (Westminster Confession 2003, Ch XXV, 106-107)

Baptists are careful to make a further distinction as to the visible church, that it consists of particular bodies, as stated in the 1689 Baptist Confession:

In the exercise of the authority which has been entrusted to Him, the Lord Jesus calls to Himself from out of the world, through the ministry of His Word, by His Spirit, those who are given to Him by His Father, so that they may walk before Him in all the ways of obedience which He prescribes to them in His Word. Those who are thus called, He commands to walk together in particular societies or churches, for their mutual edification, and for the due performance of that public worship, which He requires of them in the world. (1689 Baptist Confession, reformed.org, n.d.)

 

So we see that in the covenantal view, the invisible Church began with Adam, and most covenant theologians agree that the calling of Abraham was the beginning of the visible Church.  Note that in Genesis 12:1, Abraham was commanded to “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:”, which is in keeping with the New Testament Greek word for “church”,  κκλησα (ekklesia), which is defined as “a called out assembly” (see Thayer’s definition available at blueletterbible.com).  Abraham was called out from among his own people, and he and his descendants were gathered into a covenanted body.  

Dispensationalists deny the existence of an invisible church whatsoever.  To the dispensationalists, only the local church, a particular gathering of people in the name of Christ, and only those gatherings taking place during the Age of Grace, is in fact that body called “church”.  They make no distinction between the church and a church.  Many insist that anywhere “church” is mentioned in the Bible, it refers to a local gathering of believers only, even if the modifier “the” is used to describe the church. (What, No Church?, BaptistBoard.com, 2009).

Acts 7:38 is problematic for dispensationalists in that it speaks of the Israelites in the exodus as “the church in the wilderness”.  Of course, the dispensationalist simply waives this off by taking the generic definition of “ekklesia” in this verse, the definition might indicate that they were simply gathered together, as any other rabble might be gathered.  But the context clearly shows that Israel, wondering in the wilderness, fits every New Testament definition of “church”, especially in light of the fact that they were gathered in name of Christ.  The dispensationalist will protest that the name of Christ does not appear in the Genesis text, but the book of Hebrews points out that Moses chose to “suffer affliction with the people of God…Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt”, showing a parallel between “the people of God” and “Christ”.

This exposes a crucial error in the dispensational scheme.  In their efforts to over-differentiate the Old Testament from the New Testament, they leave Christ out of the Old Testament by leaving the Church out of it.  It is the New Testament itself that shows us that Christ can be seen throughout the Old Testament, and Old Testament saints trusted in Christ, who had yet to come. 

Only the covenantal definition of the Church offers a complete, rational, logical, and cohesive ecclesiology.  It is both visible and invisible, beginning with Adam, and never ending, with Christ as its Head, with members that are elect of God, washed by the blood of Christ, and unified in the Spirit.  

 

The Covenantal View of Israel

 

One way of understanding the covenantal view of Israel, especially as it relates to the Church, can be expressed in this succinct saying (author unknown):

Israel is the Church of the Old Testament, and the Church is the Israel of the New Testament.

 

The fact that the Church existed in the form of Israel was dealt with in the discourse on Moses and the people in the wilderness in the previous section. 

However, Covenant Theology recognized many of the differences between the old and new dispensations, and between the Jewish and Gentile believers where difference exist.  There is a particular people, blood-relation of Abraham, dwelling in a particular land (Palestine), stewards of God’s revelation, the earthly family of Christ, with a special place in God’s historical play.  How that history plays out is a matter over which covenantal theologians are not fully agreed upon.

One view is that the geographic, Abrahamic, covenant nation of God, commonly referred to as Israel, has been altogether rejected by God and will never return to a place of blessedness with God, being eternally cast off due to their rejection of Christ.  In this system, believing Jews represent a small remnant that, like Gentile believers, reap the blessings of Christ as individual believers.  But Israel as a nation has utterly fallen into perdition, never to be recovered.

The other view is that geographic, Abrahamic, covenant nation of God, commonly referred to as Israel, will in some future time experience a sweeping nation-wide revival in which they will turn to Christ wholesale.  Different eschatologies see this happening in different ways.  But the important difference between the dispensational and covenantal views of this expected phenomenon is that the dispensationalists sees the Jews returning to an Old Covenant, Mosaic system of worship, to include a rebuilt temple with animal sacrifices.  In contrast, the covenantal view of this event sees Israel in-mass receiving Christ in the evangelical sense, under the Gospel, taking the sign of Baptism and eating the Lord’s Supper in communion with the Gentile saints as members of the New Testament Church.   

COVENANT THEOLOGY AND DISPENSATIONALISM: A COMPARISON

March 7, 2011

Part 1 – A look at Dispensationalism

Go to Part 2 – A Look at Covenant Theology
Go to Part 3 – Implications

 

What is Dispensationalism?

You’ve probably been exposed to dispensationalism whether you realize it or not, whether you know what it is or not, and whether you can pronounce it or not.  Dispensationalism is the theology behind the record-breaking Left Behind series of books and movies.  The Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ books have sold over forty million copies (Demar, Left Behind, 2009, Forward), and no doubt millions more have seen the movie based on the series.  If that were not enough, most television preachers and a plethora of popular ministries postulate, exposit, explain, declare, and otherwise generally promote the system.  The average member of any fundamental or evangelical church can expound its basic tenets, especially the tenet that declares that the blood descendants of Abraham are “God’s chosen people”, and that modern Israel has a God-given right to claim the land of Palestine for its own, even to the ancient boundaries described in the Old Testament.  It is “normative within American evangelical, Pentecostal, charismatic and independent churches, and pervasive among Para-church institutions, Christian TV and radio stations and mission agencies” (Sizer, Christian Zionism, 2005, 106-107).

The main theme of Left Behind is the idea that Christians will suddenly be “raptured” (i.e., caught up) out of the world into the air and be taken to heaven to escape a period of horror on earth known as the “Great Tribulation”.  The rapture is a key feature of dispensationalism’s eschatology, but this treatise is not about eschatology in particular, but is more about hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and Israel.  So let’s define dispensationalism in its basic framework and proceed from there. 

