# Covenant Theology and Dispenstionalism



## ReformedChapin

Anyone know any good online resouces for Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism? I don't think I understand either area fairly well and I want a clear scholarly description of both. Maybe an online course or something that's clear and cut.


----------



## ReformedWretch

House Divided by Bahnsen and Gentry!


----------



## ReformedChapin

I would very strongly prefer objective sources presented by each side. And if they were online it would be better since it probably be free.


----------



## ReformedWretch

both sides of what?

Dispensationalism? The book I recommended is an answer to writings on that. I'm also pretty sure it's cheap.


----------



## discipulo

one of the leading reformed scholars on dispensationalism

complete book online

Understanding Dispensationalists 
by Vern S. Poythress

Poythress Books


Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism
by Vern S. Poythress


http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2002Presbyterianism.htm

also several articles online - hope it will be helpful

http://www.monergism.com/directory/...earch_kind=and&phrase=dispensationalism&B1=Go


----------



## Zeno333

"Dispensationalism : Rightly Dividing the People of God?" by Keith A. Mathison.
He is a personal friend of ours, and he visited my wife last year when she was in the hospital, so you better buy his book.


----------



## ReformedChapin

PuritanBouncer said:


> both sides of what?
> 
> Dispensationalism? The book I recommended is an answer to writings on that. I'm also pretty sure it's cheap.



One side Dispensational view the other side covenant theology


----------



## InevitablyReformed

discipulo said:


> one of the leading reformed scholars on dispensationalism
> 
> complete book online
> 
> Understanding Dispensationalists
> by Vern S. Poythress
> 
> Poythress Books
> 
> 
> Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism
> by Vern S. Poythress
> 
> 
> Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism
> 
> also several articles online - hope it will be helpful
> 
> Monergism :: Search Results



This is a great book for what you're after.


----------



## wookie

With regard to online resources, I would recommend the Covenant Theology page by First Presbyterian Church of Jackson Mississippi. Be sure to check out the Ligon Duncan's 12 transcribed lectures from the RTS Covenant Theology course. They are pretty lengthy, but quite good in my opinion.

I suggest you check out the following books as well: O. Palmer Robertson's _The Christ of the Covenants_ and Michael Horton's _God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology_. Robertson's book in my opinion is much more technical than Horton's. _The Christ of the Covenants_ is one of the first few books on Covenant Theology I started reading after Ligon Duncan's lectures.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Covenants-O-Palmer-Robertson/dp/0875524184]Amazon.com: The Christ of the Covenants: O. Palmer Robertson: Books[/ame] [ame=http://www.amazon.com/God-Promise-Introducing-Covenant-Theology/dp/0801012899]Amazon.com: God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology: Michael, Horton: Books[/ame]

There are other books that are not strictly Covenant Theology, but explores the theme of covenant. You might want to look at them as well: Michael D. William's _Far as the Curse is Found_ and W. J. Dumbrell's _Covenant and Creation_.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Far-As-Curse-Found-Redemption/dp/0875525105]Amazon.com: Far As The Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story Of Redemption: Michael D. Williams: Books[/ame] [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Creation-Testament-Covenants-Theological/dp/0853647712]Amazon.com: Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Biblical and Theological Classics Library, Vol. 12) (Biblical and Theological Classics Library): William J. Dumbrell: Books[/ame]


----------



## Wannabee

I'm not sure where you can find a good, clear and contemporary treatment on dispensationalism. I've looked through my books and find them lacking, and I would suppose that I'm the closest to dispensationalism on the PB. Ryrie is not a good source, though he provides good insights. Books on progressive dispensationalism may show the direction dispensationalism seems to be going. But today dispensationalism is entails such a broad range that it may be impossible for a definitive work to be written on it. And I've never seen a covenantalist write objectively on it. Most of the time they treat dispensationalism much as MacArthur treated amillennialism a couple of years ago. 
A good example of the difficulty found in this can be found back in Spurgeon. He hated the darbyism of his day, and preached out against it. But his eschatological views included both a premilliennial perspective and ethnic Israel's place in it. Today many would call his position dispensational; though he'd adamantly deny it. 
You can find dispenational books of the more rabid variety, but they won't help you any more than FV books would help a dispensationalist understand covenantlism better. There are insights to be gained, but distinctions would be illusive. 

Well, that's probably not much help. Perhaps someone has run across a good responsible treatment from a dispensational perspective, but I've yet to see it.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

J. Ligon Duncan has online lectures on Covenant Thheology here:

INDEX of covenant theology lectures

There is a chapter on Dispensationalism here which closes with a comparison chart between CT and the Dispensationalists:

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ogy & Justification/Ligons_covtheology/09.htm


----------



## Michael Doyle

Here is O Palmer Robertson. An MP3 lecture

Link Details MP3 - The Dispensational vs Covenantal Approach


----------



## CharlieJ

Probably the most scholarly work on Dispensationalism by a Dispensationalist is _The Greatness of the Kingdom_ by Alva McClain. It is not about Dispensationalism per se, but is a complete biblical theology from a Disp. perspective, sort of like Robertson's _Christ of the Covenants_ is to Covenant Theology.

Amazon.com: Greatness of the Kingdom: McClain: Books


----------



## Pilgrim

A recent book that endeavors to boil dispensationalism down to its essence is Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by The Master's Seminary's Dr. Michael J. Vlach. For free online resources that are basically in the same camp, see http://www.sljinstitute.net where you can listen to the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson's sermons or read transcripts of them. Dr. Johnson also tends to do one of the better jobs at accurately representing the views of those with whom he disagrees instead of attacking straw men, which those on both sides of this issue (as well as other issues of course) have a tendency to do. 

A book that contains contributions from both sides (and some who are probably somewhere in between) that I've been wanting to get for a long time is Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments edited by John Feinberg. Amazon.com: Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Rodney Petersen, John S. Feinberg: Books

Good introductory books on Covenant Theology include Robertson's Christ of the Covenants and Horton's God of Promise, both of which have already been linked in a previous post. [insert Murray vs. Kline (or WTS vs. WSCAL) debate # 65 here, although I think Robertson's view may be somewhere in between.]  

Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ is a covenant theology book from a Baptist perspective.


----------



## DMcFadden

Doxa has _Continuity and Discontinuity_ available in the Cross software format for under $10.

Continuity and Discontinuity CROSS eBook Download


----------



## turmeric

Seems MacArthur would be a good source for Dispensationalism. If you want the old variety, look for old books by Lewis Sperry Chafer. The others have given good resources for Covenant Theology.


----------



## Neogillist

You could read A. W. Pink's treatment of dispensationalism:
A Study of Dispensationalism
I have not read it myself, but I know that Pink is pretty articulate, sound and logical. He also lived during the era where dispensationalism became popularized and widespread which might give him an advantage over other authors. I think I will read it myself at some point anyway. By the way, you don't want to look at dispensationalism from an "unbiased perspective" since you won't find any. I personally think dispensationalism is a sort of mythology that many fundamentalists have embraced due to their poor understanding and knowledge of Scripture.


----------



## Wannabee

turmeric said:


> Seems MacArthur would be a good source for Dispensationalism. If you want the old variety, look for old books by Lewis Sperry Chafer. The others have given good resources for Covenant Theology.



TMS is working on a Systematic Theology. They've been trying to get MacArthur to edit one for years, but the Study Bible took so much out of him that he's resisted. Apparently he's relented, and it's underway. I don't know the anticipated release date though.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

Gomarus said:


> J. Ligon Duncan has online lectures on Covenant Thheology here:
> 
> INDEX of covenant theology lectures
> 
> There is a chapter on Dispensationalism here which closes with a comparison chart between CT and the Dispensationalists:
> 
> http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ogy & Justification/Ligons_covtheology/09.htm



Thanks so much this chapter with chart is priceless,very helpful!


----------



## JM

Two titles:

A Study of Dispensationalism

Divine Covenants


----------



## JohnGill

House Divided mentioned earlier is found here: http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gbhd.pdf. It also deals with the splinters in dispensationalism. (p 175 & 176 for instance)

For Classic Dispensationalism read Scofield's Rightly Dividing the Word: Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth by C.I. Scofield and his study notes which are also online. Then read L. S. Chafer's material.

