There are, and always have been, different ways of interpreting and understanding scripture, which we refer to as their “Theology”. Men have developed systematic approaches to some of these various Theologies, which are referred to as “Systematic Theology”.
Inasmuch as God’s revealed truth about reality or absolute truth, is one fully integrated whole with many parts, or elements, or aspects of that whole truth, our understanding of those revelations in His word must be systematic, such that all the parts are working together without inconsistencies or contradictions. If one’s beliefs in one area or aspect of their theology conflicts with their beliefs in another, such a belief system cannot be based on reality or absolute truth, and cannot accurately reflect the revealed truth of God’s word. However, men have developed different approaches and thus different understandings of God’s revelations in scripture resulting in various schools of Systematic Theology.
With respect to this whole area of prophecy, and end time prophecy in particular, there are significant differences just between those who claim to believe the whole Bible is inspired by God (which many would-be theologians do not), including many of those who would claim to interpret the Bible literally, to varying degrees. Within those categories the majority are primarily divided between two schools of Systematic Theology. One is known as “Covenant Theology”, the other is “Dispensational Theology” or just “Dispensationalism”. These two schools are largely the product of different methods of interpretation of scripture, Dispensationalism being more literal than Covenant Theology, especially with respect to prophetic passages. Covenant Theology is closely associated with what is known as “Reformed Theology” (also known as Calvinism), which applies the allegorical approach to much of scripture. This is especially the case when it comes to the understanding of Israel vs. the Church, and prophecy about the end times.
Covenant Theology & Reformed Theology
Reformed Theology developed as a product of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. The term ‘Reformed’ is used to distinguish the Calvinistic from the Lutheran and Anabaptist tradition – all of which are Protestant. The Reformed tradition finds its roots in the theology of Ulrich Zwingli, the first reformer in Zurich, and John Calvin of Geneva, who in his biblical commentaries, his pamphlets, but especially in the Institutes of [the] Christian Religion, developed a Protestant theology.
In general, Reformed teachings emphasize more strongly the belief that all Christian teaching and practice must find its origin directly in the Scriptures and should not be based upon tradition. Although Luther was also a Reformer, he proved more reticent to distance Reformation teaching and practice from some aspects of tradition which held sway in Roman Catholicism – although all the Reformers were reacting against it to a great degree. This can be seen in differences in liturgy (Reformed Theology rejecting anything and everything which does not find its basis in Scripture) and in views concerning the Lord’s Supper (Luther’s view being slightly closer to Rome’s than that of the Swiss Reformers). Yet there are other areas where Reformed Theology failed to be fully informed from the Scriptures alone: Reformed Theology distanced itself from the Anabaptists who rejected infant baptism and insisted upon rebaptism of those who were baptized prior to coming to faith (sound Biblically-informed positions).
Over time, Reformed Theology also came to denote distinctive aspects of the Reformation which find expression in the now famous “TULIP” acronym: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. Thus, Reformed Theology has a very high view of God’s sovereignty in matters of history – especially concerning the election and predestination of those who are saved. Another aspect of Reformed Theology is a strong emphasis on what it sees as a cultural mandate for Christians to live actively in society and work for the transformation of the world and its cultures. Although sound in concept (believers are to be salt and light and oppose and expose works of darkness – Pr. 28:4; Mat. 5:13-16; Eph. 5:11), where this cultural mandate is taken to an extreme it can lead to an over-emphasis on social work and even the denial of Scriptural truth concerning the predicted apostasy of this age and the reality of the coming tribulation (Mat. 24:10-12; 2Th. 2:3; 1Ti. 4:1-3; 2Ti. 3:1) – in effect concluding that Christianity will reform the world rather than the Scriptural truth that the world will ultimately reject Christ ushering in a time of fearful judgment (Isa. 13:12; Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1; Mat. 24:21; Mark 13:19; Rev. 6; 7:14; 9:15; etc.). Influenced by this cultural mandate, the outlook of Reformed Theology is generally amillennial (there is no literal 1,000 year kingdom of Christ on earth: Rev. 20:4-7) or postmillennial (Christ returns after an indeterminate golden age where society yields to the reforming influence of Christianity).”