As its name implies, at the heart of dispensationalism is the concept of dispensations or “stewardships” which divide history into time periods in which God relates to man in different ways.

Richard Belcher defines it this way:

Dispensational theology looks on the world and the history of mankind as a household over which God is superintending the outworking of His purpose and will.  This outworking of His purpose and will can be seen by noting the various periods or stages of different economies whereby God deals with His work and mankind in particular……..The word “dispensation” is from the Greek work oikonomia which means stewardship, administration, oversight, or the management of others affairs or property. (A Comparison, 1986, page 8 ).

The dispensations are typically divided into seven periods of time or ages.  These ages are designated as Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and Kingdom.  Each dispensation is characterized by a distinctive idea of God’s revelation, a specific test of obedience in relation to that divine revelation, a failure of man under that economy to the divine revelation, a judgment of God for the failure, and the beginning of a new dispensation. 

Innocence is the age before the fall of Adam and Eve in which they lived in innocence until Adam’s sin and ejection from the Garden; Conscience is the age from Adam’s fall to Noah’s flood in which man lives by his awakened conscience and is responsible to God to live according to all known good; Human Government is the age from the flood to the call of Abraham in which man was to obey the government of man over man; Promise is the age from the call of Abraham to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai in which man was to live according to the gracious promises given to Abraham and the nation which would sprout from him (man’s failure in this case is alleged to be Israel’s acceptance of God’s offer of life under the Law); Law is the age from Mount Sinai to Israel’s rejection of Christ in which Israel was to live according to God’s (Moses’) Law; Grace is the age from the rejection of Christ to the future rapture in which God’s people, Israel, are temporarily set aside as punishment (though they retain the title of “God’s people”) while God calls another people out of the Gentile world called the Church, who in turn eventually apostatize into judgment, and are taken out of the world through the rapture; Kingdom is the age from the rapture to the end of time in which the Jews will be purified by a seven-year tribulation followed by a thousand years in which Christ will rule on the earth in the office of King of Israel.  The eternal state follows the Kingdom. (Seven Dispensations, BibleLife.org, 2009)    

            I will note at this point that, as with any other system of theology, agreement among the adherents is not absolute.  Many dispensationalists disagree on the number and order of dispensations.  More importantly, there is marked dissention as to how the dispensations are to be understood.  For example, while they all agree that we live today in the “age of grace”, they are split on whether, or to what extent, grace was given to people who lived in the past ages or who will live in future ages.  Some propose that salvation was under the law during the Dispensation of Law, while other propose that salvation was by grace just as it is today, even though their understanding of God was strictly through the Law. 

I personally find many things about the “seven dispensations” inconsistent and self-contradictory, and worthy of a severe critique.  However, I have chosen to not include these issues within the scope of this work.  I have chosen rather to focus on the three most important areas of doctrine that dispensationalism affects:  the Bible, the Church, and Israel.

The Dispensational View of the Bible

            The Bible is the Word of God.  It is infallible, completely reliable as to all prophecies and propositions.  Both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists find general agreement in this.  But beyond this basic doctrine of the Bible, dispensationalists have a distinct reputation for an over-emphasis on literal interpretation.  Sizer quotes Charles Ryrie and Dwight Pentecost, in turn:

(Ryrie) “Dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. (Pentecost) two established rules of interpretation are as follows:  1) ‘When scripture makes common sense use no other sense’; 2) ‘Prophecy…must be interpreted literally…” (Christian Zionism, 2005, p. 121)

            In addition to flat literalism, dispensationalism features an absolute futurist understanding of nearly all prophecies.  This ultra-literal-futurist hermeneutic is described by Sizer as:

  “a novel hermeneutic in which …the prophetic parts of Scripture are seen as pre-written history; and eschatology fulfilled in the interpreter’s generation … Although the traditional Protestant or covenantal hermeneutic values literalism also, this differs in that traditionally the literal is understood by the historical setting and cultural, grammatical, and theological contexts (emphasis mine) (Christian Zionism, 2005, p. 108).

 

   Another important feature of dispensationalism’s treatment of the Bible is its emphasis on differences between dispensations, making the Bible a series of changes and minimizing its continuity.  One of their favorites Bible verses to support this theory is II Timothy 2:15:

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

            The word dividing is given as the “proof” of their method.  This is taken as a directive to divide the Bible into various epochs, administrations, economies, and divine about-faces that make it a cacophonous collection of unrelated directives in which no person can be sure he or she is obeying and believing the section which applies to them and their time.

            An accurate exegesis of the text will show that the Greek word ρθοτομω (orthotomeō) , translated “divided”, literally means to “cut straight”, not just “cut”; it also means to “direct aright; to set forth truthfully, without perversion or distortion” (Perschbacher, Greek Lexicon, 1990, pg. 296) .  Obviously, it is the duty of the teacher of God’s Word to cut it straight, not adding to it or taking away from it so that it become the teacher’s own opinion of a matter, but that it is clearly presented as God’s commandments.  The passage has nothing to do with splitting the Bible into disjointed sections and determining whether a particular section “applies” or not.

 

The Dispensational View of the Church

 One of the implications of the dispensational hermeneutic is the effects on one’s understanding of the Church, which represents a radical departure from traditional Protestantism, and in my opinion, is the most egregious error of dispensationalism (to be discussed at more length in the last chapter).

The dispensational view of the Church is that the Church is an anomaly, a historical parenthesis (Darrell Bock, Dispensationalism, 1992, p. 360).  By extension, this makes the Church a sort of “plan B” or an afterthought of God.  The dispensational theory is that after the church age, God will resume relations with His covenant people, His truly elect and beloved, the natural descendants of Abraham, the nation of Israel.  Therefore, the Church is sort of a consolation prize in light of Israel’s rejection of Christ, and its members are immigrants into God’s Kingdom.  Dispensaionalists cliam that the covenants are not with the Church, including even the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, although some of them do allow that the New Covenant is “applied” to the Church, but even in that scheme national Israel remains as its true participants.  There is wide uncertainty among dispensationalists as to the meaning of the New Covenant, leading to conferences being convocated for the sole purpose of defining the New Covenant.  Unfortunately these conferences have yet to render a satisfactory definition of the New Covenant to the dispensational world (Churches, Baptistbulletin.com, 2009).