Pink's Study on Dispensationalism can be found online at Pink's Archive

This is also a good refutation of dispensationalism Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Theology or Pseudo Christian Cult - Part I

Here's a good comparison chart between the two: DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

The Covenants - Robert Boyt C. Howell

Some other links:

http://www.reformedreflections.ca/articles/th-modern-dispensationalism.pdf

Dispensationalism: Part IV - Modern Developments and Modifications

Topical Sermons, Modern Dispensationalism, A Biblical Analysis, Part 1

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Pro-pretrib & Dispensational site: Pre-Trib Research Center: A Short History Of Dispensationalism


----------



## JM

I would avoid the older dispey works since dispensationalism today has discard most of them.


----------



## JohnGill

JM said:


> I would avoid the older dispey works since dispensationalism today has discard most of them.



Some have while some have not. I also find it useful reading them in order to understand the development of "modern" dispensationalism.


----------



## JM

True.

But nothings worse then quoting Scofield to a MacArthur-ite. They just say, "we don't believe that!"


----------



## JohnGill

JM said:


> True.
> 
> But nothings worse then quoting Scofield to a MacArthur-ite. They just say, "we don't believe that!"



Not many, if any of them up here. We have classic dispensationalists running around up here.


----------



## DMcFadden

Since Dallas, Talbot, and Masters have all shifted from Scofield dispensationalism, I agree that reading Scofield can only take you so far. Ryrie's latest revision of _Dispensationalism _ is a standard. It even interacts with the voices of the "progressive dispensational" camp so popular today.


----------



## Wannabee

JM said:


> But nothings worse then quoting Scofield to a MacArthur-ite. They just say, "we don't believe that!"



This is largely true. In fact, it becomes quite nauseating. I don't consider myself a "MacArthurite." But I would probably be considered close, especially by those on the PB. 

It's interesting that, even though I grew up and attended dispensational churches, I only know of one that was a Scofield follower. It was KJVOnly and pretty much a typical fundy independent Baptist Church. But I've been part of BBF, GARB and SBC churches that were nowhere near what I often hear attributed to dispensationalism. Simply put, it's largely foreign to me. Even those I meet now who are clearly dispensational, don't seem to fit the mold that is so often cast by anti-dispensationalists (probably a fitting word, unfortunately). It's because of this that I perceive a huge straw-man argument against dispensationalism in general, based on broad brushing erroneously paints some of us in colors that don't match.
Because it's not a theological system, really, but more of a hermeneutic, it's hard to pin down. There are consistencies based on the hermeneutic, but not anything that can be systemetized with any depth.
There are some TMS guys in AK, but I don't know where they are. A quick search on "alumni" at the web site can reveal where graduates are located.


----------



## CharlieJ

There is a peculiar difference in perspective between many prominent Covenant theologians and the theologians who popularized Dispensationalism. Most of those writing for Covenant theology see themselves either as historical theologians or as systematic theologians whose method of systematic theology involves heavy interaction with the theologians of the past. On the other hand, none of the major popularizers of Dispensationalism (Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, Zuck, Bock) have done any great historical theological works that I can recall, and Ryrie's systematic was more "exegetical" in method.

So, in their critiques of Dispensationalism, the Covenant theologians feel obligated to place it within a historical development, showing the lines of continuity. They believe it is perfectly appropriate to castigate modern Dispensationalists for the mistakes of their forbears, since they share a common label and identity. After all, most Covenant theologians seem to feel the need to show that their theology extends back to the Reformation heroes, or is at least a development of their ideas. On the other hand, since the Dispensationalists are less (un?)concerned about historical theology, any discussion of the system older than its current incarnation seems ridiculously irrelevant. After all, if they don't believe that anymore, they don't believe that, right?

As Dispensationalism drops problematic formulations, it also loses shape and character. The hermeneutic loses concrete manifestation, making it more difficult to define and use. On the one hand, the current fluidity of Dispensationalism makes it hard to critique, since any perceived problem can simply be restated more agreeably. The backlash to this is that the system is not developed concretely enough to be checked for logical consistency. 

