Covenant Theology VS Dispensationalism | Theocast

What are the major differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism? That’s a question we get a lot. Jon and Justin sit down to discuss the differences under three main headings: Christ in all of Scripture, law/gospel distinction, and the covenant of works (active obedience of Christ).

JOIN THE THEOCAST COMMUNITY:

FREE EBOOK:

PARTNER with Theocast:

OUR WEBSITE:

INSTAGRAM:

X (TWITTER):

FACEBOOK:

#reformedtheology #eschatology #dispensationalism

[blakeslanternshack]

Getting into studying Covenant theology really helped me reconcile and connect all the dots of how everything works together through redemptive history. I deep dived into reformed theology a little over a year ago, and grasped allot on a surface level right away.. but then getting down to the why and how it all works absolutely together covenant theology was the only way I could reconcile it.

[joeywampler]

I am a KJV only, dispensational, independent baptist and I really enjoy your podcasts. Obviously I don't agree with a number of things but your honesty and spirit are commendable. Thank you!

[itsmisterbojangles]

I agree totally with your explanation of the law/gospel distinction, and your thoughts on easy believism and lordship salvation. As a dispensationalist, I’m not sure how you are coming up with the fact that dispensationalists are against the law gospel distinction. The more I listen to this podcast, the more of a dispensationalist I become.

[daveonezero]

As a new Christian of about 2 years I naturally came to this type of thology. I think its an advantage of not goriwing up in the church.

[christophercatiller]

Thanks for the discussion, guys. Always a blessing to listen to your talks while at the office on Wednesday mornings.

[JorgeMedina-rd]

I recently have come back to Jesus and I have been Following folks like Voddie, MacArthur, Washer, Justin Peters on YouTube that lead me to you. I have been looking for a church here in Asheville NC and now I think I found one that I plan to visit on Easter at covenant Baptist church.

[kevinboutwell]

I believe anyone that understands Pauls biblical dispensation of grace knows that God gave this to Paul and Darby had nothing to do with it. Before anyone can even start talking about this false covenant theology they have to address when Acts 2 Jews sins are blotted out. Read Acts 2 through Acts 3:19-21. This group of jews don’t have their sins blotted out till after the tribulation. There is nobody in the body of Christ without his sins blotted out Col 2:9-14. Acts 2 through Acts 3:19-21 is all about Israel and it tells when their sins are blotted out after the tribulation. That is still Gods plan. Acts 2:5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (These were all scattered jews coming back from all nations for the feast days to worship. There’s not a gentile in site for this unless he was a proselyte which means he converted to a jew.) There is no way anyone can say they aren’t just following tradition or believe their whole KJB and not realize what’s happening hear. These kingdom jews don’t have their sins blotted out till after the tribulation Acts 3:19-21. The body of Christ is comlete in Him, all sins are already forgiven and the law gone Col 2:9-14.
This issue alone is enough to stop any bible believer saying the kingdom of heaven program and the dispensation of grace are the same.
This is just basic right division. Hebrews 8:7-13 backs this up. The new covenant is to Israel after those days which is tribulation. Look at everything said there. Israel is still in a fallen position today. They are definitely not the head as the Bible says they will be. Israel has not received this covenant yet. They only have less than 1/50th of the land promised in Gen 15:18. Israel has to go through Jacobs trouble before they ever get the new covenant. Thats biblical 101 not modern religious nonsense.

[heathermills]

What a waste of time. I really wanted to know the difference and I spent 40 minutes on word salad. You said nothing clearly. You didn’t articulate either side well. 😢

[carolkauffman]

Wow! You do not represent dispensation teaching. If you want to represent your brothers, invite a dispensationalist to your show. I can't finish this.

[cryptocpa]

I was the opposite. Grew up in a covenant theology based church and when I read the Bible for myself and just stayed consistent with the terminology, and looked at all the prophecy unfulfilled around a literal Jewish state, I realized something was wrong with excluding Israel as a literal nation state with ethnic tribes in the land they were given in the future. Sure the church got in on spiritual promises and blessings through Abraham but it's really impossible for a spiritual body to fulfill the literal promises to flesh and blood Jews the come to fruition in the millennium.

[anon]

I grew up as a Dispensationalist. "God's Chosen People..." and all that. As such, whenever I used to read the New Testament, I would insert various parenthetical phrases in my reading. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father, except through Me (except the Jews)". "He who has the Son has the Father, and he who does not have the Son, does not have the Father (except the Jews)". ...and on and on.

