The Earnest Contender

Saturday, October 01, 2005

The Two Roads Graphic: Explained

TWO ROADS

The two roads graphic is a custom design that my wife created for me when I was teaching a course on Systematic Theology. It really looks good on an overhead. She is working on figuring out graphic/photo additions to blogs. In the mean time I will share with you what it is. It is a picture of a road that comes to a fork. The name of the road is Read the Bible then it branches off in two directions. The right side exit ramp is The Covenant Theology Freeway. The left side is the entrance ramp to The Dispensational Highway. That’s the road less traveled nowadays, but it is the way I choose or am predestined to go.

On the Covenant freeway there are some landmarks. The first landmark is the Christological or Soteriological approach to the Bible: looking for Christ or salvation in every text. The next landmark is Allegorical interpretation … which tends to spiritualize and look for “deeper hidden meaning”. Then we come to a stop sign because this approach has led us to the conclusion that Israel and church are the same, “the church has replaced Israel”.

On the Dispensational Highway there are also some landmarks. The first is the Doxological approach to Scripture: finding God’s glory in every text. The next landmark is the plain and normal interpretation to discover the intent or meaning, “It means what it says…” We then come to a yield sign that reads, “Israel and the church are separate”
I hope this explanation helps to clarify the poor display.

15 Comments:

Here's a good comparison of the different systems, however it may be biased.

http://www.solagratia.org/Articles/A_Comparison_of_Three_Systems_Dispensationalism_Covenant_Theology_New_Covenant_Theology.aspx

By Shawn, at 1/10/05 2:55 PM
Or goto http://www.solagratia.org/

and search for "compare dispensation"

I also just created a short link for it that redirects it that page.

http://comparetheology.notlong.com

By Shawn, at 1/10/05 3:00 PM
Shawn,
Thanks for those links. I am looking forward to exploring them. BTW, I've been reading some of your comments in other places and I really think you have a good spirit about, you Shawn. Thanks for coming here.

By J. Wendell, at 1/10/05 7:54 PM
I must respectfully disagree with you. The covenant way of reading the bible is Christological but not to the exclusion of the doxological. In fact, I beleive the very fact that it is Christological makes it doxological.
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
(Col 1:15-20)
Also, Jesus interpreted the Bible in a Christological manner.
"And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
(Luk 24:25-27)
Jesus interpreted Scripture in light of Himself and His own glory.

As to the allegation of an allegorical method of interpreting scripture in the covenantal tradition, we interpret Scripture in light of it's genre. Psalms are interpreted as Psalms, historical as historical, apocalyptic as apocalyptic, narrative as narrative, and parabolic as parabolic. This is the proper meaning of a 'literal' approach to Scripture, interpreting Scripture according to its literary genre.
Maybe I should have just posted this on my own blog...

By Jeremy Weaver, at 3/10/05 10:53 PM
Brother Jeremy,

Thank you for you comments here. I appreciate my brothers with various views. Did you notice that Jesus used the portions of Scripture that spoke of Himself. I don't think He had to find any deeper hidden meanings to do it. The Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic was sufficient for Him.

You may wish to look at some of the comments on the previous post with brother Shawn. I agree with being careful about the context of literary forms as well.

By J. Wendell, at 4/10/05 6:57 AM
That graphic is poor, look how crooked the lines are...don't tell anyone I drew it!

By Rose~, at 4/10/05 2:11 PM
Sorry Rose,

It is written.

By J. Wendell, at 4/10/05 5:11 PM
"I don't think He had to find any deeper hidden meanings to do it. The Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic was sufficient for Him."
I believe that statement 100%.
But I also believe that the texts that do not mention Christ specifically can be categorized in 4 ways as Bryan Chappell writes in 'Christ-Centered Preaching'.
Predictive of Christ,
Preparatory for Christ,
Reflective of Christ, and
Resultant of Christ.

By Jeremy Weaver, at 4/10/05 6:24 PM
Bother Jeremy,

Thanks for the comment, I certainly do enjoy Christ centered, Bible preaching, and your method looks good and sounds good (the alliteration), and many times that is the result of following the normal, or plain interpretation. I would add that the interpreter should do his or her best to lift the intent of the biblical writer from the text (to gain the intent of the text). If we ask, "What did the author mean to convey to the readers at that time in history?" The result is not always Christ as much as we may wish to see Him there.

I will try to probe this at another time too.

God's best to you,

John

By J. Wendell, at 5/10/05 6:55 AM
I hope I didn't come off as too confrontational. But by nature I am a confrontational kind of guy. So I guess what I really mean is, I hope I didn't come off as mean-spirited in my confrontationalism.
:-)

By Jeremy Weaver, at 5/10/05 12:12 PM
John Wendell (that is a mouthful) You are so dogmatic! Now do a new post already.

Jeremy, don't you ever go to work? :~) I like your new word, "confrontationalism". John Wendell is very confrontational, too, so you guys are of the same ilk, I think. Besides, when one starts a blog, what is one looking for, anyways, a giant cyberlove-fest (like my new word?)

By Rose~, at 5/10/05 1:50 PM
I'm actually at work. Shhh. Don't tell.

By Jeremy Weaver, at 5/10/05 1:54 PM
Brother Jeremy,
I like your attitude, and I would not expect, nor desire, you to change your "confrontationalism" for anything! (By the way, I like that word.)
Let's operate under this phrase, "As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Prov.27:18) In order for this to occur, there must be at least some friction. :)

In His eternal friendship,
brother John

By J. Wendell, at 6/10/05 5:13 AM
I am not quite sure how you make the leap from a Christological or Soteriological approach to allegorizing to allegorizing the scriptures to saying that the church has replaced Israel. As someone who takes the Bible very literally, I am confused how you make the conclusion that because I may choose to look for how each passage in scripture points to Christ, I interpret it allegorically. Even more confusing is how this then leads to believing that the church has replaced Israel in some sense. Could you please clarify how you get from point A (Christological/Soteriological) approach to point B (allegorical interpretation) and then to point C (the church has replaced Israel).

By stroku, at 11/10/05 12:28 PM
Kurt~
Thanks for taking the bait. I was aware as I posted this that I did not fully explain. In fact, I oversimplified the issue. You asked a good question. This, as well, will require a complete post to answer. Look for it to come in the following weeks. Keep coming back and thanks for commenting.

By J. Wendell, at 11/10/05 11:30 PM