Unity & Division

Dispensationalism: New Covenant Not For Christians  

/ Lee A. Robinson / Leave a comment

For Audio: https://youtube.com/live/KhXORdyg13w?feature=share

Leading dispensationalists teach that the New Covenant is an agreement established only between God and the nation of Israel (ethnic & political Israel) and that the New Covenant has not yet been actualized. For example: J. Dwight Pentecost writes, “…the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation of Israel and not by the Church…the covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future, literal fulfillment. (emphasis mine)” This position advances that individual Christians (Jewish or Gentile believers in Christ) and the Church as a whole are not members of the New Covenant – does this seem like a problem to you? In this article I will provide quotes from leading dispensationalist scholars on this subject; I will remind everyone that the New Testament does in fact unquestionably teach that Christians are members of the New Covenant; and will conclude with a plea for Christian unity over these issues. 

John Walvoord (long time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote, “…the new covenant is with Israel and the fulfillment in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ.”8 Charles Ryrie (editor of the Ryrie Study Bible) said, “The following provisions for Israel, the people of the new covenant, to be fulfilled in the millennium, the period of the new covenant…the covenant was made with the Jewish people. Its period of fulfillment is yet future beginning when the Deliverer shall come.” Notice Ryrie clearly says here that the “people of the new covenant” is Israel (meaning ethnically Jewish people) and that the “period of the new covenant” is yet future (the Millennial Reign of Christ). J.Dwight Pentecost is in agreement when he says, “…this covenant (the New Covenant) was made with Israel, the physical seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and with them alone.” 

So, their position is clear: The New Covenant is an agreement between God and the ethnic Jewish people alone, and it is yet a future agreement from now. The reason dispensationalists make these restrictions on the New Covenant is because the promise of the New Covenant from Jeremiah states that the recipients are “Israel” and “Judah.” “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). You would think this would be an open-and-shut case, except for one major problem – – – The New Testament. For it is the N.T. that interprets and applies these verses from Jeremiah as having reference to and being fulfilled in the New Testament (or New Covenant) Christian Church. 

Jesus made reference to this New Covenant during the Last Supper: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament (new covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat. 26:26-28) Covenants in Scripture are established and ratified with the shedding and sprinkling of blood. The Old Covenant that God made with Israel was established after the Exodus with the giving of the Law, which was also ratified with blood and the sprinkling of all the Tabernacle with the blood of appropriate sacrifices. When Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples, these very events of the Exodus and the establishment of The Old Covenant is what was in process of being remembered (Passover). There, in that very moment, is when Jesus revealed that he was instituting the New Covenant. This New Covenant is not made official by the blood of animals, but with His own blood that he was about to give on the Cross. If the blood of Jesus has been shed and is applied, then the New Covenant is currently in force and has been since the first century. 

Additionally, when the apostle Paul gave instructions to the Corinthian Church about the Lord’s Supper, he repeated these instruction from the Lord, “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament (or New Covenant) in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” This is important because now we are talking about a church made up of primarily gentile believers in a land outside of Israel. The point – The New Covenant was already well underway in the first century, and by Gentile and Jewish believers alike. 

The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is also very clearly said to be in force by the writer of the book of Hebrews. “But ye are (not will be) come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24) This passage contrasts the establishment of the Old Covenant with Israel at Sinai with the establishment of the New Covenant with the Church. Anyone with a basic familiarity with the book of Hebrews knows that the whole point is showing that the old covenant was passing away and that the new covenant had come. The old were the pictures, but now the person in the pictures had come, so we put away the pictures and embrace the Person. 

Hebrews 8, 9 & 10 make it abundantly clear that the New Covenant has indeed come, that it is already in force, and that this is the same faith of all of the other apostolic churches in the New Testament. In other words, the covenant is not only with ethnic Jews, but also with gentile believers in Messiah, starting in the first century. 

The only possible way you can attempt to get around these Scriptures is to somehow manufacture at least two different “new covenants,” which would be as difficult biblically as trying to successfully pull out a whole pack of chewed gum out of a girl’s long hair – the best course of action is just to cut it out!  

This distressing difficulty is felt by Renald Showers in his book “There Really is a Difference.” Dr. Showers is unsure about the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant. He ponders, “In spite of the Old Testaments’ silence concerning the relationship of the Church to the new covenant, the New Testament seems to indicate that the Church is related somehow to it.” “God had only promised one new covenant, it seems evident Jesus was referring to the new covenant.” “It seems obvious that Jesus was stating that the communion cup represents the New Covenant which God promised to Israel in the Old Testament. The very fact that the Church partakes of the communion cup which represents the New Covenant promised by God to Israel seems to indicate that the Church partakes of that New Covenant.” I can see Dr. Showers scratching his head saying, “The New Covenant is only with ethnic Jews, period. However, the New Testament clearly shows the New Covenant being established with the Church. Hmm… It seems like it, but it can’t be…” It seems like Dr. Showers is more committed to cleaving to the presuppositions of dispensationalism than letting the Bible plainly speak for itself. 

