3 Systems of Theology
Comparison of Dispensational Theology, Covenant Theology, & New Covenant Theology
| DT | CT | NCT |
| May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never five-point Calvinist. | Always Calvinist. Usually five-point Calvinist. | Same as CT. |
| Usually does not accept the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.' | Accepts the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith' (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) The Baptist Confession, Article 1.9: The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. Therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any [part of] Scripture (which is not a miscellany, but a unity) it must be understood in the light of other passages that speak more clearly. | Same as CT. |
| 'Israel' always means the literal, physical descendants of Jacob. | Depending on the context, 'Israel' may mean either physical descendants of Jacob, or “spiritual Israel” (who are people with faith in Christ like Abraham). | Same as CT. |
| 'Israel of God' in Galatians 6:16 means physical Israel alone. | 'Israel of God' in Galatians 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Galatians 3:29; Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; Philippians 3:3. | Same as CT. |
| God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly). | God always had only one people, the Church who gradually developed through the ages, in accordance with a Covenant worked out in eternity past between the "Three Persons of the Godhead." (The Cov. of Redemption) | NCT doesn't recognize a Church in the OT, such as in the NT. So, the Church is the "New Israel." |
| The Church was born at Pentecost. | The Church began in the OT with the OT covenants and reached fulfillment in the NT with the New Covenant. God has one family, one church, one flock, one baptism, one way of salvation whether before the Cross or after – by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. | Same as DT. |
| The Church was not prophesied as such in the OT but was a "mystery", hidden until the NT. | There are many OT prophecies of the NT Church. | Same as CT. |
| All OT prophecies for 'Israel' are for the physical nation of Israel, not the Church. | Some OT prophecies are for national Israel, others for spiritual Israel based on context. | Same as CT. |
| God's main purpose in history is national physical Israel. | God's main purpose is His own glory, which is revealed in Christ and then through the Body of Christ – the New Covenant Church. | Same as CT with one exception, seeing the saints of the OT as being added to the church after it's built. |
| The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages. | The Church is the culmination of God's saving purpose for the ages. | Same as CT. |
| The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel. | The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Christ, the Seed, and spiritual Israel which is "in Christ" (Galatians 3:16). | Same as CT |
| God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations. | God's program is history is mainly through related covenants, but all those covenants were derived from the eternal covenant that the Trinity made in eternity, the Covenant of Redemption. | Same as CT, except believes the NC completely replaces the OC because they were all realized in Christ. |
| Most teach that men in the OT were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their Dispensation. | All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age. | Most are same as CT. |
| The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the Dispensation of Grace, not OT and not after the "Secret Rapture." | The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, and He indwells the Body of Christ in a special way in the present NT era as an anointing upon the Church for ministry from the glorified Head of the Church who is established on the Throne in heaven, and the Spirit will not be withdrawn from God’s people. | Various views |
| Jesus made an offer of the physical Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed. | Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel but has been accepted by spiritual Israel who are Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ (Galatians 3:29). | Same as CT. |
| OT believers were not 'in Christ,' nor part of the Body or Bride of Christ even now. | Believers in all ages are all 'in Christ' and part of the Body and Bride of Christ now. | Same as CT. |
| OT laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the NT. | OT laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the NT. | Same as DT. |
| Proponents: John Nelson Darby John Feinberg John Hagee Ed Hindson David Hocking Dave Hunt Thomas Ice Harry Ironside Tim LaHaye David Larsen Hal Lindsey John MacArthur Chuck Missler J. Dwight Pentecost Charles Ryrie C. I. Scofield Henry Thiessen Robert Thomas Jeffrey Townsend Jack Van Impe John Walvoord Kenneth Wuest | Proponents: Jay Adams Eric Alexander Tom Ascol Augustine* Isaac Backus Greg Bahnsen Richard Barcellos Rolfe Barnard S. M. Baugh Herman Bavinck G. K. Beale Alistair Begg Richard Belcher James Montgomery Boice James P. Boyce John A. Broadus F. F. Bruce B. B. Caldwell John Calvin* William Carey R. Scott Clark Johannes Cocceius Gene Cook, Jr. R. L. Dabney John L. Dagg Mark Dever J. Ligon Duncan, III Jonathan Edwards Sinclair Ferguson John Frame Richard Fuller John Gill Robert Godfrey Robert Hall, Sr. Charles Hodge Anthony A. Hoekema Michael Horton Dennis E. Johnson Benjamin Keach Elias Keach Tim Keller Meredith Kline Abraham Kuyper J. Gresham Machen C. J. Mahaney Fred Malone Basil Manley, Sr. Basil Manley, Jr. Albert Martin Peter Masters Keith Mathison Russell Moore Iain Murray John Murray Tom Nettles Roger Nicole Caspar Olevianus John Owen J. I. Packer A. W. Pink John Piper Kim Riddlebarger Jason E. Robertson O. Palmer Robertson Robert Rollock Ernest Reisinger Robert Reymond Samuel Rutherford Philip Ryken L. R. Shelton, Jr. Richard Sibbs R. C. Sproul Charles Haddon Spurgeon Derek Thomas Cornelius Van Til Carl Trueman Francis Turretin Geerhardus Vos Samuel Waldron B. B. Warfield Hermann Witsius James White *Writings are consistent with CT | Proponents: D. A. Carson John Reisinger C. Scarborough Tom Wells Fred Zaspel |
Posts
29 Spoke Up:
The Church began in the OT with the OT covenants and reached fulfillment in the NT with the New Covenant.
