What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology?

Desiring God Ministries ^ | Unk. | DGM Staff

[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.

[CCWoody]

Is there any particular reason you posted this? Perhaps as a means of sparking another eschatological war on FR.

BTW, in the current book I'm reading by Piper, it is obvious that he believes in a future Millennium. So, what! I haven't quit reading Spurgeon sermons because he was also wrong about the millennium.

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks for the ping. I'll try to get to it over the weekend.

[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.

[CCWoody]

Dispensationalism holds that God will pick up His program with Israel after the Church (Jew & Gentile) have been raptured. ~ ksen

Sigh!

Who said that the Gentiles will receive an inheritance among those in Israel who are sanctified by faith in the Lord?

Woody.

[ksen]

Is there any particular reason you posted this?

I said at the end of the article why I posted this. I posted it because a discussion of Covenant Theology started in one of the Institutes threads and while I was looking for ammo, er, I mean studying, I found this article.

Since I know Piper has a following here I figured I'd post it.

Perhaps as a means of sparking another eschatological war on FR.

Things only have to become a war if you want them to. Eschatology doesn't have to be discussed when comparing Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology.

BTW, in the current book I'm reading by Piper, it is obvious that he believes in a future Millennium. So, what! I haven't quit reading Spurgeon sermons because he was also wrong about the millennium.

I'm not trying to get anyone stop reading anything. Why the harsh reaction to my posting this?

[ksen]

Who said that the Gentiles will receive an inheritance among those in Israel who are sanctified by faith in the Lord?

Um, what?

[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?

[RnMomof7]

Do you plasinly hold that there will be animal sacrifices for sin in the millenium?

[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]

Do you plasinly hold that there will be animal sacrifices for sin in the millenium?

Ok, I'll bite. No, do you know where something like that is plainly stated in the Scriptures?

[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?

[CCWoody]

It is a simple question: Who said that the Gentiles will receive an inheritance among those in Israel who are sanctified by faith in the Lord?

You are, of course, free to disagree with the statement if you wish.

[CCWoody]

You must believe that I hold to Covenant theology.

[ksen]

You must believe that I hold to Covenant theology.

To tell you the truth, I thought you did based on my reading of your posts on this forum. I probably should have asked if that is what you believe. Sorry about that.

What do you think of CT? Do you think of it at all?