# Social Implication of Covenant theology vs. Dispensational Theology?



## Pilgrim Standard (Apr 30, 2008)

Does adherence to Covenant theology necessitate social implications distinct from adherence to Dispensational theology? If there are I would think that they would necessarily be distinct from any particular eschatological position on the Covenant side since adherence to Covenant Theology does not necessitate any particular eschatological position. So the answer would not be tied to an individual eschatological position. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 30, 2008)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Does adherence to Covenant theology necessitate social implications distinct from adherence to Dispensational theology? If there are I would think that they would necessarily be distinct from any particular eschatological position on the Covenant side since adherence to Covenant Theology does not necessitate any particular eschatological position. So the answer would not be tied to an individual eschatological position.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



Gary North's book _Rapture Fever_ argues that it does.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 30, 2008)

Dispensationalism goes Israel crazy and is often pessimistic. 

Many CTers are amil or postmil and see that Jesus will reign wher'er the sun, in its successive journeys run....


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Apr 30, 2008)

So what are the social implications? Try to keep it out of the realm of eschatology as hard as it may be. Thanks for the replies!


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 30, 2008)

Israel crazy IS a social implication, it affects US foreign policy. Also pessimism is also quite a social thing too.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 30, 2008)

Some of the most pessimistic people I've ever known have been amils.


----------



## mshingler (Apr 30, 2008)

In my kind of on-going journey away from dispensationalism, I've come to see where there is at least a subtle difference. A covenantal view emphasizes God's work throughout history in redeeming a people for Himself and for His glory. It also sees Christ reigning right now as opposed to an exclusively, or practically exclusively, future reign in a Jewish millennial kingdom. In dispensationalism, the purpose of God's kingdom, in the future, is primarily to fulfill His promises to the nation of Israel. In covenantalism, the purpose of God's kingdom, now and in the future, is to display His glory to and through His people. 
With these different perspectives, I think covenantalism puts more emphasis on living out the implications of the gospel in every realm of life, in order to display God's glory and power in this present world. Dispensationalists often focus on simply "winning souls" who will be blessed in a future kingdom. I see the covenantal approach as being more "holistic" in respect to the application of the truths of the gospel. 
These distinctions apply more directly to full-orbed, traditional dispensationalism. The progressives have made a definite shift toward recognizing the presence of the kingdom of God in the church in this age. The last chapter of "Progressive Dispensationalism" by Blaising and Bock touches on the social implications of their view of the kingdom as having been inaugurated in Christ. 
My perspective on it anyway.


----------



## FenderPriest (Apr 30, 2008)

Part of me has wondered with the Dispensationalist's severing of the continuity between the OT church and the NT church, if it starts running in the direction of radical individuality because it takes believers out of the covenant community of God. Maybe I'm off on this - please correct me if I am!


----------



## Blue Tick (Apr 30, 2008)

Dispensational theology creates a secular/sacred distinction. This is everything with the church is "sacred" and anything done outside the church is "secular". The problem is they compartmentalize the role of the Christian in society and place unecessary burdens on people. Those who are "truly" spiritual will be sold out for the Lord and will become pastors, evangelists, or missionaries. This results in binding peoples conscience where scripture doesn't require it. The societal break down occurs when people are not taught what their biblical roles are and what it means to be a Christian in society. The Biblical role of a Christian in society is this.



> 9 But concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; 10 and indeed you do so toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more; *11 that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, 12 that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing.[*



Leading a quiet life, minding one's own business, providing for your family, maintaining a peaceable witness, and being content with one's position in life is not enough within Deut. DT proponents emphasize one must constantly be serving in the church which results in a works oriented justification. One is justified by the amount of "serving" they are doing in the church. The societal break down occurs because people are so pressured to "serve" in the church thus neglecting their responsibilities as husbands, fathers, mothers, employees, and employers. When we walk in our God given and commanded roles that are in scripture Christians will truly be salt and light in the world.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Apr 30, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> Dispensational theology creates a secular/sacred distinction. This is everything with the church is "sacred" and anything done outside the church is "secular". The problem is they compartmentalize the role of the Christian in society and place unecessary burdens on people. Those who are "truly" spiritual will be sold out for the Lord and will become pastors, evangelists, or missionaries. This results in binding peoples conscience where scripture doesn't require it. The societal break down occurs when people are not taught what their biblical roles are and what it means to be a Christian in society. The Biblical role of a Christian in society is this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


   
I would have to say that my experience with DT would indicate that DT tends towards this.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 30, 2008)

There is a constant "works nature" even if you don't believe in salvation by works as a Dispensational. Dispensationalists I know have this constant thought of "if I had only"...as though a person was saved or not saved because THEY did or did not say something at a particular time. It's either self lifting to self defeating...the latter mostly.

I don't know who all is amil vs postmil, but I was familiar with some that were VERY vocal about amil and they were very negative. This doesn't mean that all are though. I'm certain I would be surprised.


----------



## Herald (Apr 30, 2008)

Social implications? In my humble opinion dispensationalists from the fundie camp usually swallow certain political Kool-Aide without asking questions. Since dispensationalism is often akin to Arminianism, you are more likely to encounter a dispensationalist giving you a Chick Tract while walking down the street or find one left in a public restroom. While CT's can be just as conservative as dispensationalists, the former can be found on both ends of the political spectrum - libetarian or liberal. You're less likely to encounter a CT "forcing" their faith on you. There's crossover in many areas.


----------



## mshingler (Apr 30, 2008)

A lot of Dispensationalists tend to be focused on evangelism or "soul winning" to the point that social responsibilities, including family responsibilities, get overlooked or at least slighted. I see this, especially, with regard to my concern for the state of the biblical family in the church today. Pragmatism in winning people to the Lord trumps other areas of biblical obedience and commitment. For example, the most common argument I've heard from my dispensational friends and acquaintances who are negative toward homeschooling is, "How will we be salt and light in the world? Who's going to witness to the lost kids in public schools if all the Christians remove their kids from schools?" That argument, as I see, grows out of a mindset that sees evangelism as almost the sole responsibility of the church in the world. 
I heard that dispensational view explained this way recently, "They are just concerned about getting souls saved and tossing them in the basket one by one, but aren't real concerned about what's going on in the basket."


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 30, 2008)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Does adherence to Covenant theology necessitate social implications distinct from adherence to Dispensational theology? If there are I would think that they would necessarily be distinct from any particular eschatological position on the Covenant side since adherence to Covenant Theology does not necessitate any particular eschatological position. So the answer would not be tied to an individual eschatological position.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



Adherence to a fully developed eschatological position is not mandated in Covenant Theology, but it is implicit - just as it is in Dispensationalism. I don't see how one can really discuss it without understanding the eschatological implications inherent in either position.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

mshingler said:


> In my kind of on-going journey away from dispensationalism, I've come to see where there is at least a subtle difference. A covenantal view emphasizes God's work throughout history in redeeming a people for Himself and for His glory. It also sees Christ reigning right now as opposed to an exclusively, or practically exclusively, future reign in a Jewish millennial kingdom. In dispensationalism, the purpose of God's kingdom, in the future, is primarily to fulfill His promises to the nation of Israel. In covenantalism, the purpose of God's kingdom, now and in the future, is to display His glory to and through His people.
> With these different perspectives, I think covenantalism puts more emphasis on living out the implications of the gospel in every realm of life, in order to display God's glory and power in this present world. Dispensationalists often focus on simply "winning souls" who will be blessed in a future kingdom. I see the covenantal approach as being more "holistic" in respect to the application of the truths of the gospel.
> These distinctions apply more directly to full-orbed, traditional dispensationalism. The progressives have made a definite shift toward recognizing the presence of the kingdom of God in the church in this age. The last chapter of "Progressive Dispensationalism" by Blaising and Bock touches on the social implications of their view of the kingdom as having been inaugurated in Christ.
> My perspective on it anyway.



