Dispensationalism 101: Part 2 - Covenental Thought
Image
From Dispensational Publishing House; used with permission.
Last time, we began this series by considering the difference between dispensational and covenantal theology. We thought about some basic things that we must understand in order to deal properly with that issue. We begin this article with a brief review.
Covenantalism in a Nutshell
The terms covenantal and Reformed are often used interchangeably. There are dispensationalists who speak of being Reformed, yet the way they use the term Reformed is in respect to salvation, referring to the doctrines of grace. Another might refer to himself as a Calvinist-dispensationalist, but this is a rather awkward phrase, since Calvinism is typically used in the discipline of soteriology, not eschatology. This designation would be used to refer to men like John MacArthur and faculty from his school, The Master’s University,1 and others who have embraced the doctrines of grace and who apply a consistently literal hermeneutic, especially in the prophets, while not reading Jesus into every Old Testament verse or giving the New Testament priority.2
When trying to define a system and associate certain teachers with it, there are nuances that make such a feat difficult. For example, James Montgomery Boice was pretribulational3 and premillennial4, yet he also practiced paedobaptism.5 Not all covenantalists are amillennial6 or postmillennial. And not all premillennialists are dispensationalists (e.g., Boice and George Eldon Ladd).
Covenants
In covenantal thought, covenants are the interpretive framework through which to read Scripture. They say the covenants are the theological structure by which the Bible organizes itself. The contention of this author is that though there are several covenants in Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, New Covenant, etc.), the covenants that covenantalists build this system around are not explicitly found in Scripture. The first extrabiblical covenant (no malice in saying this) that this system is based on is the covenant of law (or works7). They lodge support from such passages as Deuteronomy 30:15-20. This is the agreement between God and Adam where God promised life for perfect obedience.8
The other covenant (besides those agreed upon by dispensationalists) that they rely on is the covenant of grace (referring to the gospel).9 In this covenant there is agreement between the offended God and the offending sinner. According to Michael Horton in Pilgrim Theology, such a sinner has been “forgiven, justified, and renewed solely on the basis of Christ’s person and work.”10 Unfortunately, to his chagrin, Horton also says, “These covenants are not always explicitly visible.”11
Paedobaptism
A third element of covenantalism, alongside the two covenants, is the water baptism of infants, also called paedobaptism. The esteemed covenant theologian Louis Berkhof, says, “It is on the point of infant baptism that the most important difference is found between us and the Baptists.”12 He even admits at the outset that there is no explicit biblical command nor any single instance in the Bible in which we are told that children were baptized. Covenantalists see baptism as a sign and seal that replaces Old Testament circumcision. There are many fine presentations that refute paedobaptism, however.13
The Church, the New Israel
A fourth view that is espoused by covenant theology is that the church is the fulfillment of new covenant prophecy. This is woven into the covenant of redemption.14 For this they see one people of God—not the unique mystery of the church that is revealed by the Paul, the “apostle of Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13; cf. Eph. 3). In order to arrive at this conclusion, they see absolute continuity of believers before and after Pentecost rather than the dispensational view of more discontinuity between the two.
Again, this is a vastly simplified view of covenant theology, but it provides a starting point to show distinctions between it and dispensational thought.
Notes
1 John F. MacArthur, Faith Works (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), p. 225.
2 More of these particulars will be augmented later in the series.
3 Pretribulationism teaches that God will remove His church from the Earth (John 14:1-3; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) before pouring out His righteous wrath on the unbelieving world during seven years of tribulation (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 9:27; 12:1; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; Rev. 16).
4 Premillenialism teaches that Jesus Christ will return to earth and rule with His saints for a thousand years. This is a time where He lifts the curse He placed on the earth and fulfills the promises given to Israel (Isa. 65:17-25; Ezek. 37:21-28; Zech. 8:1-17), including a restoration to the land they forfeited through disobedience (Deut. 28:15-68).
5 Paedobaptism is the practice of baptizing infants or children who are deemed not old enough to verbalize faith in Christ.
6 Amillennialism is the belief that the thousand years referenced by John in Revelation 20 are not a literal, specific time.
7 A brief treatment of the covenant of works is found in R. C. Sproul’s What Is Reformed Theology? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), pp. 111-13.