The great irony of this is that the rhetoric hasn't changed. From the earliest Dispensationalists to the latest, the rallying cry is "literal when possible, without spiritualizing or allegorizing." For Scofield, that meant that the law may have had some saving merit in the Mosaic covenant, that the Sermon on the Mount was for Jews in the Millennial Kingdom, and that the "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" were two different things. That, he deduced, was the result of the literal hermeneutic. A century later, no Dispensationalist holds to those ideas, which were significant in Scofield's system. The end result is that no one really knows what the Dispensationalist hermeneutic is, even more ironic since it has been proclaimed as the "plain meaning" approach to Scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Charlie,
I really appreciated that analytic perspective.


----------



## Scott1

You might find this (extensive) blog helpful:
Why I Am Not A Dispensationalist

You might start with the 7/3/07 entry, "Was Israel the Church."

This blog also details this Pastor (Teaching Elder's) journey from dispensationalism as he studied theology to covenant theology.


----------



## Wannabee

Charlie,

Those are some great thoughts. I think you err in regard to dispensationalism's heremeneutic though. In the early years it was still in form, and largely, as you said, founded on contemporary exegesis (eisogesis in many cases) from diverse men, and even perspectives. But over the years there has been an effort to clearly define what the dispensational hermeneutic really is. Ryrie tried, but I don't think he really was able to grasp at it himself. The best treatment of it that I know of would be Robert Thomas' _Evangelical Hermeneutics_. He gives what is a fairly clear set of hermeneutic principles for the dispensationalist. Most find him very helpful, even if they disagree. I found it clarifying in many ways, but restraining in many ways that I perceived as confining God's Word.

Perhaps much of the differences lie between those, like Thomas, who have a good thorough understanding of hermeneutics, church history, exegetical ability and are truly theologians, and others who simply believe what they're told by their denomination, bite onto every new idea that comes along and fall into the program oriented church program mentality. These two groups, within dispensationalism, are very diverse. It may even be appropriate to somehow devise separate labels for them because of their vast differences. 
On the other hand, I have not read a clear statement on Covenant Theology's hermeneutic. In fact, a few years ago we had a rather lengthy discussion on hermeneutics here and CTs did not rise to the occasion to present a set of cogent hermeneutic principles. The discussion was very valuable though, I thought. While I might not completely agree with what I wrote then, this thread should be a bit enlightening, and hopefully squash the idea of some nebulous dispensational hermeneutic.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/dispensational-vs-reformed-hermeneutic-13965/


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

According to Ryrie, the _sine qua non_ or dispensationalism is its (radical) distinction between Israel and the church, and thus the "two peoples of God". This goes hand in hand with the teaching that the church age is a parenthesis not foreseen by the OT.

There are plenty of the "Old Guard" around who maintain that Progressive Dispensationalists, having abandoned certain crucial tenets (notably involving the points above), cannot fairly continue to call themselves dispensationalists at all.


----------



## JM

Dispensationalism has always been a theology in motion.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

JM said:


> Dispensationalism has always been a theology in motion.



True.

The developments in dispensationalism spawned variants, but they all _still exist_, i.e the classics (a la Scofield/Chafer), the revisionists (Ryrie, Walvoord), and the progressives (Saucy, Blaising, Bock). I'm just saying, it's not like there are none of the older variety around. So, not only is the term fluid, but it depends on who is using it.


----------



## CharlieJ

Wannabee said:


> Perhaps much of the differences lie between those, like Thomas, who have a good thorough understanding of hermeneutics, church history, exegetical ability and are truly theologians, and others who simply believe what they're told by their denomination, bite onto every new idea that comes along and fall into the program oriented church program mentality.



What I am about to say is not intended to be mean-spirited. I'm not into needless Dispensationalist flaming, since I have good memories of my education at BJU. I am very familiar first-hand with Disp. theology. However, Robert Thomas is the poorest excuse for a scholar I have ever encountered in this field. His book is perhaps the poorest hermeneutics book ever written. 

At the beginning of the book he says something to the effect of, "Now, I'm not a hermeneutician, but" and goes on to critique every hermeneutician of the 20th century. Odd, isn't it, to write a book in a field in which you admit you are not a specialist, AND disagree with all the contemporary specialists?
His solution is to go back to Milton Terry and Bernard Ramm. I'm not going to criticize either of those guys, since they were luminaries in the field. However, Thomas has some romanticized notions about what these guys believed. In his book, Thomas "proves" pre-millennialism and denies preterism. However, Milton Terry was a preterist. Oops.

