Bovine Theology

I’d never heard this song. I enjoyed the verses but the “refrain” hit my like a bat on the forehead. It shouldn’t have, but it did.

Today I sat and talked with my good friend Andy. During our conversation, he said something to the effect of this line, that God is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob…and of Seth and Leslie. This struck me. It is powerful, covenantal language. We talked about how in Scripture we are reminded that our God is the same God of these men. But how did Abraham feel? Jacob had the promise, but Esau had all the external blessings of strength and physical benefit. I needed to be reminded of this truth. Each of these men certainly had some trying periods in their lives, where they had to wait long periods of time to see God’s faithfulness. God wasn’t incapable during these times. No doubt, He was at work. But I’d bet these guys had to wonder at times, when God would fulfill His promises to them.

Andy and I talked about being in holding patterns in life. I’ve certainly felt that way for some time. And yet I am reminded that God is faithfully working to conform us to the image of His Son. I’ve struggled with my own personal worth, with my jobs, finishing seminary, providing for my family, etc… Yet all of these pale in comparison to the waiting I am struggling with right now as I see Leslie struggle with cancer, and the ongoing treatments. Tomorrow she is to begin round two of chemotherapy. She seems so frail physically, and I hurt to know that there are dark clouds in front of her with this next treatment. But just as God was faithful to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so He is faithful to us. I don’t know what that will look like exactly. I know what I want it to look like. I want Leslie to be restored physically. But just as these men were promised many physical things, the fulfillment of the promises were and are spiritual (even though there was temporal physical fulfillment; that was certainly not the extent of it). Abraham certainly had a large family, but we know ourselves to be sons of “Father Abraham.” As children of God we are the beneficiaries of the promises of a Land and an inheritance to come. It is beyond what we can see with our eyes. I am so thankful for that. The physical restoration I want for Leslie would only be temporary (but I, of course, still want it). Yet I know there will come a day when real restoration will be a reality for all of us that belong to Him. And so my hope and trust is in Him, to do as He sees fit. And if that means ongoing treatments and suffering for Leslie, my hope will not fail, because ultimately my hope extends beyond this life and this world.

This evening Leslie’s sister, Dana, came into town to take her to chemo tomorrow. I am so thankful for this as I have nearly exhausted my time off work. The doctors, and those who have gone through similar treatment, have said that the fatigue and any sickness will come a few days after the infusion. She will spend about four hours tomorrow receiving the chemo intravenously. She will then wear a pump home and return on Thursday to have the pump removed. This regiment will repeat every other week for the next six months.

There are many who continue to minister to us. Several folks at work continue to provide meals. Kristin has been helping with the kids. My neighbor keeps cutting the grass. Christ is sustaining us. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our God. He is faithful!

I’ve really enjoyed reading through the Jesus Storybook Bible with my children. It is written for young children and creatively tells many stories of the Bible in language that young ones can understand. But what I like best about this Bible is that it tells the rest of the story. Each story points to Christ. Last night we read about the promise of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah. At the end of the story it tells of One who would be born in the same family, who would be the Rescuer. Tonight’s story is that of God’s call to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. At the end, it states how the Rescuer would also climb a hill with wood on His back and would willing lay down his life. But as we know, unlike Isaac, Jesus actually was the sacrifice. The ram that God provided to Abraham points to the Lamb of God. Just like Isaac was Abraham’s only son, Jesus was God’s only Son. The main point of the story is that in both instances, God provided the sacrifice.

I’m not sure how much my kids understand. But the point is that they are hearing not just the stories, but the Story. The entire Bible is one large story that culminates in Christ’s coming, His death and resurrection, and ultimately His return for His People.

In my preaching classes I was taught that this is to be our object of every sermon. Every time a preacher preaches he should end with Christ. I love how this Bible does this so clearly for children. And I love the big eyes that I see across the top of the book as I read to them. It makes me want to be like them, wide-eyed as I read all of Scripture. It is a great primer for children to begin understanding the unfolding Story of Scripture, and I commend it to anyone with young kids.