Therefore, the church started in the Garden of Eden.
If it's true that the church started in the OT, how does Jesus statement in Matthew 16:18 about how He "will build [future tense] His church" fit that understanding?
Jason, I've always grown up with the "Analogy of Faith" understanding of Scripture. Looking back those churches I was in were dispensationalist minded. What source did you use for the theology table?
could you include a matching selection of scholars that best represent each of the three views?
My source for much of this chart is from Dr. Curt Daniel. See page 98.
From a Covenant Theology Baptist point of view, if the church started in the Old Testament, then why do we see infants as members in the church in the Old Testament but not the New Testament? Did the fundamental nature of the visible church change? And if there is such a change, then why not affirm a New Covenant view, which sees the church as a distinct new Israel that is a fulfillment the old?
hampton,
The fact that Jesus WILL build his church doesn't preclude the reality that it was already in existance. Remember, Jesus also says in Matthew 18 if a brother sins and doesn't repent before two or more witnesses we are to take them before the church. Now the discples didn't say "what's a church?".
Jason,
Curt Daniels is very solid! I listened to a lecture series by him on Calvinism that consists of 30 plus lectures!
OSO,
You are correct. Adam and Eve were the first members of the bride of Christ, the congregation, i.e. the church.
That is a very helpful summary. The whole article by Dr. Daniel is good stuff, although at several hundred pages it may take awhile. I think monergism has the audio recordings of his lectures as well.
Gene,
Of course the disciples knew what a church was. Ekklesia really means congregation. The disciples would have been very familiar with what a congregation from a synagogue.
I think it is interesting that Jesus does say that He WILL BUILD His church and not that He has been or already has built His church upon His being the Christ. The very nature of the verb tense does preclude the existence of the church at that point. I'd like to hear more how you deal with that statement Jesus made. Do you have an alternative reading that would suggest the church is already in existence?
I'm really interested in how an amill perspective deals with this verse. I'm not trying to argue that disp. is correct; I've just seen multiple comments and posts about how dispies change the meaning of a verse to suit their viewpoint and feel that this is a verse that amills need to be able to explain.
I think adding a list of scholars that best represent each of the three views is an excellent idea. Stay tuned...
Thanks for a great post. It helps to see how each side views things in a table.
Juan
hampton,
You just contradicted yourself!
Was the "Ekklesia" in existance or was it not in existance?
To say it was a "diferent" Ekklesia is to beg the question!
Gene
Gene,
There was no contradiction. I merely stated that the disciples would have been familiar with what an Ekklesia or congregation was. Ekklesia would have have a familiar term to anyone who was a Jew at that time. Each synagogue had its own local ekklesia or congregation.
Back to my original question, Jesus said, "...and upon this rock [Peter's confession] I WILL BUILD My church." How does someone who holds to amill viewpoint deal with the future verb tense in that statement?
That's a pretty accurate description of the three...I would see the BCT view of the Law as distinct from the DT view, but you couldn't show the nuance in a chart like this.
As for the whole discussion of when the Church began, I think it is always helpful to remember that when Jesus says he will build his church, he is making a statement of distinction of the people he is calling out for his assembly over against the 'churches' (assemblies) of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
I think it is also telling that when the word 'ekklesia' is used of those in the Old Testament that it is used as a term that encompasses all of Israel, not just those of 'true Israel'. So if you follow that line of reasoning, a person might find himself in a 'Presbyterian Covenantal' hermeneutic very quickly, which, in my opinion, necessarily leads to a 'Federal Vision' understanding of the New Covenant Community.
Jason,
The Lutheran CTs I grew up under would despise your statement that CTs are "Always Calvinist." I was taught that Calvinism is about the most pernicious doctrine to plague the church.
thanks for posting the corresponding proponents of the views. you guys are great. keep it up.
Not sure you can drop Piper into the CT category. See here.
Sure you can. John Piper's view of the Millennium is not outside the scope of Covenant Theologians. Covenant Theology does not have one Millennial view. Piper's view has been held by many Presbyterians for example.
Kurt's link had nothing to do with John Piper being premillennial (although he is). The link is from the Desiring God site that says that Piper's view of the law is closer to New Covenant Theology than Covenant Theology.
I'm still waiting for a reply to my first comment ...