(“Covenant, Reformed, and Dispensational Theology – What Do They Mean?” By Dr. Tony Garland; From: BIBLE PROPHECY BLOG ― NEWS AND COMMENTARY FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ― AUG 24, 2010 (https://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2010/08/covenant-reformed-and-dispensational.html))
Covenant Theology
“Covenant Theology sees the relation of God to mankind as a kind of compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Covenant Theology interprets all of Scriptural truth through the interpretive lens of two or sometimes three covenants. The system was birthed out of its predecessor, Reformed Theology, apparently motivated in part as a means of softening some of the harsher aspects of Calvinistic teaching associated with the Protestant Reformation: …
It is important to recognize that Covenant Theology interprets Scripture based upon two or three inferred covenants. These covenants are not explicitly found within the Bible:
Covenant theology holds to two or three theological covenants. They believe there is a Covenant of Works (between God and Adam), a Covenant of Grace (between God and the elect, some say all of fallen humanity), and possibly a Covenant of Redemption (among the Members of the Godhead). None of these are found in the Bible. Concerning the Covenant of Works, Hodge states directly that it “does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures.” (Charles Ray, “Systematic Theology and Premillennialism,” The Conservative Theological Journal, Vol. 8 No. 24, August, 2004, 165-191, p. 168.)
Notice that these covenants are not expressly taught (or called such) in Scripture. This proves to be an important observation because much of what flows out of Covenant Theology is inferred based upon logical deductions from these postulated covenants. While the logic of deduction may be sound at times, the basis upon which it rests lacks a solid Scriptural foundation. Another aspect of Covenant Theology is its insistence upon glossing over distinctions among the true Biblical covenant (e.g., Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.) and artificially merging them into a unifying concept of “The Covenant.” This interpretive lens (a single unifying covenant) winds up being force-fit upon the various Biblical covenants which Scripture itself defines:
The Father covenanted to grant the Son to be the Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son covenanted to provide redemption for the elect by becoming incarnated in human flesh and dying a substitutionary death for them. According to Covenant Theology, a covenant of works was establishing between the triune God and Adam between creation and the fall of mankind. God required Adam’s implicit and perfect obedience. Adam was placed on temporary probation to determine if he would voluntarily subject his will to God’s will. God promised eternal life (not natural life) to Adam and his descendants in return for Adam’s perfect obedience. But because God appointed Adam to be representative head of the human race, he and his descendants would be penalized with death, “including physical, spiritual, and eternal death,” if he disobeyed God. Covenant Theology also maintains that God established a covenant of grace because Adam broke the covenant of works. Louis Berkhof defined the covenant of grace as “that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.” Thus, God is the first party of the covenant of grace. Covenant theologians claim the second party is either (1) the sinner, (2) the elect, (3) the elect sinner in Christ, or (4) believers and their seed. Some Covenant theologians believe the covenant of grace was established immediately after Adam’s fall, while others claim it was not established until God’s covenant with Abraham. Once established, it continues throughout time as the unifying principle of history.” [emphasis mine] (Renald E. Showers, “Covenant Theology: What’s in It for Israel?”, Israel My Glory, January/February 2005, 11-13, pp. 11-12.)
Covenant Theology begins with a reasonable premise: God is a God of covenant and as such His covenant promises are a very important aspect within which theology must be developed. But it goes astray where it emphasizes inferred theological concepts over the plain revelation of God’s Word which contains numerous covenants made with differing parties not all of which can be neatly packaged within the framework of a single promise with the abstract “people of God” – at least not without doing violence to the Biblical covenants.
The sad result of glossing over differences which Scripture reveals concerning the parties, timing, and promises of the various Biblical covenants is the significant distortion of what Scripture teaches on important topics, and especially those informed by the Biblical covenants:
- All the covenants become merely part of “The Covenant” made with the elastic “people of God” which now finds its fulfillment entirely within the Church.
- Literal promises made to the Jews (the physical offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), have either been forfeited as a result of their rejection of Jesus or are reinterpreted as applying to the Church. Thus, for example, the literal Promised Land (Gen. 13:15; 15:18-21; 17:8; Ex. 23:31; Num. 34:2-12; Deu. 1:7; 11:24; 34:1-4; Jos. 1:4; 13:1,7-8; 2Sa. 8:3; 1Ch. 5:9; 1Ch. 18:3; 2Ch. 9:26; Ps. 105:11; Eze. 37:25; Eze. 47:13-23; etc.) is understood as a generic spiritual concept of blessing, possibly denoting our heavenly destination, and the throne of David (2S. 7:16; cf. Mat. 25:31; Luke 1:32-33; Rev. 3:21) is relocated to heaven to be presently occupied by Jesus while having nothing to do with the earthly city of Jerusalem in any age to come. In more extreme forms, this view is known as “Supercessionism” or “Replacement Theology” which, unintentionally or otherwise, facilitates the advance of anti-Semitism within Christianity.
- The concept of national Israel and its special purposes in the plan of God beyond the crucifixion is denied. There is essentially no future for Israel as a nation, except for the individual salvation of Jews who happen to come to faith (Rom. 11:26, but also see Rom. 11:1-2, 29). The recreation of Israel as a political entity is seen as an historic curiosity with little, if any, relevance to Scripture. The concept of a future time of fulfillment for promises made to the nation Israel, including a geopolitical reign of Jesus centered in Jerusalem within the Promised Land is denied.
