Belcher begins by defining each system, which he does quite fairly and succinctly. Then he offers a comparison of each on specific topics, such as God's people, God's plan of salvation, future state, etc.
All of this makes the article quite beneficial for learning about the two systems. The only negative I might sight is that he does not offer a critique either one. This is obviously not his purpose, so my frowning on it is somewhat obsolete.
Being that Ashland, along with the rest of America, is awash in Dispensationalism, I would offer these as aids in seeing the flaws of the system: Dispensationalism: A fundementally flawed system; Problems with Dispensationalism; Dispensationalism (longer, but more in depth--worth the read, especially if you are going to make a comment on this post defending dispensationalism!).
I believe that I should also provide some a couple of good links to articles on Covenant Theology too. I understand that most people in our area have never even heard of it as those who promote dispensationalism never even mention the fact that there is a competing theological viewpoint. Here are 12 lectures by Ligon Duncan on the topic. This one is quite a bit more brief, yet still good. I should note too the initial link above does a very good job of laying out the position.
Having mixed with my dispensational brothers quite a bit in the last five years (and having held to many of its tenets myself when I was younger), I would like to posit some of my own comments as a critique of the dispensational system.
First, I will reiterate the point that most dispensationalists in Ashland don't even know that they are a dispensationalist. For that matter, they probably do not even know the term dispensationalist (I know that I never did). It is just the framework that they have always been fed, explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, most are not full blooded dispensationalists. This is due to the fact that these folk (to their great credit!) take their Bible's seriously and read it, all the while appropriating its teachings to their hearts. As a result, they don't see a lot of the classic dispensational distinctions that are taught by the "pure bred dispi's." While they may have been taught that the Scriptures are divided up, they still read the OT and believe it applies to them personally and not to the future, "literal" Jewish kingdom exclusively.
My second remark has to do with those who profess to be Reformed and Dispensational. It is highly ironic that my dispensational brothers believe in the sovereignty of God and that He is working out His eternal plan. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they do. It shows that they are believing what the Scripture says about the decrees of God. However, Reformed theology is completely incompatible with dispensationalism because dispensationalism believes that there are two plans (one for Israel and one for the church).
Dispensationalism says that Christ came to earth to be the one who restored the Jewish kingdom, but the Jews rejected him and crucified him. So God had to resort to plan B. This gives birth to the notion of the church. The church age is considered a parenthetical age, which will eventually be taken out (i.e. raptured) so that God can get back to plan A.
Hopefully you see the irony: God is sovereign, but those Jews messed up His plan by crucifying His Son. If one really believes that God is sovereign, one cannot believe that He has two plans and that the church age is a parenthetical age. It should be obvious that Dispensationalism has a distinctly Arminian flavor.
Thirdly, the use (or neglect) of the OT by the dispensationalists is remarkable. Those who would be hard core dispensationalist pitch it all together. Since the OT has to do with the the kingdom of Israel, rather than with Christians in the Church age, it has absolutely no relevance to today. So, when I've sought to apply OT Scriptures to certain situations, I would hear things like, "But that's the Old Testament!" Interpretation: "Hello! That doesn't apply here in the Church age!"
For these die hard Dispi's I wonder why they don't just go ahead and tear the OT right out of their Bibles. Carrying around a pocket NT would be a lot easier...and consistent.
As I said though, most are not at that hard core dispi. level. Nevertheless, they do read the OT in light of the future Jewish kingdom (rather than seeing all the promises as Yes and Amen in Christ). I've heard people teaching this way. That is, I've heard them teaching certain passages and how they relate to the future kingdom. To this I say, why bother? Why teach it? It has no relevance to us, so how can it be profitable for training us in righteousness? Again, it would be more consistent to simply cut those pages out and spend our time in passages that are relevant to our context.
Another item that I would offer by way of critique is one that most grieves my heart. This is that none of these dispensationalist churches would accept my family and me as members. We would be banned from membership because we believe in the unity/continuity of Scripture and were all baptized as infants. The underlying assumption is, "You are not a real Christian."
The only way we could join is if we offend our conscience by disavowing our baptism and submitting to an immersion. Even if I could do that, I still would have a problem with joining. That's because my youngest daughter still would not be recognized as a child of God.
As a covenant theologian, I believe that my children, even before they profess faith in Christ, are God's children, and therefore members of his church. Being that they are holy (i.e. set apart to God [1 Cor. 7]), they have special rights and privileges that God grants to them. A dispensational church does not recognize children as having that privileged status or in any way part of God's church. Sure, they may be dedicated or presented (but certainly not baptized!), but they are just as much heathen as the pagan kid in Istanbul
This severance of children leads to a comment on the practice of excluding children from worship in the dispensational churches. Here I must admit that the dispensational churches are, unfortunately, consistent with their beliefs. If children are not children of God, then they don't belong in the worship service. I've talked about how children are excluded from services in other posts, but I have never linked it to directly to dispensationalism. Nevertheless, the correlation is clear.
This is, of course, why I'm not too worried about the overall longevity of Dispensationalism. I personally believe that it will eventually die out simply for the fact that it is not self reproducing. Dispi's children are not raised to worship and fear the Lord. So when they get older no one will be there to carry on the belief system. (Don't believe me? Then tell my why 85% of children who are raised in the church are turning away from the faith by the time they are freshman in college!)