John Piper is Historic Premil which has been a position held by several Covenant Theologians, like Spurgeon.
And, no, Piper's view of the law is consistent with CT so he is in the column that he himself claims.
Oh, and BTW, elnwood, concerning your view: "we see infants as members in the church in the Old Testament but not the New Testament?"
Your question is based on a misunderstanding of both circumcision and baptism. Since I do not know how you have come to this misunderstanding, it would be difficult to have this discussion here under this post.
Besides, you have also made a false assumption that CT'ers are all padeobaptist. If you would research the names above, you will find that many are credobaptist -- even quite a few Southern Baptist!
Jason,
Gene Cook is my pastor, and Mark Dever was my pastor previously. I know that there are Baptists who claim Covenant Theology, and the presupposition of my question was from a credobaptist point of view, not a paedobaptistic one.
My presupposition regarding circumcision and baptism is that, as circumcision is the sign of visible covenant inclusion in the Old Covenant, so baptism is the sign of visible covenant inclusion in the New Covenant. As far as I know, this is universally accepted among both paedobaptists and credobaptists.
My question is this: since, as a credobaptist, you believe that the sign is given to professing believers on the New Covenant whereas it is given to believers and their children in the Old Covenant, and you believe that the Old Covenant assembly (church) is the same as the New Covenant assembly, then the fundamental nature of the assembly (church), i.e. who is eligible to bear the sign and be a member of the assembly, has changed between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
My assertion, then, is that if the nature of membership has changed between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, why not affirm the New Covenant Theology view of the church: that it is distinct from the Old Covenant assembly of Israel (because its membership is different), yet it is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant assembly (i.e. the church is the New Israel)? This view seems more consistent with credobaptism than the Covenant Theology view.
Elnwood,
Thanks for the clarification. And you have been a blessed Christian to be shepherded by such competent pastors.
Concerning your question though, I still believe that the NCT angle misses the point that the NC church is not a "New Israel." For in the OC there was Israel of the flesh and Israel of the Spirit, and the same continues to be true today. The typology of the nation of Israel was completed with the first advent of Christ. And baptism is not the new circumcision. So there are several ways that your parallel breaks down. I just do not agree that there is such a difference between, for example, the Jews who were saved in Acts and the Jews who were true believers under John the Baptist. The NC church discarded the typological elements because they had been fulfilled, but a new "Israel" or a new "church" was not formed. It was more a maturing of the old now that the Messiah had come.
Did you know that Roger Nicole's authorized biography, Speaking the Truth in Love, is now available at Amazon.com?
I'm NCT but I and many other NCTers disagree with the following statements from the chart above:
"NCT doesn't recognize a Church in the OT, such as in the NT. So, the Church is the "New Israel."
Most modern NCTers see the OT elect as part of God's people but not the "church" if you define the *New Testament* church as the "one new man" of Ephesians 2:15. This "one new man" was a mystery in the OT according to Romans 16:25 and did not exist during that period. The Gentiles were "grafted in" to the root of the Old Covenant people of God and so the people of God was *expanded* to include a large number of Gentiles in the New Covenant/post-Pentecost era (cf. Rom. 11:17-19). This joining together of these two basic people groups never occurred in redemptive history before Pentecost. If you wanted to be one of God's people in the OT era, you had to become a sacrificing, Torah-obedient Jew (post-Mosaic Law of course).
In other words, God always had His elect people throughout redemptive history (i.e., His "congregation" or ekklesia), but the New Testament church is a reality that was born post-Pentecost per Eph. 2:15's reference to "one NEW man".
"Same as CT with one exception, seeing the saints of the OT as being added to the church after it's built."
As said above, the OT saints were *already* God's people/congregation and the believing Gentiles were added to the "root" thus creating the NT Church/"one new man" and fulfilling the mystery of Romans 16:25.
boy it sure is hard to tell the bias of the author of the chart - the dispensational straw man is hardly apparent =)
"My presupposition regarding circumcision and baptism is that, as circumcision is the sign of visible covenant inclusion in the Old Covenant, so baptism is the sign of visible covenant inclusion in the New Covenant. As far as I know, this is universally accepted among both paedobaptists and credobaptists."
Not universally. ;) My husband and I (credobaptist, covenantal) believe that our children are, indeed, part of the covenant community, simply by virtue of being our children. ("...otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.") Were the OT daughters not included under the covenant because they weren't circumcised?
Many thanks to the poster for the chart! The clarification is much appreciated (we are covenantal, but have never heard teaching on the topic, so this helps clarify what we "are" and what the differences are). There are, of course, variations of nearly all themes, but seeing the most common views presented is most helpful!
I think Piper is New Covenant, or should I say he "leans more towards New Covenant"
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/95/1439_What_does_John_Piper_believe_about_dispensationalism_covenant_theology_and_new_covenant_theology/
Jason,
Why does the Dispensation camp not typically agree with the Analogy of Faith?
Post a Comment