[ksen]

Covenant theology was mentioned on one of the Institutes threads so in my study I came across this.

Piper seems to have quite a following over here, so I thought I'd post it.

[ksen]

Piper bump.

[ksen]

Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

I think it would be better to say that we hold to the "plain" meaning of Scripture instead of the "literal" meaning of Scripture.

[ksen]

Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church.

This to me seems to be a mischaracterization. All Believers in this age are part of the Church with no distinction. Dispensationalism holds that God will pick up His program with Israel after the Church (Jew & Gentile) have been raptured.

[ksen]

For example, the promise of the land is interpreted to mean that God will one day fully restore Israel to Palestine.

*gasp!* Imagine, someone thinking that when God promised a land for Israel that He really meant that Israel would get that land.

[ksen]

Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional "earthly" promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus "heavenly."

See, this is what you get when you let your theological adversary define your position. That statement is totally untrue. No Dispensationalist believes that Jewish people who become Christians (i.e. come to faith during the Church Age) will get a different inheritance than Gentile Christians.

[ksen]

These post-fall covenants are not new tests of man's faithfulness to each new stage of revelation (as are the dispensations in dispensationalism), but are rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace.

Other than not being "tests" of Mankind, how does this definition differ from the one for Dispensation?

[ksen]

The covenant of works, instituted in the Garden of Eden, was the promise that perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life. Adam was created sinless but with the capability of falling into sin. Had he remained faithful in the time of temptation in the Garden (the "probationary period"), he would have been made incapable of sinning and secured in an eternal and unbreakable right standing with God.

Where is anything like the above stated in the Scriptures?

Oh, I thought the Covenants weren't about tests?

[ksen]

God in His mercy therefore instituted the "covenant of grace," which is the promise of redemption and eternal life to those who would believe in the (coming) redeemer.

The Covenant of Grace was instituted after the Covenant of Works. Does that mean that the Covenant of Grace did not exist until after the Fall?

[ksen]

All of the specific redemptive covenants we read of (the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) are various and culminating expressions of the covenant of grace.

Again, how is that functionally different than Dispensations?

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[the_doc]

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

That describes where I was several years ago, when I first began to question the Puritan theology of Law. I quickly realized that the New Covenant theologians had some very, very important points to make.

The more I have studied New Covenant Theology, the more dogmatic I have become as a New Covenant theologian.