8 Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.2, in Trinity Hymnalf (Atlanta: Great Commission Publications, 1990), p. 852.
9 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, pp. 113-16.
10 Michael Horton, Pilgrim Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), p. 160.
11 Ibid., p. 60.
12 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), p. 632.
13 See the baptism class at Biblical Expositor, which presents a Biblical, theological and historical case for believer’s baptism. “Baptism Class,” <http://www.biblicalexpositor.org/site/outlines.asp?sec_id=180007636&secu… Internet; accessed 2 June 2016. Furthermore, professors Henrick Stander and Johannes Louw, recognized authorities in Patristic studies, give irrefutable evidence that paedobaptism was not the practice of the early church. See their work Baptism in the Early Church (England: Reformation Today Trust, 2004).
14 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, pp. 114-15.
Parker Reardon Bio
Parker Reardon is a graduate of Word of Life Bible Institute, Pensacola Christian College and The Master’s Seminary, where he received a doctorate in expository preaching. He is currently serving as the main teaching elder/pastor at Applegate Community Church in Grants Pass, OR, and as adjunct professor of theology for Liberty University and adjunct professor of Bible and theology for Pacific Bible College.
- 66 views
As many have noted before—but it bears repeating—“covenant theology” is really not aptly named. The problem is not that it uses the covenants as the interpretive grid for all of Scripture. That can actually work quite well. The problem is, as I see it, (a) including covenants that are not really there, (b) giving the not-there covenants a great deal of weight in interpreting what is there, and (c) inadequate rules for when to interpret “literally” and when not to.
Everybody agrees that use of metaphor and other normal figures of speech has to be properly factored in. That’s a pseudo debate that only distracts. The issue is, as Paul Henebury and others have pointed out, an interpretive process/hermeneutic that allows for God to promise things then later fundamentally alter what those promises meant or could reasonably have been understood to mean when they were given.
It’s not an emphasis on covenants in general, but commitment to particular ideas about particular covenants (“the covenant of Grace” being the greatest) that distinguishes CT from the alternatives. … and that leads it to some dramatic and, from my point of view arbitrary, departures from authorial intent or likely audience understanding.
So on that basis, many of us make the claim that Cov Theo is not serious about authorial intent or grammatical historical interp. It might be more fair to say it is serious about these things… except when it isn’t.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It’s funny how the exact same charges can be made by both sides against the other. One of CT’s complaints about DT is that it insists on the most literal interpretation possible, except when that contradicts prior interpretations. Then, it should be “obvious” that a literal interpretation is not what the author intended. Obvious to whom? In other words, everything should be taken literally except when it isn’t. This is especially apparent in the way DT tends to interprets the NT. Here, CT usually takes the more literal approach, with DT insisting on a more figurative interpretation. So who is spiritualizing? Apparently both. It all boils down to which set of presuppositions one is working with.
I find myself in the peculiar position of defending CT on SI, when actually, many CT’s would not consider me CT. I take exception to several of the CT interpretations that DT also rejects. However, when deciding which texts have the greatest claim to literal interpretation, surely the straightforward teaching of Christ and the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles should be given greater weight than OT prophecies replete with symbolism.
G. N. Barkman
[Aaron Blumer]…………..
Everybody agrees that use of metaphor and other normal figures of speech has to be properly factored in. That’s a pseudo debate that only distracts. The issue is, as Paul Henebury and others have pointed out, an interpretive process/hermeneutic that allows for God to promise things then later fundamentally alter what those promises meant or could reasonably have been understood to mean when they were given.
……
I would disagree with the bolded statement. From what I understand “fundamentally alter” does not capture the CT interpretive process. God may do more than what was promised. God may do other than what the original audience understood. God’s promises will be fulfilled exactly in the way He intended. God will not alter His promises. Yet He is not obligated to fulfill them in the way either DT or CT understand them.
What remains to be seen is the degree of literality in fulfillment of promises (David as future king, Exek. 37:24; millennial temple and sacrifices, Exek 40-48, and even forever sacrifices, Jer. 33:18; restored national Israel in the land, etc.). What is true is that every ethnic Israelite of all generations past and future partakes of OT promises only by faith in the Promised One, the final sacrifice, true temple, and secure refuge. As for the rest, we may all be surprised.