Since dispensationalism views the Church as another people of God, apart and radically distinct from Israel in terms of purpose, administration, and destinies, by extension it proclaims that there are two concurrent Peoples of God:  Israel, and the Church (Pitchford, The People of God, 2006, p. 1). 

 The Dispensational View of Israel

 As was stated in the previous section, dispensationalism views the Church and Israel and distinct bodies with different destinies.  Israel is seen as that body of people related by blood to the patriarch Abraham whom shall inherit the blessings and promises found throughout the Old Testament epic, especially those found in the Abrahamic/Mosaic prophetic discourses.  They retain their place as “God’s people” even during the current age of grace and the Gentile Church.  In essence, they alone are truly God’s chosen people, and in the future “millennium” God will once again bring them to their rightful place of favor in His sight, simultaneously reducing the “Gentile” Church to a servile citizenry in the Kingdom.  Let the words of a leading dispensational theologian explain it in his own words:

The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age …The nations which usurped authority over Israel in past ages find that downtrodden people exalted and themselves in subjection in their kingdom.  The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission.” (Things to Come, 1958, pg. 507)

In addition to patriarchal kinship requirements, dispensationalists further define Israel as both the people and the land to which those people are eternally tied.  According to Lewis Sperry Chafer, a prominent dispensational systematic theologian, “Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne, so that, in eternity, ‘never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet’ (Sizer, Christian Zionism, 2005, p. 138). 

By extension, dispensationalists view the Jewish citizens of modern Israel, established in 1948 by an act of the United Nations, as the posterity of the ancient Jews, and see in them and the re-birth of the nation itself as a confirmation of their views.  This has spawned a strong Zionist movement among Evangelical Christians, a phenomenon about which I will have more to say later.

Bibliography:

Baptists, 1689. 1689 Baptist Confession. http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/baptist_1689.html (accessed January 28, 2010).

Barcellos, Richard C. In Defense of the Decalogue. Enumclaw: WinePress Publishing, 2001.

Battle, John A. “Premillennialsim and Covenant Theology.” WRS Journal 2, no. 1 (Feb 1995): 2-6.

Belcher, Richard P. A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Fort Mill: Richbarry Press, 1986.

Board, Baptist. What, No Church? 2009. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=62790 (accessed January 28, 2010).

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

Churches, The General Association of Regular Baptist. The Baptist Bulletin. September 24, 2009. http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=5104 (accessed December 10, 2009).

Clark, R. Scott. Theses: Covenant Theology. 2008. http://www.wscal.edu/clark/covtheses.php (accessed November 10, 2009).

Darrell L. Bock, Walter C. Kaiser, Craig A. Blaising. Dispensationalism, Israel and the church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

DeMar, Gary. Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction. Powder Springs: The American Vision, 2009.

—. Response To A Critic. 2010. http://www.americanvision.org/article/a-brief-response-to-a-critic-of-is-jesus-coming-soon/ (accessed January 29, 2010).

Fisher, G. Richard. The Other Gospel of John Hagee. 2009. http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm (accessed January 30, 2010).

Friedman, Emanuel, ed. Collier’s Encyclopedia. Vol. 19. New York: Macmillan, 1979.

Gentry, Kenneth. Postmillenialism Made Easy. Draper: Apologetics Group, 2009.

Gill, John. The Baptist Commentary Series. Vol. 9. Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006.

Hafemann, Scott J. The God of Promise and the Life of Faith. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001.

Hodge, A.A. God’s Covenants with Man. http://www.fivesolas.com/coven1.htm (accessed November 15, 2009).

Howell, R.B.C. The Covenants. 2009. http://www.founders.org/library/covenants/ch4.html (accessed January 24, 2010).

Johnson, Terry L. The Case for Traditional Protestantism. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2004.

Lewis, Nathan. Biblical Proof that the Mosaic Administration is part of the unfolding Covenant. http://www.fivesolas.com/mosaicad.htm (accessed November 15, 2009).

McMahon, Matthew. John Owen and the Covenant of Redemption. 2009. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahanJohnOwen.htm (accessed January 21, 2010).

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.

Perschbacher. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990.

Pitchford, Nathan. What the Bible Says About the People of God. Portland: Monergism Books, 2006.

Reymond, Robert L. Against Dispensationalism. October 18, 2008. http://againstdispensationalism.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-really-owns-holy-land.html (accessed November 14, 2009).

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Israel of God. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2000.

Scofield, C.I. The Seven Dispensations. 2009. http://www.biblelife.org/dispensations.htm (accessed December 20, 2009).

—. The Seven Dispensations. 2009. http://www.biblelife.org/dispensations.htm (accessed January 24, 2010).

Sizer, Stephen R. Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Strawbridge, Gregg. Covenantal Framework of Scripture. http://www.fivesolas.com/cov_def.htm (accessed November 15, 2009).

The Baptist Bulletin. September 24, 2009. http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=5104 (accessed November 11, 2009).

Turretin, Francis. The Covenant of Grace and Its Twofold Economy in the Old and New Testaments. http://www.fivesolas.com/turretin.htm (accessed November 15, 2009).

Watson, Thomas. The Covenant of Grace. http://www.fivesolas.com/watson/covgrace.htm (accessed November 15, 2009).

Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2003.

 

A Problem for Dispensationalism: Zion

February 13, 2010

What is “Zion”?

Dispensationalism quickly answers, “Jerusalem”.

Now Dispensationalism has a problem.  Not only does the New Testament forthrightly define Zion as the Church, but the Old Testament frequently refers to Zion in an idealistic, metaphorical way, pointing to a place of eternal wonder and perfection.  This certainly does not, nor did it ever, describe the earthly Jerusalem.