FIDE-O usually writes things I agree with, in content, but sometimes not in manner. They can tend to be caustic. So I was surprised today when reading the current post that it seemed so well-balanced, both in content and in candor. Then, as I finished the article I noticed a link to read the rest of it at modernreformation.org. It was an article by Michael Horton. (I’m not sure my link will work, but you can go to the archives, and then go to the Sept/Oct 2006 issue). I don’t mean this a knock to the FIDE-O guys. I’m glad they posted it. I just wish they wrote with as much grace more often.

And speaking of grace, I sure need an extra dose of it today. On Monday we found out my mother-in-law would no longer be able to keep our girls after preschool (and on the days they don’t go). The termination of services was immediate (due to a pinched nerve). So I am taking vacation the rest of the week to keep the girls. It’s been fun, some. But it’s also been unnerving. My “anger problem” has resurfaced. But let me focus on the positive. For example, how much fun is it to stick a doll up your shirt and announce, “I have a baby in my tummy!”? Evidently it is tons of fun. At least for 3 and 4 year old girls. It is also “fun” for the 3 year old (well almost, she’ll be 3 next month) to announce “I tee tee’d in my pull-up,” just mere minutes after putting a clean one on her. Then, not doing a very good job of containing my frustration, I find her sitting in a puddle in my chair. Yes, my chair. Evidently, the way she was sitting, the pull-up didn’t do it’s job. And so now, my chair is drying and I have to sit in a hard wooden chair as I type this. Do you feel my pain?

Now, I’ve just been told, we are at the hospital and we’re going to take my daughter’s baby out of her tummy (that’s the way they do it, you know). But the baby has to stay until she’s ready to go home. So Aggie is now getting and giving shots to everyone. Oh, the drama! But I can now announce that I’ve held her precious baby and that we must all be quiet now because she is resting.

Jerry Falwell died unexpectantly. It’s been interesting to read some of the responses, from Ralph Reed’s initial response just moments after the announcement, to Jason’s at FIDE-O, to Jolly Blogger’s, and maybe most especially Steve Camp’s. For the most part, many Christians seem in some way appreciative of Falwell and his ministry. It seems to me, from my reading, the closer that people were to him in relationship, the more committed they were to him as a person. May you’re saying, “no duh!” But my thought is that most want to admire from a distance those in Christendom who are controversial. It’s safe. I think that is what many have done and will do with Falwell. But the reality that has struck me is that those who knew him in some way, who have spent time around him, are unapologetically appreciative of him as a person and his ministry. That ought to teach us something of the importance of relationships. In our denomination, Frank Barker is in many ways a father of the PCA. Now in my short history, I’ve actually had people say to me things that were less than complimentary about Dr. Barker. But I’ve always defended him. Say what you want about Frank Barker, the man lives what he believes. I know this from working in the church he planted 40+ years ago, and from passing him in the halls, sitting under him in seminary classes, seeing him at church on Sunday, etc… He is the same man every where he goes. He’s authentic. He’s the real deal. I may not agree with everything he says (e.g. we differ on the creation account), but you can’t argue with his life. He doesn’t have “preacher mode” that I’ve ever witnessed. He speaks in the same voice wherever he is. And he acts the same way. He’s humble, and lives simply so that he can give generously. And the only way I know those things are from those around him. He doesn’t brag. So my guess is that those who knew Jerry Falwell best, and who spent any time around him, have the most right to speak about the man following his death. I may not agree with him that teletubbies are evil, but it sounds like he genuinely loved Christ and wanted to make Him known.

Okay, so to end on a lighter note, let me whole-heartedly endorse a new choice in breakfast cereals: Arrr-mini-ohs, with the tag line, “It’s all up to you maties!” And last but not least, my friend Van forwarded this to me: a disturbing, frustrating, yet humourous account of why people don’t like Christians (not for the easily offended…Mom!).