I understand why some would come away with the impression postulated in these first two paragraphs. This is indeed a huge problem within dispensationalism. However, we need to be careful to separate observable practice from perspectives that are necessarily inherent in a Deut. Dispensationalists, by definition, see all creation and history as focused on the glory of God. And not all dispensationalists see the current political entity that is called Israel as having any eschatological significance; though I am almost certain all of them would see it as some sort of possibility - especially in the future.
This carries over into every aspect of life, including holy living verses "winning souls." There are many PCUSA churches that don't seem that focused on God's glory, for instance. I don't know if they're truly Covenantalists. But they're not Dispensationalists. How does this reconcile with the idea that differing social implications are necessarily inherent in either system?
Much of the problem is the nebulous nature of dispensationalism. Distilled down to it's basic tenets, it is non-stereotypical in regard to holy living or social order. It's a matter of how that works itself out; whether one is focused on God, His sovereignty and His glory. Many disp. churches and cov. churches alike focus on programs and works rather than on the necessity of the Lord building and maintaining the house. Either He is the author and finisher or not; and we all know the answer to this.
Theonomy would have another implication here. Dispensationalists are decidedly not theonomists. So, with that consideration, there could be a necessarily different implication in regard to different theological perspectives.
The severing of continuity CAN engender individuality, but that is more of a cultural distinctive than anything inherent in the theological system. Americans, for instance, are individualistic and embrace the illusion of self-sufficiency to a fault. This is apparent in all denominations and systems throughout the country - even the ones who call themselves covenantal and yet live with an "us four and no more" complex.
The vision of the leadership in regard to the community nature of the church, instilling a deep understanding of the body of Christ and both our need and contribution does not depend upon a system either. It depends on a solid understanding of what Jesus has provided in the institution and building of His church, and our place in His body.
Neither is the idea of distinguishing "sacred" and "secular" inherent in Deut. It is a byproduct of bad teaching. But not necessarily part and parcel of Deut. Again, it's a matter of teaching. A man's calling is a sacred calling, regardless of his station in life. We are to do all things to the glory of God. Unless the Lord is the builder, then all work is in vain. These things fit within DT well, but can be easily overlooked as many put man in the center of life, making Jesus a part of their lives rather than Lord of their lives (as was made abundantly clear by the book written by a well known dispensationalist - _The Gospel According to Jesus_). No system has the monopoly on that tendency.
The idea of believing in God's sovereignty and yet living as practical arminians is also a tendency among men, not just Dispensationalists. We all second guess ourselves and desire to say things in a manner that will best challenge consciences for God's glory. But I have to say that teaching that God is sovereign can help one overcome wrong thinking and depend on God as they ought to. We have to be careful not to equate DT with Arminianism. They walk hand in hand by habit, but not systematic necessity.
This quote is an excellent example.


mshingler said:


> I heard that dispensational view explained this way recently, "They are just concerned about getting souls saved and tossing them in the basket one by one, but aren't real concerned about what's going on in the basket."


It is true that many dispensational churches are doing this. It is an abomination. But this is more inherent in the easy believism and Finneyism of cultural Christianity than anything directly related to Deut. Just like the eschatological sensationalists, people take a piece of the pie and make a whole meal out of it. But, again, we must be careful not to take an example and make it a necessary result of a system. Any system can be abused, as is evident in NPP, FV and Open Theism, among others. 
The important eschatological event, after the cross, is the return of Jesus, regardless of one's position. Except for a few here, I assume that we all look forward to His return. And, regardless of a/post/or premill we see the return of Christ as fulfillment of His promises to His people. I can't see how the differences could necessitate social implications. It's the manner in which one adheres to the mandate of God's Word, seeking Him first, that will determine one's influence on society.