I lean dispensational, but if pressed to answer why, I would have to admit that that bias is highly influenced by my soteriology. My belief is that the grace of Jesus Christ was and is effectually available to all men throughout all ages. As such, it is easier to become enamored with theological constructs that promote the revelation and economy of God to all men, and not just a subset.
That being said, I think the classic Scofield delineation is too extreme and regimented. I don’t think we can say conclusively that God intended the division to be as stark as that is presented. I furthermore don’t see the absolute chronology of dispensations as important. Rather, the merit I see in dispensationalism is it accommodates the gradual revealing of the glory and personage of Jesus Christ throughout time. Christ is presented first as a rather vague promise, then presented as an innocent sacrifice and atoner. Come the new testament, Christ is further revealed as man and God. We still have ways to go!
The point is, every fresh incremental revealing of Jesus Christ gives man a little different hope and trust and approved interaction with God. I like the idea of being able to read through Scripture and seeing this revealing made available to all men. But this is just my bias.
To me, the covenant theology that Parker has described is just a little too rigid, much like the Scofield dispensational delineation. It just presumes too much outside of Scripture, and is too wooden (rigid, inflexible) in its prescribed interaction between God and man.
The questions that covenant theology seek to answer are, however, quite fascinating. Every Biblical scholar should seek to answer the who, what, where, when and how of each promise made by God. This is where our bias in hermeneutics will show up, and show up very clearly!
The benefit I see in covenant theology is that it can help today’s church sort through which of God’s promises can credibly be claimed and applied to it, and which cannot. It is with dismay that I say that there is great imprecision and inconsistency in the application of God’s promises and commands to the church.
John B. Lee
Could one be both?
- For example, I believe in Federal headship. This involves an implied covenant (of works: Obey and live … rebel and die). Adam represented all of humanity (seen in Romans 5)
- Is there not an agreement that if one believes he is saved. That’s a covenant (of grace)
- What kind of inter-Trinitarian agreement was between the Persons? C of Redemption: in which the Father appointed the Son to become incarnate, suffer, and die as a federal head of mankind to make an atonement for their sin. In return, the Father promised to raise Christ from the dead, glorify him, and give him a people.
If the essence of Dispensationalism is that the Church ≠ Israel / one could be both CT and Dispy
This post doesn’t really interact with Baptist Covenant Theology (aka”1689 Federalism”), which a distinct strand of Cov Theo developed and held by Baptists prior to embracing dispensationalism. (You know there were Baptists before dispensationalism, right? :) )
Especially important are the point on paedobaptism (obviously not a part of Baptist CT) and the Covenant of Grace which, in Baptist theology, finds much more explicit warrant in Scripture, since the Covenant of Grace in Baptist thought is synonymous with the New Covenant.
God may do other than what the original audience understood. God’s promises will be fulfilled exactly in the way He intended.
Well, that’s the trouble isn’t it? If God raised expectations in the OT which He didn’t intend to carry through, doesn’t that make Him an ambiguous communicator at best (recall Jer. 33:17-26!), and disingenuous at worse?
What inside line does Steve have that our understanding of God’s promises in the NT won’t be “other” than what we are led to understand? And how are we to put faith in the words?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]God may do other than what the original audience understood. God’s promises will be fulfilled exactly in the way He intended.
Well, that’s the trouble isn’t it? If God raised expectations in the OT which He didn’t intend to carry through, doesn’t that make Him an ambiguous communicator at best (recall Jer. 33:17-26!), and disingenuous at worse?
What inside line does Steve have that our understanding of God’s promises in the NT won’t be “other” than what we are led to understand? And how are we to put faith in the words?
To suggest that someone’s position you disagree with makes God disingenuous seems desperate. To imagine that every audience understood God’s intentions is naive. The first disciples of Jesus after three years with Him didn’t get it. There’s only trouble if one is looking for expectations which weren’t the intention of the original author. Did God raise expectations or did the audience? God doesn’t carry out everyone’s expectations. We know for a fact that the Jews of Jesus day had expectations they read into the prophecies. Jesus overturned them and clarified them as did the apostles. Many in His day were looking for a restored national kingdom. Jesus inaugurated His kingdom according to His Father’s will not according to human expectations. As I said, God may do more than what was understood or expected. God’s promises to us now may be “other” than what we understand. They may be more. They won’t be less. What we understand now we understand in light of the life, ministry, and finished work of Christ which made the old obsolete. The OT promises pointed to Christ the fulfillment. Anyone who thinks their position is a slam dunk on prophecy and the relationship of the OT and the NT needs a good dose of epistemic humility.
