Dispensationalism and the New Covenant
Dr. Thomas Ice states,
“The New Covenant provides for the yet future spiritual regeneration of Israel in preparation for the millennial kingdom. This is an unconditional covenant and is made between the Lord and the nation of Israel and has not yet been enacted for the nation of Israel.”[1]
Professor Larry D. Pettegrew, Vice President of Shepherds Theological Seminary, states in his article The New Covenant,
“For Israel the New Covenant promises her transformation through providing her a new heart, her final and permanent forgiveness, and the consummation of her relationship with the Lord. Through Israel God will also bless the Gentiles because of this covenant.”[2]
As can be seen, the approach of the Dispensationalist is to see that the original prediction of the New Covenant as seen in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36 was meant for National Israel only and appears to yet be future! Any role Gentiles have in the New Covenant is simply by proxy. Gentiles are blessed but not full members of the New Covenant. As Pettegrew says on page 253 of the same article,
In parallel passages, the parties involved [in the Covenant] are always with the Lord and the nation of Israel. Some blessings relate to the Gentile nations, but even these are ‘spill-over” blessings from Israel.[3]
Due to the literal approach and starting with the Old Testament interpreting the New Testament, it is easy to see why this understanding pervades Dispensationalism. But also due to their literal approach, a claim is made that the New Covenant is not truly fulfilled yet. The argument is strikingly similar to the paedo-baptist interpretation of Hebrews 8:8-12 in order to get around the current complete fulfillment of the New Covenant. Dr. Ice concludes his article, Covenants and Dispensations,
“If anyone attempts to say that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today, during the current church age, through the regeneration of the holy Spirit, then it would mean that we should not evangelize any more, that every Jew would be saved, and that we should have the Law of God written on our hearts. This is not the case within the church today.”[4]
Although John Darby’s understanding may have been different in some respects, he agrees with the principle that the New Covenant was for National Israel in the Millennium.
“This covenant of the letter is made with Israel, not with us; but we get the benefit of it.”[5]
Charles Ryrie states something similar as cited by Grover Gunn,
This interpretation holds that the one new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church. These have been called the realistic and spiritual aspects of the covenant, but both aspects comprise essentially one covenant based on the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.”[6]
I find it interesting that most of these men probably practice taking the Lord's Supper. Keep in mind the words of Christ:
What does this mean, if we are not actual partakers of the New Covenant?!
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
What does this mean, if we are not actual partakers of the New Covenant?!
[1] Dr. Thomas Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations” http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/covenants-and-dispensations-part-7
[2] Larry Pettegrew, “The New Covenant”, page 251, http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj10q.pdf
[3] Ibid., page 253
[4] Dr. Thomas Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations (part 4)” http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/covenants-and-dispensations-part-7
[5] As cited by Grover Dunn, “Dispensationalism: The New covenant, Part 2” http://groverdunn/andrew/disp05.htm
[6] As cited by Grover Dunn, “Dispensationalism: The New covenant, Part 2” http://groverdunn/andrew/disp05.htm
2 comments:
"What does this mean, if we are not actual partakers of the New Covenant?!"
Why not see what the early Christians thought of this verse:
Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
The early Christians up until the 1500's viewed the Cup of Communion not only as a sign of his new covenant but his Actual blood. I would rather trust the teachings that were closest to the apostles rather than teachings 1600's later.
"The early Christians up until the 1500's viewed the Cup of Communion not only as a sign of his new covenant but his Actual blood. I would rather trust the teachings that were closest to the apostles rather than teachings 1600's later."
1) This is called anachronism. We read into the early church current Roman dogmas such as Transubstantiation into their words. Sorry, I reject such an understanding.
The Early church did not know of such a doctrine for centuries to come.
2) Protestants historically have agreed with the citations given. We obviously don;t see them as you do, but all you have to do is read the Heidelberg Catechism, WCF and LBCF to know.
3) Justin Martyr and the other fathers were hardly all in agreement. To act as if there were some unanimous consent of the Fathers is baloney.
Also, Martyr had more in common with his philosopher friends than the Bible for the simple reason he didn't have all of Scripture. So you will always find idiosyncrasies in their writings.
4) This may be the most important point. My posts are about the nature of the New Covenant. You sir, as a Roman Catholic (I assume), are not in the New Covenant. For you deny the foundation of a sound Covenant Theology in which Christ is a Perfect Savior who saves Perfectly to the uttermost by His own power, as a perfect High Priest who intercedes on behalf of those for whom He prays perfectly by offering His own sacrifice in our behalf. Otherwise known as the Vicarious Penal Substitutionary Atonement doctrine, which RCs reject and Scripture plainly teaches.
As a RC you are a Synergist and must cooperate with God's grace. I am a Monergist. Therefore, I believe Christ has perfectly established the New Covenant in my behalf and there is nothing I may do to break that Covenant.
Where Adam failed, Christ succeeded.
Post a Comment