13 comments on “Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 1”
Autumn Stan on said:
Thanks for posting this article. It was interesting to read the thoughts of a former professor. (I didn’t have a class with him, but Claudiu did while he was at Moody.) I’ve missed your blog entries and articles. Is this something you plan to continue? I hope you are well. Blessings to you and Karen!
Hello, just discovered your site and this article. I agree 100% and forgive what’s probably an obvious observation but I am convinced what you’ve described is specifically the result of the (to me) baffling resurgence of Reformed theology into formerly dispensational, or at least dispensational-leaning, “territories.” Full disclosure: I say this as one who’d be classed as a hyperdispensationalist: our own in-house squabbles with the remnants of ancient Reformed baggage go back to the 1930s and continue to this day…since we strive to be as consistent as possible in our dispensationalism (agree or disagree with us, we really do), I’m not at all surprised with the slide that’s taking place in more nominal dispy circles; take the SBC’s present issues with a renewal of strict Calvinism as a good example.
In my opinion, it all goes back to the historically incessant slide further and ever further away from the ministry and doctrines Christ gave us through the apostle Paul. Reformed theology, as far as I’ve studied it, has always sought to over-harmonize the New Testament at the expense of reducing and diminishing the Pauline texts to a status largely identical to those of the Gospel accounts and the writings of Peter, James and John (and usually subsidiary to them). This, we believe, is precisely what God did not intend to happen.
My point is, this resurgence of supercessionism comes as no surprise to us in our little corner of dispensationalism. In fact, we’re convinced all is proceeding precisely as Christ, speaking through Paul, warned the Body of Christ that it would. What you are seeing is going to get worse.
So keep looking up! and thanks for letting me share.
Thanks for posting. My observation is that no one is immune from this – and those who think they are in a group that is, usually end up realizing there has been a change after it’s too late.
I don’t know that it is the Covenant theology, per se, that pulls people in, it is the Calvinism that is usually bundled with it that does the pulling.
I find it interesting that the attraction of Calvinism is that it is generally regarded as “the thinking man’s theology” – and the academically credible one – while at the same time, it reduces soteriology to a simplistic out-of-balance system that can’t seem to deal with the sometimes uncomfortable tension that the Bible has within certain concepts (i.e., sovereignty and man’s will).
Since there are different definitions of “hyper-dispensaitonalism” – or at least the way it is applied (as the “Briders” in some Baptist groups) – but we all make the distinction between the Church and Israel in God’s program and two peoples of God.
I’m a former independent Baptist but I’m unfamiliar with Briders; I’ll have to look that up.
“I find it interesting that the attraction of Calvinism is that it is generally regarded as “the thinking man’s theology” – and the academically credible one – while at the same time, it reduces soteriology to a simplistic out-of-balance system that can’t seem to deal with the sometimes uncomfortable tension that the Bible has within certain concepts (i.e., sovereignty and man’s will).”
I’ll go you one better, if you’ll allow me. It’s not just out of balance. Calvinism is utter blasphemy against God and Christ. It’s very simply proved:
1. God, according to the Bible, wants all people everywhere to trust Christ upon hearing the Gospel of the grace of God. Calvinists agree that the Bible *appears* to teach this.
2. But God, according to Calvinism, secretly enables only a minority of humanity to believe the Gospel.
3. God, according to Calvinism and the Bible, condemns people for not believing the Gospel…even though (according to Calvinism) the reason they don’t believe it is because He never enabled them to do so…after all, whomever He sovereignly elects to believe, irresistibly does, sooner or later.
No way around it – Calvinism slanders God by making Him out to be a liar — condemning specifically for unbelief those He chose to be unable to believe. That is Calvinism’s blasphemy and must be exposed as such.
Worse: since Calvinism acknowledges Christ is co-equal with God from eternity past, He, too, can have no true desire to save the non-elect and so is just as much a liar as God the Father is.
If Calvinism is true, that is. Thank God it is not true. Still, Calvinism’s blasphemies are so subtle and (as you say) ‘scholarly’ they are without doubt Satan’s deceptive masterpiece of the modern age.
Thanks again for letting me post, you’re bookmarked.
Well, not trying for one-upsmanship, but it goes beyond even God enabling someone to believe. In 5-pt Calvinism, regeneration precedes faith, rather than being contingent upon it.
Along with this, which you said in other words, in presenting the gospel there are two things that cannot be said:
1. God loves you (because if you’re not one of the elect, He doesn’t)
2. Christ died for you (because if you’re not one of the elect, He didn’t)
There is a mystery in God’s election from our frame of reference and limited reason and knowledge. We also know that no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws Him.
But we don’t know the “mechanics” of exactly how this works – which undoubtedly requires an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal Being to grasp fully.
Unfortunately, neither full-blown Calvinism nor full-blown Arminianism are content to leave it at that.
My view is that we leave it where the Bible leaves it and accept that by faith. Anything less than this leaves us with a man-distorted theological mess.
Agreed, brother. Don’t worry about looking one-upmanlike, you don’t. Just iron sharpening iron unto the truth, as it should be.
Since you bring up election, let me leave this particular conversation (since we’re on much the same page) with this: an elderly pastor friend of mine has a convincing case that if you look at the biblical references to election, it’s not individuals being elected to salvation – he insists none are, as that would make God a respecter of persons, which the Bible repeatedly denies – but that Christ Himself is God’s elect One. Believers *become* elect “in Him,” unto positions of service within the Body. No one today is elected unto salvation, Augustine, Calvinism et al notwithstanding.
I’ve not seen this intriguing angle expounded elsewhere and he’s long issued a challenge that, to my knowledge, has never been adequately answered: drop all Calvinistic presuppositions (that many of us carry without knowing it) and find one verse in the N.T. where it says, describes or implies an individual being elected *TO SALVATION.* He insists no such verse exists, not even in Romans 9. Anyway, it’s a fascinating, eye-opening study if you ever want to pursue it.
Thanks again for your time and communication. Grace to you and yours!
Yes, I’m aware of this view – and it does have appeal, as well as a degree of biblical support. Of course, each view has at least the appearance of biblical support in different places or it really wouldn’t be a discussion among those with a high view of Scripture.
Obviously, we have to go with the view that most consistently is able to handle all of the relevant biblical passages.
I’m not sure this view does that fully.
There are several passages to consider, but one in particular would be 2 Thess. 2:13: “…because God from the beginning chose you to salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”
This passage seems to most concisely suggest the biblical balance or tension depending on how you want to look at it – God’s election and our faith are both necessary components of salvation.
Again, the mechanics of how that works itself out – I don’t know. Fortunately, we don’t have to be theologians to be saved – we only need to hear and respond to the gospel as the Holy Spirit convicts our hearts.
I assume you’ve considered this but if not, take a look at all of 2 Thessalonians–up to, including and past v. 13–not in the light of eternal soul salvation from sin (a Calvinistic presupposition) but of salvation from the coming wrath of God, which the Thessalonians had been duped into believing was already upon them despite Paul’s prior teaching.
To me, that fits the context of the entire chapter much better…they were worried they were NOT going to be saved from what’s coming upon the earth. Paul assures them that by their election in Christ, they would be most assuredly safe at the pretribulational rapture, were it to come while they were yet alive.
I do not see soul salvation as a required reading of the passage, especially not in the overall context of persecution and worldwide judgment.
Of course, Calvinists tend to doubly reject this reading out of hand, not only for the attack on predestination it poses but for the text’s pretribulational tone, which all Reformed thinkers tend to reject.
I agree with much of this article. However, I do have a thought about how dispensationalism has become an accepted part of a “biblical worldview”.
Dispensationalism is a philosophy, or theory which came from a man, and has become the accepted “glasses” through which most people read scripture now-a-days.
Has anyone every even questioned its reality and validity based SOLELY on scripture? Have you studied opposing views, to see if they make valid points?
Any theory that was developed by a man (John Nelson Darby) and earthly institution (Brethren Movement) should be at least suspect. We shouldnt just accept it as fact, just because it has been around and accepted for so long.
We have been challanging the theory of Dispensationalism, and have begun to look at the facts, and even opposing views. We have been finding enough information to at least see that Dispensationalism is NOT without error, in and of itself.
Should we TEST EVERYTHING, or NOT? Or are there still some denominational “sacred cows” we should never question?
No modern day doctrine, philosophy, or theory, that effects the way we interperet scripture is above reproach. If it came from a man in the early 1800′s, and mankind lived without it for 5800 years prior to its invention, then in our book, it is up for dissection.
Each and every one of us must TEST EVERYTHING!
Just my meandering thoughts for what they are worth to anyone.
Blessings.
It sounds like perhaps you are relatively new to the “dispensational discussion” overall – so I will just make a few observations and comments with that in mind. I will just number each point to keep them separate.
1. Dispensationalism as a philosophy or theory: Not exactly. Actually dispensationalism is a theology – and it came from man no more than the Trinity did. The theological concept of the Trinity is never found in Scripture stated the way we normally explain it. Rather it is a theology that is a compilation of ideas that are based directly on what the Scriptures do say. This is also true of dispensationalism.
2. Dispensationalism has become the accepted glasses: Although some may do this, this is not the way good dispensational theologians and Bible teachers handle it. Dispensationalism is not the grid through which we interpret Scripture – in other words, it’s not where we start. Rather it is where we end up if you consistently apply a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. Even those who don’t agree with dispensationalism acknowledge this.
3. Has anyone question dispensationalism based solely on Scripture: Actually that is the only way dispensationalism is ever defended and I only use Scripture when I teach dispensationalism. There are a number of very, very good books. The classic is Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie.
4. It was developed by a man: No, not really. The biblical authors, particularly Paul, we dispensational in their view of Scriptures and history. Darby helped to organize and systematize the various aspects of dispensationalism to a new level of detail – but many who came after him have done very good biblical work to refine his work.
5. We shouldn’t just accept it….: I have been a believer for almost 30 years and studied this issue for nearly this long and I have never heard anyone just accept it because it has been taught for so long.
6. Dispensationalism is not without error: I would put it this way, “dispensationalism is not without difficulties” – but that is true of every eschatological system. If not, there wouldn’t be any debate. However, the question system most consistently and comprehensively handles all the relevant passages. In the final analysis, when everything on the various sides is seriously considered, dispensationalism best does that.
7. Are there still some sacred cows: I have never encountered a serious student of the Bible or solid Bible teacher who ever held on to “sacred cows.” We must always allow the Bible to speak for itself.
8. Mankind lived without it for 5800 years: No, not really. You can see God dealing with man in various ways in various eras from Genesis to Revelation. Even non-dispensationalists recognize that there are at least 3 or 4 dispensations: From creation to Adam, from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Jesus, from Jesus to the 2nd coming.
Absolutely agree – everything must be tested. Scripture is the final authority in all things.
In traditional Reformed theology, by contrast to supersessionism, the church comprises the people of God throughout all ages. You don’t have two different entities (Israel, the church) which represent respective stages in redemptive history. Rather, the same entity (the church) goes passes through various stages throughout the course of redemptive history.
Yes, that is true – and sometimes “Replacement Theology” is too loosely used, with some dispensationalists thinking that Covenant theologians place the beginning of the church at Abraham. And in fact, I think I have seen that some non-dispensationalists have framed it that way.
Either way, the sense in which “Replacement” is generally (and arguably, rightly) used is with regard to the physical descendants of Abraham receiving very clearly literal promises concerning physical land and seed as being superseded by a spiritual fulfillment among the people of God as seen in this portion of God’s program – with the literal promises being abrogated.
So, in a way, it is as much a matter of semantics as much as anything.
And such is also the case in the argument that Covenant theologians don’t recognize dispensations, but rather covenants. The fact is that Covenant theologians do recognize there are dispensations (whether they call them that or not) – there are at least two – Pre-Fall and Post-Fall. And arguably at least three – because we no longer sacrifice animals at the temple (among other things). Call these eras what one will – they are still dispensations in much the same way that dispensationalists use the term. Likewise, dispensationalists also see covenants as providing a framework – and in fact dispensations are directly related to covenants – Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc. The difference is that dispensationalists focus on the explicitly stated biblical covenants based on an inductive study, whereas Covenant theologians focus on theological covenants which are the result of deduction.
Thanks for posting this article. It was interesting to read the thoughts of a former professor. (I didn’t have a class with him, but Claudiu did while he was at Moody.) I’ve missed your blog entries and articles. Is this something you plan to continue? I hope you are well. Blessings to you and Karen!
Hi Autumn,
Good to hear from you. Yes, I will be continuing the blog – I have had to work on other things for awhile, but will be getting back to that soon.
Dave
Hello, just discovered your site and this article. I agree 100% and forgive what’s probably an obvious observation but I am convinced what you’ve described is specifically the result of the (to me) baffling resurgence of Reformed theology into formerly dispensational, or at least dispensational-leaning, “territories.” Full disclosure: I say this as one who’d be classed as a hyperdispensationalist: our own in-house squabbles with the remnants of ancient Reformed baggage go back to the 1930s and continue to this day…since we strive to be as consistent as possible in our dispensationalism (agree or disagree with us, we really do), I’m not at all surprised with the slide that’s taking place in more nominal dispy circles; take the SBC’s present issues with a renewal of strict Calvinism as a good example.
In my opinion, it all goes back to the historically incessant slide further and ever further away from the ministry and doctrines Christ gave us through the apostle Paul. Reformed theology, as far as I’ve studied it, has always sought to over-harmonize the New Testament at the expense of reducing and diminishing the Pauline texts to a status largely identical to those of the Gospel accounts and the writings of Peter, James and John (and usually subsidiary to them). This, we believe, is precisely what God did not intend to happen.
My point is, this resurgence of supercessionism comes as no surprise to us in our little corner of dispensationalism. In fact, we’re convinced all is proceeding precisely as Christ, speaking through Paul, warned the Body of Christ that it would. What you are seeing is going to get worse.
So keep looking up! and thanks for letting me share.
Hi Don,
Thanks for posting. My observation is that no one is immune from this – and those who think they are in a group that is, usually end up realizing there has been a change after it’s too late.
I don’t know that it is the Covenant theology, per se, that pulls people in, it is the Calvinism that is usually bundled with it that does the pulling.
I find it interesting that the attraction of Calvinism is that it is generally regarded as “the thinking man’s theology” – and the academically credible one – while at the same time, it reduces soteriology to a simplistic out-of-balance system that can’t seem to deal with the sometimes uncomfortable tension that the Bible has within certain concepts (i.e., sovereignty and man’s will).
Since there are different definitions of “hyper-dispensaitonalism” – or at least the way it is applied (as the “Briders” in some Baptist groups) – but we all make the distinction between the Church and Israel in God’s program and two peoples of God.
Thanks, again.
Dave
I’m a former independent Baptist but I’m unfamiliar with Briders; I’ll have to look that up.
“I find it interesting that the attraction of Calvinism is that it is generally regarded as “the thinking man’s theology” – and the academically credible one – while at the same time, it reduces soteriology to a simplistic out-of-balance system that can’t seem to deal with the sometimes uncomfortable tension that the Bible has within certain concepts (i.e., sovereignty and man’s will).”
I’ll go you one better, if you’ll allow me. It’s not just out of balance. Calvinism is utter blasphemy against God and Christ. It’s very simply proved:
1. God, according to the Bible, wants all people everywhere to trust Christ upon hearing the Gospel of the grace of God. Calvinists agree that the Bible *appears* to teach this.
2. But God, according to Calvinism, secretly enables only a minority of humanity to believe the Gospel.
3. God, according to Calvinism and the Bible, condemns people for not believing the Gospel…even though (according to Calvinism) the reason they don’t believe it is because He never enabled them to do so…after all, whomever He sovereignly elects to believe, irresistibly does, sooner or later.
No way around it – Calvinism slanders God by making Him out to be a liar — condemning specifically for unbelief those He chose to be unable to believe. That is Calvinism’s blasphemy and must be exposed as such.
Worse: since Calvinism acknowledges Christ is co-equal with God from eternity past, He, too, can have no true desire to save the non-elect and so is just as much a liar as God the Father is.
If Calvinism is true, that is. Thank God it is not true. Still, Calvinism’s blasphemies are so subtle and (as you say) ‘scholarly’ they are without doubt Satan’s deceptive masterpiece of the modern age.
Thanks again for letting me post, you’re bookmarked.
Well, not trying for one-upsmanship, but it goes beyond even God enabling someone to believe. In 5-pt Calvinism, regeneration precedes faith, rather than being contingent upon it.
