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.

__________________
Julio Perez
Visting Branch of Hope OPC hoping this will be my home church.....


“No…we are all priests. Your vocation and your contentment in your vocation should not be dependent upon your being in vocational ministry or in being a figure of public acclaim. If God wills that fine…if He does not do that, you ought to still do what he has granted you to do to the glory of God.”

-Martin Luther

House Divided by Bahnsen and Gentry!

__________________
Adam - Pennsylvania - Baptist

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/p...5655012&ref=nf

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.

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 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/poyth...yterianism.htm

also several articles online - hope it will be helpful

http://www.monergism.com/directory/s...ionalism&B1=Go

__________________
César Proença

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) http://www.gkv.nl/main.asp?intTreeviewID=954

Igreja Reformada em Massamá Portugal http://www.igrejareformada.pt

"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.

__________________
Roy
PCA
Orlando, Florida

One side dispy view the other side covenant theology

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

__________________
Daniel Franzen
Church Creek Presbyterian (PCA)
Charleston, SC

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 IMO.

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 IMO 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.

Amazon.com: God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology: Michael, Horton: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: Far As The Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story Of Redemption: Michael D. Williams: Books

Amazon

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

Amazon

__________________
Kenneth Tan
Member, Orchard Road Presbyterian Church
Singapore

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.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

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 Dispies:

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/...heology/09.htm

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Here is O Palmer Robertson. An MP3 lecture

Link Details MP3 - The Dispensational vs Covenantal Approach

__________________
Michael P Doyle
Waukesha WI
Member of http://www.cornerstone-pca.com/
Attending http://www.lampseminary.org/

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.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

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.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Doxa has Continuity and Discontinuity available in the Cross software format for under $10.

Continuity and Discontinuity CROSS eBook Download

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta

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.

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

__________________
Brian
Grace Bible Church;E.Bridgewater
East Bridgewater MA
http://www.gracebiblehome.org

Two titles:

A Study of Dispensationalism

Divine Covenants

__________________
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham

House Divided mentioned earlier is found here: http://freebooks.commentary.net/free..._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/ar...ationalism.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 & dispy site: Pre-Trib Research Center: A Short History Of Dispensationalism

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they,... did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists,... and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Charlie,
I really appreciated that analytic perspective.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

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.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

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'

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 Dispies, having abandoned certain crucial tenets (notably involving the points above), cannot fairly continue to call themselves dispensationalists at all.

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.

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 grammatical-historical-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.


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.

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 dispy 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

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.

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.

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.

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 dispy 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 DT.

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 DT. 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.
Heh, works for me.