It’s been a while since I could post due to a number of things, mostly a certain book. Actually, it’s a certain stack of books (albeit a small stack). I’m trying to finish a course in my seminary studies, an apologetics course, to graduate with a Masters of Biblical Studies. I’m not giving up on my Master of Divinity (which I’m about 70% through). But since it’s taken me so much longer than I had hoped, I decided I wanted to get something to show for what I have done. I’m doing this partly for my own motivation, but also to possibly open up some doors of opportunity. So, all that to say, I’ve had my nose buried in the first of four books, a rather enjoyable comparison of apologetical methods, edited by one of my seminary profs, (Dr. Steve Cowan). The book is Five Views on Apologetics. I won’t get much into the book here (I’ll save that for later), but I will say that as much as I have been in the classical camp for as long as I’ve studied apologetics, I am really enjoying the writing of John Frame. I haven’t finished and am not nailing down any stakes, but so far I really like what Frame is saying and the way he is saying it.

The special committee of the PCA’s General Assembly to study “Federal Vision” has released their report. And as far as I have scanned over it, I’m pleased. It’s available here. The heart of their work can be found in the nine declarations they made:

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Derek Webb has a new album coming out this week entitled The Ringing Bell. I always enjoy Derek’s music and his lyrics.

Taxes are due in a few days and so every spare waking moment of mine has been dedicated to this task that I loathe. Not much time for writing. I was especially disappointed since it’s the Easter season and my heart has had a lot in it that I wanted to get out. Maybe next Easter I’ll have my taxes out of the way.

I’ve referred in a few posts to the issue of the tomb of Jesus being “found.” James White has now written a book entitled, “From Toronto To Emmaus: The Empty Tomb and the Journey from Skepticism to Faith” on the subject. The Apologetics Resource Center has it available to purchase on their site here. On the back cover Ligon Duncan writes,

“James White has done a splendid job of answering questions that would have been raised in the minds of thoughtful inquirers by the sensationalistic but dubious documentary ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus’ by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici. Readers who think Christians are afraid of hard facts will have to think again after reading this rapidly produced but superbly informed and rigorously reasoned rejoinder.”

The fact that Christ is risen is not only central to our faith as Christians, but it is a fundamental motivation for living. If death had not been conquered, if Christ were merely an example, if there were no eternal hope or greater reality than the one in which we exist, why wouldn’t we want to end it all. So while this controversy may seem trivial to many in Evangelicalsim, recognize that it is not. At the same time, don’t become anxious about it either. There is nothing new under the sun and Christ sits not in heaven ringing his hands, but triumphant on His throne and reigning over His kingdom. In Acts 2:30, Peter (referring to David) spoke, “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ…” Wow! Christ is now on David’s throne, reigning. David foretold it “being therefore a prophet” and Peter confirmed it. That gives us a lot to celebrate at Easter and every reason to rebuff any notion that the tomb of Jesus has been “discovered.” Walk in confidence this day, if you are a child of the King. He reigns!

After writing a piece (again, not meant to be exhaustive or systematic, just anecdotal) on why I hold to Covenant Theology, a good friend of mine (Van Edwards) commented, “So when I read this, should I interpret it as a literal allegory or allegorically literal?” I’m sure it was tongue-in-cheek. But it prompted me in just as much fun to write a little prod back. However, I thought I’d write a bit more, mostly for myself, but if it can help to carry a dialogue along with anyone else, then good!

I think what Van is getting at in his comment is, if I consent that some Scripture should be understood allegorically, then how do I know what Scripture that is, and what Scripture that is not. However, my jab back to him and my thought now is, “Isn’t that a fair question for the Dispensationalist as well?” First, I have not found a Covenant Theologian (in my circles…namely, conservative) that would not hold to the view that Scripture should be interpreted literally where possible. That is to say, unless there is a reason to interpret it non-literally, then it should be understood literally. The Dispensationalists that I’ve been under and those whose books I’ve read say the same thing. The difference between both groups is what Scripture is to be understood literally.

From my Covenantal viewpoint, I come to prophecy not for a detailed roadmap, but for hope (Isa. 40:1; Luke 21:28; 1 Thess. 4:18, 5:11). When I consider many of the prophecies in the Old Testament that speak to the coming Messiah, I see some details revealed (that were literally fulfilled, although the readers didn’t get it any more than Jesus’ contemporaries…even after He pointed them out) that point to how Jesus came, lived and died. However, most of the prophecy was speaking to give God’s people hope, and to point them to the object of their faith. If we see through a glass dimly, they were looking through a really, really dim glass. We look back at OT prophecy about the Messiah, and say, “It’s so clear!” Now when we consider the return of Christ, we are in their shoes. But we don’t have a detailed roadmap (in my opinion). Rather we have an overview of the overall movement.