The really obnoxious thing about Thomas is that he doesn't know what is old and what is new. The central premise of his book is that "pre-understanding" has no role in hermeneutics. There is grammar and there is history, period. He rejects historical-grammatical-theological hermeneutics. He has the audacity to call a theological hermeneutic "new" and "evangelical," when it has been clearly taught since the Reformation. In his book, he adamantly denies that the Bible has any right to determine its own hermeneutical principles. Instead, he calls the apostles use of the OT "Inspired Sensus Plenoir Applications" (ISPA's), which he then brushes off as being meaningless to our approach to Scripture. For him, hermeneutics is a straight line, not a spiral. He also rejects the analogy of faith as anything but a last-resort check on exegesis. This necessarily drives him not to see typological references in the Old Testament except as a last resort. Also, there are no canonical horizons such as Christ or the gospel that provide a framework in which to read the Bible. There are simply individual passages speaking with individual voices.

In summary, the "new" "evangelical" hermeneutic is the belief that the interpreter must come to a passage with some information in his mind other than the words of that passage. Whether that is a Reformed person coming to a passage with an apostolic or Christ-centered hermeneutic, or a feminist liberal coming to it with a postmodern reader deconstruction theory, it is really the same thing. So, Thomas names amillennialism, preterism, open theism, theonomy, evangelical feminism, and evangelical missiology as fruits of the "new hermeneutic." Thomas has effectively made himself the Gail Riplinger of hermeneutic studies. All deviations from proper (Dispensational) hermeneutics find their source in the corrupt "new" hermeneutic.

It's strange, isn't it, that the Reformed and Lutheran hermeneutics are called "new" and lumped in with the hermeneutics of feminism and open theism? Robert Thomas seems to have never deeply interacted hermeneutically with anyone before Ramm and Terry, and after Gadamer.




Wannabee said:


> On the other hand, I have not read a clear statement on Covenant Theology's hermeneutic. In fact, a few years ago we had a rather lengthy discussion on hermeneutics here and CTs did not rise to the occasion to present a set of cogent hermeneutic principles.



This actually highlights another difference in mindset between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism. When I was learning theology from Dispensationalists, it was a science. You take the raw data, plug in the "formula," and out pops your exegesis. It is clean and simple, except for a few difficult passages due to grammatical ambiguity and such. Then, learning from covenant theologians, I am constantly reminded that exegesis, like reading, is an art. Principles of interpretation can be stated, but they are not exhaustive. The Bible displays interlocking themes, intertextuality, typological significance, canonical horizons, and law/gospel contrast. It is unimaginable that you would actually capture all the meaning of a biblical passage through any one method of examination.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Charle,
I found your comments on Thomas quite enlightening. You see rigidity where I see perspicuity. Reading Thomas helped me to form and sharpen my understanding in regard to hermeneutics. However, it is entirely possible that I took what helped and dismissed the things that I thought were impositions as I read through. However, if one came at his work with good historical knowledge and already doing hermeneutical work then I could see how a reaction such as yours would develop. I think your assessment harsh, but ringing with a bit of truth. Having sat under Dr. Thomas perhaps gives one a different perspective as well. He is a gentle, humble and gracious man. He'll stand on what he believes, but with grace and dignity. I'm sure that shades my reading of what he writes, though I disagree with his treatment of prophecy (the whole ISPA thing).
I have to wonder if there are differing perspectives of what "principles" means. I see it as a systematic approach that I generally follow in striving to mine the depths of God's Word with integrity and submission to what God is saying. Some perceive them as rigid rules. I use these to help keep me from imposing myself and teaching "Joe" rather than Christ. We all (most of us) have such principles, but few can articulate them.
As I read through the thread that I linked above, I found that I could no longer make some of the statements that I made. Dr. Scott had some influence on me being able to think through some of my rigidities, for lack of a better word. I continue to be a non-conformist, with CT and Dispensational leanings that sort of put me out in no-man's land. But I sort of like it out here.  And, I'm increasingly finding that I'm not alone


----------



## CharlieJ

Thank you for your graciousness. What irks me about Thomas is not what he believes, but how he presents it. Whether Antiochine typology or Alexandrian allegory or medieval quadriga, or Lutheran Christo-centrism or post-Reformation covenantal theology, all ages and groups of Christendom prior to Dispensationalism have agreed on a theological dimension to hermeneutics. For Thomas to call this idea "new" and lump historic Christian hermeneutics with open theism and evangelical feminism is simply to display his own ignorance while smacking 2000 years of Christian theology in the face. 

