How Can I Understand the Bible? Installment 3
There are certain distinctions, contrasts, and disparagements between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. I am going to convey these differences as simply as I feel is necessary at this time and try to get back to this issue to offer a fuller treatment. After all there is a difference, we should not run from it but rather embrace it and find strength in our unity and diversity. Both have much in common both come to many of the same conclusions. Both have a love and passion for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Covenant Theology
The first distinction that may be observed is that Covenant Theology views the Church and Israel as the same in every age. Secondly this view is based on a faulty hermeneutical approach or method (i.e. allegorical or deeper or spiritual) which is based upon thirdly, the (eisegetical) notion that Christ or Salvation or the Church must somehow be seen in every text of the Bible.
Covenant Theology seeks to answer the question: “What does this passage have to do with God's salvation program?” Therefore, at times it must force an explanation into the text that is not consistent with normal rules of interpretation. This is the hallmark characteristic of Covenant Theology.
Dispensational Theology
Contrarily Dispensational Theology views the Church and Israel as separate and distinct. This is based on the plain and/or normal method of hermeneutics which even Charles Hodge assents to (this will come out in the next post if God permits) and it is based upon the perception that God's glory is seen in every text under consideration.
The question Dispensationalists seek to answer is, “What does this text have to do with God's glory?” Following the normal or plain method of interpretation the answer is lifted from any and every text of the Bible.
The Golden Rule of Interpretation
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. (Dr. David L. Cooper founder of the Biblical Research Society)
This concludes our study of Bibliology: the Doctrine of the Bible the next study in our series of Systematic Theology will be on Theology Proper: the Doctine of God. In the mean time I will post on one or two random subjects, particularly if there are any questions on what we have covered so far if I am not able to treat it on a comment thread.
For further study on hermeneutics and related topics the following books are recommended.
Dispensationalism Today (Charles C. Ryrie)
Dispensationalism: Mining the Riches of God's Word (Ernest Pickering)
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (C. I. Scofield)
Basic Bible Interpretation (Roy B. Zuck)
Hermeneutics (Henry A. Virkler)
I also recommend reading Rules of Interpretation from the The Biblical Research Society.
I hope you will be looking forward to the next post, The Composition of Covenant Theology.
posted by J. Wendell at 6:45 AM
14 Comments:
John, interesting. I don't know if I'd put each one as having a main theme.
Lutherans are the ones that look at salvation throughout the Bible with their law and gospel paradigm. Reformed people have the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism also ringing in their ears: What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. So, Reformed people, who are the ones who tend to be Covenant Theologians, take a blend. The redemption of God's people all for the glory of God.
As always, you are enjoyable and thought provoking.
By
Earl Flask, at 7/9/06 9:11 AM
Do you think that the Classic Dispensational dualism between heaven and earth is valid?
Is the Church exclusively connected with heaven as a sphere of privilege and blessing?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 7/9/06 9:56 AM
John, I would like to see some historical context on why the reformers are predominately covenantal?
It seems so many inerrancies stem from this misapplication of scripture, for example, anti-semitism, amillenialism etc.
Unless of course these correlations are unsubstantiated.
God bless,
Jim
By
Jim, at 7/9/06 9:14 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Earl Flask, at 7/9/06 10:33 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Earl Flask, at 7/9/06 10:37 PM
Hey Jim, I'll tell you why. It's because the Reformers were pretty smart, so just as they were right on the mark on justification though faith alone, so they were right on Covenant Theology.
Now that is a smart-alec remark if ever I saw one. :o) While that is what I believe, that is no real answer, it's just spouting off my biases.
I think John may be on to something when he identifies themes in the various viewpoints. There is a connection in Covenantal view which sees that the NT interprets the OT in terms of God's covenant of grace (e.g., with the Abrahamic Covenant) throughout the OT, where all are saved by grace alone through faith alone. A covenantal view has a natural affinity with that viewpoint.
I am curious about what's unbiblical about amillennialism? The name is misleading, because amillennialists believe there is a millennium. In their view, the millennium began when Jesus came and bound the strong man, Satan, when he was casting out demons, and especially in his death and resurrection, and will continue until Christ's return. Christ is reigning in heaven with his saints. Also, I don't think there is a natural affinity of anti-Semitism with amillennialism -- but I'm biased towards amillennialism and I don't like to think of myself as antisemitc. :o) But more seriously, Luther, who was amillennial, wrote some rather anti-Semitic remarks. The reformers, including my personal heros of John Calvin (who burned Servantis at the stake) and John Knox (who had various personal problems), while being gifted by God with many insights, were also very sinful men, like psalmist David. While these people exhibited various problems with respect to Jews, I don't think that is the case today.
