There seems to be an historic Protestant way in which we have referred to the theological concept of justification. And if anyone reading this article can correct or expand my understanding here, particularly with a written source specifically on this subject, please do.
The ground of justification is the Passion of Christ; His life for our righteousness imputed, and His death for our sins atoned. The instrument of justification is faith.. The means of justification is the proclamation of the gospel and the Holy Spirit applying it.
Covenant Theology affirms that the entire formula above applies to justification in all ages. I believe that all types of Dispensationalism, generally speaking, would affirm this formula for what they call the "Age of Grace", or the "Church Age", and they too would affirm that the ground and instrument are the same in every age. The disagreement I believe would arise when we talk about the means in every age. It is here that I believe we get the reason for the oft heard claim that Dispensationalism teaches two "ways" of salvation. Though it seems to be clear that Darby, Scofield, Chafer and Ryrie would all deny this claim but, even if they would say that the means of justification in the "Age of Law" was the proclamation of the gospel, would they agree that the content of the gospel was the same? I think the answer is no. This begs the question, what is the content of the gospel?
According to Covenant Theology, the content of the gospel is always at least this, that God will (or already did depending on the perspective) provide the ultimate sacrifice to satisfy the demands of His Holiness. It is in the distinct expression of this promise that we find a difference as revelation progresses, but the shifts in the knowledge of the content of this promise are most often gradual: from the proto-evangel in the garden, to the salvation of Noah's family in the ark, to the substitute ram provided in the place of Isaac on Mount Moria, to the Suffering Servant desribed by Isaiah, on up to the culmination of all of those shadows in the revelation of Jesus on the cross.
On the other hand, Dispensationalism says (at least according to Ryrie, and this is where I need more information about other forms of Dispensationalism) that the content of that promise prior to the Church Age was not that specific, and that Old Testament saints did not necessarily have to see a coming Messiah/Redeemer in the shadows of the Old Covenant sacrifices, or that Abraham really only believed that God would bless him with many decendants and a physical land. Granted, these promises to Abraham, in their limited historical expression were very great promises which challenged the faith of Abraham, but to limit the content of his faith to just those things ignores the revelation previously provided for us. Though Abraham did not have a written copy of the pentetuch as the Jews later did, he would have had the stories of the garden and Noah to consider, and those types of Christ that would expand the content of his faith past what I believe Dispensationalism generally allows.
3 comments:
Are you saying that CT teaches that in all the ages before.All the believers heard the Gospel as we know it? That the HS baptised them into the body of Christ and that they had the indwelling Spirit?
Yes I would say that I as a Disp.would agree that that is the necessary action for eternal salvation in this age.
Christs sinless totally obedient life and death on the cross provide the sacrifice necessary for the return of a soul to a glorified body after death at the resurection .A soul whose iniquities have been forgiven a soul that now will have only one sinless nature,a new creation like Christ fit for life with Him
and the Father and Spirit.
Those faithful believing souls prior to the revelation of the Son were doing what ever God had directed them to do.Cain and Abel brougtht sacrifice to God.He had obviously revealed He wanted blood sacrifice.Abel believed in the existance of God but refused His instruction.
The people of the new testement before the cross were old testement believers some Saducees and some Pharisees with different thoughts about the future after death but they were both waiting for the Messiah to restore Israel to world prominance and an escape of this Gentile dominance in Jerusalem.
Even after Christ death and resurection Paul had to explain to assure the thessalonians not to worry about there relatives who had already died as believers that they would not miss the glories of the kingdom on earth at Christs return.These believers surely weren't afraid for the souls of the departed ones only that they would miss the earthly promises and Paul assured them that they would not.each in his order to return with christ in His glory.