However, I love Dispensationalists. Some of my favorite professors are Dispensationalists. I have Dispensational ministerial students over to my home occassionally for prayer meetings. I don't think that Dispensationalists are bad Christians. For the most part, they simply haven't had any deep historical theology. Many lay people aren't even aware that there have ever been Christians who didn't believe in the Rapture. I was "burned" and "bitter" for a while, but it's not worth it. Love, forgiveness, and leadership by example is what the situation calls for. 

Also, I can relate to being in no-man's land. It happens when people lose their Dispensationalism proper but don't have anything to turn to. After all, why jump into a new bandwagon just because the old one didn't turn out so great. Progressive Dispensationalism was an attractive alternative for me, but it is so ambiguous that it would be like declaring hermeneutical agnosticism. I can now firmly call myself a covenant theologian, but I had to work through issues such as, "Is there really a covenant of works and a covenant of grace?" I think giving up pre-millennialism was the hardest step so far, though not technically necessary for covenant theology. So, I don't blame you, Joe, for not being exactly where I am. It's far better to work through issues one at a time than to accept a whole system just for convenience's sake. Best wishes to you.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Charlie, 

One thought, in reaction to your closing comments: I have to consider the reality that it is entirely possible that you've gone too far in your shift. We are reactionary by nature. The pendulum swings wide, and it takes much discernment and wisdom to avoid the swings. It seems to me that those who were most steeped in dispensationalism swing most wildly at times. I'm not sure exactly where you started, but for me it isn't a swing so much as added clarity as I continue growing in Christ. I am bothered by "systems" that men seem to have to follow so rigidly. Rather than, "Thus saith the Lord," we often hear, "CT teaches," "Witsius said," "The confessions are clear on this." This board is confessional, and I strive to honor that. But the confessions are commentaries/systematics, not Scripture. I began to fall into that a few years ago, then realized I was leaning on the wisdom of men, in a sense, more than Scripture.
Systematic systems are good guides, but poor masters.


----------



## CharlieJ

It is possible that I am reactionary in my theology. At least, it seems impossible to prove otherwise. I don't really like the pendulum idea, because I don't see covenant theology and dispensationalism as being on a continuum. I also don't see them as strict alternatives, as if on every single point of redemptive history you have to be either one or the other.

For myself, I grew up Christian and started reading my parent's old Bible college theology books (like Thiessen's Systematic) when I was around 10. I read my Bible every day from age 14 until I was into college, when I started memorizing whole NT books. I was in high school when I wanted to preach on the rapture, so I began studying it. After weeks of study, I couldn't find enough positive teaching on it to believe it. The answers from my pastors seemed contrived. Before I graduated high school, I stopped believing in the rapture, even though I didn't know anyone else who didn't believe in it.

In college, I had to read Ryrie's _Dispensationalism_ and was disturbed by it. I had most of the NT epistles memorized, and his explanations didn't seem to fit with the apostolic hermeneutic (even though I had never heard that term). I devoured books by Walvoord and Ryrie, but became increasingly dissatisfied with their conclusions. I was especially disturbed by Ryrie's insistence that the OT saints were saved by grace through faith in God, but not necessarily Christ. The DTS doctrinal statement says that the pre-Christian saints did not understand the typology of the sacrifices, but I knew Jesus had blamed the Pharisees for not seeing him in the Scripture. Having read only one book by a Covenant theologian, which was only partially about Covenant theology, I stopped believing in Dispensationalism.

After that, I was at first attracted to the Progressive Dispensationalism of my professors, but began to read much more widely. I found comfort in George Ladd, who denied what I saw as the problems of Dispensationalism while still having an eschatology that was familiar to me and a hermeneutic which seemed pretty close. 

