What are the major differences between Covenant and Dispensational theology while they both help me a lot in understanding the Bible?
Thanks
What are the major differences between Covenant and Dispensational theology while they both help me a lot in understanding the Bible?
Thanks
Dispensationalism believes that Israel and the church are distinct. That Israel always means physical Israel. Covenant theology makes a difference between spiritual and physical Israel, and holds that spiritual Israel and the church are the same. That's one of the major differences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology
For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Ps. 40:12)
The issue is over continuity versus discontinuity. Wherever the New Testament does not explicitly teach something the dispensationalist assumes that it has been done away with while the covenant theologian assumes that God's Word still stands unless it has been done away with in the New Testament. Of course, it is really impossible for the dispensationalist to uphold their teachings consistently and for the most part it is a matter of picking and choosing just as it is a matter of picking and choosing which parts of Revelation they are going to read literalistically.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Thank you Chuck.
So, in essence, both Theological systems make a certain amount of assumptions in handling right(hopefully) division over Scriptures. I do enjoy learning both of them, but get confused every once in a while. I like the way you put it, gives me a different angle to look them.
Maggie
I also think that dispensationalists have a strong tendancy to interpret the new testament with the old, rather than the other way around.
Hm, not really, its just the contrary,I think, if anything they seem to try to do, in my mind, is to completely root out law from infiltrating or confusing grace, which drew me to this system in the first place.
I hope it's not an important issue because, so far, in my case, this system of theology has drawn me more in understanding grace. Is this not right? Whereas, covenant theology has a great deal of virtues in bring me understanding too, uhhhh. Do I need to take side on this? Anyone?
I think that if the Lord has started a good work in you, you have no worries (Phi. 1:6) and so I would not say this issue has to be a real devisive one, it has been from time to time in the last couple hundred years, but you may want to read some of the "eschatalogical threads" and see what you think over time, but most of all take your time and continue to read and ask questions.Originally Posted by momoz
Let me ask one question here though......where in the whole of the new testament do you find any prophecy of the rebuilding of the old covenant jewish temple?
We certainly read about its destruction in places like Mat. 24/Luke 21, but where did Jesus or any apostle ever say it will be rebuilt?
Revelation 21:22
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
??
Is this what you were looking for? I am quite ashamed to say? The temple outlined in Ezekiel seems to me the one who will be rebuilt in the millenial kingdom.
Other than the other 'temples' mentioned in Revelation, I don't think I could find the rebuilding of the old covenant jewish temple in the New Testament at all ?
Yeah, I just realized there's a forum called Eschaton here, I will definitely check it out, meanwhile, what is it that you're trying to show me, in light of dispensational's division of Scriptures?
Thanks
That dispensationalism uses the old testament to interpret the new.......you just got the point of that one I think, you would have to bring in the prophecies of the 2nd temple being rebuilt out of the old testament and force it to mean a new 3rd temple after A.D. 70........so you are quite right brother, there will be no temple rebuilt, though the dispensationalists say there will and use the OT to prove it, not the new ........and the book of Hebrews makes it clear why
But enjoy the eschaton brother.
Last edited by Whammer; 06-04-2006 at 07:19 PM.
Now I see what you meant in your earlier remark. Hm. I have been taught that for as long as I could remember, I need to look into it more.
Thanks a lot though !
Sister MOMOZ, heehee
Whoops, sorry sis, I didnt look at your profileNow I see what you meant in your earlier remark. Hm. I have been taught that for as long as I could remember, I need to look into it more.
Thanks a lot though !
Sister MOMOZ, heehee
Also, enjoy a good read thru the book of Hebrews again, very meditatively in prayer, without any commentaries, just you and the Holy Spirit and see what you glean from that time also...maybe some more new things soon.....maybe not.......but I think it makes it clear as to what all the old testament symbols were for........to point to Christ as He is the fulfillment of all the law and prophets. I have asked many dispensationalists this before.........."Are we going to go back to types and shadows?" and never get an unstuttered answer
will do, thanks again, i absolutely love Hebrews..can't wait
Covenant theology is a system which has developed over time but there are teachings in the early church fathers which show a somewhat covenantal understanding of Scripture. Dispensationalism on the other hand is an entirely new system. Nobody taught a pretribulation rapture prior to 1830 when Miss Margaret Macdonald who was part of a proto-pentecostalist movement in Scotland had a vision of such an event. Darby then popularized this teaching and then Scofield.
