Query #2
C'mon now, let's talk about the difference between dispensationalism and covenantalism and whether another view exists. It seems that the Mohler brethren (Al and David) are not dispensationalists, but I can't hardly picture brother David in covenantal garb.
Enlighten me, is there another view?
Further, without getting too deep, can another view be formulated that doesn't make the covenantal or dispensational mistakes. Admit it, there are problems with both views.
Go light on the Greek please.
posted by Looking Upward @ 3/10/2007 09:45:00 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I can only go as far as to admit that there are problems with some versions of the covenantal view, namely, those that deny any future for ethnic Israel in God's plan. But this denial is not, nor has it historically been an essential element of the position. No, there are no problems with the essentials of covenant theology.
(I thought about being more humble in my response, but I didn't want to be accused of being emergent)
As I mentioned the other day at lunch. I believe that God is not done with Israel and for a time has blinded them that He can gather in the 'other sheep'. I also believe that God revealed His plan in an unfolding manner throughout history, but that with each the messiah came into more focus.
I also believe that God is a covenant keeping God and that which he promised to Israel will be given to Israel. I don't believe all the promises have been given to the church (though I do believe we partake in them). He will in the end save Israel (Rms 11:26-27).
Not sure what that makes me, or if it makes any sense. I have never really studied the 2 camps.
Though I haven't studied in great detail the theological underpinnings and ramifications, I like dispensationalism. I like the organized view of history and how God dealt differently with each 'dispensation' according to their choices, not God's changes.
I don't like covenantalism because of their tendency of over-spiritualizing every passage of Scripture and not being able to provide a hermeneutic for consistent Biblical exegesis.
Preferences both, where am I going wrong?
If I make a promise to group A, but then fulfill that promise to group B, I have broken my promise to group A.
But, what if I make a promise to group A, add members of group B to group A, and then fulfill my promise to group A? Have I, by including members of group B, broken my promise to group A?
Alternatively, what if I make a promise to group A, then add group B to group A to form group C, and then fulfill my promise to group C. Have I, by combining group A and B into a new group, broken my promise to A?
Believe it or not, Mr. Upward, some people were actually able to interpret scripture consistently in the 18 centuries that preceded the invention of dispensationalism.
Point well taken on the groupie thing. However, I sincerely doubt that genuine 24K biblical exegesis is possible without the dispensational paradigm...
Not really.
Here is another thought.
When Jesus rebuked those at the dinner that were upset about the alabaster box of ointment that was "wasted" on Him, He said that the poor will always be with us, but He will not always be with us...
A change of economy.
Secondly before Jesus and the Holy Spirit was sent how did man have a relationship with God?
No Jesus. No Spirit within...
Then the advent of Jesus.
A change of economy.
Then the advent of the Holy Spirit.
A change of economy.
Now, we expect a bodily return of Jesus Christ and alas, another
Change of economy.
Now, maybe each one of these changes are not really categorized as dispensations, and I really should be using another term, but that is really what I am getting at. What term should I use?
The problems that I perceive with dispensationalism have much less to do with its labeling of various developments in God's covenant with his people, and much more to do with its explanation of those developments (relationship between gentile believers and Israel)and its predictions about future developments (return to Old Covenant economy, end of the church, etc.)
And another thing: if I promise A $100 but instead give them $1,000,000, have I broken my promise to A?
I see how you are: get me all excited like someone really wants to talk about dispensationalism, let me blow off some steam with a couple of comments, and then just leave me hanging.
Really though, I hope all is well.
I have been wanting to comment in this thread, but issues have prevented taking the time to do so.
One observation I have made is that the biblical "economies of change" seem to be more of a "faith to faith" progression than a "dispensational" paradigm shift.
For example, one of the most egregious errors that dispensationalism leads the church into is the suspicion that the OT saints were saved by a means other than "grace, through faith". Dispensationasilts may deny that accusation, but their hearers are inevitably drawn to that very question evidenced by the question they ask in confusion, "How were people 'saved' in the OT?" I have heard that hundreds of times.