William Gadsby, an early 19th century Baptist Pastor, preached a sermon called “Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities.

Here is the first paragraph taken from the web site http://www.truegospel.net/Gadsby/016.htm:

By Zion I understand the real church of Christ, and, in the strictest sense, the whole body elect, chosen, and secured in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world: “For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it.” (Ps. 132:13,14) So that Zion is the spiritual property, the glorious church, and the eternal residence of Jehovah. Here the Lord not only declares but subscribes his name, and maintains all the honours of his glorious nature; and to this blessed Zion every real believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is brought by the power of the Holy Ghost; as it is written, “But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” (Heb. 12:22-24) From this statement we learn that Zion is the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the glorious vision of peace, where God lives and dwells as the God of peace, and that it consists of an innumerable company of angels; and if by angels the glorious angelic host above is intended, they are an innumerable company indeed; for “the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels;” (Ps. 68:17) and the mountain was full of them for the protection of Elisha. (2 Kings 6:17)

I would invite my dispensational Baptist friends to click on the link and read the rest of the sermon.

It’s interesting that dispensationalists like to brag about their version of the faith being “old fashioned”, yet even the most shallow review of Baptist history reveals that no Baptists believed in the dispensational scheme before the 1920’s.  The true “old fashioned” version of Baptist theology is Covenantal, mostly in the Amillennial mode, and to a lesser degree, in the Historic Premillennial mode, but never is it Dispensational before World War I.

The true Old Fashioned Gospel tells us that God has made “of twain” (Jew and Gentile) “one new man” (The Church) (Eph 2:15).  With the finished work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28).  The hope of salvation for the Jews is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, not Moses.  They are commanded to enter into the New Covenant in His Blood, signified by Baptism and Lord’s Supper.  They are not to continue in Temple worship, or offer sacrifices of any sort, lest they tread the Blood of Christ under foot.  They must repent.  They are not God’s people by the blood of Abraham.  Only through the Blood of Christ may they be restored to God.  This is “dispensational” truth.  The old dispensation is over, and the new has been inaugurated.  The old dispensation is over, God ain’t goin’ back to it.  Jews must be “born, not of blood [Abraham’s], nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).

I Love Dispensationalists…

October 20, 2009

…just so you’ll know, I don’t have it out for dispensationalists.  Some of them are among the men and women I respect the most of all people I know on earth.

People like John MacArthur cause me to glow with pride when I see him on national television upholding the truth of the Bible and telling millions of viewers that Jesus Christ is the only way to God.  And the contribution of one of his associates – Phil Johnson – to the propagation of truth is inestimable.

Another that comes to mind is Charles Stanley, whom God has used to bring untold thousands into the faith of Christ.  I could name so many more.

I spent over twenty years as a member, teacher, preacher, deacon, and pastor of Independent Fundamental Baptist churches.  Though I have moved on to a different identity (Independent Reformed), I still hold great respect for some of those fundamental men that stood, and continue to stand, boldly against the allurements of this evil world.  All of them were dispensational – and some of them were true, great, men of God.

But I believe they are very, very wrong in their dispensational theology.  I know it hurts my dispensational friends to read this.  They may consider me to be a traitor, a liberal, an “allegorist” – but none of this is true, and I only wish they might see these things clearly.

And though I love them, I don’t know if I could work together with them in a ministry or church.  Not because of feelings – no, not that at all, for my feelings tell me to put it aside – but because of the complete contradiction that the dispensational system brings against the covenant system.  Not only that, but once someone comes to understand the role of the Church in God’s plan, you simply cannot bear the thought of the Church being made a sort of afterthought necessitated by the refusal of God’s “real” people (the biological descendants of Abraham) to accept their Messiah.

The Bible is so filled with the certainty that Christ and His Church is the fulfillment of all things promised to Israel, I don’t know how it can be missed, even though I have to admit that I read the Bible for years and missed it the whole time.

The funny thing is, when I first became convinced of the truths of the theological system commonly called “Calvinism”, I knew I had entered a completely different way of seeing and understanding the scriptures.  But even then, I never imagined that I would ever be any thing but a dispensationalists – a Calvinist, yes, but a Dispensational Calvinist, much in the line of John MacArthur. 

Only by way of a sort of academic pursuit did I come to press myself to make an attempt at understanding Covenant Theology.  Hear a little, there a little, and the whole idea began to take root.  And over a long period of time, and with much less hoopla, my change from dispensationalism to covenantalism followed the pattern of my change from Arminianism to Calvinism.  By and by, and alas, I was convinced, and am this day more convinced than ever, of the overwhelming biblical evidence and truth of that way of understanding the scripture that is called “Covenant Theology”.

To my dispensational friends I say as Paul said, “Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”*

 

*Gal 4:16

Thesis on Covenant Theology by Dr. R. Scott Clark

October 15, 2009

Another cut-and-paste-post but a good one for folks with a real interest in covenant theology.  It’s a long read (for a blog, that is), but well worth the time.  It is easy to read, being in “bullet format” (some military jargon for you).

Disclaimer:  Dr. Clark apparently promotes “two kingdom” theology late in the thesis – something with which I’m not familiar enough to endorse.  Otherwise, I’m pretty much in agreement.

From:  http://www.wscal.edu/clark/covtheses.php  (I discovered the link on www.monergism.com)

 clark

THESES ON COVENANT THEOLOGY

1. Prolegomena

  1. Covenant theology structures all of Biblical revelation.
  2. The form of the covenants revealed in Scripture was borrowed from and is accommodated to the ancient near eastern world and must be understood in that context.
  3. Covenant is the most coherent explanation for Biblical revelation and the nature and authority of the canon.

2. Historical/Theological

  1. Covenant theology did not arise de novo in the 16th or 17th centuries but virtually all the elements which made up Reformed covenant theology existed inchoately in earlier epochs.
  2. Reformed orthodoxy turned to covenant theology to give redemptive historical expression to their exegetical (biblical) and dogmatic theology.
  3.  As understood and practiced by Reformed orthodoxy, there was no meaningful distinction between covenant and federal theology.
  4. Orthodox Lutheranism appears to have rejected Reformed covenant theology because they saw in it a confusion of Law and Gospel.
  5. Reformed theology turned to covenant theology however, not to revise or reject Luther’s breakthrough, but in order to preserve the Protestant soteriology and relate coherently justification to sanctification.
  6. Classical Reformed theology taught three covenants: the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), the covenant of works (foedus operum) and the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae).