----------



## R Harris (Apr 30, 2008)

mshingler said:


> A lot of Dispensationalists tend to be focused on evangelism or "soul winning" to the point that social responsibilities, including family responsibilities, get overlooked or at least slighted. I see this, especially, with regard to my concern for the state of the biblical family in the church today. Pragmatism in winning people to the Lord trumps other areas of biblical obedience and commitment. For example, the most common argument I've heard from my dispensational friends and acquaintances who are negative toward homeschooling is, "How will we be salt and light in the world? Who's going to witness to the lost kids in public schools if all the Christians remove their kids from schools?" That argument, as I see, grows out of a mindset that sees evangelism as almost the sole responsibility of the church in the world.
> I heard that dispensational view explained this way recently, "They are just concerned about getting souls saved and tossing them in the basket one by one, but aren't real concerned about what's going on in the basket."




The thing that gets me about the whole public school issue and being "salt and light" is that the dispensationalists have no clue of reality on this matter.

The average adult in the pew is ignorant about evangelism and apologetics and how to debate with non-believers. 

Do the Dispensationalists really believe then that their 5-17 old children are going to make bold, knowledgeable stands in the classrooms and in the cafeteria? The fact of the matter is that they are not, and they have no clue how to do so. Their churches are guilty of not even remotely equipping them to do so. Have you seen youth "ministries" today? An absolute joke, almost all of them are primarily nothing more than entertainment.

So, in addressing the original question of the thread, yes, there is a huge difference between dispensational and covenantal social implications. A true covenant view does have a full-orbed world and life perspective on all things, because Jesus is Lord over everything - not just private, personal hearts and minds and Bible study groups. Dispensationalists postponed Christ's lordship until their precious, literal 1000 year reign outside of Jerusalem commences. 

Until then - sit back, relax, and wait for the rapture - which will occur "someday" soon. All social and political things, of course, slowly decay in the meantime and eventually collapse. Kind of where we are now.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> There is a constant "works nature" even if you don't believe in salvation by works as a Dispensational. Dispensationalists I know have this constant thought of "if I had only"...as though a person was saved or not saved because THEY did or did not say something at a particular time. It's either self lifting to self defeating...the latter mostly.



I see this alot in my current neck of the woods.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Apr 30, 2008)

I think one of the big problems I see is that DT's do not see the huge role that family plays in salvation. DT's tend to be individualistic to a fault. I guess what I am saying is that when you do not look at the bible through the lense of covenant you really miss that the primary means that God uses to bring faith to the individual is through the family, the primary means to preserve faith is through the family, the primary means to reform the nations is through the family. That's a big drawback. Go to most any DT church and you see a disconect in this area(this has been the case in my experience, I have been corrected on this point, it is not the case in all DT churches). Segregated sunday school, worship, and activities are the norm. Parents rush there kids to the nurseries and classes so they can run off and have their own personal worship and discipleship time.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> I think one of the big problems I see is that Dispensational's do not see the huge role that family plays in salvation. Dispensational's tend to be individualistic to a fault. I guess what I am saying is that when you do not look at the bible through the lense of covenant you really miss that the primary means that God uses to bring faith to the individual is through the family, the primary means to preserve faith is through the family, the primary means to reform the nations is through the family. That's a big drawback. Go to most any Dispensational church and you see a disconnect in this area. Segregated Sunday school, worship, and activities are the norm. Parents rush there kids to the nurseries and classes so they can run off and have their own personal worship and discipleship time.



out of curiosity (perhaps slightly  ) I would agree with those that would have everyone from newborn to granny in the same sanctuary during the worship service.. 

I think we should just get rid of Sunday school altogether.

back on topic if i was off topic. if i was on topic, then lets stay on topic


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Apr 30, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> > I think one of the big problems I see is that Dispensational's do not see the huge role that family plays in salvation. Dispensational's tend to be individualistic to a fault. I guess what I am saying is that when you do not look at the bible through the lense of covenant you really miss that the primary means that God uses to bring faith to the individual is through the family, the primary means to preserve faith is through the family, the primary means to reform the nations is through the family. That's a big drawback. Go to most any Dispensational church and you see a disconnect in this area. Segregated Sunday school, worship, and activities are the norm. Parents rush there kids to the nurseries and classes so they can run off and have their own personal worship and discipleship time.
> ...





