Quote:
Originally Posted by mshingler  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 DT. 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 dispies. 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 DT. It is a byproduct of bad teaching. But not necessarily part and parcel of DT. 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 dispies. 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshingler 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 DT. 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.