There should be absolutely no uncertainty about the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant. The irrefutable and obvious fact that the New Covenant is the agreement between God and the New Testament Church is as clear as the water that issues forth from the throne of God. The Foundation of the entire Christian Church is the “New Testament (Covenant)” Scriptures! Are the writings of the Gospel writers and the apostolic epistles only for Jewish people in the future? It sounds silly to even have to point this out. The apostle Paul said that he was “an able minister of the new testament (covenant); not of the letter, but of the spirit…” (2 Corinthians 3:6) Do gentile believers in Jesus have access to Paul? Does the Church have anything to do with the ministry of Paul? Was not Paul the apostle to the gentiles?! Are ethnic Jews included in the New Covenant? Yes, absolutely, but only those Jews who turn in repentance to God and faith in Jesus Christ. 

So let’s state it clearly – The New Covenant is the eternal agreement that God has made with His people who have faith in Jesus the Messiah. His blood was shed on Calvary for all (Jew and Gentile). When we receive Christ we are sprinkled by his blood and are made holy. We are set apart from the world and God becomes our God and we are His people. This is the New Covenant. It is universal for those in Christ and it is a present reality. 

So why do dispensationalists try to avoid this fact? The reason why is because they are committed to using the Old Testament as the ruler for interpreting the New, instead of using the New Testament as the guide for interpreting the Old. If Moses and the Apostles speak on a given topic, we should give preference to the Apostles. This is not to say that there are any contradictions between the two, but rather because the Apostles are looking at the thing with better glasses on. The Old Testament contained mysteries, which the Lord unlocked for His Apostles. One of those mysteries was the true identification of the People of God – that it was not only Jewish and locally Israelitish, but that it was also Gentile and Global, rather God’s People are a spiritual people in Messiah. There is only one True Israel. In the Old Testament it was mainly local and Jewish, but not completely, because we have included in the covenant people like Rahab and Ruth, etc. In the New Testament, Israel (The People of God, the people of the covenant) is comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus, from all around the world. Did God fail in his promises to the Jewish people? Absolutely NOT! Rather, the olive tree was more glorious than they thought, and it included Gentiles as brothers with the wall of separation between us broken down. Hallelujah!    

Calm Down on the Dispensational Dogmatics 

As we conclude, I would like to state that the reason for writing this article is that there are some believers out there who are so strongly dispensational, that they wholesale separate (or even condemn) believers who do not wholeheartedly embrace their doctrine. The main argument is usually along the lines of, “If you are not dispensational then you don’t believe the Bible anymore…” Really? Come on? Dispensationalism teaches that the New Testament Church isn’t part of the New Testament! That is a pretty glaring problem. The Scofield Reference Bible is not inspired. The apostles did not include dispensationalist maps and timelines to their epistles. In simple language – Dispensationalism has problems, there are holes in the system, so it is not wise to be so dogmatic about it. And even if it was completely biblical, not holding to it still does not put someone outside the realms of Christian Orthodoxy. What is waaaay more clear from Scripture is that we should be humble theologians and love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Receive them as Christ received you. Our understanding of Israel and the Church, or the New Covenant and the Church are important – they do make a difference – but they are by no means tenets of orthodoxy. They should in no way separate brethren or churches. A funny thing happened to me – someone decided to separate with me because I questioned dispensationalism, but they didn’t even know what dispensationalism was. That should tell you something. 

I was saved into a strongly dispensational, premillennial church, was mentored closely by the most Jewish loving person I have ever met, and graduated from a Bible college very committed to this position. I love all of those godly people, but from the beginning I always hesitated to wholeheartedly embrace dispensationalism, because of deep personal Bible Study. I am in no way saying that dispensationalists are not intelligent or are not Bible scholars, but rather to say that you can be a committed Bible student and come to a different position, and also that it is possible to come to hold to a system of doctrine with more loyalty than to Scripture alone – especially when your friendships or career are on the line. There are plenty of other faithful pastors and bible scholars who disagree with Dispensational Premillennialism. It is absolutely not THE mark of true orthodoxy. So, don’t be the person who makes other Christians walk the plank because they don’t swear by dispensationalism. And lastly, rejoice in the fact that if you are in Christ you are indeed in the New Covenant and a recipient of every good thing that is in Him. 2 Corinthians 1:20 “For ALL the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.”