Along with this, which you said in other words, in presenting the gospel there are two things that cannot be said:
1. God loves you (because if you’re not one of the elect, He doesn’t)
2. Christ died for you (because if you’re not one of the elect, He didn’t)
There is a mystery in God’s election from our frame of reference and limited reason and knowledge. We also know that no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws Him.
But we don’t know the “mechanics” of exactly how this works – which undoubtedly requires an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal Being to grasp fully.
Unfortunately, neither full-blown Calvinism nor full-blown Arminianism are content to leave it at that.
My view is that we leave it where the Bible leaves it and accept that by faith. Anything less than this leaves us with a man-distorted theological mess.
Thanks for your comments.
Agreed, brother. Don’t worry about looking one-upmanlike, you don’t. Just iron sharpening iron unto the truth, as it should be.
Since you bring up election, let me leave this particular conversation (since we’re on much the same page) with this: an elderly pastor friend of mine has a convincing case that if you look at the biblical references to election, it’s not individuals being elected to salvation – he insists none are, as that would make God a respecter of persons, which the Bible repeatedly denies – but that Christ Himself is God’s elect One. Believers *become* elect “in Him,” unto positions of service within the Body. No one today is elected unto salvation, Augustine, Calvinism et al notwithstanding.
I’ve not seen this intriguing angle expounded elsewhere and he’s long issued a challenge that, to my knowledge, has never been adequately answered: drop all Calvinistic presuppositions (that many of us carry without knowing it) and find one verse in the N.T. where it says, describes or implies an individual being elected *TO SALVATION.* He insists no such verse exists, not even in Romans 9. Anyway, it’s a fascinating, eye-opening study if you ever want to pursue it.
Thanks again for your time and communication. Grace to you and yours!
Don
Thanks, Don.
Yes, I’m aware of this view – and it does have appeal, as well as a degree of biblical support. Of course, each view has at least the appearance of biblical support in different places or it really wouldn’t be a discussion among those with a high view of Scripture.
Obviously, we have to go with the view that most consistently is able to handle all of the relevant biblical passages.
I’m not sure this view does that fully.
There are several passages to consider, but one in particular would be 2 Thess. 2:13: “…because God from the beginning chose you to salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”
This passage seems to most concisely suggest the biblical balance or tension depending on how you want to look at it – God’s election and our faith are both necessary components of salvation.
Again, the mechanics of how that works itself out – I don’t know. Fortunately, we don’t have to be theologians to be saved – we only need to hear and respond to the gospel as the Holy Spirit convicts our hearts.
Dave
Dave,
My last post on this, promise.
I assume you’ve considered this but if not, take a look at all of 2 Thessalonians–up to, including and past v. 13–not in the light of eternal soul salvation from sin (a Calvinistic presupposition) but of salvation from the coming wrath of God, which the Thessalonians had been duped into believing was already upon them despite Paul’s prior teaching.
To me, that fits the context of the entire chapter much better…they were worried they were NOT going to be saved from what’s coming upon the earth. Paul assures them that by their election in Christ, they would be most assuredly safe at the pretribulational rapture, were it to come while they were yet alive.
I do not see soul salvation as a required reading of the passage, especially not in the overall context of persecution and worldwide judgment.
Of course, Calvinists tend to doubly reject this reading out of hand, not only for the attack on predestination it poses but for the text’s pretribulational tone, which all Reformed thinkers tend to reject.
I agree with much of this article. However, I do have a thought about how dispensationalism has become an accepted part of a “biblical worldview”.
Dispensationalism is a philosophy, or theory which came from a man, and has become the accepted “glasses” through which most people read scripture now-a-days.
Has anyone every even questioned its reality and validity based SOLELY on scripture? Have you studied opposing views, to see if they make valid points?
Any theory that was developed by a man (John Nelson Darby) and earthly institution (Brethren Movement) should be at least suspect. We shouldnt just accept it as fact, just because it has been around and accepted for so long.
We have been challanging the theory of Dispensationalism, and have begun to look at the facts, and even opposing views. We have been finding enough information to at least see that Dispensationalism is NOT without error, in and of itself.
Should we TEST EVERYTHING, or NOT? Or are there still some denominational “sacred cows” we should never question?
No modern day doctrine, philosophy, or theory, that effects the way we interperet scripture is above reproach. If it came from a man in the early 1800′s, and mankind lived without it for 5800 years prior to its invention, then in our book, it is up for dissection.
Each and every one of us must TEST EVERYTHING!
Just my meandering thoughts for what they are worth to anyone.
Blessings.
Hi Kimberly,
It sounds like perhaps you are relatively new to the “dispensational discussion” overall – so I will just make a few observations and comments with that in mind. I will just number each point to keep them separate.
1. Dispensationalism as a philosophy or theory: Not exactly. Actually dispensationalism is a theology – and it came from man no more than the Trinity did. The theological concept of the Trinity is never found in Scripture stated the way we normally explain it. Rather it is a theology that is a compilation of ideas that are based directly on what the Scriptures do say. This is also true of dispensationalism.
2. Dispensationalism has become the accepted glasses: Although some may do this, this is not the way good dispensational theologians and Bible teachers handle it. Dispensationalism is not the grid through which we interpret Scripture – in other words, it’s not where we start. Rather it is where we end up if you consistently apply a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. Even those who don’t agree with dispensationalism acknowledge this.
3. Has anyone question dispensationalism based solely on Scripture: Actually that is the only way dispensationalism is ever defended and I only use Scripture when I teach dispensationalism. There are a number of very, very good books. The classic is Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie.
4. It was developed by a man: No, not really. The biblical authors, particularly Paul, we dispensational in their view of Scriptures and history. Darby helped to organize and systematize the various aspects of dispensationalism to a new level of detail – but many who came after him have done very good biblical work to refine his work.
5. We shouldn’t just accept it….: I have been a believer for almost 30 years and studied this issue for nearly this long and I have never heard anyone just accept it because it has been taught for so long.
6. Dispensationalism is not without error: I would put it this way, “dispensationalism is not without difficulties” – but that is true of every eschatological system. If not, there wouldn’t be any debate. However, the question system most consistently and comprehensively handles all the relevant passages. In the final analysis, when everything on the various sides is seriously considered, dispensationalism best does that.
7. Are there still some sacred cows: I have never encountered a serious student of the Bible or solid Bible teacher who ever held on to “sacred cows.” We must always allow the Bible to speak for itself.
8. Mankind lived without it for 5800 years: No, not really. You can see God dealing with man in various ways in various eras from Genesis to Revelation. Even non-dispensationalists recognize that there are at least 3 or 4 dispensations: From creation to Adam, from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Jesus, from Jesus to the 2nd coming.
Absolutely agree – everything must be tested. Scripture is the final authority in all things.
Again, thanks for writing.
Dave
In traditional Reformed theology, by contrast to supersessionism, the church comprises the people of God throughout all ages. You don’t have two different entities (Israel, the church) which represent respective stages in redemptive history. Rather, the same entity (the church) goes passes through various stages throughout the course of redemptive history.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/supersessionism.html
Covenant theologians do not recognize “dispensations” , but “covenants”
Hi Ileana,
Yes, that is true – and sometimes “Replacement Theology” is too loosely used, with some dispensationalists thinking that Covenant theologians place the beginning of the church at Abraham. And in fact, I think I have seen that some non-dispensationalists have framed it that way.
Either way, the sense in which “Replacement” is generally (and arguably, rightly) used is with regard to the physical descendants of Abraham receiving very clearly literal promises concerning physical land and seed as being superseded by a spiritual fulfillment among the people of God as seen in this portion of God’s program – with the literal promises being abrogated.
So, in a way, it is as much a matter of semantics as much as anything.
And such is also the case in the argument that Covenant theologians don’t recognize dispensations, but rather covenants. The fact is that Covenant theologians do recognize there are dispensations (whether they call them that or not) – there are at least two – Pre-Fall and Post-Fall. And arguably at least three – because we no longer sacrifice animals at the temple (among other things). Call these eras what one will – they are still dispensations in much the same way that dispensationalists use the term. Likewise, dispensationalists also see covenants as providing a framework – and in fact dispensations are directly related to covenants – Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc. The difference is that dispensationalists focus on the explicitly stated biblical covenants based on an inductive study, whereas Covenant theologians focus on theological covenants which are the result of deduction.