All Disp. believe that Christ work as the last Adam is applied to all believers in all ages for their placement in the new creation that cannot fail,but as I'm sure you know we don't believe that all will be included as the bride of Christ.Those saved believers before the sending of the Holy spirt to indwell believers we believe will rule with christ as will those martered for the name of Christ in the coming tribulation.We believe they will be the guest at the marriage supper of the Lamb as he receives His Eve a gift from God for a help meet in the coming dispensation when man once again under even more perfect circumstances proves that in his state (the likness of the first adam) he is unable save himself.Obviously we believe that there will be in the next Disp. natural born humans with the need to be converted.The gospel will be the same with the additional help of seeing the glorified Christ glorified members of the bride and all believers from before plus angels and the lack of the influence of a bound satan.An earth being blessed thru the nation of Israel all of whose elect were saved and given new hearts that are able to now obey their God.Salvation is in every time from God.I have never heard of a dispensationalist who thought anyone was ever justified by the law.Do you actually think we are that unknowledgable. thanks for a place to state my case I hope I haven't said to much as I usually do
John,
Please re-read this paragraph,
"According to Covenant Theology, the content of the gospel is always at least this, that God will (or already did depending on the perspective) provide the ultimate sacrifice to satisfy the demands of His Holiness. It is in the distinct expression of this promise that we find a difference as revelation progresses, but the shifts in the knowledge of the content of this promise are most often gradual: from the proto-evangel in the garden, to the salvation of Noah's family in the ark, to the substitute ram provided in the place of Isaac on Mount Moria, to the Suffering Servant described by Isaiah, on up to the culmination of all of those shadows in the revelation of Jesus on the cross."
My intention was to basically make sense of these verses, John 5, 39-40, 8:56, and Gal. 3:7-9.
I also want to point out that Dispensationalism assumes 7 or so, major shifts in progressive revelation which correspond with the "dispensations", emphasizing the discontinuity between the former and later shift, but Covenant Theology assumes many, smaller shifts resulting in the continuity of the gradual progress of revelation.
I didn't say that all believers heard the gospel as we know it, but that the content of the gospel in previous covenants was much more than just, "trust god and be saved". Also, yes, ALL persons who are justified before God (and I assume this is what you mean by eternal salvation) have been baptized into the body of Christ. If not, then they go to Hell. If the grounds for one being made right (counted righteous) before God is Christ's life, death and resurrection in every age, then the application of that must be that everyone in every age is baptized into His body. If the OT saint was not counted righteous IN CHRIST (though they only had the types and shadows pointing them forward) then what was it by which he was counted righteous? It is this type of discontinuity, coupled with very confused statements made by Scofield and Chafer, that has lead the critics of Dispensationalism to accuse them of teaching two "ways" of salvation. Here, I'm not saying that modern Dispensationalism does teach two ways of salvation, but one should ask, when a system so wants to emphasis the discontinuity between the people of God, the content of the gospel of God, and the eternal state of saints in the OT and the NT, then why doesn't that same system consistently apply that discontinuity to the "way" or better, the means of salvation?
We, in all ages, are "doing what ever God had directed us to do", but the distinction between sanctification and justification must be made here; those things they were doing (obedience to the ritual sacrifices, etc), and those things that we must do are part of our sanctification, not our justification.
As far as OT saints alive with Jesus, they were looking for the Jewish Messiah to come and remove them from the oppression of the Gentiles empires, but Jesus corrected their understanding. The preaching of the Kingdom of God is one. Do you believe that Christ would not have gone to the cross if the Jews had accepted the Kingdom as it is identified in Dispensational theology?
Again I ask, as a dispensationalist, do you agree with the formula Ryrie sets forth for a difference in the content of faith in the different dispensations, with the object of faith remaining the same?
Have to go for now, but i will continue to reply to your comment later.
1 Thess. 4:13-18 "Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words."
Obviously, we have different hermeneutical assumptions that we bring to this verse as we go to interpret it. Yours is Dispensational Pre-millennialism, and mine is Covenant Amillennialism, thus our interpretations are widely different. You see this as a description of a "secret" rapture where believers at the time will be called up in secret to remain with Jesus in heaven for 7 years. i see it as the loud coming of Christ in His glory (His 2nd coming in fact). So I actually see this as a statement of the eternal unity of the believers who have died before Christ's incarnation with the believers who will die after Christ's incarnation. That is why Paul says that they should not mourn as the world does, and why he tells them to encourage one another with these words. Paul says that we who are still alive will not go to be in the presence of Jesus before those who have already died, because they are already there.
I believe you have the assumption that the earthly promises are for Old Testament believers and millennial believers and that the heavenly promises are for the church.
Regarding the future, I don't see anywhere in scripture that supports the idea that someone can be saved after Christ returns, is that what you are saying?
You said, "I have never heard of a dispensationalist who thought anyone was ever justified by the law"
Scofield says this, "“As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ... The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church...”
Chafer says this, “...with the call of Abraham and the giving of the Law and all that followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into favour with God... These systems [of law and grace] do set up conflicting and opposing principles. But since these difficulties appear only when an attempt is made to coalesce systems, elements, and principles which God has separated, the conflicts really do not exist at all outside these unwarranted unifying efforts...”
More later on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Post a Comment