Fundamentalism’s Fundamental Flaw

/ Lee A. Robinson / 3 Comments

By “Fundamentalism” I mean specifically 21st century, American, independent, Baptist (with a big B), King James Only, dispensational, premillennial, fundamentalism. The fundamental flaw is that of elevating secondary, non-essential doctrines & practices to that of Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) & Orthopraxy (correct practice). By “secondary” and “non-essential,” I mean beliefs and practices that are not essential to salvation or godliness. Everything we do as Christians is important, but not everything is a matter of salvation or even godliness – there is room for theological and practical disagreement among godly believers. This flaw is certainly applicable to other sections of Christianity, but I have this particular tradition in mind, since most of my experience and relationships have revolved around IFB churches, and because I believe this is a particular vulnerability in this branch of Christianity. The results of this flaw are an unhealthy over-emphasis on non-essentials, separation from other Christians on non-Biblical grounds, and an ever so slightly-to-potent spirit of fear. These errors oftentimes produce isolated, lopsided, fearful, and sometimes ignorant Christians.     

Mention of Charity

I cannot speak for every circle of IFB (Independent, Fundamental, Baptist) churches, but the associated churches that I come from are in general genuine, humble, truly-saved, godly, loving, zealous, wise and God-fearing people. No one is perfect, neither is any church or denomination, but I am thankful that my spiritual upbringing came through churches where Jesus is Lord, the Holy Spirit is obeyed, and the pure Gospel is proclaimed. Amen for that. 

However, when Jesus came to speak to His churches in the book of Revelation, he found things that He had against most of them – even the good churches, where He was still present in the midst of them. So just because I mention a flaw does not mean that God is not there, or that they are not saved or godly, or “bad churches,” but rather to point out a weakness, in the hopes that some will be sensitive, thoughtful and hopefully grow in Christian maturity through this (or, in the words of Jesus to His churches who were in disobedience…to repent). So, this is not bash-Fundamentalists time. We need you. The whole Body of Christ needs you and we want to partner with you. I would love to hear some feedback and dialogue with Fundamentalists on this issue. 

Here’s how I believe it works (and this is still part of the charity section) – An IFB brother or sister believes, for example, that the pre-tribulation rapture is so crystal clear in the Bible, and of such gravity, that if someone denies it, they are denying a cardinal doctrine of THE Faith. And so, the unfortunate reality is that when a brother falls into serious doctrinal error, we are commanded by our Lord to “touch not the unclean thing,” and to “come out from among them,” and “mark that man and have no company with him.” And so, out of a sincere desire to please Jesus and obey the Word of God, they hesitatingly and broken-heartedly, out of necessity, separate from their once beloved brother. (I know for sure that there are times when Christians separate in anger, and do not handle situations with love and care. This certainly happens, but even when separation is handled somewhat correctly, the fundamental issue I think with Fundamentalists is not how separation is handled, but why?) 

Stated simply, I think most times IFB’s are trying to walk in love and truth simultaneously – but in elevating their tradition (perhaps even unintentionally) above the Word of God, this causes them to react to others who differ with them in non-Biblical ways. 

What Saith the Scriptures? 

My challenge to IFB’s is this – and I have yet to barely have a response at all to this, nevermind a good response – “Please demonstrate from Scripture how “such and such” doctrine or practice is an issue of salvation or godliness?” I know you believe strongly what you believe and that you think it is a huge deal, but show us where God says that if you do not hold this particular belief or practice you are still lost, or an ungodly person? If we are going to go to the extreme measure of denouncing a particular belief or practice, it ought to be clearly spelled out in Scripture, correct? 

For example, the Bible is clear that if someone denies the deity of Jesus Christ, then they are not saved: John 8:24 Jesus said, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” Jesus clearly taught this. Therefore, if someone denies the Deity of Christ we should treat them as an unbeliever – loving, but gracious separation. They are not saved, and they are not godly. We shouldn’t call them brother and they are to be disciplined out of the church. If they teach this doctrine then we should publicly expose them for it and denounce their teachings. 

Another example would be: if someone is walking in open, public, unrepentant adultery then they should be disciplined out of the church and treated as an unbeliever, because adultery is clearly condemned in Scripture. 

