# After dispensationalism



## Herald (Feb 7, 2007)

I asked this question last year and wasn't satisfied with the replies, so I'm going to ask it again. What theological camp does a person fall into when they leave dispensationalism but cannot embrace the whole of Covenant Theology? Let me explain.

I no longer consider myself a dispensationalist. I reject a pre-trib rapture. I am sympathetic to historical pre-mil but I am open to discussion. I don't hold to the paedobaptism view or the "refreshed" new covenant view. I see the new covenant as new. I have a kindred heart to partial-preterism. I believe that God has used covenants to deal with man and creation, not dispensations. 

That is where I am right now. I had some tell me I was closer to Progressive Dispensationalism or N.C.T. 

Thoughts? Anyone where I am now? Been there, done that, have the T-shirt?


----------



## Herald (Feb 7, 2007)

joshua said:


> Mr. Bill, I'm not sure who of the NCT camp you're speaking of that holds to a pre-trip rapture. My pastors hold to _a_ New Covenant Theology, but not to the degree which men like Zaspel and Wells do. They're definitely not pre-tribs or dispensational in their eschatology at all.



I edited that part out of my original post. I was wrong on that.


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2007)

joshua said:


> It could depend on your view of the Law, amongst other things. Do you recognize a valid distinction amongst the Law (i.e. moral/ceremonial)?


 

Yes.


----------



## elnwood (Feb 8, 2007)

I would highly recommend Gary Long's book Context! Evangelical Views on the Millennium Examined. Although it is focused on eschatology, it is the first book I've seen that does a comparative analysis of Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Progressive Dispensationalism, in all their varieties, using direct sources.

Most people who claim the name "New Covenant Theology," such as Gary Long, are amillennial.

Like many Baptistic Calvinists, I don't fall into either Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism either, and I don't quite fall into NCT or Progressive Dispensationalism either.

Here are some questions that might help you find where you best fall:

How is Israel related to the church?

CT: The assembly of Old Testament Israel is the church without major distinctions.
NCT: Israel finds its fulfillment in the church, but Israel and church are distinct concepts.
PD: Israel and church are distinct, but church is part of the fulfillment of God's plan for redeeming Israel.
D: Israel and church are distinct, and God's plan for redeeming Israel is separate from his plan for redeeming the church.

I agree with NCT here. John Reisinger's book "Abraham's Four Seeds" makes a great case for it. You can read it using the above link. To me, it's just more consistent with the change of who makes up the covenant community. My pastor and I differ on this.

Are the Ten Commandments, as a unit, an eternal moral law?
CT: Yes, the 10 Commandments are eternal moral law.
NCT: No, the 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic administration which is done away.

It is because of this that NCT gets a bad rap and are called "Antinomians." Richard Barcellos wrote a book "In Defense of the Decalogue" against Reisinger's views.

I personally hold to neither of these views, but hold to the Continental Reformed view, which recognizes the ceremonial/moral distinction and views the Sabbath commandment as ceremonial.

As far as progressive dispensationalism, generally they are dispensationalists who recognize that a) Christ is on the Davidic throne now (as opposed to just in the Millennium kingdom), and b) The church age is not a parenthesis, but a part of God's single redeeming plan, but still hold to c) the distinction between Israel and the church in the present age, and d) see a physical land promise still yet to be fulfilled for physical Israel. Some are pretrib, some are posttrib.


----------