It’s pretty clear we’re not going to change the minds of the committed antidispensationalists in the thread. But for the benefit of any readers who are on the fence…
“To imagine that every audience understood God’s intentions…”
I don’t think anybody is saying this. What’s at issue is what a person who understood correctly would have understood. In some cases, CT requires understandings that nobody could possibly have had and that aren’t compatible with any of the understandings audiences could have had.
(Further up the thread) “… rife with symbolism”
Where is the symbolism in God’s promises to Abraham? … to Moses? … to David?
In general, though I have some objections to some views held by some dispensationalists, I’m a disp. by default because I cannot accept that the OT is supposed to be read as though we got the NT first, then got the OT and must use the NT to decide what the OT means. It isn’t that simple… because God’s people only had OT for thousands of years. So we have to read the NT as though it is given in the context of the OT—though, yes, it does reveal a great deal more and does change our perspective on much of what came before in various ways. But given how clear the OT promises concerning Israel are, and the fact that nothing in the NT has to be understood in a way that is incompatible with how they would have been understood by lots of people for thousands of years, it’s best to let these OT promises stand.
I can’t seriously entertain doing otherwise. That doesn’t require me to embrace the whole disp. framework of pre trib rapture+7yr trib+1000yr reign+armageddon etc. But it does require me to reject CT.
So, to put it another way, the sine qua non of dispensationalism requires rejecting the sine qua non of CT and vice versa. There really isn’t any mix and match option when it comes to the essence of these approaches.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Steve,
You did not answer the question you were asked. You were given a specific OT example. Would you care to actually address it?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Covenant with Noah - Genesis 6:18; 9:8-12
Covenant with Abraham - Genesis 12; 15; 17; 22:15-18; 26:3-5; 28:14 et. al.
Covenant at Sinai - Exodus 19:5
Covenant with David - 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chron 17:10 ff
New Covenant - Jeremiah 31:31
Covenant of Works - ?
Covenant of Grace - ?
I would refer you to Paul Williamson’s book Sealed with An Oath. This Anglican from Australia concluded there is no basis in Scripture for the latter two covenants. I would also refer you to A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 612 where he discusses the lack of biblical evidence for the Covenant of Works.
Charles Hodge and Michael Scott Horton are at least two Covenant Theologians who have written that these covenants are not named in Scripture.
[Paul Henebury]God may do other than what the original audience understood. God’s promises will be fulfilled exactly in the way He intended.
Well, that’s the trouble isn’t it? If God raised expectations in the OT which He didn’t intend to carry through, doesn’t that make Him an ambiguous communicator at best (recall Jer. 33:17-26!), and disingenuous at worse?
What inside line does Steve have that our understanding of God’s promises in the NT won’t be “other” than what we are led to understand? And how are we to put faith in the words?
But even as Christ was fulfilling the OT, not only did the nation of Israel not clearly see what was happening, but even his own disciples who were with him 24x7 did not fully grasp what was and was not being fulfilled. Didn’t Jesus, make clear in John 16:25, that he said these things in figures of speech. They were still expecting him to setup the kingdom at this time (Acts 1:6). They studied, carefully and they still did not understand how Christ’s promises and covenants would be fulfilled (1 Peter 1:10-12).
Is not the purpose of prophecy and promises, not that we fully understand them today, but that when they are fulfilled, we can validate them against the Word of God? There is practically no evidence in the Bible that anyone truly understood the promises at the moment they were given and truly understood how they would be fulfilled or carried out? Not even the patriarch Abraham at the offering up of his son, when just given the promise understood exactly how it was going to be fulfilled. Are we as naive to think that we fully understand the promises and covenants and can put together a structure that supports our models and then become so dogmatic about them?
That’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to say in this discussion. Thank you for saying it so well.
G. N. Barkman
Both DT and CT are extaBiblical constructs attempting to answer questions about the discontinuity / continuity between the testaments.
Some early DTs failed at this by having two plans of salvation
CTs fails at conflating the church and Israel and spiritualizing the millennium
Discussion