But show us where Scripture specifically condemns things such as: plural church leadership, or use of other Bible versions, or amillennialism/postmillennialism, or calvinism, or different music/dress standards, or infant baptism, or practicing a balanced view of charismatic gifts, etc.? (These things are not a catalog of my personal doctrinal positions, but they are positions which are often held by saved & godly Bible believing Christians, which I have personally seen a very unhealthy and extreme repudiation of by IFB’s, even though none of them are remotely condemned in Scripture. If you want to know what I believe personally, ask me, I’d love to talk to you about it). I know, you think those doctrines & practices are wrong, unbiblical and perhaps even devilish – but that’s not the issue. That’s not the question! The question is – Show us where Scripture specifically condemns those things??? If you cannot demonstrate that, then you have no right treating other believers as though they are in grave error. Is it possible that what is actually happening is that they are in serious error according to Your tradition (which you have elevated to the status of the Word of God), but are not in error according to the Word of God? Your interpretation of the Scriptures is not equivalent to the truth of the Scriptures themselves – unless you believe that your interpretations are infallible – Are you willing to say they are? If not, then give grace and liberty to people.

Who determines Orthodoxy? 

Everyone agrees that we can disagree about certain things, but who ultimately becomes the judge of what is considered within the bounds of sound doctrine/practice? Of course, each church can decide this for their own members, but who decides for the whole of Christianity? In other words, if another Christian down the street goes to another church, what guidelines should we hold them to in order for them to be considered in the “safe zone,” or saved and godly, even though we differ on things?

To me it seems the IFB default is to make their own doctrinal & practice standards to be The Ruler by which all Christians are to be regarded as saved and sanctified. “How do we know what is right and wrong?” – Well, what do we believe and practice? The local church statement of faith and written or unwritten rules of conduct becomes the arbiter of sound doctrine for all of Christianity, and for the last 2,000 years??? Please think about that long and hard if that is your position. The founders of this nation and most of your favorite Christians from history were not of the equivalent doctrinal persuasions and character of today’s IFB’s.

Among Bible-Believing Christians there is a very high level of agreement on certain doctrines & practices, and also a wide variety of disagreement about other doctrines & practices. The things in which there is a high agreement on are the fundamentals of the faith – The Bible being the Word of God, the Trinity, the virgin birth, sinlessness and deity of Christ, the death, burial, resurrection and return of Christ, the Gospel of grace through faith in Christ, etc. The reason why there is a large consensus is because they are very clearly delineated in Scripture, and because they are the fundamentals – the things that are vital to our faith – God has made them very plan. These are the beliefs in which we can find Scripture actually condemning people who do not confess them. Contrarily, the reason why there is a wide disagreement about the non-fundamentals, or non-essentials, is because they are not clearly delineated in Scripture. There is room for disagreement. The Bible is not crystal clear, which is why honest, studious, careful Bible believers come to different conclusions. 

Christianity is much bigger than Fundamentalism. Of course, there is apostate, liberal, compromised “Christianity,” but there are also other genuine Christians out there, much different than yourself, who are just as saved, just as godly, just as loving, just as zealous, just as committed the the authority of Scripture, just as balanced and wise, and just as evangelistic as you are – and might I even say – more so than you are. If you do not believe this, you are believing a lie, you’re living in an echo chamber, and you are cheating yourself of benefiting from the Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of countless other modern Christians and giants of the past. Sometimes there is hypocrisy as well, because an IFB will study, benefit from and even promote saints of the past who they would strongly condemn and separate from if they were actually alive today. 

Individuals and the various traditions that makeup Christianity in the world all have strengths and all have weaknesses. Be quick to identify and work on improving your weaknesses and slow to point out and condemn others for theirs. I encourage you to get to know Christians who go to churches much different than your own. Be thankful for them and bless them. You don’t have to adopt their beliefs or practices, just love them. Receive them (Romans 14). If you truly think that you are the stronger brother, then follow the instructions of Galatians 6:1. Have you tried to lovingly, patiently, with understanding, show them the error of their way???

And another thing – Don’t be afraid. If you are afraid of associating with Christians of another stripe, thinking that you will be condemned by your brethren along with those “ungodly” non-Fundamentalists, then you are being ruled by the fear of man, not love. Jesus was no respecter of persons, neither should we be. Being more concerned about your reputation than you are about loving a fellow Christian is selfish, cowardly and hypocritical. 

Lastly, consider this. If Jesus came to your region of the world, would he only visit your church? Would He visit other churches as well? If he did, would he call them, “My people?” So, if Jesus would visit other churches and call them “My people,” then why would you not do the same? Why do you condemn others for doing what Jesus would do? 

Would Jesus eat with them, laugh with them, pray with them, and serve with them? If He would, then why aren’t you? Would the Lord have something against the other churches in your area? Yes? Would He have something to say against your church? If so, what would it be? You condemn that Christian girl for wearing a small nose ring, yet you look like a prostitute with that super short, tight skirt, or elongated underwear. Is she really that bad? In the words of one beloved IFB brother, sometimes we need “a check up from the neck up.”  

I hope and pray that God will pour out a spirit of honesty, humility, kindness, grace, patience, and wisdom on all IFB churches in America. May the Lord unite all of His people in Truth and Love.