Wow, I just read Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ (An Open Correspondence) over at Reformation Theology and I must say that the reasons Nathan Pitchford gave for his departure from dispensationalism closely correspond with the reasons why I no longer follow the teaching made popular by the Scofield Study Bible.
I was taught general dispensational theology growing up, but never understood why certain aspects of that system were so important. For most of my life, I didn’t even realize that there were any other Christian viewpoints toward eschatology, the sacraments, the nature and benefactors of the promises revealed to us and other factors.
I was quite sheltered to be honest. I had no idea why there were so many denominations. As far as I was concerned, there were the Catholics and the Protestants, with some other religions that either denied who Jesus is or denied Him altogether. I would actually read the “Left Behind” series as if it was based on the undeniable truth of the end times and question nothing. Let me say that a sheltered life can be a good thing, as parents are supposed to shelter their children from dangerous things. It can also be a bad thing if certain questions are not adequately addressed.
So as time went by, I began to question various things that I had once considered rock solid. While contesting your beliefs against the Bible is a very good thing, if you become disillusioned with the matter-of-fact things that you had never questioned it is easy to wonder if there are any others who also have gone through the same kind of mind change. You wonder if you should just skip theological systems altogether and just read the Bible for yourself. This is why I am so glad to see a post like this. Nathan did just this, and then began to look into covenant theology, finding that it settled the conflicts inside him.
Make no mistake. Any post that takes any theological system and states that it has flaws at the core is one that can invite a terse discussion, and I do hope that the comments at RT can remain civil. Likewise for this blog! My pastor is a covenant theologian in a church comprised mostly of dispensational believers. That made last year’s series on Revelation qiute interesting indeed! For me to get the kind of training in this that I crave, I would need an excessive amount of one on one time with him, which doesn’t always work out. So I turn to the internet and, more recently, to books. I recently finished reading such a book and it has answered many of my questions about covenant theology and will review it tomorrow. Originally this post was going to be that review, but I looked it over and saw that it was more about Nathan’s post and my own thoughts than about the book, and it is a good enough book that I should give it a full post.
Here’s a sneak preview.
Hey Doug! Long time, no comment.
Just curious, is your church mostly Calvinist in it’s soteriology? This shows my ignorance, but I had always linked Arminianism and Dispensationalism in my head. Until I heard about guys like John McArthur and others I didn’t there were other ways to “mix it up”.
I was also brought up in what I would call a “hyper”-dispensationalist atmosphere. Little to no connection between the old and new covenants. No over-arching view of salvation history. Still haven’t settled all these things to my satisfaction but I like a lot of what New Covenant Theology has to say.
Have a great week!
I just read the article and I have yet to read a single dispensationalist that says God isn’t the one who saves—only the person’s faith. And he never knew the Davidic Covenent when he was a dispensationalist? The central covenant to bringing about the covenant to Abram and tying it to the New Covenant effectively causing a bridge to the Millennial Dispensation? I don’t think he understood what he thought he believed in and is attacking more the potential outworking of the theological framework that he imagined to be true (such as the oft-raised charge yet vehemently denied: All Calvinism is dangerous because it leads to deterministic fatalism).
Rey….
I’m confused, please develope.
“And he never knew the Davidic Covenent when he was a dispensationalist? The central covenant to bringing about the covenant to Abram and tying it to the New Covenant effectively causing a bridge to the Millennial Dispensation?”
I thought Abraham came before David?
really shorthand due to time:
Abraham did come before David. Promises to Abraham were also given before the promises to David. The New Covenant was told to Jeremiah. The New Covenant referred to something future. The Davidic covenant bridges the two connecting to a future time: the Millenium. Central to Dispensationalism.
Honestly, that’s most of the debate in the Dispensational camp today. Central.
Dispensationalism
Doug has taken up the issue of Dispensationalism again. Doug and I have had some very brief discussions by way of e-mail on the topic. I wish I could sit down and discuss this with him over a cup of coffee. Not that I am more knowledg…
Yes, I can see that the Millenium would be central to the discussions in Dispensationalism. I’ve always felt that Dispensationalism goes around the world and back and stretches every inch of imagination and hermeneutical license to arrive at a seperate and distinct 1000 year period of history. And all of this because of one verse in Revelation!
I’m getting the sneaking suspicion that no one ever reads my comments. Wonderful things in Rey’s comments I see…most of them put there by you or by me.
::sigh::
Tim,
Hermenuetical license? I find that funny because that is one of the main issues dispensationalists have with the covenant camp – and inconsistent hermenuetic.
… an inconsisten hermenuetic. Sorry.
Doug,
I don’t know if you received an earlier message from me on this subject, but if you receive this I would like to encourage you to read a wealth of information on Reformed Theology and Dispensationalism at http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org, and click on the two headings to the left side that address these issues, and get your comments. Thanks.
Steve McHone
Steve,
Thanks for recommending the middletownbiblechurch.org website. Some very insightful articles that will keep me busy for a while.
Steve,
I’ve read both sides of most of these arguments, and have been more convinced by the covenant side of the coin. We’ll get together sometime for discussion, I’m sure.
They’re not the only options though. New Covenant theology is striking in the strides its made. Progressive Dispensationalism is also doing some pretty fantastic things.
OK Rey. Now you have me officially confused. I thought you would only affirm one flavor of dispensationalism and nothing but. Could you clarify this for me?
Also, and please forgive any presumed snarkiness here, but I just am not interested in what strides one theological structure or another has made. Is it a fluid theological system that is filling in the blanks or is it comprehensive? If it has to be altered every so often, wouldn’t it be a “beta-religion”? I don’t want to study a version 1.3 theology.
Promise, shadow, fulfillment. Keep it simple, but don’t try to put God into a box.
And no, I am not saying that you are guilty of doing any of these things.
What I’m saying is that there’s no such thing as a fully rounded out eschatological understanding since the things dealing with eschatology, well, didn’t happen yet. So when I study the Scriptures and come to an understanding I fully acknowledge what I see as faults but what may seem more Biblically aligned (nature of systematic theology is that there are presumptions being made somewhere). So when I see something like New Covenant Theology, I may not agree with some of the things that they’re saying but I’m in complete agreement with the things they’re acknowledging (ie: Israel being a real people). And although I may not agree with everything progressive dispensationalism is saying I like some of the things that are rounding out the systematic thinking.
All of our current truths went through a growing stage of understanding. Even Justification was a doctrine that took some back and forth to get to a point where we think “yes, I think we’ve got it” but even now is still being looked at if we got it right.
So it’s not beta-religion at all–it’s trying to peel the onion of God’s revelation. Any system that stands and says “this is the full proper understanding of God’s plans” is doing some serious miscalculation. This is why I have no problem nodding my head where I think others are right (or wrong) and doing the same at my own system.
If I may borrow from the reformers: Semper Reformada. Keep poking at our belief system, keep poking and change where we see that we’re falling short.
Excellent answer, Rey. There is no other shoe to drop. We need to follow the word and let it take us where it will.
Guess who’s upset that “Thomas Ice (Bloopers)” and “Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal” are now part of Google. Bruce
[...] Quit it. We’ve been arguing in circles for a couple hundred years now and just because a few nut-jobs put down dates of the rapture doesn’t mean all of dispensationalism does that. And if you left the camp and now think you’re an authority on dispensationalism think again. Honestly, not knowing the Davidic covenant is more a sign of your lack of Biblical reading than the evils of dispensationalism. (HT: Doug) [...]