Dispensationalism / Covenant Theology

The Dispy / Covenant debate has interested me for a while, and I have always been on the dispy side of the debate, but my certainty was never overwhelming. I believe this to be a secondary issue, so it's not something believers should divide over. Many of my favorite podcast sermons that I listen to weekly are from the covenant crowd, and I believe them to be strong Bible teachers. But I believe there are some very important implications that go along with the dispy / covenant debate, as far as trusting God and His promises. Let me illustrate:

If a dispy / covenant guy were dropped into the year 2009 and left to discuss the future, it would go something like this:

Dispy: I am looking forward to the return of Jesus Christ!

Covey: Me too!

Dispy: I don't know all the details, but I do know from the Scriptures that it will be preceded by a rapture of the Church, a 7 year Tribulation, and culminated with a 1,000 year Millennial Kingdom ...

Covey: Hold on! You are totally misinterpreting the Bible. You are assuming a wooden literal interpretation of passages that are not meant to be interpreted that way. This talk of a literal 7 year Tribulation and a literal 1,000 year Millennium is bordering on heresy. You are trusting God to deliver on promises that He never made. I'm looking for the return of Jesus, but the other details are just symbolic, and God did not intend for us to interpret them literally.

So, who is right? Just for kicks, let's drop these same two guys into the year 10 B.C.:

Dispy: I'm looking forward to the coming Messiah!

Covey: Me too!

Dispy: I don't know all the details, but I do know from the Scriptures that He will be born of a virgin, from the tribe of Judah, be born in Bethlehem, and also be a descendant of David ...

Covey: Hold on! You are totally misinterpreting the Bible. You are assuming a wooden literal interpretation of passages that are not meant to be interpreted that way. This talk of a literal "virgin" giving birth to the Messiah, and the literal genealogy and literal birthplace are bordering on heresy. You are trusting God to deliver on promises that He never made. I'm looking for the coming Messiah, but the other details are just symbolic, and God did not intend us to interpret them literally.

Now, let's drop our 2 friends into the year 28 A.D.:

Dispy: I am sorrowful for the upcoming crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but I know that He will raise Himself from the dead, just like He has predicted.

Covey: Hold on! ..... (you see where this is going, don't you)

How about if we dropped them into the year 40 A.D. and let them discuss the future of the Jerusalem temple? ...... (More of the same).

So I'm left with the following observation: While the current debate has reputable scholars on both sides, I have to acknowledge that the Dispy position (trusting God to fulfil His promises exactly as He says He will) has always been the correct position, looking back at Biblical prophesy. The Covey position (that the promises God has made about His future coming and judgement are largely figurative, and that the unfulfilled promises He made to Israel can be satisfied by applying them to the Church) may seem logical, but there is no Biblical historical precedent to assume such.

So while I may be wrong (and only time will tell), I will choose to believe in God's promises, exactly as He makes them. If He later tells me that those promises were fulfilled in a different way, then I'll gladly accept that. But until then, I'm not going to put myself in the place of God to determine which of His promises He will really keep and which are just symbolic.

After all, if God would forgo the promises He made to Israel because they were unfaithful to Him, what hope to I have that God will keep His promises to me? Lord knows I'm unfaithful and unworthy, but by the blood of Jesus Christ alone.