Other than prophecy, we (Covenant Theologians) and Dispensationalists share much in common. This is why our libraries look so similar and we often attend the same conferences. It really comes down to how we approach prophetical Scripture, and more specifically who is/are God’s people(s) and what will the end look like. Dispensationalists like to say it is hermeneutics. They accuse Covenantal folks of interpreting Scripture allegorically. But again, find a conservative CT who treats any/all Scripture allegorically. I haven’t found one. Rather, I’ve found only those who come to certain types of Biblical writing (literary types) with allegorical glasses (such as poetry).

So is it hermeneutics or the system of theology that triumphs the Dispensational cause? The ones who I’ve talked with over the years argued they, as Dispensationalists, don’t teach theology. They teach Scripture. And they do so literally. Consistently literally. But this never seemed right to me. First, what bothered me about this was logic. As I grew older I came to realize that no one comes to anything they study without predispositions toward a system of understanding. This same argument is one we use for those trying to prove evolution. They come to every “scientific” study they conduct with a predisposition toward their system of “evolutionism.” We all do this. The Dispensationalist argues that his system is simply the Bible, and the literal interpretation of that. Okay then, that’s your system. But then can your system triumph the actual meaning of the text? I say, from logic alone, “yes!” For example, when Christ said at the Last Supper, “This is my body,” was it literally body or literally bread? Now I’m not trying to stir up a debate here of Lutheran type. My point is, what did Christ literally mean and what does it literally mean for us? Most Dispensationalists say communion (the Lord’s Supper) is a memorial. It’s not literally Christ’s flesh. To use a prophetic example, what about Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones? What about when Jeremiah said he would remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh? (that was Jeremiah wasn’t it…it’s getting late!) Even Darby stated that John 14:18 spoke of an invisible coming of the Holy Spirit (not visible or “literal”).

Recently, I listened to a speech by John MacArthur (entitled, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist”). In this talk, he laid out the premise that if your hermeneutic is correct, they you’ll get Israel right, and if you get

The second issue that has bothered me about the Dispensationalists’ claim to interpret Scripture consistently literally (the first was logic) is from Scripture itself. As I have pointed out above, there are a number of passages that Dispensationalists do not interpret literally. I will cite only one (since I have pointed out others above and even more are readily available in writings by scholars who merit more attention than my own ramblings). I refer to Psalm 22. In this psalm, there are portions that were literally fulfilled. Christ did cry out, “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Soldiers did cast lots for his clothing. But Christ is not a worm (v. 6), nor did bulls surround him (v. 12), nor dogs (v. 16), nor was He afraid of the mouth of an actual lion (v. 21). My point here is that the audience of that day would not have known what portion of that prophetic psalm was to be viewed literally and what was to be viewed allegorically. A point was simply that the Messiah would suffer and die. His death would be one in innocence. This passage doesn’t give a detailed roadmap (although we understand the details in hindsight, but those that were literally fulfilled and those that were allegorical).

So while the Dispensationalist is driven by a theological system of God working inconsistently through history, Covenant Theologians are driven by a system of one single unified movement of God unfolded in history. It is the latter that I hold to. I admit I am no less objective (nor more) than the Dispensationalist when it comes to hermeneutics. Rather, we are both influenced and sometimes driven by our theological system. And so to answer my friend Van, interpret what I am saying literally, unless you deem that it must be taken allegorically!

I’ve recently been questioned as to how I came to hold to Covenant Theology. It’s a good question for me to try and answer. I didn’t grow up in a Covenantal context. Rather, I grew up in a Dispensational Bible church. In that church I was given a healthy, weekly dose of biblical exposition. It was usually morning and evening, and often in Sunday School. I don’t remember learning the system of Dispensationalism, but I certainly heard from it consistently.

