Biblical Covenantalism Contrasted with Other Systems

The more I dialogue with and the more I watch discussions among dispensationalists, the more I'm convinced that Dr Reluctant is correct in his observations. I post this here for my own easy reference. While I've listened to many of these before, I find that I need to revise the issues for them to sink in. In this series, he contrasts Biblical Covenantalism with Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

See Synopsis of Biblical Covenantalism

Listen to the "contrasts" HERE (A lot work went into this)

New Progressive Covenantalism?

I wrote a little piece on Progressive Coventalism:

What is this new Progressive Covenantalism all about? I’ve seen this question asked several times in forums...Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker give a brief outline of what PC is about in a B & H Academic article. PC aspires to be a mediating position between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Interestingly, Progressive Dispensationalism has sometimes been referred to as an interface between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Do we need a new mediating theology?...keep reading

Sharper Iron - CT & Dispensationalism

I'm thankful to friend Joel for providing a link to a Sharper Iron Forum discussion between proponents of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

I'm not going to comment in detail. But I think the opening address and subsequent comments by the CT camp highlights the misconceptions CTs have re dispensationalism on several issues. I see the same old canards re Darby, Lacunza, Irving and Scofield, the rapture etc being raised. For example:

Do you think Edwards, Whitefield, Wesley, Luther, Calvin, all the Puritans, Bunyan, etc. also misread their Bible concerning end times? If so, is it just because you think you are right or because you have actually worked through their understanding of Scripture? Would you put Darby, "Dr." Scofield (Scofield gave himself his own doctorate by simply calling himself "doctor"), and Edward Irving, the principle founders of dispensational thought, on the same level of theological, spiritual, and devotional depth as the Reformers, the Puritans, and the preachers of the Great Awakening?

Yes, I do think these gentlemen, as fine as they were regarding the gospel, were sometimes wrong regarding the end times and Israel's status. In fact there was disagreement among them. Even Andrew Bonar noted the mocking overtones towards premillennial prophecy in his day.

I know some dispensationalists rightfully take some blame and admit to faults in approach etc. I take a slightly more mercenary view. As limited as I am in experience, time and time again I see Covenant Theology proponents (amil and postmil) artfully dodge problematic passages to their system. What did God clearly state about national ethnic Israel's future? They need to clearly and consistently address how the OT patriarchs were saved sans knowledge of the cross. And they need to address God's clear word regarding national Israel's future redemption and occupation of the land.

CT proponents also need to get past the Two-Gospel, multiple-ways-of-salvation ruse against dispensationalism. It has been responded to ad nauseum. So, while I appreciate the dispie self-reflection, I'm convinced that no amount of clarification will daunt those determined to defend their traditional theology.

I strongly recommend Paul Henebury's materials, some of which I collated HERE.

Addendum:

I thought Alan Kurschner did a pretty good job summing things up (though I disagree with his references to "Antichrist's great tribulation" etc):

This is why most CT are amillennial. Amillennialism views the return of Christ as some mere simple event. Jesus returns and in the blink of an eye you have the eternal state. They do not preach the whole counsel of God’s Word. They miss articulating Christ’s glory that will unfold at his future return: the deliverance of the church from the grip of the Antichrist’s great tribulation, the complex trumpet and bowl judgments, the final battle (We are told this is all merely a “picture.” Sure.). Then we have the glory of Christ in bringing Israel to spiritual and national restoration, fulfilling his ancient unconditional promises to Israel. Then there is the coalescing of heaven with earth, the earth’s restoration, and on and on...keep reading

Need for a Trusted Dispensational Resource Center

A new Dispensational Resource Center and a contribution from Dr. Paul Henebury:

The expression of theology known—for better or for worse—as dispensationalism has always had important things to say to the church and to the world.

To the church it has commended an approach to the text of the Bible which prioritizes what is properly called, despite some caveats, the “literal” method. Taking this approach to the reading of the Testaments does not mean that there is a one-sided understanding of the text to which all must acquiesce—a kind of hermeneutical flatland which we should all find ourselves in if we are fully on board with this school of thought. No, although there are always small-minded people who will expect us not to break step, a vibrant and healthy theology will entertain the considered viewpoints of various contributors who, because they are less than perfect, because they cannot see everything, employ a prima facie interpretation and bring their best efforts before their peers and move the conversation forward within its parameters.

Dispensationalism also speaks to the body of Christ about the relative importance of the two testaments. In an era when, more and more, the voice of the Old Testament is being all but muted by theological pre-understandings of the New Testament in influential circles, a robust alternative which gives no preference to either part of Scripture is pertinent now more than ever. What we need is a group of well-informed, sophisticated-yet-humble contrarians to assure us that God means what He says in both to whomever He is talking, and that faith trusts that God will fulfill His Word despite the obstacles which finite reason and historical vicissitude use to fuel their objections to the plain sense. Faith cannot but resign itself to believing the words as they are spoken. If it tries to reinterpret the words as different words it is never quite sure if it has gotten the translation right. And so it is never sure just what it is to believe. A vibrant dispensational (but I would want to say “Biblical-covenantal”) theology will always start us off with the plain sense and will always return us there...keep reading

Rethinking Dispensations

Dr. Paul Henebury takes a critical and thought provoking look at dispensationalism:

Part One

Part Two

Addendum:

Biblical Covenantalism