There are three main systems of interpreting Scriptures that are the most prevalant in the Christian Church today: Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. The most popular today by far is Dispensationalism. However, "popular" does not necessarely mean "Biblically correct"; but just what it says: "popular".
The other two systems have been around much longer than Dispensationalism, and offer a better view of Scriptures than does Dispensationalism, with it's so-called "literalizing" hermeneutics. The author of this comparison wish to state his preference for New Covenant Theology, as being a more balanced system for interpreting Scriptures, and as being more in line with the Historical Baptist Faith.
In Fact, one could say that New Covenant Theology has been a distinctive of the Baptist faith since the Reformation of the 16th century. Many Baptists today consider themselves Reformed, in the sense that they view the New Covenant as the promised "time of reformation" that God had predicted in the Scriptures (Heb 9:10), and as the norm for Christian living, rather than the view that OT Law, Ceremonial-Civil-Sacrificial Law being excepted, is somehow still in effect for Christians today.
Although this author realize that no system has all the correct answers, I feel none-the-less, that New Covenant Theology is closer than the other two systems, especially when considering the fact that Dispensationalism, despite it's popularity, has a tendency when carried to it's logical conclusion, to alter the gospel. This is a most dangerous flaw in this system, and as such this author reject it.
Below are items that have been gathered to show, in very brief form, the main differences between the three systems. Hereafter, the systems will be known as [DISP] for Dispensationalism, [CT] for Covenant Theology and [NCT] for New Covenant Theology. This is by no means an in-depth comparison, but a simple outline of the main differences for information purposes only. Note that the author do not necessarely agree with everything that New Covenant Theology teaches, but that on the whole I am favorable to it's principal tenets.
[NCT] believes that [CT] and [DISP] both have part of the truth, but that they go to the extreme of either separating the OT and NT so much, as with [DISP], that there is almost no relation between the two. As John J. Reisinger so well put it "Dispensationalism separates the OT and NT so effectively, that never the twain shall meet." And [NCT] sees [CT] going to the other extreme of joining the OT and the NT so closely, that there is almost no discernable difference between the two. They believe that they have found the middle road, and we would "basically" agree with that assertion, without being absolutely bound by it, which means we don't necessarely agree with everything that [NCT] says.
*There is an unfortunate tendancy to translated the word "ecclesia" with the word church, when it can very well be translated "assembly", which would make more sense in the OT version of it. Since Jesus said that He would build His church, then it stands to reason that it wasn't yet built. Remember that Christ is the Head of the body, which is the church (assembly). No similar teaching exists in the OT.
*God's main purpose is His own glory, Christ included because He is the glory of God, and then the church.
*We think some of the old Dispensationalists did believe in a Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity, but we are not sure and I don't know about the new modified Dispensationalists.
*I don't know if I would agree with that, and this may be a caricature on my part, as I'm not 100% sure about this. (DH) [DISP] The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31-34 is only for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of Luke 22:20; although there is some disgreement among Dispensationalists about this.
*This is one of the areas where we believe that Dispensationalism, when carried to it's logical conclusion, alters the gospel of Christ, and so is a dangerous departure from authentic Biblical Christianity.
*The postponement theory has raised the question: "What would have happened if Israel had accepted the Kingdom offer?" This is a valid question, since it puts God's sincerity into question. This is another area where Dispenastionalism is shown to be a dangerous departure from the gospel. Here is a quote from "Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Christianity or Pseudo-Christian Cult", by John H. Gerstner.
Dispensationalism believes that the purpose of the first advent of Jesus Christ was to offer an earthly Kingdom to the Jews. This Kingdom would reinstate the Old Testament legal system and it's expansion to the entire world under the Messiah. When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and His Kingdom offer, plan B went into effect and Christ went to the cross to initiate the dispensation of Grace and the "mystery church". Had Israel received her King there would have been no cross - and no Gospel!
When Jesus came, He made a bona fide offer of the Kingdom and power to the people of Israel. (Quoted from: D.G. Barnhouse, He Came Unto His Own (New York: Revell, 1933), p.17)
What then, if the Jews had done their duty and accepted this offer, of the salvation of mankind? What of the cross - 'without shedding of blood there is no remission'? What of the prophecies pointing to the cross? How could Christ offer a Kingdom that He could not permit to be established lest there be no salvation of man by His shed Blood? Dispensationalists attempt to absolve themselves from the concept of making God a liar by claiming He knew no one would call His bluff.
He knew before He came that they would refuse it - knew from all eternity; hence, there are prophets which speak of His coming to die for us. ( Ibid.)
Still, the problem stands. Even if Christ made an earthly Kingdom offer knowing that the Jews would refuse, the offer could not have been redeemed. An offer that is impossible to honor is not a sincere offer but a fraud. Our God makes no insincere offers. Besides, if Christ came to establish an earthly Kingdom for the Jews surely He had opportunity, and the support of the masses -
Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone. -John 6:15
No, Christ came at the set time to die on the cross, to redeem fallen mankind. All true sons of Abraham recognized Him. It is at the Ascension that He received His Kingdom, and He is seated now on His Throne!
"Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come." -Eph 1:15-
NOTE: "A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology" was mostly written by Curt Daniel in "History and Theology of Calvinism." The New Covenant Theology items were mostly written by G. Richard Gaudreau. This short work was edited by Donald Hochner who had the idea for publishing this comparison, and did most of the work in asembling the data in an ordered form; so the credit for this brief comparison rightfully belongs to him. Donald Hochner is the minister of a Deaf Reformed Preterist Church in California. May God bless his work and the congregation there. (G.R.G.)
Email: ehochner@ptw.com