My point is that at every decisive moment in my life, I was not lured away by some other system of theology that I had read. Rather, I was forced to drop the system that I had due to too many anomalies. All my changes were gradual. By the time I picked up Vern Poythress' _Understanding Dispensationalists_, he didn't have to convince me of much. I was already there. Even today, I am still more familiar with Dispensational theology than any other system. In that, I believe that I have given it a fair shake. 

On another note, I find it preferable to be within a stream of historical theology if possible. Much of modern "Biblicism" seems to me to be a Hegelian dialectic. "Well, the Calvinists say this, and the Arminians say this, so the truth MUST be somewhere between them." All that does is say that everybody up until the current person was wrong. I don't believe in something because it is a historical position, but I do believe that we ought to honor historical doctrines by searching them out, whether they be biblical. We ought to be "historical if possible," if I may tweak the Dispensational phrase. I had some hangups, such as whether the Bible actually taught a covenant of grace, and what the role of the law was in the New Covenant, but I am now convinced that the broad contours of "Covenant theology" are in fact biblically defensible.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Charlie,

Good synopsis of your journey. I appreciate understanding and how things were shed, rather than grasped (groped for). The pendulum analogy does break down, but I find it helpful because people have a tendency to be reactionary. Just look at a freshman Calvinist. They're positively obnoxious.  
History is a great instructor, and bears out the errors of the past, eventually. But lies die hard, and return with new labels. Arians dot the landscape with different faces (JW). Sebbelians are found in every town (Pentecostals). And, of course, Pelagius is alive and well, often in Dispensational churches. CT, as a system, has only stood for a few hundred years. Rome stood much longer than that, and still thrives. Even Calvinism wasn't a system until long after Calvin was dead. And each one is still in flux, to a certain degree. It will be interesting to see how history treats the differences between CT and Deut.

I hadn't thought of the Hegelian dialectic idea. It was more of a pursuit of truth that seems to keep me from embracing any particular system, rather than any desire to maintain a middle ground. If the truth is somewhere between CT and DT, then the DT needs to become more like the CT, and the CT needs to become more like the Deut. But most hate the very thought of that, and would rather cling to their system. I think that is much of the problem with claiming adherence to a system. I don't want to identified with Ryrie or Scofield, so identify me with Calvin instead. And actually, I fully agree with your last phrase. I am also convinced that the broad contours of CT are biblically defensible. I suppose we will now have to define "broad." 

-----Added 2/2/2009 at 02:23:32 EST-----

I saw this in another thread and thought it described the diispensational hermeneutic I learned pretty well, with minor editing.


> 1. It is Christocentric. Christ is not a piece of earthly real estate.
> 
> 2. It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants. It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel).
> 
> 3. It takes seriously the time frame references in Scripture, as well as the original audience, and does not seek to rip them from their historical context.
> 
> 4. It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. all 66 volumes).
> 
> 5. It takes seriously the authority of the New Testament in interpreting Old Testament prophecy.



Heh, works for me.


----------



## A.J.

ReformedChapin said:


> Anyone know any good online resouces for Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism? I don't think I understand either area fairly well and I want a clear scholarly description of both. Maybe an online course or something that's clear and cut.



See What The Bible Says About The People Of God by Nathan Pitchford, and this Covenant Theology Webpage which features two excellent articles from Robert Reymond. 

Be sure to check this book also. 

Amazon.com: Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: Books

In this book, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger does not only discuss the key Bible texts in the debate, and the possible problems associated with each eschatological position. He also offers a discussion of the history of the various views, and examines Biblical themes and presuppositions. After reading this book, one would have a better grasp of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions. I am reading God of Promise right now by Horton. We'll see how it goes.

MY gf also purchased Riddlebargers book on Amill. I'll get to that eventually.


----------



## Quickened

CharlieJ said:


> I had some hangups, such as whether the Bible actually taught a covenant of grace, and what the role of the law was in the New Covenant, but I am now convinced that the broad contours of "Covenant theology" are in fact biblically defensible.



What did you read to further your understanding in terms of the CoG? I am assuming its not just one thing (based on your prior posts). Another question i have is what occured that you originally had some hang ups with the CoG?

(side note) i have appreciated you insight and contributions in this thread!


----------

