System is defined as “a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole…” Evangelical Christians agree in the Bible as a system, a series of parts that form a complex whole. Disagreement exists on what the parts are and how they fit together. The two main sides in this debate are Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. There is a new player rising in the discussion, New Covenant Theology, which proponents claim is a mediating position between DT and CT though much more on the CT side.

Over the last couple of years I’ve tried to wrap my brain around DT and CT, understanding what makes them distinct, what each one argues, which one is more biblical, and what is at stake in the debate. Ever since jumping on the Calvinist bandwagon I’ve become even more interested in the debate since most Calvinists identify themselves in the covenant camp. Most non-Calvinists tend to be either unaware of the issue or identify with dispensationalism by default. There are some Calvinist dispensationalists out there, but I’m not aware of any non-Calvinist covenant types. So what exactly is the debate? And what do the different sides argue? Is this a debate that really matters?

I hope to explore all of this in a new series called Blogging the System of Scripture. I have several books to wade through and plenty of websites to skim which will hopefully help me understand what is going on here. This series has been prompted in part by a discussion over at While We Sojourn.

In this initial post I will give a brief overview of the positions as I understand them. Keep in mind that my understanding on this is very rudimentary. I will also list the resources I will be using.

Dispensationalism

Proponents of this system of theology believe that human history can be divided into seven or so dispensations (or periods). God’s dealings with humans is a little different from one dispensation to another. Each dispensation is distinct precisely because God’s way of interacting with humans, or God’s expectation of humans, changes somehow. Salvation does not change from period to period, salvation remains a matter of having faith in God. One of the prominent views of dispensationalists is that Israel and the church remain distinct. God has plans for corporate Israel distinct from his plans for the church. The church does not replace Israel but adds something new to God’s dealings with mankind.

Covenant Theology

Proponents see Scripture as being structured around various guiding covenants. Three in particular can be seen: the covenant of works in which God required obedience of Adam and Eve in the garden; the covenant of redemption in which the members of the Trinity covenanted amongst themselves to bring redemption to humanity; and the covenant of grace through which we receive salvation by grace through faith. There are numerous biblical covenants but these three are seen as theological covenants that shape and guide redemptive history. As regards Israel, proponents argue that the church is true Israel, fulfilling what God was building through Abraham and replacing any physical nation of Israel.

New Covenant Theology

At the moment this is the hardest one for me to nail down. Having only recently heard the term, I’ll refrain from commenting on this approach until I’ve learned more about it.

Brief response

Initially my biggest fault with dispensational theology is its approach to Israel. It seems quite clear to me that Paul in Romans 4:11-12, Romans 9:6-8, Romans 11:24, Galatians 3:29, Philippians 3:3, etc, wants Christians to see that true Israel has always been those who have faith in God. We should not understand Israel the people of God as referring to the corporate nation of Israel. Israel the people of God refers to all who have faith in God and includes Christians today. As I move through this series perhaps I’ll better understand the dispensational position on Israel.

As for the covenant folks, I’m having a hard time with the three theological covenants. The covenant of works does not look like a covenant to me, it looks like a command. The covenant of redemption looks like a unified purpose in the Trinity, not like a covenant. The covenant of grace is the only one of the three that does look like a covenant. Thus most of the CT framework looks somewhat contrived. Again, as I study this more the reasoning of CT proponents might become clear.

Resources

• Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology - brief info, not a bad intro to CT. I have not found much on dispensationalism, I wish he had more info on this position.
• John H. Gerstner, A Primer on Dispensationalism - a very uncharitable and, I think, inaccurate critique of dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. I can’t recommend this book. I was very disappointed by it.
• Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths - written by a dispensationalist, this looks like it will be a good, though short, resource.
• O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants - this is supposed to be one of the better resources for understanding covenant theology. It looks like a well-written, thorough presentation of covenant theology.
• Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism - one of the classic texts on dispensationalism, this edition was published in 2007. Not sure how much it has changed since Ryrie’s original 30 years ago.
• Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists - I hope this is what Primer above should have been. It is a critique of dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. It hasn’t arrived yet but comments on the book make me hopeful that it will be a fair, even-handed treatment of dispensationalism by an opponent.
• Renald Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology - a dispensational theologian compares DT and CT and tries to explain why dispensationalism is more faithful to Scripture.
• Tom Wells, New Covenant Theology - the only one on new covenant theology, I hope I’ve picked well. I really want to understand this position. 
• Various blogs and websites.

I will not give each of these a thorough read. I will probably read Robertson’s book on CT, Ryrie’s book on DT, and Wells’ book on NCT. The others will be references. I’m not sure what my blog posts will look like nor am I sure how often I will be able to post. This particular study will be interesting but challenging, and work and family responsibilities do present some constraints.

If you know of some other good resources on the topic please mention them in the comments.