Need a little Baxter here

Back to topic


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

R Harris said:


> The thing that gets me about the whole public school issue and being "salt and light" is that the dispensationalists have no clue of reality on this matter.
> 
> The average adult in the pew is ignorant about evangelism and apologetics and how to debate with non-believers.
> 
> ...


It's incredibly difficult not to resond to this sort of reasoning with sarcasm. It's just that it is simply false and shows absolutely no regard to the fact that the system does not necessitate the foolishness and shallowness prevalent in so many dispensational (and covenantal) churches. After re-reading my post above, I'd consider you to rethink this Randy. Your stereotyping is stereotypical of an elitist mentality that is so horribly prevalent among many in the CT camp. And, frankly, it blows credibility out of the water. 
Your statement says that dispensationalists put their kids in school for evangelistic purposes. Dispensational churches are guilty of not even remotely equipping children to make bold, knowledgeable stands. Dispensationalists postpone the lordship of Christ? (sort of like MacArthur did when he wrote, _The Gospel According to Jesus_? as I refered to above). Do you really think that all dispensationalists are like this? Do you think this is inherent in the system? Don't you understand that these influences are prevalent in a culture regardless of the theological system espoused in the churches?
For clarity, as dispensationalists, we've homeschooled our sons since first grade. Both are familiar with Frame, Bahnsen and Van Til. They both have a rudimentary understanding of Greek, with some knowledge of Hebrew. Both have a better understanding of headship, both in the church and in the home, that just about any adults I've ever met. And both have attended a 250 member dispensational church with their parents in which this was the norm. And, contrary to the errant claims of Pilgrim's Progeny's post, it is a fully integrated, non-segregated church with a multi-generational vision for God's sovereignty and glory as well as the propagation of the Gospel both in the home and abroad (Silver Beach Community Church). I would encourage you to read their _Teen Discipleship Philosophy_. Their philosophy is almost identical to our own. 

Guys, step back and reflect on what you're saying. You cannot equate the system that is dispensationalism with the abhorrent practices of worldly oriented churches any more than I can equate FV with all CT churches. The twain are not necessary bed fellows. The world has infiltrated DT and CT alike. Nobody has a monopoly on easy-believism, legalism, or any other heresy or abomination. The question was whether the system inherently affects society; not whther the practices and abominations of said systems do. Let's practice some charity and attempt to understand the root of the problem rather than pointing to a house fire and therefore calling all houses fire hazards.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Apr 30, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> *And, contrary to the errant claims of Pilgrim's Progeny's post, it is a fully integrated, non-segregated church with a multi-generational vision for God's sovereignty and glory as well as the propagation of the Gospel both in the home and abroad *(Silver Beach Community Church). I would encourage you to read their _Teen Discipleship Philosophy_. Their philosophy is almost identical to our own.
> 
> Guys, step back and reflect on what you're saying. You cannot equate the system that is dispensationalism with the abhorrent practices of worldly oriented churches any more than I can equate FV with all CT churches. The twain are not necessary bed fellows. The world has infiltrated DT and CT alike. Nobody has a monopoly on easy-believism, legalism, or any other heresy or abomination. The question was whether the system inherently affects society; not whther the practices and abominations of said systems do. Let's practice some charity and attempt to understand the root of the problem rather than pointing to a house fire and therefore calling all houses fire hazards.



My apologies, I should not have made such a vague generalization here


> Originally Posted by Pilgrim's Progeny
> I think one of the big problems I see is that Dispensational's do not see the huge role that family plays in salvation. Dispensational's tend to be individualistic to a fault. I guess what I am saying is that when you do not look at the bible through the lense of covenant you really miss that the primary means that God uses to bring faith to the individual is through the family, the primary means to preserve faith is through the family, the primary means to reform the nations is through the family. That's a big drawback. Go to most any Dispensational church and you see a disconnect in this area. Segregated Sunday school, worship, and activities are the norm. Parents rush there kids to the nurseries and classes so they can run off and have their own personal worship and discipleship time.


, my only knowledge of this is my own first hand experience. I should not think it the norm across the board. I stand corrected


----------



## R Harris (Apr 30, 2008)

Joe, it just looks like we may have to agree to disagree.