4 comments:
I suppose that included in the 85% of children who leave the church are Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others who are baptized as infants, and certainly not just those baptized as believers. One reason why children grow up and leave the church, I think, is because church is often irrelevant and based upon man rather than upon God and His word. Sermons are weak, churches are mere religious social clubs, and people follow denominations rather than Jesus. I do not understand, either, how children can be considered God's children and on the way to heaven when they have never repented and believed and trusted in Jesus. Maybe many of the children who are considered part of God's church without ever professing to believe in Him grow up and realize they were told they were on the way to heaven, but their hearts and natures remain old, and so church has no meaning to them internally.
Claudius,
As you are well aware, I agree with much of your critique of the church. I also agree that children of covenant theology believing parents walk away from the church.
I would suggest though, that it is more rare because covenant theologins have a deeper understanding of the place of children in the covenant of God. As a result, they put a higher emphasis on corporate and family worship and Christian education in general.
I would also suggest that children in dispensational families see church as irrelevant more so, as they are not nurtured in the context of the church's worship. It is irrelevent because they were never a part of it in the first place.
Children should be considered God's children because, as I pointed out in the post, they are "holy," meaning set apart to the Lord (1 Cor. 7). Esau was just as much one of God's children as Jacob (both recieved the sign of the covenant and both were distinguished as set apart to God). The difference was that Esau did not appropriate the promises of God like Jacob did.
Also note: Covenant theology does not say that children are automatically on their way to heaven. We say they have a special place in God's covenant and have distinct rights as such, but we preach that they must believe and appropriate the promises--otherwise they go to hell.
This brings up the distinction between communing and non communing members: those who are communing are those who are admitted to the Lord's Table because they have been baptized and have made a credible profession of faith. Non-communing have been baptized, but are not admitted to the table because they have not yet come to profess for themselves the Lord Jesus.
I might add that the covenant theology emphasizes the passages in the Bible where it talks about "to whom much is given, much is demanded." By this I mean, the children of believers are more accountable to God because they have been given greater revelation and privileges. Being that they have recieved the sign of baptism and other rights of the covenant, they need to be aware that, if they reject God, they will be more severely punished.
On a different note: I also think that I should clarify the distinction between Lutheran & Presbyterian viewpoints. Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration. So yes, they think their kids are in heaven already. Presbyterians don't believe this. Baptism is a sign and seal, but there is no magic in the water that automatically makes them a christian.
Thanks for the comment.
I edesire to hold to neither convenant theology nor dispensationalism, but Scripture alone. I do not htink that I understand. You stated that under covenant theology, your children before believing in Jesus are holy, God's children, and members of God's church, yet if they do not later believe in Jesus, they go to hell? So that which is holy, God's child, a member of God's church, can go to hell? How many of God's children are in hell? Can we make unholy that which God makes holy?
Also, you often "suggest" that more non-covenant children stay in the church. Have you any facts, or it this just an opinnion? I can name a few with whom I work who were covenantally baptized, but are now as much a part of God's church as Osama Bin Laden.
It seems to me in the Scriptures that, as with Philip the evangelist, "If you believe, you may be baptized." I
I hold to the Bible alone too. That's why I came to believe in covenant theology. The word covenant appears over 300 times. That should make one think about the import of what God is trying to communicate through it.
I might go further to argue, as I did in the post, that dispensational theology does not hold to the Bible alone. They (the consistent ones at least) reject the OT as having anything to do with us today. It might be more accurate to say that they hold to the New Testament alone.
As for holy children in hell: The word "holy" in the Scripture does not always mean inwardly holy--i.e. justified and sanctified. It sometimes means that one is in a position where you have a special outward status in relation to God.
For instance, Israel as a nation was a "holy nation," but it is clear that not every Israelite was regenerate and automatically going to heaven. The nation simply had a special status above all other nations of the earth. Each individual Israelite had to claim for himself the promises of God.
So too, in the 1st Cor. 7 passage it says that the unbelieveing wife or husband is "holy" by virtue of their being wedded to a Christian. This certainly does not mean that the unbeliever gets a free ride to heaven without repenting and believing. His/her being "holy" in that context simply means they have a special, non-saving relationship to the Lord. Because they are set apart God grants them special privileges that he does not grant any other unbelieving person.
As to the "facts" that you request, you are right. I do not have any statistics. I'm simply saying that this is a general norm: People who see themselves responsible to God for the nurture and admonition of His children typically act on it.
At the very least, we acknowledge this in the baptismal vows: to the parents the minister says, "Do you acknowledge your child's need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and the renewing grace of the Spirit? Do you you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace that you will endeavor to set before him/her a godly example, that you will pray with and for him/her, that you will teach him/her the doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive, by all the means of God's appointment, to bring him up in the nurture and admonion of the Lord."
Then to the congregation the minister says, "Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in teh Christian nurture of this child?"
As for the Bin Laden Christians, I mentioned this already: They will be beaten with more stripes because they have not appropriated the promises of God to themselves. Their parents too will have to come to terms with God if they neglected to train their children in the fear of Him.
Cordially,
Post a Comment