As a Dispy, you always view Jesus as the undercard before the big show at the end (Armageddon and the eventual salvation of Israel) which I think explains why Dispies are so pro-war, pro-Israel (the modern state that hates Jesus), and come awfully close to worshipping Jews, no matter what they are doing.

My challenge to any Dispensationalist is to read the New Testament with the idea of the Jews being out of favor and the primary satanic influence on earth, which is how the church viewed them for almost 1800 years. The NT reads much, much more smoothly and there is no need for parenthetical caveats to otherwise very clear teaching.

If not, then please explain The Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12).

[anthonysais]

Thank you brothers for that edifying discussion. I am, by God's grace, also a Covenantal Reformed Baptist. May God continue to bless your ministry.

[CarpentersMinistry]

I too have left the Dispensational frame work. But I have a question, you stated that "covenant theology is continual". If that's so how do you explain the New covenant teaching that the old covenant passed away so the new one could come?

[NathanRambeck]

One factual correction. Darby did not deny imputed righteousness as claimed in this video. He simply denied that the believer's righteousness in Christ is based on Christ's obedience to the law (active obedience). Rather He believed (as I do) that righteousness is imputed based on Christ's sacrificial death.

I've never ready Darby before, but I was suspicious when I heard this claim, so I just googled it and found this quote instantly.

"Now I believe and bless God for the truth that Christ is our righteousness and that by His obedience we are made righteous. It is the settled peace of my soul, as I trust it is of the author's. The important point here is the contrast between the death and sufferings of Christ, as winning our forgiveness, and His obedience as our justifying righteousness; what is sometimes called His active and passive obedience."
J. N. Darby in The Righteousness of God

[gregoryhoughtaling]

As a dispensationalist, the only thing the news is for(rarely do I pay attention) is to learn of events. They may or not be prophetic but really prophesy is for us and non-believers to see after how God has given us the beginning from the end (or the other way...).

[randychurchill]

One of the ways to identify heresy is to ask one question. Was the doctrine that is being taught found in Church history as a common and universal belief in all times and places? You won't hear Protestants talking about this test because most of what Protestants believe is not found in the confessions of the first millennium of Christianity. Covenant theology is a perfect example of how the Reformation made up new theological ideas based on false foundational doctrines.

The first thing I would point out is that the Reformers went with Augustine for the most part. They ignored the vast amount of writings and Chruch Councils which determined essential dogmas of the Church. The people who met at Church councils thought that they had the authority to bind people to what these councils taught. They didn't believe that inspiration only flowed through the written text. They believed that the Holy Spirit guided the Church which is also how they put together a standard canon. Which the Protestants rejected.

Protestants adopted the Masoretic Text; The Masoretic Text being adopted by unbelieving Jews in the Rabbinic tradition. The Rabbi's didn't like the fact that the church fathers were using the Deuterocanon to show that Christ was the Messiah. The Deuterocanon also teaches that the Church was the new kingdom which replaced the Old Covenant. If the Reformers had not thrown out the Deuterocanon they could have avoided Dispensationalism altogether. Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken away from the Jews and given to a new kingdom. This belief has been taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church for 2000 years. They have always taught that they are the kingdom which replaced the Jewish covenant. This is not a convenient fact since it excludes Protestant church's as being churches at all. Protestant Churches don't have the necessary elements that define a church in any historical sense.

Covenant theology is false for many reasons. It's rooted in Anselm's satisfaction theory. Which is the false Latin idea of God's justice. The Latin teaching says that God is bound by necessity to punish you for every sin. God has no other choice. Every sin must have a payback to God. Because His honor and holiness have been offended. In this system your sin is an infinite offense and there is no way you can pay back God. In this conception of justice God is the cosmic debt collector. This is in contradiction to the historic teaching of the church that God is not bound by necessity. If God were bound by necessity, He would be bound by something greater than Himself. The ancient church taught the freedom and liberty of God. God is free to show mercy and free to judge. They also taught that God is predisposed to mercy over justice.

The next domino in Covenant theology is the Calvinist view of Adam before the fall. Calvinist hold to a Pelagian view of Adam before he sinned. Adam had the ability to not sin before the fall. After the fall, the ability to not sin is replaced with inability. Now all of Adams posterity is predisposed to sin constantly. If you read Martin Luther, he basically defines Adams posterity as being in a state of sin. Sin for many of the Reformers was a state of nature. Luther is so extreme he falls into Manicheanism in his writings. Luther and Calvin define sin as a state of being and not an individual decision of will. This is due to the doctrine that Adam's guilt is passed down so that all men are born with the wrath of God against them, and the just deserts of hell.

But the ancient church taught that sin has no existence in itself. It is not a state of nature but an individual choice. This is why the New Testament defines sin as an act of will against Gods moral law. Sin was defined in the early church as the will moving away from good. Sin is nothing more than a blameful choice. If sin is a state of nature, then Christ in His incarnation would have been born in a state of sin, since He took his human nature from Mary. There is no such thing as a sin nature. We are not guilty for Adams sin. What Adam passes down to us is the propensity to sin. Which is called concupiscence. The propensity to sin, which is the blameful passions, are not the same thing as the choice to sin. The Reformers got this wrong. They defined concupiscence as sin. Which is why so many Calvinists fall into Manicheanism. If you say that concupiscence is a state of nature and not an individual choice, then you are a Manichean.

Augustine misinterpreted Roman 5:12 to say we were IN Adam as an architype. According to Augustine, when Adam fell his nature was corrupted. Since we are all perfect copies of the first man, we have imputed guilt passed down to us. This is where you can see that Augustine had not been able to work through Platonic ideas from his past.

Platonism smashes NATURE into PERSON. In Platonism NATURE and PERSON are the same thing. Which means for the Calvinist that when Adams sinned his whole make up as a human being was corrupted. If NATURE and PERSON are distinct, and two parts of a whole human being, then corruption or concupiscence can be passed down but not guilt. Guilt comes from each person making personal individual choices.

Before Augustine the church taught that we are not guilty for Adams sin, but we bare the consequence of Adams sin. Because the Reformers followed Augustine, they fell into Neo-Platonism. Ezekiel, 18:20 lays out the standard for guilt. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". For this reason, guilt is individual and not corporate. We are not guilty for Adams sin.

Covenant theology falls into error because it is rooted in these false presuppositions. In Covenant theology Adam breaks the covenant or works. Which is the Pelagian view that Adam could have gained salvation if he had fulfilled the law. Adam could have done this by grace. By disobeying he imputes guilt to his posterity. Christ then comes in the incarnation to fulfill the Law in his human nature as the second Adam. By fulfilling the Law Christ then pays the debt to the Father by his penal payment and all those who believe in Christ then have their spiritual bank accounts filled up and they are declared righteous.

Covenant theology is rooted in Christological heresy. Christ did not need to gain righteousness because He was God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity. He already possessed all of God's righteousness in Himself. Furthermore, there is no way that a human creature could pay back God for anything. God does not need anything from creatures. The human nature that Christ assumed from Mary was consubstantial with us. Christ assumed a human Nature that was subject to death. He did this so that he could glorify human nature and restore and heal it by raising it from the dead.

The central consequential effect of the fall was death. Not imputed guilt. Death produced sin. "Sin reigned in death" Romans 5:14. "The sting of death is sin" 1 Cor 15:56. When Paul describes his struggle with sin, he says in Romans "Who will deliver me from this body which is infected by death?" By defeating death in human Nature Christ removes the power of sin and Satan's power in our being united to Him by the sacramental life. NOTE: If Christ tasted death for all men in His human Nature, then all men are resurrected on the basis of Christ assuming universal human nature. Which means that Christ death and resurrection was not just for the elect. All men have eternal life for this reason. But they will all be raised either to eternal bliss or eternal torments. For this reason, Limited Atonement is a heresy.

This is in contradiction to Covenant theology. Calvinism teaches that Jesus paid back the Father. Which is to be anti-Trinitarian. God does not need anything from creatures. Calvinism also teaches that Christ became literal sin. Which is very different from what you find in Church history. The patristic teaching is that Christ became as one who is cursed. But Christ could never be cursed because He was God. The Reformed teaching is that Christ took the wrath of God on Himself for the elect. This also causes many problems for Trinitarian theology. Which is why so many Calvinists are Nestorians. They believe that it was the human person Jesus who experienced the wrath, not the divine Person of the Son. But Nestorianism is condemned by the Chruch at the Second Council which said "there was only one Person in the hypostatic union of two Natures. There was no human person in Christ."

There is so much more to say on this topic. I am not a Calvinist. But I was for 25 years. I thank God every day he delivered me from Calvinism. I reject the false doctrines of the Deformed Faith.