I live in OKC, where the top five groups are (1) SBC, (2) SBC, (3) SBC, (4) assorted charismatic/pentecostal, and (5) assorted independent, "non-denominational" Bible churches.

I wish I had $1000 for every "Pack your bags! Jesus is coming soon! Message Sunday/Wednesday at 7:00" signs I have seen on church signposts over the past 35 years. I would be unbelievably wealthy.

Of course, the pre-trib rapture is taught at these churches, and the underlying message (which is sometimes explicitly spoken) is to not bother with trying to reform the world; _according to Scripture,_ things are getting worse and worse, nothing you can do about it, so as I paraphrased above, sit back, relax, and wait for the rapture.

I have personally witnessed it in churches; I have spoken to numerous people like this over the years; and I see it in the bookshelves at the local Mardels (a massive Christian bookstore chain).

Frankly, I am shocked that you think I am representing a small minority of dispensationalists. We obviously are living in two very different spheres.

Did you ever read the book "The End Times Controversy"? It was made up of the leading dispensationalists of today (LaHaye, Hitchcock, Ice, MacArthur, and several others). They basically raked postmils and amils over the coals, even subtlely hinting that such types may not see the pearly gates. Hitchcock's essay especially (A Stake in the Heart) was mean spirited, and about as un-Christian as it gets. (Of course, he prays for us every day, that we wayward amils/postmils will repent and return to the fold. Yeah, right.) I know Hitchcock personally and have had dinner with him; puffed up would be a kind way to describe him. Yet, he has sold a LOT of books, and probably hopes to be the next LaHaye or Lindsey.

Regarding public schooling - did you not read about the SBC's controversy two years ago? A faithful group put forward a resolution that believers take their children out of the public schools. It was resoundingly shot down.

So, I really regard you as being a minority in dispensationalism. Given the above, you would be doing yeoman's work to convince me otherwise . . .


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

Randy,

It's really not a matter of agreeing to disagree. You're confusing practice with system. Dispensationalism, as a theological system, does not teach any of the things you have observed any more than CT teaches baptismal regeneration. It really doesn't matter what neck of the woods one is from. Just because those (and maybe the overwhelming majority of them fit the bill) who practice such abominations are dispensational does not necessitate that dispensationalism leads to this any more than being American makes one fat. Sure, a lot of Americans are fat. It's generally because we eat about 20 times as much sugar as we did 100 years ago and have an entitlement society. The same thought process goes for the abominations seen in our churches, DT and CT alike. 
As for homeschooling - just because the SBC (which is overwhelming DT, but still boasts a growing CT contingent) shoots down a homechooling resolution only means that they don't want to get directly involved in dictating what each family should do. It has nothing to do with spheres. I didn't say that your comments represented a small minority of Dispensationalists. I said that the system does not teach these things. It is only inherent in many misguided churches who also happen to be mainstream, usually are active in the moral majority and the Christian right, and usually are of the sensationalistic dispensational variety. It's common, granted. But not inherent to the hermeneutic principles of dispensationalism.
The challenge, therefore, is to show how dispensational theology necessitates all the things you are blaming on them. Simply put, it can't be done any more than it can be proven that CT leads to an elitist mentality. Your examples make it clear that CTs don't have a monopoly on that any more than Dispensationalists have a monopoly on sitting back and waiting for Jesus. HyperCalvinists are, in many ways, just as guilty... and they're generally CT - though to say that Covenantalists are hypercalvinist would be stereotyping and just as unwise as saying that they aren't.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 30, 2008)

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between what dispensationalism logically leads to, and what it practically leads to. Human beings are never perfectly consistent and don't fully carry out the implications of any system. 

But if a majority of dispensationalists (or any group) winds up with certain thought-patterns or practices which bear a connection (even if not a strictly logical or necessary connection), then it does seem fair to say that those who do not share those attitudes and actions are rather the exceptional adherents by whom the practical tendency of a system should not be judged --just because they are exceptional.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

Good thoughts Ruben.

