# Comparsion Chart of Dispensational and Covenant



## Christopher88 (Jan 6, 2010)

DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
I am still trying to figure out the differnce in two, and so far my head is spinning. Is this an accurate chart?


----------



## Michael (Jan 6, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Is this an accurate chart?


 
Yep, that's about right.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 6, 2010)

Good job to whoever put the chart together.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 6, 2010)

I'm not an expert but I think the chart does a good overview.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 6, 2010)

The chart seems generally correct to Classic and Modern forms but not so much the Progressive Dispensational (the latest dispensation of Dispensationalism).



> Summary of Progressive Dispensational Positions
> 
> 1. One plan of salvation: There is only one plan of redemption, not one for Israel and a different one for Christians. There is only one New Covenant, not two. The redemptive plan is revealed through God’s covenants. It begins with Abraham’s covenant, which combines physical and spiritual promises. David’s covenant, as developed by the later prophets also has redemptive application, since the Savior would be the Son of David. The New Covenant obtains redemption in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic. The redemptive plan is holistic, not manifold.
> 
> ...



Here is the reference. 

You can see some similarities to Covenant Theology. The guys from Dallas Theological Seminary get real serious when the Covenantal guys lump them in with the Ryrie(Modern) or the Darby(Classic) dispensations of Dispenstationalism.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 19, 2010)

Proposition #1 under Covenant Theology says "Always Calvinist, usually 5-point." Actually some Anglicans and Lutherans who are only 2 or 3 point hold to Covenant Theology.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 19, 2010)

Maybe I misunderstand the issue; but I would consider Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, a Lutheran theologian, a covenant theologian.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 20, 2010)

> 29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham. Some Covenanters believe in a future forliteral Israel, most don’t



There have been and are many covenantalists who believe in a future for ethnic Israel when she repents and is re-ingrafted into the true Israel as a nation. They tend to be postmil rather than amil.

It could be slightly confusing to use the word "covenanter" of someone who holds to covenant theology. 

Covenanters were historically those who made an oath to God respecting some particular commitment. They were, or tended to be if they studied such things, covenantalists/covenant theologians, but they didn't become covenanters until they made this additional and voluntary oath. 

In the case of the Scottish National Covenant the oath/covenant with God, was to oppose Popery and Episcopacy, including state meddling in spiritual matters.



> 15. God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam.



_If_ Adam believed/was one of the elect. He probably was.



> 26. O. T. laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the N.T.



Not all OT laws that were provisional were explicitly abrogated in the NT, but some may be abrogated by "good and necessary cosequence" if that can be properly shown from Scripture (WCF, Chapter I, Section VI).



> 9. Some O. T. prophecies are for literal Israel, others are for spiritual Israel.



For someone like me who believes that there will be a future national conversion of ethnic Israel from Romans 9-11, this poses the difficult Q of which OT prophecies if any refer to ethnic Israel, or do some refer to spiritual Israel including ethnic Israel?

There is the hypothetical possibility that none of the OT prophecies refer to ethnic Israel's reconversion and reingrafting.

The latter subject would need another thread.


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2010)

Not a very good chart because of mischaracterisation. Covenant theologians believe there is only one sense of Scripture, the literal; only that literal sense must be derived from an interpretation of the Bible's various literary forms.

Point 10, however, makes an essential point. Dispensational: God's main purpose in history is literal Israel. Covenantal: God’s main purpose in history is Christ. This demonstrates that dispensationalism is non-Christian theology and reformed covenant theology is Christian theology.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Not a very good chart because of mischaracterisation. Covenant theologians believe there is only one sense of Scripture, the literal; only that literal sense must be derived from an interpretation of the Bible's various literary forms.
> 
> Point 10, however, makes an essential point. Dispensational: God's main purpose in history is literal Israel. Covenantal: God’s main purpose in history is Christ. This demonstrates that dispensationalism is non-Christian theology and reformed covenant theology is Christian theology.


 

Couldn't the Dispensationalist come back and say that "God's main purpose in history was Jesus. However, Jesus was just for Israel. Only after the Jews rejected him were the Gentiles brought into the picture"? That's what I hear many of them say. In that sense Christ was still the purpose even with Israel.


----------



## MW (Jan 21, 2010)

Claudiu said:


> Couldn't the Dispensationalist come back and say that "God's main purpose in history was Jesus. However, Jesus was just for Israel. Only after the Jews rejected him were the Gentiles brought into the picture"? That's what I hear many of them say. In that sense Christ was still the purpose even with Israel.


 
I suppose they "could" come back and say that, but to what avail? The Arminian tells us that when God's purpose failed as a result of the fall then redemption through Christ became the focus. This is woeful theology unbecoming the name "Christian." The apostle tells us that Adam was a figure of the one to come, Rom. 5. He also teaches us that Jesus is the Promised Seed of Abraham, the true Israel, Gal. 3. The meaning is, Adam was destined to fall and Israel was destined to stumble, in order that the Antitype, Christ, might be glorified as the redeemer of sinful men. That is covenant theology; that is theology worthy of the name "Christian."


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't the Dispensationalist come back and say that "God's main purpose in history was Jesus. However, Jesus was just for Israel. Only after the Jews rejected him were the Gentiles brought into the picture"? That's what I hear many of them say. In that sense Christ was still the purpose even with Israel.
> ...


 
Good response. Thank you for that.


----------