By
Earl Flask, at 7/9/06 10:43 PM
earl,
You can see that those who are amillenial have taken all that was Israel and transferred it to the Church. Taking that, plus the long teaching by the Roman church that it was the Jews who were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ and those in the Reformation period retained some bad attitudes toward a people they no longer considered to be "God's people." That same attitude applies today, even to the point of saying the political state of Israel has no relation to the "nation of Israel" of the Bible.
There was a recent whirlwind surrounding the "Calvin burned Servetus" meme in some blogs. To give the short version: not true.
By
Malchymist, at 8/9/06 12:26 AM
Mal, thanks for your reply to my comments. I don't know what to say in response. I sense that you firmly believe that all amillenialists blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, and their believing that the political entity of Isreal today not being God's ecclesiastical people is evidence for that. If that is what you believe, I doubt we can dialoge.
btw, thanks for the correction on Calvin and Servetus. :o)
By
Earl Flask, at 8/9/06 1:51 AM
earl,
Oh no!! :^(
I merely tried to explain how some came to their poor opinion of the Jews.
My two points were
1.that it was the Roman Catholic Church which historically placed the blame for the crucifixion upon the Jews.
Which is part of why the Jewish people were so vocal about "The Passion of the Christ" movie. (seems obvious to me it was the Romans) (Pope John Paul II made an effort to repair that Church history)and
2. the Reformed teachers no longer consider the political state of Israel to be the true nation of Israel because the Church is now the people of God with the Davidic king (Jesus Christ) over them. This means they (Jews) are a no more special people to them than any other non-believers (such as the Palestinians).
By
Malchymist, at 8/9/06 3:54 PM
earl,
I reread my first post several times and now see why you would think what you said.
I should have put a BIG division between two parts.
The second is:
"a people they no longer considered to be "God's people." That same attitude applies today, even to the point of saying the political state of Israel has no relation to the "nation of Israel" of the Bible." should have been clearly distinct from the first half.
I hope that clears up the situation. Thanks for being kind and not just blasting me for what is an outrageous statement as it was written!
By
Malchymist, at 8/9/06 4:13 PM
Mal, please forgive me for not reading your comments as carefully as I should have. I understand and thank you for your kind clarification.
By
Earl Flask, at 8/9/06 10:29 PM
Hi Earl,
I often refer to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, it is a fine document that is very useful in clarifying and articulating the doctrine of the Presbyterian and Reform thinking. I agree whole heartily with the first statement (and many others BTW). “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” John Piper catches the idea and spirit of this in a phrase that he has popularized, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him” I say, "AMEN!"
~Matthew,
I’m not sure if your questions were directed to me or Earl. You asked,
Do you think that the Classic Dispensational dualism between heaven and earth is valid?
and
Is the Church exclusively connected with heaven as a sphere of privilege and blessing?
My answer is "yes" on both counts.
Jim,
It is in the works look for that on the next post.
Earl says,
There is a connection in Covenantal view which sees that the NT interprets the OT in terms of God's covenant of grace (e.g., with the Abrahamic Covenant) throughout the OT, where all are saved by grace alone through faith alone.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says,
The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (Ch.VII, secs II and III)
This seems to support the theory of federal headship, do you not agree?
Earl says,
I am curious about what's unbiblical about [a-millennialism]? The name is misleading, because [a-millennialist] believe there is a millennium.
Earl,
There are at least 5 different views about millennialism.
There are at least two views within a-millennialism. One is that the rapture begins the millennium, which is non literal language referring to the eternal order and is not realized on this earth that is why it is:
"a",
"non",
“notta”,
“anin’t gonna happen”
millennial kingdom on earth.
The other is, as you espoused,
…the millennium began when Jesus came and bound the strong man, Satan… Christ is reigning in heaven with his saints.
This is a-millennialism, because Christ is not reining on the throne of David, in Jerusalem, from this present planet, Earth.
The strength of both views is that they do recognize the present Kingdom of God in the hearts of all believers everywhere in heaven and on earth under the present "new" covenant.
Hi Mal…
you made some very good points, thanks for your input.
You also said,
There was a recent whirlwind surrounding the "Calvin burned Servetus" meme in some blogs. To give the short version: not true.
I do think John Calvin was responsible (by sanction at the very least) for burning that heretic. I don’t think that is a proper way to deal with those with whom we differ. Is the historicity of this being denied?
OK, now I am way off topic!
May God bless you guys real good today,
Brother John
By
J. Wendell, at 9/9/06 7:39 AM
Hi John, you say, "[WCF] seems to support the theory of federal headship, do you not agree?"
Yes.
Also, I agree with you, John Calvin's hands weren't clean with Servantis.
By
Earl Flask, at 9/9/06 10:51 PM
Hello,nice post thanks for sharing?. I just joined and I am going to catch up by reading for a while. I hope I can join in soon.
By
Anonymous, at 15/3/10 3:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home