The continuing challenge is to discern whether those who adhere to such thought patterns and practices do so because they are a specific group, or if that specific group also happens to adhere to such thought patterns and practices.

Does one baptize babies because they are covenantalists? From my perspective it's more consistent. But Reformed Baptists would disagree. But most covenantalists are paedobaptist. Does that make it responsible for me to say that covenantalists practice infant baptism?

Perhaps it might be beneficial for terms to be defined. If one is talking about what is basically cultural dispensationalism, then what's been said in earlier posts fits. In such a case dispensationalism isn't so much a cause, but a movement within cultural Christianity. In such a case most of the preachers really don't understand nor can define their own hermeneutic. Often they don't really know why they believe what they teach. This is crippling. But if one considers DT in contrast with CT then we're talking about a system and it must be shown how that system necessitates anything that's attributed to it. Since the comparison was made in the first post of this thread, I considered the discussion to be focused on the system, not the cultural entity (for lack of a better word).


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 30, 2008)

I suspect that social implications generally flow out of our theology and our theology is related to our hermeneutic.

The literal hermeneutic of dispensationalsim with its attendant separation of Israel and the Church has implications for things other than one's millennial view. There is a major social difference between a typical CT sabbatarian and one who sees the OT law as fulfilled in Christ and the Sabbath command not repeated in the New Testament. 

From a Reformed perspective, dispensationalism (like many other brands of Protestantism) follows Luther's notion that what is not forbidden is permitted. Insofar as the RPW differs in that it says that whatever is not commanded is prohibited, dispensationalists would be at odds with Reformed thought. In terms of application, such freedom carries implications, not only for worship, but for evangelistic strategies, church growth methodologies, and the like. But, here the issue is not unique to dispensationalism, but to all who follow Luther instead of Zwingli/Calvin.

I agree with Pergy that the dispensational view of the place of Israel is VERY much a social issue. Particularly in America, failure to support the state of Israel in its political decisions can be tantamount to going against God himself. And, insofar as peace in the middle east is a social issue, it would certainly follow that dispensationalism leads to certain consequences in that area.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 30, 2008)

R Harris said:


> Joe, it just looks like we may have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I live in OKC, where the top five groups are (1) SBC, (2) SBC, (3) SBC, (4) assorted charismatic/pentecostal, and (5) assorted independent, "non-denominational" Bible churches.
> 
> ...



Hasn't the PCA GA shot down a similar public school resolution at least once?


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 30, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> From a Reformed perspective, dispensationalism (like many other brands of Protestantism) follows Luther's notion that what is not forbidden is permitted. Insofar as the RPW differs in that it says that whatever is not commanded is prohibited, dispensationalists would be at odds with Reformed thought. In terms of application, such freedom carries implications, not only for worship, but for evangelistic strategies, church growth methodologies, and the like. But, here the issue is not unique to dispensationalism, but to all who follow Luther instead of Zwingli/Calvin.



There are many dispensationalists to whom this doesn't apply at all. I am familiar with some who essentially follow the RPW when it comes to worship although they would probably not use that terminology. I know some NCTers who would be similar. On the other hand, there are plenty of CTers who basically follow the normative principle, are into the latest church growth and evangelism fads, etc.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 30, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> There are many dispensationalists to whom this doesn't apply at all. I am familiar with some who essentially follow the RPW when it comes to worship although they would probably not use that terminology. I know some NCTers who would be similar. On the other hand, there are plenty of CTers who basically follow the normative principle, are into the latest church growth and evangelism fads, etc.



Agreed. There are Reformed folks who are premillennial too. But, as a rule, the logic of saying "what is not prohibited is permitted" (not unique to dispensationalism as I already had said) leads to a different set of consequences (if carried out logically) than the opposite position.

A dispensationalist need not be a pre-tribber. Gundry wrote his "The Church and the Tribulation" as a post-tribber working from dispensational presuppositions (I even got to help proof some of the footnotes before it went to press). However, the hermeneutics of dispensationalism make it logically inconsistent to be amil or postmil. This implies social implications, however they are somewhat different depending upon whether one is pre-trib or post-trib.