3. Biblical/Exegetical

  1. The God of the Bible relates to his creatures covenantally from eternity (pactum salutis), in creation (covenant of works), in providence (covenant of preservation) and in redemption (covenant of grace).
  2. Hosea 6:7 (“like Adam”) confirms the consciousness of the Biblical authors of a prelapsarian covenant of works.
  3. The Apostle Paul presupposes the existence of a prelapsarian covenant of works in passages such as Romans 2:13 and 4:4).
  4. The excommunication from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-24) confirms the probationary nature of the covenant of works.
  5. There were multiple signs and seals of the covenant of works including the creational Sabbath, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.
  6. The first Gospel promise in Genesis 3:15 announces the covenant of grace, i.e. redemption of the elect by the Mediator.
  7. The covenant of grace is the progressive historical account of the administration of the Gospel in the history of redemption.
  8. The first Noahic covenant (Genesis 6:17-19) was particular and an administration of the covenant of grace.
  9. The second Noahic covenant (Genesis 9:8-17) was a universal non-soteric covenant promising the restraint of judgment until the last day.
  10. The Abrahamic covenant is a renewal of the postlapsarian covenant/promise made to Adam (Genesis 3:15; 17).
  11. In the history of redemption, the covenant of grace was renewed in Abraham such that he is the father of all who believe (Romans 4:11; John 8:56).
  12. The Abrahamic covenant is logically as well as historically prior to the Mosaic.
  13. The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.
  14. The land promise made to Abraham (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 6:4; Judges 2:1) was typical of the coming blessings of the New Covenant (Genesis 2:4; Galatians 3:14; Hebrews 8 ) and the final state (Hebrews 11:10).
  15. All those justified under Moses were justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.
  16. With regard to the land promise, the Mosaic covenant was, mutandis, for pedagogical reasons (Galatians 3:23-4:7), a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.
  17. With regard to justification and salvation, the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.
  18. The Israelites were given the land and kept it by grace (2 Kings 13:23) but were expelled for failure to keep a temporary, typical, pedagogical, covenant of works (Genesis 12:7; Exodus 6:4; Deuteronomy 29:19-29; 2 Kings 17:6-7; Ezekiel 17).
  19. The covenant of grace, initiated in history after the fall, was in its antepenultimate state under Adam, Noah, and Abraham, its penultimate state under the New Covenant administration and shall reach its ultimate (eschatological) state in the consummation.
  20. The term “Old Covenant” as used in Scripture refers to the Mosaic epoch not every epoch before the incarnation nor to all of the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures indiscriminately.
  21. The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham.
  22. The Old Covenant was temporary and typical of the New Covenant.
  23. In redemptive historical terms, the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was weighted toward the ministry of the Law (“the letter”) whereas the New Covenant is weighted toward the ministry of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3).
  24. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the promise made to Adam (Genesis 3:15) and the (Abrahamic) covenant of grace.
  25. The New Covenant is the reality typified by the pre-incarnational types and shadows (2 Corinthians 1:20; John 6:32; Hebrews 7-9).
  26. Law (covenant of works) and gospel (covenant of grace) may be distinguished historically and hermeneutically (i.e., the relations .
  27. The hermeneutical distinction between law (covenant of works) and gospel (covenant of grace) is the distinction between our personal and perpetual obligation to keep the law perfectly for justification and the announcement that Christ has kept the law perfectly for us.
  28. The historical distinction between law and gospel may be reckoned as the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
  29. The historical distinction between law and gospel may also be reckoned as the distinction between Moses and Christ.
  30. When the law/gospel distinction is reckoned as that between Moses and Christ, there may be said to be gospel in the law and law in the gospel. This way of speaking, however, may not be used properly when considering the law/gospel distinction hermeneutically.

4. Systematic/Dogmatic

  1. Covenant theology is so of the essence of Reformed theology that to revise its covenant theology is to revise the substance of Reformed theology.
  2. The covenantal arrangement of the history of redemption and the covenantal progressive revelation of Scripture is not a mere convention, but rather a reflection of the intra-Trinitarian relations.
  3. All the covenants revealed in Scripture contain both promised blessing and threatened jeopardy.

5. The Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis; consilium pacis)

  1. The pre-temporal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) stands behind the covenant of works and covenant of grace and orders the history of redemption.
  2. In the history of redemption, the pactum salutis means works for the Son and grace for us.
  3. The pactum salutis is biblically grounded in Psalm 110, John 5:30; 6:38-40; 17; Gal 3:20 among other places.
  4. Christ fulfilled the legal obligations of the pactum salutis in his active and passive obedience as the representative of the elect.
  5. The allegation that the pactum salutis tends to tritheism seems to ignore the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity.
  6. The work of the Holy Spirit has not always been discussed under the pactum salutis only because it focuses on the accomplishment of redemption rather than the application of redemption.
  7. Since the Spirit certainly consented to apply Christ’s work to the elect (John 15:26), there is no reason why the Holy Spirit’s work cannot be integrated into the pactum salutis.