[chrisarmstrong]

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever

[Dragrof-bstk]

Thank you for this. Had to stop at 19:21 for an appointment, but I'm open to rejecting dispensationalism, but (as you have said here) the issue of Israel. It is hard to see the restoration of Israel as not being in the path of some sort of prophetic fulfilment... Question: What are we to think about the Temple Faithful who are determined to rebuild the temple? I fully expect the temple to be rebuilt by unbelieving Jews, and that as the majority Gentiles stop believing, the majority of Jews will put their faith in Christ. It is hard to imagine that the current existence of the state of Israel has no spiritual expression in eschatology. It may not, but it is hard to think it does not. Yet, I have a hard time with my own dispensational circles that see mortals dwelling with immortals during the Millennium, and the 144, 000 being Jewish evangelists, the size of the New Jerusalem looking like a cube 1/4 size of the earth--strange things like these.... Can you elaborate on this?

[williambillycraig]

Even though this is minute 13 into the program, it is here where the discussion on the differences between Covenant and Dispensationalism theology begins; it is also where the problem starts. At the 13:17 minute mark, one of the speakers says that Dispensationalists believe that when God makes a promise, He cannot fail to keep it. They needed to spend more time here because this is where the mischaracterization begins, at the beginning of the discussion, and it only worsens from there. They said that Dispensationalism claims that God cannot help but fulfill a promise that He has made; I do not understand how people can deny this unless they do not know of the differences between conditional and unconditional promises.

For example, in Hebrews 10:23, we read that we should "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful." Why does the writer of Hebrews say, "Draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith and hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering? Because "He who promised is faithful." Our faith is anchored in God's promise, so imagine the horror awaiting us if God could forsake us and go back on His promise.

The Scriptures also states, in Hebrews 6:16–18,
"For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us." What is our hope if this passage is not rooted in God's promise and His reliability?

So, to say that dispensationalists believe that when God makes a promise, He cannot fail to keep it is a true statement. But this brings us to the matter that the host should have addressed before moving on; there are generally two types of promises: conditional and unconditional. Here is an example of a conditional promise is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14, where it says
"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

This promise is conditional because it depends on the actions of the people. They must:
1. Humble themselves,
2. Pray,
3. Seek God's face, and
4. Turn from their wicked ways.

If they fulfill these conditions, God promises to:
1. Hear from heaven,
2. Forgive their sins, and
3. Heal their land.

This highlights the relationship between human responsibility and divine blessing.


Notice the difference between the conditional promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 and the unconditional promise of Genesis 3:15 that, ironically, the host brought up without looking into it.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Breaking it Down:
1. The Speaker:
• God Himself is speaking directly to the serpent (Satan) after Adam and Eve's disobedience.

2. The Unconditional Nature:
• This promise is entirely initiated and sustained by God. It depends not on human action or behavior but on God's sovereign will.

3. The Promise Components:
• "I will put enmity between you and the woman":
• God promises to create an ongoing conflict between Satan and humanity. This enmity reflects the spiritual battle between good and evil.

• "Between your offspring and hers":
• This refers to the descendants of Satan (those who follow evil) and the descendants of the woman (ultimately fulfilled in Christ).

• "He will crush your head":
• The "he" is a prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who will deliver a fatal blow to Satan and sin through His death and resurrection.

• "You will strike his heel":
• This indicates that Satan will cause suffering to the Messiah (such as the crucifixion), but it will not be a final or decisive victory.

At least one of the two speakers was a dispensationalist at one time, so they should have known this. But I have found this to be the standard when hearing from former dispensationalists who turned to Covenant theologians; I have yet to find that they ever understood what they claimed to have believed.

Even now, as Covenant theologians, they do not understand simple matters such as the differences between God's conditional and unconditional promises and how dispensationalists interact with them. If they do understand but fail to address them, this is even worse; it makes people who address issues like this dishonest. The host here does not fall into this camp; they seem honest to me.

They go on to unknowingly misrepresent other things dispensationalists believe, but this is enough to show that this was not a fair treatment of dispensational views; it fails from the very start.

I did take time and effort into this post, so I hope the channel does not delete my response but instead responds to it and shows me where I missed something or if they think I am distorting some biblical text or doctrine. If I am doing this, please inform me so I am better educated.

Thank you

[chs_ambs]

25:45. This is my biggest problem with dispensationalism and what really bothered me when I started to really dive into the Bible on my own. As both of you have said, Christ is all over the Old Testament.