In terms of practical consequences (majority rule) rather than necessary outcomes, most dispensationalists focus more on Bible exposition than theology while most Reformed folks are just the opposite. This can be seen in the very different ways most lay people behave. Reformed folks can often be found discussing theological books (particularly Reformation and Post-Reformation Dogmatics). Dispensationalists may also be well read, but it is more likely that they will focus on Bible or the application of Bible to particular issues. Dispensationalists will more likely tackle a social problem in terms of chapter and verse; Reformed people will be just as likely to cite theologically framed explanations.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

Some more good observations. I'd like to point something out, at the risk of sounding authoritative. Many here say that "came out of dispensationalism" and therefore they know what they're talking about. But, gentlemen, by most of your definitions I AM a dispensationalist (PD, RB with Dispensational tendencies, pick your label). I don't blow the horn or run the flag. I'd rather run Calvin's, if I must run one in addition to Christ's. But, if the shoe fits, then so be it. The problem is, based on the hermeneutics that I know and abide by, the stereotyping espoused here is not necessarily inherent in the system. And I've been taught by some very well known and entrenched dispensationalists (Robert Thomas, for example). Those of you who know me, even when we disagree, know that I strive to be a careful exegete.
So let me ask, if you're going to make these assertions, either define your terms or show how dispensational hermeneutics lead one down the paths proposed here.

Mr. McFadderator,
I think your last paragraph is a good observation.


----------



## Blue Tick (Apr 30, 2008)

> So let me ask, if you're going to make these assertions, either define your terms or show how dispensational hermeneutics lead one down the paths proposed here.



Which terms would you like defined? I agree terms have to be defined.


----------



## Wannabee (May 1, 2008)

Well, are we discussing social dispensationalism; the type of movement that sensationalizes everything and fails to work at or even learn responsible hermeneutic skills? Or are we talking about a theological understanding where those who propose it have attempted to dig into the text with results that distinguish them as dispensational? The problem is, the difference between DT and CT is based on hermeneutics. They have subtle differences. But comparing CT to your run of the mill mainstream fundamental church really is comparing fruits to vegetables. One's a theological system and the other is more akin to a social movement (perhaps even a fad, in some instances). If you're talking about this, then I have nothing to say; flail away. But if you're talking about the differences in the systematic understanding of Scripture based on hermeneutic principles then, by all means, let's determine any differences in how they might affect society. What I've seen here so far has not succeeded to do this.

It would probably be helpful to consider the fact that charismania has taken eschatological sensationalism to a level that is beyond anything most dispensationalists would even consider. They see prophetic fulfillment in every news headline. Some of these folks are simply dispensationalists who are too caught up in eschatology. But there is a bridge there with a lot of really fancy buildings all over it. Some call them churches. I suppose these would be considered dispensational by some. Perhaps they are, from a certain perspective.


----------



## R Harris (May 1, 2008)

"Hasn't the PCA GA shot down a similar public school resolution at least once?"

Not sure, but if they have, it wouldn't surprise me. There are A LOT of problems with the PCA, and there have been for many years.

In my humble opinion, A number of people in the PCA are generally evangelical, not reformed in the historic sense - in other words, if they suddenly found themselves worshipping in a 16th or 17th century English, Scottish, Genevan, or Huguenot church, they would be almost completely clueless.

They may claim to be five pointers and paedobaptists, but beyond that . . . .


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 2, 2008)

I suppose I asked some what of a one sided question then since DT is necessarily tied to Disp. Pre-Mil of some flavor by default and CT is not necessarily tied to a particular position. 

There seems to be a level of difficulty for CTs to answer the question apart from their eschatological perspective. It seems to affect one’s hermeneutic much more than I realized.


----------



## Wannabee (May 2, 2008)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> There seems to be a level of difficulty for CTs to answer the question apart from their eschatological perspective. It seems to affect one’s hermeneutic much more than I realized.



That could be. Or it could be the other way around. Though we can usually keep our exegesis separated, it's often difficult to separate our presuppositions from our hemeneutics.


----------