- The concept of the “body of Christ” being a mystery unique to the New Testament, having been formed in the Book of Acts and excluding all believers prior to the giving of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost is denied (Mat 16:18; 18:17; John 7:39; 14:16; Acts 1:5; 11:15; 15:14; 1Cor. 12:13; Eph 2:15; 3:5-6; Col. 1:26-27). The Church is seen to have begun with Abram (Abraham) or even as far back as Adam and Eve. Thus, the uniqueness of the Church as the body of Christ ministering in His absence consisting only of those baptized by the Spirit is unappreciated and the doctrine of a separate rapture of the bride of Christ is predictably rejected and even ridiculed as unscriptural (1Cor. 15:51-52; 1Th. 4:7). (Many, although not all, Pentecostal congregations embrace Covenant Theology since they also fail to fully appreciate the context of events on the Day of Pentecost associated with the historical coming of the Spirit.)
- The future time of cataclysm and judgment revealed in Scripture must be reinterpreted or otherwise denied since it flies in the face of the cultural mandate that Christianity reform the societies of the world ushering in the return of Christ. Thus, partial Preterism2 (orthodox) and its cousin, full Preterism (heterodox) generally find their basis in Covenant Theology. Both of these views relocate the future tribulation to the past taking the events described as having already transpired (generally in the events of Rome surrounding Nero) and interpret cataclysmic passages as mere hyperbole.”
(from: “Covenant, Reformed, and Dispensational Theology – What Do They Mean?” By Dr. Tony Garland, SpiritandTruth.org. BIBLE PROPHECY BLOG ― NEWS AND COMMENTARY FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ―AUG 24, 2010. (https://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2010/08/covenant-reformed-and-dispensational.html))
History of Covenant Theology
“After Calvin’s death in 1564, Holland gradually became the center of Calvinistic theological activity. . . . Theological tension was high in Holland following the Synod of Dort (1619) . . . particularly against the teaching of double predestination (the decrees of election and reprobation). It was at this time that Cocceius advanced his theory concerning the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works, in which he soft-pedaled the doctrine of predestination. . . . This teaching, of course, was rejected by the Reformed Church. . . . [Then] Witsius introduced his idea of a third covenant (later known as the Covenant of Redemption) which concerned God’s saving purpose before the foundation of the earth. The Reformed theologians were quick to see the possibility of reconciling the doctrine of the eternal decrees with this new idea set forth by Witsius [in 1695]. Therefore, the Reformed Church did an about face and embraced the theory of the covenant. (Clarence E. Mason, Jr., ‘Eschatology’ (Class notes, Philadelphia College of Bible, Philadelphia, 1970), p. 55 cited in Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 242.)”(ibid)
Dispensationalism
“Though there are variations, we can summarize five common tenants of dispensationalism:
- A strong distinction between Israel and the church.
- A principle of “literal” interpretation (particularly regarding the land promise).
- God’s relationship to the church differs in some ways from Israel (including the inclusion of children in the covenant).
- A strong distinction between law and grace.
- A strong premillennial emphasis in eschatology.
(Knowing Scripture https://knowingscripture.com/articles/covenant-theology-vs-dispensationalism)
“A dispensation is a way of ordering things—an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time; each dispensation is a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the Church in God’s program. Classical dispensationalism identifies seven dispensations in God’s plan for humanity.
Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of ‘a thousand years’ in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.
There are at least two reasons why literalism is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate. Words are vessels of meaning. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. There is no non-literal fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If a literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into ‘what this passage says to me’ instead of ‘the Bible says.’ Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called Bible study today.
Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the Church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (see Romans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).
Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1—Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1—Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4—Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.
Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the Church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.”
(from: “Dispensationalism”, Got Questions, (https://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html))
History of Dispensationalism
“The first person on record to develop a genuine dispensational scheme in a systematic fashion was the French philosopher Pierre Poiret (1646-1719). In his work entitled ‘The Divine Economy: or An Universal System of the Works and Purposes of God Towards Men Demonstrated,’ Poiret developed a scheme of seven dispensations covering the scope of Scriptures and history. This work was published in Holland in 1687. In 1699 John Edwards (1639-1716) published a well-developed dispensational scheme in his book entitled A Complete History or Survey of All the Dispensations. Isaac Watts (1674-1748 A.D.), the famous hymn writer and theologian, presented a system of six dispensations in an essay named ‘The Harmony of all the Religions which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations towards them.’ During the 19th century the Plymouth Brethren, including one of their key leaders, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), played a very significant role in developing, systematizing, and spreading Dispensational Theology.”
(“Introduction to Dispensationalism”, Showers, R., (https://ancientpath.net/Bible/Resources/res_IntroDispTheo.htm))
end times revisited 