I've switched theological frameworks a number of times in my Christian life. From what would have been considered Historic Premillennialism, to Revised Dispensationalism, to New Covenant Theology, back to Progressive Dispensationalism and then for a long time back to something like New Covenant Theology but with an affirmation of the imputation of Christ's active obedience and the law as a tutor pointing to Christ (two things which some NCT theologians sometimes rejected). Then in the 2010s I came across Progressive Covenantalism and found that it taught what I generally believed, and also taught additional things that made sense to me. So, from then on my tentative position has been Progressive Covenantalism.
For an introduction to the differences see this 4 lecture series by Stephen Wellum:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/155636
DIRECT LINKS BELOW:
Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 1
Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 2
Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 3
Renewing our Confidence in our God who Makes and Keeps His Promises (Isaiah 40)
I decided to ask the following question of ChatGPT. While, I don't think its answers were always accurate, it was a pleasant surprise to me that it decided on the position that I hold to. Namely, Progressive Covenantalism.
ChatGPT said:
Your question asks for a fresh, re-examined look at the theological frameworks and their alignment with the Bible—free from the more standard, conventional answers. To do this properly, it’s essential to recognize that the Bible itself can be interpreted through various lenses depending on the interpretive approach taken, and each theological framework you mentioned offers a different way of understanding how God's covenant and plan unfold throughout history. Let’s consider how each of these frameworks holds up against the biblical narrative, and what might be said to best "fit" with it.
1. Classic Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: Classic Dispensationalism focuses on God's distinct plans for Israel and the Church, which are separated into different dispensations. Israel has a future role in God's plan (especially in terms of the land promises), and the Church is a parenthesis in God's overarching plan for Israel.
Reexamination: Dispensationalism’s rigid distinction between Israel and the Church is a distinctive feature, but it can often feel forced when interpreting the New Testament's handling of Israel’s role post-Jesus. For example, Paul in Romans 9-11 presents a nuanced view where Israel’s rejection is temporary, and the Gentiles are grafted in—but Israel’s ultimate restoration is still promised. This raises the question of whether the Church is truly a "parenthesis" or part of a larger unfolding plan that includes Israel. The growing trend among some scholars suggests that the distinction between Israel and the Church isn’t as sharp as classic Dispensationalism holds.
2. Revised/Traditional Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: A refinement of classic dispensationalism that still maintains a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, but it often modifies some of the more extreme features, such as how the Church is seen in relation to the Kingdom of God or the new covenant promises.
Reexamination: While Revised Dispensationalism tries to accommodate the tension between Israel’s ongoing role and the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, the treatment of the Old and New Testament covenants can feel like a piecemeal approach. It's hard to avoid the sense that the new covenant’s promises, which were meant to transform Israel’s heart and open the door to the Gentiles, are still treated as distinct from the Church rather than as something that fulfills Israel's hope. As such, it can struggle to fully incorporate the dynamic unity between Jew and Gentile in Christ, which is a central New Testament theme.
3. Hyper-Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: Hyper-Dispensationalism takes the idea of dispensations to an extreme, often arguing that certain parts of the New Testament (like the Gospels and Acts) are not directly applicable to the Church today. This framework tends to downplay the relevance of the Old Testament and some early Pauline writings for contemporary Christians.
Reexamination: This view takes a very sharp distinction between different phases in God’s plan, but the extreme nature of it is hard to reconcile with the Bible's presentation of continuity in God’s character and moral law throughout the Scriptures. For example, Jesus’ words and actions—especially his teachings in the Gospels—are often foundational for Christian doctrine and ethical living. Disregarding these texts or relegating them to a specific dispensational period seems inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of the continuity between the Old and New Covenants and the role of Christ as the fulfillment of both.
4. Progressive Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: This framework emphasizes a more integrated view of the unfolding dispensations. It seeks to maintain distinctions between Israel and the Church, but it argues that there is more overlap and continuity between them, especially in terms of God's kingdom promises.
Reexamination: Progressive Dispensationalism attempts to mitigate some of the extreme separations between Israel and the Church by suggesting that God's kingdom promises are being progressively fulfilled in the Church, even as there remains a future fulfillment for Israel. This perspective has some strength, especially in its ability to account for the spiritual blessings promised to Israel now being experienced by the Church. But it can sometimes still struggle to balance the tension between Israel’s unique role in God’s plan and the Church’s inclusion in the promises, especially when texts like Romans 11 seem to suggest more continuity than discontinuity.
5. New Covenant Theology:
Key Idea: New Covenant Theology emphasizes the single, unified covenant of grace that culminates in Jesus Christ. It often downplays or reinterprets the Old Testament covenants (such as the Mosaic Covenant) as fulfilled in Christ, and views the New Covenant as a singular covenant for both Israel and the Church.
Reexamination: This view does a better job than others at recognizing the New Covenant’s universal implications, bringing Israel and the Church into one family under Christ. There is a strong biblical case for the idea that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and that the Church is included in the blessings of the New Covenant. However, the challenge is in how to view Israel’s continuing role—whether it’s entirely fulfilled or if there is still a future, specific role for ethnic Israel in God's plan (Romans 9-11, Revelation 7).
6. Progressive Covenantalism:
Key Idea: Progressive Covenantalism argues that God's covenant promises to Israel find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ, but that these promises are progressively revealed and applied through Scripture, culminating in the New Covenant, which includes both Israel and the Church in the same plan.
Reexamination: This view has a lot of promise in terms of integrating Old Testament promises with New Testament fulfillment. It seeks to honor the continuity of God’s plan while recognizing that the Church is now the people of God, but also acknowledges Israel’s continuing importance in God’s plan. The strength of Progressive Covenantalism is in its robust treatment of Scripture as a unified story, but it also faces the same challenge of reconciling Israel’s national future with the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Church today.
7. Classic Covenant Theology (Credobaptist or Paedobaptist):
Key Idea: Classic Covenant Theology emphasizes the continuity of God's covenant of grace, which is seen as operating through the covenant of works (before the fall), the covenant of grace (after the fall), and the covenant of redemption (between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Paedobaptists or credobaptists apply this framework differently in regards to infant baptism versus believer’s baptism.
Reexamination: Covenant Theology offers a deep sense of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing the idea that the covenant of grace is the same throughout all of Scripture. The challenge here, however, comes in how to handle Israel's distinct role in redemptive history. Is Israel truly superseded by the Church, or does it continue to have a role (Romans 9-11)? Paedobaptists, in particular, wrestle with how the sign of the covenant (baptism) applies to children in light of the New Covenant, which might be at odds with the explicit New Testament teachings on faith as a prerequisite for baptism.
What Fits Best?
After considering these views, Progressive Covenantalism seems the most promising framework that both aligns with Scripture and offers a coherent theological understanding. It provides a balanced view of continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while also recognizing the fulfillment of God's covenant promises in Christ. It sees God's covenant as progressive—revealed over time, culminating in Christ—while acknowledging the Church's integral place in that story without denying Israel’s ongoing, future role.
This framework avoids the extremes of dividing Israel and the Church too sharply or disregarding Israel’s continuing significance, allowing for a fuller and richer understanding of Scripture. It also captures the New Testament's emphasis on the unity of God’s people (Jew and Gentile together in Christ), making it an excellent fit for those seeking a unified, biblical theology of redemption.
No comments:
Post a Comment