There are some fundamental problems with dispensationalism. Among them being that they do not take what the New Testament says seriously. In Galatians 3 Paul says that all who believe are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. There are countless other New Testament passages which help us understand how we are to apply the promises in the Old Testament but dispensationalists seem to ignore them and adopt the same understanding of these promises as the first century Jews did.
One verse that is often misapplied by dispensationalists is 2 Tim. 2:15. They take "rightly dividing the word of truth" to mean that we are to cut the Bible up into seven dispensations in which the bulk of the Bible is not relevant for the New Testament Christian. This is similar to what an early heretic by the name of Marcion did and makes no sense in light of the fact that Paul says:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for improvement, for training in righteousness, 17 that the person of God may be capable, having been equipped for every good work.
In its original context, "All Scripture" would have referred to the Old Testament Scriptures since the New Testament canon had not yet been completed. The word picture in 2 Timothy 2:15 has more the idea of cutting a straight path through a forested area and is probably better translated as:
2 Timothy 2:15 Be zealous to present yourself as one approved by God, a worker having no need to be ashamed, guiding the word of truth along a straight path.
There's absolutely no way that Paul's readers would have understood him as talking about chopping up God's Word.
There must be a proper understanding of law and grace. They are not opposed to one another. There should be a proper distinction between law and gospel but law and gospel are found in both the old and new testaments.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
WB: Dispensationalism on the other hand is an entirely new system. Nobody taught a pretribulation rapture prior to 1830 when Miss Margaret Macdonald who was part of a proto-pentecostalist movement in Scotland had a vision of such an event. Darby then popularized this teaching and then Scofield.
This is entirely true historically as documented by Dave MacPherson in his many books. Macdonald was a hysteric 'visionary' whose views were afterward confirmed and supported by her contemporary associates. I personally believe that she did not originate any of these doctrines; she merely had visions confirming the strange views of Edward Irving on these matters. Much like the visions of Ellen G. White confirmed the heresies of the Seventh-day Adventist 'pioneers' who met in smoke-filled rooms to come up with their strange doctrines. Strangely enough, the 'prophetess' of Adventism later stated that those who smoke tobacco have minds that are so clouded by demonic influences that they cannot possibly understand spiritual things!
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Strange enough this is also the time that Russelism (jehovahs witness') and Joseph Smith and the mormons came onto the scene in American history, what a rising of the major cults
Wildboar,
Very well written, it just goes to show how easy it is for one to be a one-sided student of the bible. I can totally understand what you are saying because I have friends that have such a tendency, one of them refuses to spend time in the O.T. at all, and eventually she became an annihilist(spelled right?), sad.
As for me, I love the O.T., and for sure ,Covenant theology hold me back from tipping off to that trend. to stay 'balanced'. Fact is, any theological system can really cause problems if one runs off and goes extreme with it, or misunderstand it.
Thank you, I got your point!
Robert,
I enjoy watching you on the videos, you presented yourself 'just right'.
Thanks for this info, scary..
Throughout the years, I enjoy JN Darby's works as much as Calvin's and Luther's. The rest, I don't know much about.
momoz
Last edited by momoz; 06-05-2006 at 09:40 AM.
Whammer,
Hm, things are making more sense now in regards to that friend of mine who turned Anihilist! Ummm, I sort of led her to Bullinger's works and next thing you know, she went full blown Anihilist !!
I guess if a person gets a hold of any sideline biblical material and runs wild with it, one can really fall into a lot of errors.
Praise God for the Holy Spirit help!
Momoz
Last edited by momoz; 06-05-2006 at 09:38 AM.
Nomoz,
You mention a temple that will be rebuilt in the millennial kingdom. This is quite impossible for three reasons:
1) The Bible does not teach that Christ will reign over the earth on a physical throne in a physical body.
2) The Word of God nowhere teaches that there is a "millennial" kingdom. The idea that Christ will reign on the earth for one thousand years is based on erroneous translation of Rev.20. The word "chilias" (or "thousand") is plural in the Greek. Satan is said to be bound for "thousands [of] years" and the saints are said to reign with Christ for "thousands [of] years." There is not a sole millennium mentioned taught in the Bible.
3) All prophecy was fulfilled when Christ returned in AD 70. Therefore, all that the Apocalypse talks about is in our past.
thethinker
Last edited by thethinker; 06-05-2006 at 11:55 AM.
Thethinker,
I honestly am quite confused as to the literal vs figure of speech form of interpretation over Revelation, they both seem to be valid and they both seem to be wrong at times. Any suggestions?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks