OK so I heard this term used in a discussion I had with a "C-D" (for short) who says that there are covenants and dispensations in the bible. He said that God works in both, but sometimes changes (dispensational) his plan. Confusing? Yea, I know.

Here is a direct quote:
Thoughts anyone?

__________________
Julio Martinez Jr.
Member of Grace Presbyterian Church (PCA)
My Blog
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children." Hosea 4:6, ESV

It does not seem like that quote alone has enough meat on it's bones to be able to understand exactly what he is getting at. Sometimes a statement like that is used as an excuse as to why the person is going to avoid looking into the issue. Rather than search out all the issues involved, they make a broad generalization that they can just dismiss.
You might want to see what exagtly his understanding of covenant is/and also the word dispensations.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Aren't all cessationists dispensationalists also? If the miracles of the Bible are authentic history and these phenomena have ceased, then it's a different dispensation, right? Maybe I'm missing something that should be obvious.

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia

As I understand it, the dispensations, as Dispensationalists understand the term, are periods of time during which not only the administration, but also the substance of God's plan of redemption has changed. Reformed/Covenant Theologians recognize a change in administration, but the substance of the covenant is the same. I don't think that the question of cessationism relates to this specifically.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

I think he is a bit confused on how terminology is used. But here is the Westminster Chapter 7.6
Check out some of the works that commentate on this section.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

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

There is creation and there is providence. Creation brought forth matter out of nothing and providence sustains what was created. It is the same matter in either case. There is the creation of revelation, which was established by miracles in order to certify it was God's revelation; but once the revelation has been so certified then it only needs to be preserved in an ordinary manner. It is the same revelation in either case.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter I think he is a bit confused on how terminology is used. But here is the Westminster Chapter 7.6 Quote: 7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance (Gal_2:17), was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20; 1Co_11:23-25): which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy (Jer_31:33, Jer_31:34; Heb_12:22-28), to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations (Psa_32:1; Act_15:11; Rom_3:21-23; Rom_4:3, Rom_4:6, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17, Rom_4:23, Rom_4:24; Gal_3:14, Gal_3:16; Heb_13:8). Check out some of the works that commentate on this section.

I think the way in which my fellow friend is using dispensation is totally different from the way the WCF is using it here. In this case, a dispensation is a period of covenant in administration executed (e.g., Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc.). I think he's playing with terms. However, he did say that God changes his plan, thus referring to a Dispensational[ism] notion, yet trying to be covenantal too. . Makes no sense to me.

CT and Dispensational Thought

Often covenantalists and dispies can talk around each other because of a confusion of terminology. Defining terms is a must. From both perspectives there is a degree of variation. I have talked with CTs who describe covenants the same way some dispies define dispensations. Often it boils down to a dispensationalists reluctance to call anything a covenant that isn't specifically labeled a covenant in Scripture (i.e. CoW). From the dispie side, it can often boil down to a CT imposing a covenantal understanding on dispensations that distorts the verity of 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

In my mind the issue has more to do with the presuppositions of both sides as opposed to the caricatures by the other side.

* Dispensationalism is not predicated on any particular number of dispensations. It assumes that God has two redemptive plans which will bring him glory (a doxological goal) and that we must view each of these literally. The unconditional promises to Abraham are viewed as part of his larger plan to redeem the world, but they are logically separable. This means that Israel and the Church must be sharply differentiated throughout time. Israel means Israel, the Church means the Church. God will fulfill his land promise to Abraham's physical seed in the millennium because that was an unconditional promise.

Therefore,
* Dispensationalism requires premillennialism (there must be a literal fulfillment for Abraham's physical seed). My old prof, Bob Gundry, tried to shoe-horn the post-trib view into the dispensational schema. Another old prof, George Ladd, represents the other premill view of historic (non dispensational) premillennialism. But, whether you are pretrib (the majority) or post-trib (the minority), if you are dispensational you will always be premill.

* Dispensationalism can change the number of dispensations, dabble in covenantal thinking, etc. and remain dispensational. The only minimum requirements to keep integrity in the system are a literal hermeneutic (i.e., consistently view OT prophecy as directed towards literal fulfillment for Israel) + an identifiably firm differentiation between Israel and the Church in God's program.

Covenant theology is largely amil and post-mil for hermeneutical reasons. The NT interprets the OT. Jesus reveals himself to be the subject of all the law and the prophets (cf. Lk 24 and the Emmaus Road walk through the Tanak). One can be premill for exegetical reasons (chiefly Romans 9-11) and still be a standard covenantal Calvinist. However, the "majority report" for the Reformed community is amillennialism, believing that NT authors apply the promises to Israel to Christ and to the church.

__________________
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?

I just wanted to note that most Pentecostals are dispensationalists.

__________________
Jared Hanley
AG
LaFollette, TN

Unless the LORD builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
Psalm 127:1 ESV

I am still trying to work my way through all of this btw. I think the main thing that's difficult for me is replacement theology. I don't reject it entirely, I'm just not sure that the Bible carries it as far as covenant theologians do. Could someone help me out here? I believe that Old Testament saints and New Testament saints are one group who are both justified by faith in Christ. I also believe that Jewish and gentile believers are united as one man in Christ.

My thing is, it seems that God is still working with ethnic Jews in a special way to some extent. I don't mean that there are Jews who are saved apart from Christ, but that for instance God is using the predominantly gentile church to provoke the Jews to jealousy. It also seems like a literal reading of Revelation would suggest that there will be a great number of ethnic Jews who will be saved in the end-times.

I think I am probably the closest to NCT right now. I reject the idea of dispensations.

I do have one question about dispensations however, pertaining to the WCoF.

There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
WCoF 7.6

What is meant by dispensations here? How is this different than dispensationalism?

First, replacement theology is a cuss word to most covenant theologians. They see it as an unfair prejudicing of the case by the choice of nomenclature.

Second, not all Reformed thinkers reject some role for ethnic Israel. Beza, I believe, held that Romans 9-11 required some future for ethnic Israel. Reformed CT, however, does not see the literal promises to Abraham and his seed being fulfilled on a second track from God's basic redemptive purpose. We Gentiles are grafted in as the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith, just as Abraham was. Jesus was the perfect Israelite and our savior, both by his active and passive obedience.

Reformed Covenent theology believes that the gentiles are grafted into Israel, the gentile church did not replace it but joined it.

The Church is Isreal, it did not replace it but neither is it seperate from Israel.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

This sounds like NCT to me. What's the difference? Perhaps I got the wrong idea about covenant theology.

That's a very interesting thought and very well put. I'd like to ask what allows you to draw the correlation between "creation"-"revelation" and how their beginnings and sustaining would be similar.

__________________
Jaymin Jordan-Allen
Student, United Reformed Church
Ontario, CA

We could look at the gathering together of the waters. What a sight! God spoke and it was done. Now He does so by means of tides. It is no less an act of God's power, but one of conservation instead of creation. Likewise, when the Lord revealed Himself, the miraculous element caused many to wonder; but now that the revelation is complete, God works by the ordinary means of Word and sacraments. It is no less an act of divine power to preserve that Word through the ages than it was to bring that Word into being, but it is an act of conservation instead of creation.

I am afraid that I have never really looked into NCT and cannot really offer a view on (or indeed if there are any) differences between my post and NCT.

I would welcome the views of those better educated than me on this subject.

Covenantal-Dispensationalism.......

Hmmm.......

Sounds like an oxymoron to me, but then, I'm a lab tech and not a theologian.

__________________
Donald Jacobs
Roanoke VA.
Covenant Reformed Episcopal Church.

Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum.