Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology Contrasted
I keep getting asked by more and more by friends to explain Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (hereafter DP and CT respectively). The differences are nuanced even within their own camps so I can't possibly explain all the nuances in this short article, but I want to offer a simple introduction to the concepts at hand. Understand that I can't possibly due justice to the issue so please don't stop your investigation with this article. I did link to some comparative charts to further your study.
God's Main Purpose in History
In the studying I've done, I have come to the largest area of difference concerns God's main purpose in history. While I don't want to incorrectly label either side I believe I can safely give the main difference. DP would say that God's main purpose in history is ethnic Israel while CT would say that God's main purpose in history is his son and by extension his elect. While neither side would minimize their respective focuses, each of those theological presuppositions guide their conclusions.
DP see redemptive history focusing on God's work with ethnic Israel. The classical version would go so far to say that, as a result of Israel rejecting her messiah, God has inserted a "parenthetical" time of salvation to gentiles but will return to ethnic Israel in the millennium described in Rev 20.1 A more progressive version of DP would soften this distinction but would still see God returning to ethnic Israel in the millennium. CT focus all revelation around the revelation of Jesus in history. By stating that God's main focus is his son and by extension his elect means that God is most concerned with his son and all the redeemed he has chosen since the foundation of the world.
The Hermeneutic Issue
What guides both sides to their ultimate conclusion is the method that they interpret the scriptures. You will hear DP always talk of using a "literal hermeneutic" which means that they take all prophecies at "face value" to be fulfilled "literally" at some point in the future. They often criticize CT of liberalism and "spiritualizing" texts to make them fit into their theological system.
It's not that CT don't interpret scripture "literally," but they see different application and fulfillment of prophecies. CT see the church prophesied in the Old Testament opposed to DP which do not see this in the Old Testament. CT utilize (more extensively) biblical typology to interpret events in scripture, and they use the analogy of faith which lets scripture interpret scripture.
In Regards To Soteriology
All CT are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are CT. One notable example is John MacArthur who is both a five-point Calvinist and a DP. He and his followers are, however, in a vast minority, and they actually are out casted by both sides for their convictions. DP usually have a system of salvation that varies on one end to those who teach that Old Testament saints were justified by their obedience to the Mosaic Law to others who are four-point Calvinists.
The Millennium
All DP are premillenialists but not all premillenialists are DP.2 CT can be either amillenialists, postmillenialists, or premillenialists concerning the millennium in Rev 20. The millennium is a sticky issue in this debate. DP see this as the time that Israel will be restored per Old Testament prophecies, but CT see the restoration of Israel happing under the New Covenant, by Jesus the mediator, in the church.
The Definition of "Israel"
DP always see references to "Israel" as referring to Old Covenant ethnic Israel. In this system of theology no member of the "church dispensation" can say they are a part of "Israel" in any sense. Contrasted to that, CT do recognize an ethnic Israel, but they see a "spiritual Israel" that consists of all the redeemed throughout all the ages. This "spiritual Israel" is shorthand for the church.
Additional Resources
- There are CT, such as myself, who think Paul describes a return to ethnic Israel described in Rom 11 but don't push it into the millennium the way DP do. [Back]
- There are covenant theologians who are premillennial such as George Ladd and James Boice, but they are described as "historical" premillenials. [Back]
Mar 27th 2007 
17 Comments 
Mar 27th 2007
I think it might be interesting to aslo mention two-covenant theology in the context of this article. Also, can you elaborate on how all calvinists are covenant theologians? What is it specifically that requires that to be true?
How can you distinguish your position on Romans 11 from a DP view on ethnic Israel? As one who holds a more CT view I feel strongly that scripture teaches us that God favors neither race nor real estate so how can you justify your position on a return of Israel to God and still be a CT? If we hold to the reformed view we must believe that God is the one who would regenerate them to bring them to faith and to do so would seem to show God's favoritism to an ethnic group (i.e. Israel).
How much of Israel in the OT is symbolic of the NT church? I would say OT Israel is fully symbolic of the NT church but your view on Romans 11 seems to suggest otherwise.
Good article.
Mar 27th 2007
Great article! Personally I've always struggled with understanding exactly what CT and DP believe and then how those beliefs impact their actions. This cleared up a lot for me.
I'm definitely a CT, btw.
Mar 27th 2007
@Perry: Two-covenant theology was beyond the realm of this article. I was just trying to give a quick overview of the orthodox positions.
As for the Calvinism, S.M. Baugh declares, “Let me make a bold assertion about Covenant theology: It is not incidental to Reformed theology — it is Reformed theology.†I think he's right. One is more inclined to be a Calvinist if they are a CT, but not necessarily the other way around. If you find a CT that's not a Calvinist then let me know.
Romans 11 is a complex passage, and we can't minimize it to only one reading. The DP says that the events described in vs. 25-26 happen in the millennium and revolve around material promises. However, I see the verse speaking to God showing his covenant faithfulness to ethnic Israel but not over material promises but spiritual ones. I believe it describes a conversion event where Jews will see her promised messiah. God does indeed favor real estate (i.e. whole Old Testament), but that wasn't the totality or even the ultimate concern of his in redemptive history. I believe the passage is about favoritism but covenant faithfulness.
Again, I think you misread my comments on Romans 11, and you're trying to point out an inconsistency that doesn't exist in your third paragraph. In fact, my view is in the majority of reformed CT such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul (check your reformation bible), Charles Hodge, Thomas Schreiner, etc.
Mar 27th 2007
Thanks Chris. That's quite informational.
It's quite possible I don't understand DP very well or that I'm not really DP, but I've never thought of Israel as God's purpose in history. And I've never heard that taught. And, I believe I've always attended DP institutions (church and school). Am I wrong? Perhaps I don't understand. God's purpose is quite clearly His glory. And the means to that end are various. But, I would call myself DP.
