Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyberseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cyberseeker

Guest
Below is a brief comparison showing the main differences between covenant theology and dispensational theology. These are the two prevailing (and contrary) views concerning Israel and the Church. I have put this poll on Protestant forums, and I thought you might be interested to do it here. I suspect that the Catholic view is the same as #2. If not, please explain the official line.

Anyway, here are what I think are the main views. Please vote on the poll.

Dispensational Theology
  1. God has two distinct people – Israel and the Church.
  2. The Church age was a parenthesis in God’s dealing with Israel.
  3. God’s promises to Israel were postponed till after the rapture.
  4. After a Jewish tribulation revival, their ‘dispensation’ will resume.
  5. Worship in the millennium includes re-instituted temple sacrifice.
  6. The promised temple is an example of what must yet be fulfilled.
  7. Modern Israel proves not all promises are fulfilled in the Church.
Covenant Theology
  1. God has always only had but one spiritual people.
  2. The Church (incl. Jew & Gentile) actually is true Israel.
  3. God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ’s Church.
  4. There will be a revival of Jews but it will be into the Church.
  5. Redemption is in the cross and sacrifice is finished forever.
  6. Even if a temple gets rebuilt it is unnecessary and irrelevant.
  7. The modern restoration of the nation of Israel is coincidental.
 
Here are the views many take on the issue:
  1. Supersessionism
    2.progressive dispensationism
  2. Classical Dispensationism
  3. New Covenant theology
  4. Covenant Theology
  5. Olive Tree Theology
 
Dispensationalism is heresy. This is a Catholic forum. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.

That description of “Covenant theology” is not what Christ’s Church teaches.

Prophecies about Israel are always relevant because the Church teaches infallibly that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. God literally wrote the Bible.

To understand the Scripture, you have to know what the Holy Spirit revealed to the Church when He brought us into knowledge of the fullness of the Truth, just as Christ promised He would.

John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

John 16:13
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…

What the Church that is descended from the Apostles (the Catholic Church) teaches is correct. The Catholic Church has been guided into all truth and given the Keys to the Kingdom. The Church’s teachings are without error. Dispensationalism is heresy. The Church is “the Israel of God.”

I love you. I hope this helps you.
 
As you described them, neither of those would be the Catholic view. The Catholic position on the Jewish people is outlined in Nostra Aetate. This is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” [325]

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, [326] “the first to hear the Word of God.” [327] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, [328] “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” [329]

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

[325] LG 16.
[326] Cf. NA 4.
[327] Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI.
[328] Rom 9:4-5.

Your description of covenant theology is closer to the Catholic view. It’s most of the way there, but isn’t completely accurate.
 
Cyberseeker said:
Below is a brief comparison showing the main differences between covenant theology and dispensational theology. These are the two prevailing (and contrary) views concerning Israel and the Church. I have put this poll on Protestant forums, and I thought you might be interested to do it here. I suspect that the Catholic view is the same as #2. If not, please explain the official line.

Anyway, here are what I think are the main views. Please vote on the poll.

Dispensational Theology
  1. God has two distinct people – Israel and the Church.
  2. The Church age was a parenthesis in God’s dealing with Israel.
  3. God’s promises to Israel were postponed till after the rapture.
  4. After a Jewish tribulation revival, their ‘dispensation’ will resume.
  5. Worship in the millennium includes re-instituted temple sacrifice.
  6. The promised temple is an example of what must yet be fulfilled.
  7. Modern Israel proves not all promises are fulfilled in the Church.
Covenant Theology
  1. God has always only had but one spiritual people.
  2. The Church (incl. Jew & Gentile) actually is true Israel.
  3. God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ’s Church.
  4. There will be a revival of Jews but it will be into the Church.
  5. Redemption is in the cross and sacrifice is finished forever.
  6. Even if a temple gets rebuilt it is unnecessary and irrelevant.
  7. The modern restoration of the nation of Israel is coincidental.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that much about dispensationalism, but from what you wrote it doesn’t sound right. For example, re-instituting temple worship would be a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross.

The Covenant Theology as you have described sounds better. But, I am not sure that what you describe is “Covenant Theology”. For instance, I don’t see any mention of covenants in it. If you are interested in a “Covenant Theology” from a Catholic theologian’s perspective try reading Scott Hahn’s book called “Kinship with Covenant”. Here is his web page on covenant theology.

scotthahn.com/covenant-theology.html

We do believe however that the new Israel is fulfilled in the Church. The New Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, is the Church. But, at the same time the Church doesn’t necessarily condemn anyone outside of her visible boundaries. It allows for the possibility of God working outside of the visible boundaries of the Church, in a way where the fullness of truth has not yet been revealed, but that they have responded favorably to the grace that God has given them.

The folks in the OT were a people of the covenant. The Jews as they are called were God’s chosen people. However, they were not meant to be merely a blessing to themselves, but to bless all nations, as God promised to Abraham. It was through Christ that all people were blessed from all nations. As Scripture says, “salvation is from the Jews”. It was through the Jews that the seed that would be known as Christ would come. He is the fulfillment of these promises. And thus he is the salvation of not only the gentiles but also the Jews. As Paul says first for the Jews, then for the gentiles. He is intimately connected with the Jews and the promises of the OT. Thus, there can not be two dispensations, as if the promises of the OT fulfilled in Christ, do not apply to the Jews. Jesus IS God’s answer, the one the prophets prophesied about. And, as Scriptures says there is no other name under which one may be saved, the name of Jesus.
 
Joe_5859 said:
As you described them, neither of those would be the Catholic view. The Catholic position on the Jewish people is outlined in Nostra Aetate. This is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” [325]

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, [326] “the first to hear the Word of God.” [327] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, [328] “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” [329]

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

[325] LG 16.
[326] Cf. NA 4.
[327] Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI.
[328] Rom 9:4-5.

Your description of covenant theology is closer to the Catholic view. It’s most of the way there, but isn’t completely accurate.
Click to expand...
Joe, what part of his description of “covenant theology” do you specifically see as contradicting Nostra Aetate?
 
fisherman carl:
I don’t know that much about dispensationalism, but from what you wrote it doesn’t sound right. For example, re-instituting temple worship would be a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross.

The Covenant Theology as you have described sounds better. But, I am not sure that what you describe is “Covenant Theology” …
Click to expand...
Dispensationalists either infer or state that the entire levitical system will be repeated in the Millennium. Moderates think that it will simply serve as a ‘reminder’ of Christ’s death. Extreme dispensationalists infer that it will be the basis of millennium atonement. In either case all disps. accord an elite position to ethnic Israel in the millennium.

I agree that option #2 is the better version, but its adherents tend to overlook the possibility that God may have orchestrated the modern gathering of Israel for the purpose of bringing them together for another chance of finding Jesus Messiah. (Romans 11:25-28)
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Joe, what part of his description of “covenant theology” do you specifically see as contradicting Nostra Aetate?
Click to expand...
Mainly #2 (“The Church (incl. Jew & Gentile) actually is true Israel”), but I could be misunderstanding the point.

I don’t think the Church would phrase it that way as it could imply that God has now revoked any covenantal promises he made to the Jewish people and now applies them only to the Church (the “true Israel”).
 
The Church would reject that there are 2 paths to Salvation. One can be only saved through Christ. So it would reject dispensationalism. However, it doesn’t so much anymore teach that everything under the old covenant has been superseded, such that it is not possibly to be saved outside the church and the sacraments. This is really an interesting discussion on this topic found here

youtu.be/_nMCKpUBg8Q
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top