6. The Covenant of Works (foedus operum)

  1. The pre-lapsarian covenant may be called a covenant of works in respect to its terms, a covenant of life in respect to its goals and a covenant of nature in respect to its setting. All three names describe the same covenant.
  2. In Reformed theology, the covenant of works is identical to the Law which says: Do this and live.
  3. Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant works in his active and passive obedience to God’s law on behalf of his people.
  4. The covenant of works was abrogated as a way to eternal life by the fall.
  5. Post-lapsum the terms of the covenant of works continue to obligate all rational creatures and must be perfectly fulfilled personally or vicariously.
  6. Anyone who denies the prelapsarian covenant of works jeopardizes the Biblical and Protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

7. The Covenant of Grace (foedus gratiae)

  1. When we speak in covenantal terms we should always specify to which covenant we refer.
  2. The pactum salutis is distinct from and the basis of the covenant of grace.
  3. It is a grievous theological error to confuse the covenant of works with the covenant of grace.
  4. The term covenant of grace can be used broadly and narrowly. When used broadly, it refers to everyone who is baptized into the Christ confessing covenant community. When used narrowly, it refers to those who have received the double benefit of Christ: justification and sanctification.
  5. Used in the broader sense, the covenant of grace is not synonymous with election so that all the elect are in the covenant of grace, but not all in the covenant of grace are elect.
  6. Used in the narrow sense, the covenant of grace refers only to the elect.
  7. There is a just and necessary distinction to be made between those who are in the covenant broadly (externally) and those who are in the covenant both broadly and narrowly (internally).
  8. The internal/external distinction is a corollary of the distinction between the church considered visibly and invisibly.
  9. Denial of the “internal/external” distinction leads necessarily to confusing election and the decree or to positing two types of election, decretal and “covenantal” (i.e., a temporary, historical, conditional election) as is evident in the so-called “Federal Vision” theology.
  10. The Gospel is not a promise of election but of a gracious and sovereign salvation from sin which salvation is received through faith alone.
  11. There are two chief benefits of the covenant of grace: justification and sanctification of which justification has logical priority.
  12. The sole ground of justification is the fulfillment of the condition of the covenant of works by Christ in his active and passive obedience.
  13. The sole object of justifying faith is Christ the Surety of the covenant of redemption for us, and the fulfillment of the covenant of works for us, and the Mediator of the covenant of grace to us.
  14. The sole instrument of justification and condition of the covenant of grace is a receptive, resting, extra-spective, faith which trusts in Christ’s keeping of the covenant of works.
  15. Only believers receive the chief benefits of the covenant.
  16. In Reformed theology the covenant of grace is a Gospel covenant having precisely the same terms and conditions as the Gospel.
  17. Justifying faith may be said to be the only proper condition or instrument of the covenant of grace.
  18. The covenant of grace was inaugurated post-lapsum and is to be distinguished sharply from the covenant of works.
  19. The covenant of grace is monopleural in origin and dipleural in administration, i.e. the Gospel offer is unconditional in origin but the reception of its benefits is conditioned upon justifying faith which is itself only God’s free gift to the elect.
  20. Monocovenantalism or refusal to distinguish between the covenants of works and grace implies a confusion of Law and Gospel.
  21. The slogan “in by grace, stay in by works,” sometimes associated with the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” is nothing less than the Galatian heresy condemned by the Apostle Paul.
  22. Faith receives the benefits of the covenant of grace because of God’s grace and the virtue of its object (Christ) not because of its qualities, virtues, or sanctity.
  23. It is unnecessary to juxtapose the legal and relational aspects of covenant theology. In all three covenants, personal relations are premised upon just legal relations.
  24. Sanctity is the second benefit of the covenant of grace and flows from justification.
  25. Sanctity is as gracious as justification.
  26. Sanctity is logically and morally necessary as evidence of regeneration, faith and justification.
  27. Considered relative to sanctification (in distinction from justification) faith can be said to be active and is begun and sustained by grace but involves human cooperation with sanctifying grace.
  28. Sanctity is no instrument or ground of justification.
  29. Sanctity flows out of proper use of the divinely ordained covenant signs and seals.
  30. The third use of the moral law is norm of covenant life.
  31. Denial of the third use of the Law (tertius usus legis) leads to antinomianism.
  32. The third use of the law, like the first use, also drives us to Christ.

8. Ecclesiastical

  1. The church is both the universal and local Christ confessing covenant community.
  2. God has ordained three special offices in the Christ confessing covenant community: minister, elder and deacon.
  3. Christians are obligated to join themselves to a true Christ confessing covenant community.
  4. The marks of a true, Christ confessing, covenant community are the pure preaching of the Gospel (the covenant of grace), the pure administration of the covenant signs and seals (sacraments) and the administration of discipline.
  5. A genuinely Christian life cannot ordinarily be be lived outside a true Christ confessing covenant community.
  6. Members of the Christ confessing covenant community who have received the sign and seal of the covenant are morally obligated to live in fidelity to that community and to make regular and consistent use of the means of grace (Word and sacrament).
  7. Attendance to the means of grace may be said to be stipulations or moral obligations or even second order conditions of the covenant of grace so long as they are distinguished from the proper condition or instrument of the covenant of grace.
  8. The Word of the covenant is in two parts: Law and Gospel.
  9. The proclamation of the Gospel is the divinely ordained means by which the Holy Spirit works faith in the hearts of members of the covenant of grace.
  10. There are two signs and seals (sacraments) of the covenant of grace, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
  11. The sacraments signify and seal the identity with and union of the believer with the death and burial of Christ.
  12. As signs and seals of the covenant of grace, they are Gospel not Law.
  13. The sacraments are signs to all and seals to the elect.
  14. The covenant signs and seals are a blessing to the elect but come also with jeopardy to the reprobate.
  15. Because of the visible/invisible distinction (internal/external) it is possible to participate in the covenant signs and seals to one’s harm (1 Corinthians 10; Hebrews 6; 10).
  16. The covenant signs and seals are means of grace for all believers whereby their faith is genuinely strengthened and their sanctification advanced.
  17. Because they deny the internal/external distinction, advocates of “covenant objectivity” teach a view of the sacraments which is virtually indistinguishable from the Roman ex opere operato view.
  18. In distinction from the Lord’s Supper, Baptism is the sign and seal of initiation into the covenant of grace.
  19. In the history of redemption, baptism succeeded circumcision as the sign and seal of initiation.
  20. All baptized persons can be said to be in the covenant of grace in the broad sense. Not everyone who is baptized receives the substance or benefits of the covenant of grace.
  21. Baptism does not itself regenerate or necessarily unite the baptized to Christ.
  22. Scripture requires the baptism of adult converts who have not been previously baptized.
  23. Scripture teaches the baptism of covenant children.
  24. We do not baptize covenant children on the presumption of their regeneration, but on basis of the divine command and promises attached to baptism.
  25. Every objection made against covenant (infant) baptism which can be made against covenant (infant) circumcision as practiced under Abraham the father of New Covenant believers is for that reason invalid.
  26. Just as the old sign and seal of covenant initiation (circumcision) could only be observed once so the new sign and seal of covenant initiation (baptism) can only be observed once.
  27. In distinction from Baptism, the Supper is the sign and seal of covenant renewal.
  28. As a sign of covenant renewal the Supper is not appropriate for those who cannot understand the nature of Christ’s presence or the blessing and jeopardy which attach to the Supper.
  29. The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of all the typical Israelite feasts.
  30. Just as believers fed on the Passover lamb, as the true Lamb of God, Christ is really and truly present in the Supper.
  31. In the Supper, believers feed on Christ’s true body and blood by faith, through the operation of the Holy Spirit.
  32. Because the old covenant community feasted every time they assembled and because the Supper is Christ’s ordained sign and seal of covenant renewal it ought to be observed every time the new covenant community assembles.