Also, this "parenthetical" idea I've seen on your blog many times I've never seen in DP (and I've never believed it). Ever. Non-Jews aren't a last-minute addition. They're quite clearly a central part of the plan from the beginning. I was taught this at Cedarville and they're definitely DP. (Gen. 12:3).
All the other stuff you said, I agree with. DP does accuse CT of spiritualizing and incorrectly interpreting scripture. I've heard that many times.
Anyway, no strong feelings on this. Just wanted to bring another viewpoint and raise a discrepancy (at least a discrepancy in my mind - although it's quite possible I don't understand something here). Thanks!
Mar 28th 2007
Haha.... This is a big piece of steak. I think I will stick with my McDonald's hamburger for now. The article was good on explaining differences. I would like to look into more of their points of view. I am slowly makin it through Why I am not Armian. So far it is good.
Mar 28th 2007
@Mike: That's encouraging! May you be persuaded one way or another not by the words of man but God's unfailing word.
Mar 28th 2007
With so many irrelevant jabs against dispensationalism, I'd say that this article does more to make covenanters feel spiritually superior than to actually inform the reader as to which one might be correct. :(
Mar 28th 2007
@Keith-Coming from an unbiased, unknowledged about the topic reader, this was a well written article that provided a good viewpoint.
Mar 28th 2007
@Amanda: The DP emphasis on Israel as God's main purpose in history lies truly in a classic view of DP. You can see this view in one of their many images; you see the major prophets seeing the end of time but not the church age. The image shows the church age as a parenthesis. I also couldn't imagine any DP holding the "last minute" view on gentiles. Remember that Cedarville would be of the progressive variety of DP and not the classical version. That's a whole 'nother post.
@Keith: Could you extrapolate upon those opinions? You do a good job of stating something, forget substantiation, and leave in a fit of glory.
@Mike: I see you have the "@" down. All the cool kids are doing it!
Mar 28th 2007
Hm, well I haven't met any classic DPs then. They must be pretty rare. Are there many classic DPs? I don't usually hear you make this differentiation and this seems to be a big deal. I mean, I'm DP but Israel is not God's purpose of history, from my perspective. And, from the perspective of CT, you could say Israel is God's purpose: all believers are Israel and Jesus is Israel also. :-)
Mar 29th 2007
@Chris-I don't understand it, but since everyone else was doin it, I figured I would jump on the bandwagon. I am glad after so many years, to be in with the cool crowd!!! : )
Mar 29th 2007
@Amanda: Well, Tim Lahaye and company are classical DP, and their influence on popular Christian culture has shaped the majority view on eschatology.
Your last point is a good one, and it is definitely correct. The only thing I would add is that DP focus on ethnic Israel while CT focus on spiritual Israel (those united to Christ).
Mar 29th 2007
A unsubstantiated fit? Interesting assertion, Chris!
Anyway, I know that you know full well what jabs I'm referring to.
Apr 17th 2007
I continue to struggle to wrap my mind around what it means to be Dispensational, although that difficulty may be due to differences between Classical and Progressive forms of thought (which I wasn't aware of). I totally agree with Amanda's statement that God's purpose is His glory.
God chose Israel for a very special purpose, which was to be the means through which He would bless the whole world. There are numerous references that Israel holds a special place in God's heart, and I believe that there are indications that, at some point, there will be a number of Jews who will come to know Jesus as their long awaited Messiah. The idea that "the Church" will have to be raptured away before this can happen makes no sense to me, which I think is the Tim LaHaye perspective [can anyone explain to me how he justifies that view scripturally?]
God was already in the process of drawing non-Jews to Himself in the Old Testament. Some of those people are listed in the genealogy of Jesus. In Romans 11 Paul talks about how the gentiles are grafted in branches, and he says of Israel “how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!†It seems to me that the natural branches are referring to ethnic Israel and that “the elect†are whomever God has chosen, regardless of race.
Although I believe that Israel is precious to God I do not equate “Israel†directly with the “State of Israelâ€. From what I have been able to determine, the “State of Israel†was established and is predominantly run by people who have a secular (and in some cases atheistic) mindset. It would appear that there are some commonalities between Israel today and at the time of Jesus’ first appearing in that much of leadership is more concerned about promoting their own agenda than honoring God. I do not know what Paul means when he says “all Israel will be savedâ€, but I am content with the thought that God will accomplish His purposes, regardless of what anyone else thinks will happen.
Apr 17th 2007
@Kari: Good thoughts as always! Do you buy into the "spiritual Israel" (the sum total of the all the elect)?
Apr 19th 2007
I tend to be leery of labels that do not appear in scripture and so the term “Spiritual Israel†(in the context in which I generally see it used) makes me a little uncomfortable. Paul goes into some detail about God’s relationship with Israel in Romans 9-11, with further clarification in Galatians 3-4 about how Gentiles fit into the picture. The sense that I have is that Israel maintains a special place in God’s heart and that the people that God has chosen as His own who are not of “ethnic Israel†He grafts into Israel, and those that are part of “ethnic Israel†whom He has not chosen, He cuts out. I suppose you could say then that those remaining are the sum total of the all the elect, but I have seen people use the term “Spiritual Israel†to support Replacement Theology, which carries in it the idea that “the Church†has replaced Israel in God’s Heart, and that all the promises that God made to Israel in the Old Testament no longer apply to Israel, but instead can be directly applied to “the Churchâ€. I think that one has to be careful about making any assumptions that in some way revises what God has revealed to us through His Word.
Apr 20th 2007
Did you read my article: "Did the Church Replace Israel?"