Thread: Dispy/CT Comparison

I was googling for information about the covenant of works and came across an interesting site that compared dispensationalism with covenant theology.

Here's one of the comparisons:

Twentieth. Classic Dispensationalists will argue that the Old Testament sacrifices were not recognized by the Old Testament saints as Gospel types. They were only seen as such in retrospect. Whereas Covenant Theologians will argue that the Old Testament believers believed in the Gospel of the Messiah as sin bearer through the sacrifices their types and prophecies.

I was just wondering which scriptures/passages support this (covenant theology's) teaching?

Thanks for the link.

1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.

I'd say the early Brethren were mostly Calvinist or Amyraldian.

2. Stresses 'literal' interpretation of the Bible.

More like 'letter-ist' or 'literal-istic.'

7. The Church was born at Pentecost.

Classic, yes...but the net is filled with hyper-dispensationalists. Most are Acts 9 but some are as late as Acts 28.

13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.

Maybe modern dispensationalists, but even Chafer admits to the 'everlasting covenant' of redemption from which all salvation flows.

19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O.T. sinners were saved by works.

20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their Dispensation, but this did not include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.

True of the ol' school, not for the new.

27. The Millennium is the Kingdom of God Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millennial and usually Pre-Tribulational.

And not every premillennialist is a dispey.

_________________

Dispensationalism is hard to nail down in a nice and tiddy list because every dispensationalist believes something different. I haven't seen a dispensational confession that dispensationalists can agree upon.

Peace,

j

Originally Posted by JM

Thanks for the link.

You're welcome

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.

True of the ol' school, not for the new.

So when the people in the OT sacrificed, they recognized it as a type of Christ?

I don't know.

More from Ryrie,

Unquestionably the Old Testament does ascribe efficacy to the sacrifices. Again and again the Scriptures declare that when the sacrifices were offered according to the law it shall "be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf" (Lev. 1:4; 4:26-31; 16:20-22). In none of these passages is there any indication that the effectiveness of the sacrifices depended on the spiritual state of the person offering them. Neither do the Scriptures imply that the offerer had to have some glimmer of understanding of the prefigurative purpose of these sacrifices for them to be effective for him.

Bob,

Without giving this a lot of thought, my initial reaction is to refer to Hebrews 11.

The "hero's" of the faith (as I have heard them called sometimes) had faith that is recognised here in the book of Hebrews. One should ask themselves what the object of there faith was? It *must* be Christ - the only one who could save them, and they recognised they had not YET receieved the promise instantiated. Ie, their service to God was rendered in such a way that it pointed forward to a time when the promise would be fulfilled (coming of the Messiah).

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Heb 11:26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.

Heb 11:39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise,
Heb 11:40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

Thanks, Matthew