9. Polemics

  1. Like Dispensationalism, “New Covenant” theology (NCT) is not sufficiently Trinitarian in its hermeneutic.
  2. NCT ignores the unity of the covenant of grace.
  3. It is unclear how NCT does not tend toward a radical discontinuity between Moses and Christ.
  4. NCT does not account for the distinction between Moses and Abraham.
  5. NCT tends toward antinomianism.
  6. Dispensationalism
  7. Of the three stages in the history of Dispensationalism (classic, modified, progressive), the first two are inimical to covenant theology.
  8. Classic and modified Dispensationalism tend to a radical (Marcionite) disjunction between Moses and Christ.
  9. Like Theonomy, Dispensationalism wrongly makes the Mosaic covenant the goal rather than a temporary, typical arrangement.
  10. By positing two peoples, Dispensationalism resurrects the dividing wall which Christ abolished in his flesh.
  11. Because the civil and ceremonial laws were specifically and intentionally tied to the Old (Mosaic) covenant, they were fulfilled in the Kingly and Priestly work of Christ and are therefore no longer binding on the Christian.
  12. The Mosaic civil law, because it was specifically and intentionally tied to the temporary and typical Old (Mosaic) covenant, it was never intended to serve as norm for any other state than Mosaic-Davidic theocracy.
  13. Any attempt to re-impose the Mosaic civil laws or their penalties fails to understand the typological, temporary, national character of the Old (Mosaic) covenant.
  14. The moral law, to the degree it expresses the substance of God’s moral will and is not tied to the ceremonies of the Old covenant continues to bind all human beings.
  15. In the New Covenant, only the second table of the Law can be said to bind the state.
  16. There are two kingdoms: that of the right hand and that of the left.
  17. Both kingdoms are under the authority of Christ, but are administered in diverse ways.
  18. In each kingdom, Christians live under Christ’s lordship according to the nature of that kingdom.
  19. The kingdom of the Right hand describes the ministry of Word and sacrament.
  20. The kingdom of the left hand describes the exercise of power in the ecclesiastical and civil realms.
  21. Because of the distinction between the two kingdoms and because the Decalogue is substantially identical with natural law, Christians should advocate laws and policies in the civil realm on the basis of the universal, natural knowledge of the second table of the law.

Israel and the Church – Succinctly Said

October 6, 2009

Israel is the Church of the Old Testament, and the Church is Israel of the New Testament.  (author unkown)

Why Can’t Dispensationalists Agree on the New Covenant?

September 25, 2009

A large group of dispensationalists gathered together recently in an effort to pound out a definition of the biblical words “new covenant.”   More information about that meeting can be found here:

http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=5104

Why is so hard for dispensationalists to define these words that have been in the Bible for two thousand years?

One reason for this difficulty is that they can see the implications of a proper understanding of the new covenant.  Many dispensationalists, if not most,  place the New Covenant:  1)  In the future; and 2) for Jews only.

Now, understanding the New Covenant is not that difficult.  The plain fact is that the new covenant is the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ for all of God’s people, both Jew and Gentile, and the calling of those diverse nations into one body through faith in Jesus.  Even the most casual reading of the Pauline epistles and the book of Hebrews will reveal this.  It seems highly perplexing to me that the dispensationalists like to champion the cause of “plain interpretation” of biblical passages, yet they can’t seem to apply it to passages that are the most plain and easy to understand.

The problem is, this simple definition of the New Covenant crashes many of dispensationalism’s theories.   You see, the dispensationalist MUST find a way to re-divide the Jews from the Gentiles after the “Church Age”.  The dispensationalist MUST find a way that God will some day in the future save people by human DNA instead of by grace.

It is a sad commentary indeed when one attendant pastor admits his ignorance of this crucial New Testament doctrine:

“In two weeks I need to stand before my congregation and lead a communion service,” Workman said. “I need to be able to explain what Christ meant when he said, ‘This is the new covenant in My blood.’” 

Very sad.  O!  If my brethren were to just open to Augustine, or Calvin, or Henry, or the Westminster Divines, or Gill, or the 1689 Baptists – they could save themselves so much time and so many headaches. 

Here is Gill’s comments on Hebrews 8, provided for my dispensational friends:

God promises a “new covenant”; so called, not because newly made; for with respect to its original constitution, it was made from eternity; Christ the Mediator of it, and with whom it was made, was set up from everlasting; and promises and blessings of grace were put into his hands before the world began: nor is it newly revealed, for it was made known to Adam, and in some measure to all the Old Testament saints, though it is more clearly revealed than it was; but it is so called in distinction from the former administration of it, which is waxen old, and vanished away; and with respect to the order of succession, it taking place upon the former being removed; and on account of the time of its more clear revelation and establishment being in the last days; and because of its mode of administration, which is different from the former, in a new way, and by the use of new ordinances; and because it is always new, its vigour and efficacy are perpetual; it will never be antiquated, or give place to another; and it provides for, and promises new things, a new heart, a new spirit, &c. to which may be added, that it is a famous, excellent covenant, there is none like it; just as an excellent song is called a new song. The persons with whom this covenant is promised to be made, are the houses of Israel and Judah; which being literally taken, had its fulfilment in the first times of the Gospel, through the ministry of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, by whom this covenant was made known to God’s elect among the twelve tribes; but being mystically understood, includes both Jews and Gentiles, the whole Israel of God; Israel not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; such as were Jews inwardly; God’s elect of every nation: the word suntelesw, rendered, “I will make”, signifies, I will consummate, or finish, or end, or fulfil it; which shows the perfection of this covenant, and the imperfection of the former; and that what was typified in the first is fulfilled in this; and that it is now established and ratified by Christ; and is so finished, as to the manifestation and administration of it, that there will be no alteration made in it, nor any addition to it: the time of doing all this is called “the days to come”; the last days, the days of the Messiah, which were future in Jeremiah’s time: and a “behold” is prefixed to the whole, as a note of attention, this being an affair of great moment and importance; and as a note of demonstration, or as pointing to something that was desired and expected; and as a note of admiration, it containing things wonderful and marvellous.

So simple.  So plain.  So true.

By the way, please forgive if I seem to be taunting  dispensationalists a little.  No disrespect intended.

 

Understanding Covenant Theology #5

February 25, 2009

Since I’m having a tough time getting back to this to wrap up this series on Covenant Theology, I thought I should at least provide my readers with a link to some good materials on the subject.

Nathan Pitchford has written an excellent little book called “What the Bible Says About The People of God”, which is essentially a work that accomplishes exactly what I am attempting to do with this series on Covenant Theology.  It outlines the basic tenets of Covenant Theology using simple statements that are easy to understand, and then follows these statements with copious Bible verses showing how these tenets are arrived at.

Follow this link to Monergism Books and when you get there look for the “Online PDF version” link just under the advertisement for Nathan’s book.  

This little book is an excelent resource and I am thankful that Nathan and Monergism Books have made it available at no cost online.  But not only do I recommend purchasing the book, I recommend taking advantage of the bulk purchase offer and get some to give to your friends.

Here is the link:

http://www.monergismbooks.com/What-the-Bible-Says-about-THE-PEOPLE-OF-GOD-p-17332.html

Understanding Covenant Theology #4

January 5, 2009

I found the following material on the website of the Western Reformed Seminary.  It is a good coverage of what I have attempted to teach in this series already, and more clearly stated to boot. 

It is by John Battle as taken from WRS Journal 2:1 (February 1995) 2-6, retrieved from the web site http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Journals/2-1%20Feb-1995/Battle%20-%20Premillennialsim%20&%20Covenant%20Theol.pdf:

“The Bible contains many covenants and many dispensations. Those who put primary emphasis on the differences between these covenants and dispensations often are referred to as dispensationalists. Those who see a unity in these covenants and dispensations are called covenant theologians.

 

Covenant theology understands that God has one over-arching purpose in his dealings with our universe—and that is the establishing of his eternal kingdom through the plan of redemption.

 

Dispensationalists rather see God’s plan as manifold, involving one plan and purpose for his earthly people Israel, and a separate plan and purpose for his heavenly people the church. They see a unity only in the common thread of God’s glorifying himself in all his plans. The main distinctive of dispensationalism is the belief that Old Testament Israel is totally distinct from the New Testament church. In fact, the church, in their view, did not exist until Pentecost.

 

Covenant theologians say that the invisible church began with the first saved person (Adam!), and that the visible church as an institution started long before New Testament times, with Abraham.

 

While dispensationalists divide the Bible into dispensations, covenant theologians detect an underlying unity—all these dispensations, and the biblical covenants which define them, are outworkings of one great covenant of grace. The Westminster Confession of Faith defines this covenant of grace as follows:

 

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [the covenant of works made with Adam], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (7:3)

 

Reformed theologians often speak of another covenant which undergirds this covenant of grace. That is the covenant of redemption, which was made between God the Father and God the Son before the world began. It is by this covenant that Jesus Christ was ordained to obey his Father, come into this world, and redeem his people to salvation in himself. This covenant provides for Jesus his eternal kingdom, in which his elect ones will find their place of glory and service forever.”

 

If you happened to visit the link provided, you might have discovered that while Mr. Battle is a Covenant Theologian, he is not amillennial, but is in fact a premillennialist.

 

Why do I mention this?  Because it is very common in this day to assume that if one is a premillennialist, he is also a dispensationalist.  But the fact is that premillennialism existed centuries before dispensationalism was ever heard of.

 

But I need to remind my readers at this point that Covenant Theology and its counterpart Dispensationalism is an overall view of the entire Bible, not just a view of the end times.  But as you might expect, your view of the overall message of the Bible is bound to affect your view of that particular portion.  We will deal with the four primary views of the end times in due time, but for now, let’s keep focused on the idea of Covenant.

 

Here is the chronological order of the three primary Covenants:

 

1.  The Covenant of Redemption

– In eternity past God the Father decreed that in time God the Son would obtain, and God the Spirit would apply redemption to the elect.*

 

 2.  The Covenant of Works

– In the Garden of Eden God required Adam to obey the command in order to live.  Adam failed and came under the curse of the Covenant.

 

3.  The Covenant of Grace

– After the Sin of Adam, God promised to send a redeemer (Christ) that would crush the head of the serpent (Satan).  Since Adam did not deserve a redeemer, God saved Adam because of His inexplicable gracious motives, hence the Covenant of Grace.

Hence, the entire Bible is the story of how God brings about that plan of redemption and executes the Covenant of Grace in saving his elect from their deserved damnation under the covenant of works.

 

This has been somewhat repetitive of the previous entry but we shall try to make more progress in the next installment.

 

 

 

*Traditional reformed theologians teach that the covenant of redemption involved the Father and Son only.  I do not agree with them on this point.