The Bible does not teach that a paradigm shift has ever occurred wherein salvation was by a means other than "grace through faith". Yet, that is the logical question dispensationasl students are confronted with by virtue of the system itself. That tells me the integrity of the system is suspect.
I find little comfort in the covenental camp, because of the strong desire to take what is distinctly biblical (the explicitly enumerated covenants) and extrapolate them into a sort of timeline-typology that breeds almost the same convolution soteriologically.
I refuse to believe that the New Testament church was this tangled.
...extrapolate them into a sort of timeline-typology that breeds almost the same convolution soteriologically
Am I correctly hearing you say that covenantalism also has a tendency to imply multiple means of salvation ?
No, and you are right in pointing out a very bad word choice on my part.
I was writing from a viewpoint that was expressed to me by a dear Presbyterian lady Susan and I met at a Bible conference one year (who attends Ligon Duncan's church.) She was convinced her derelict brother was a Christian because he was in "the covenental line". Her hope of his salvation was expressed just that way: "I believe in the covenental line, and that he will eventually be saved", she said.
The issues of dispensationalism & covenentalism is not an issue that merely exists in discussions like this one; you knw as well as I that these are issues that affect the understanding of the person in the pew. Both sides lead people into mind-boggling ideas in areas from soteriology to eschatology. That ought not to be.
I hope that helps explain where I was coming from.
It does indeed.
sorry to leave you hanging Brad.
I am still learning here.
At first impulse, I would say that you definetly kept your promise if you promised $100 and gave $1,000,000...
Expand.
Both of you agree that concerning salvation and end time views of pew sitters - the persons perspective of theology - (whether dispensational or covenantal), is important. If both have their problems, and typically these two are the only players on the theological playing field, what can be done to better our understanding? Or, maybe what can be done to better systematize theological studies into a coherent framework?
Am I getting too categorical? I really am not trying to cram God too tightly into a box...
I don't doubt that indeed people made a good effort at interpreting scripture before dispensationalism, but I doubt they did it according to the covenantal explanation...
To opt for greater transparency here, the church does NOT replace Israel. If the coventantal system declares that Israel is replaced, then I reject it...
Is that presupposationlism? Dogmatism? Or can I get my own ism?
Wow. have I really left all of this unanswered for this long? My apologies. Things have been a bit tight lately.
I'll start with your request (command?) to expand the 100 dollar business. What I have in mind is something like God's promise to give Abraham a land. Initially we see that this promise involves fairly precise boundaries and seems to be limited specifically to the land of Canaan(Gen 13).
But what if instead of giving Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan, God gives them the entire world (Rom 4:13) or better yet, a heavenly country, a better one, the one, in fact, that Abraham actually desired in the first place (Heb 11:8-16)? Would we say, if God gave these to Abraham and his descendants that He has not kept his promise to them?
hello, i appreciate your discussion, as i have recently struggled through this topic. Thank you for the opportunity to post my thoughts:
i have found dispensationalism to be an absolutely air tight system - once you understand it, you no longer need that old Bible. Covenantalism is equally profitable in that regard, with an excessive disregard for the specifics of language. Just change the words if you like or carry white-out to church.
I believe there is a third way - it's called Bible belief, uh, -ism. Oh, I know, that's too juvenile and bourgeois for us philo-sophers. (there, i went easy on the Greek)
I could get all excited about the fact that God changed the menu three times over the years (Gen 1:29, Gen 9:3, Lev 11:2 & 1 Tim 4:4) - The important thing is to understand who is talking, to whom and do I fit into the audience? We just can't accept that the Bible is not about US and that every word somehow is about US and if the language doesn't work, just ignore it and make it about US anyway.
Regardless, the incessant craving for systemizing, categorizing and allegorizing is a menace to God's word and its effectual working in us that believe it - 1 Thes 2:13
Post a Comment
<< Home