When I left home to join the Navy, my father gave me a copy of J.I. Packer’s Knowing God. I didn’t enjoy reading much, and really had no love for theology. But because of the stresses of leaving home and having my faith questioned regularly by others, I dove in head first into this book. There were some hard truths within those pages. I didn’t know it was written from a Covenantal perspective. I simply recognized the truths within the book that I had been taught from Scripture all my life. I spent nearly a year reading it, often rereading pages until I understood them.

Soon after that, I got plugged into a PCA church in Hawaii where I was stationed. There I began to interact with Reformed theology, from a Covenantal perspective. I didn’t recognize so much the hermeneutical system as I did the truths within Reformed theology. I soon was able to wholeheartedly agree with Calvinism and Reformed theology. But I still wrestled with the system of hermeneutics (although I couldn’t necessarily articulate it). Dispensational thought was engrained within me, even though I didn’t know it. So when it came to eschatology and my view of the Church, I still had Dispensational leanings.

After leaving the Navy I served in a Southern Baptist church. There, I continued to study authors like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and other Reformed guys. I really had to defend being Reformed and that caused me to be more convinced of my beliefs. But Dispensational thoughts were still there.

From there, I returned to serve in the church I grew up in. I was Associate Pastor there for three years. It was during this time that I really began to look at hermeneutical systems. As I considered Dispensationalism, and I was certainly being encouraged to adopt this system, I became more and more frustrated. I liked many things about it, such as the literal approach to Scripture and the seemingly convincing eschatology. This was of course due to the fact that I was taught there that Covenant Theology treated Scripture allegorically and that it was nearly heretical to consider the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. But the system itself still did not gel for me. One of the significant factors was the fact that many, if not most, of the authors I respected (and even those within this church respected) came from a Covenantal perspective. Because I wasn’t convinced of Dispensationalism, I felt compelled to study Covenant Theology more deeply.

I went from that church to Birmingham Theological Seminary where I pursued my Master of Divinity. It was during these years that I saw clearly several things about Covenant Theology. First, the Covenantal view of one God, with one people, and one means of salvation seemed consistent not only with Scripture in particular but seemed more consistent to God’s very nature. Although I struggled to articulate it, it seemed strange that God would have two people. This distinction, as engrained as it was in my head from birth, seemed inconsistent as I read not only the New Testament, but also as I studied the Old Testament. The way I began to understand it, the nation of Israel was the infancy of God’s revelation of His people, just as the Law had been given as a tutor to this infant people. As Christ came and fulfilled all that the Old Testament prophesied, so the expansion of His people went from infant Israel, to the adult Church. It is one and the same people. Covenant Theology teaches not that the Church replaces Israel, but that the Church is the further revelation of God’s people. Secondly, I learned that the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism wasn’t a literal hermeneutic versus an allegorical one, but rather what each system considers literal. Covenant Theology uses a literal hermeneutic. It treats Scripture that is to be understood literally, as literal. The difference is that Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism disagree over those portions which are to be understood allegorically. Certainly, Dispensationalists don’t treat every word of Scripture literally. They simply disagree with us as to what is to be understood literally and what is allegorical.

I’m not writing this to be an exhaustive treatise on Covenant Theology. It’s simply my story. And at this point of that story, Covenant Theology just makes sense to me. This doesn’t mean that I have it all sorted out. I don’t. Although I’m Covenantal, I’m still quite sympathetic to Historical Premillennialism, for example. I wouldn’t say that I hold to this view of eschatology, but I’m still open to it. And that is quite acceptable in my denomination, the PCA. In fact, a number of pastors and professors I have set under hold to Historical Premillennialism. I’m still studying Amillennialism, however, as well.

So, I can clearly say at this point that I am Reformed, a Calvinist, and that I hold to Covenant Theology. Each of these perspectives has caused my love and faith in God to grow to a deeper level, and I have a stronger desire to see His glory shine as a result. And so, until I am convinced from Scripture otherwise, I’ll stand here. To read a more “scholarly” (and I use that term very lightly) approach to Covenant Theology versus Dispensationalism, I have posted it here in three parts: Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Critique

The author, although raised in a Dispensational Bible church, is convinced today that the system of Dispensationalism is faulty. This is not to say that the contributions Dispensationalists have made should be discounted. Many Dispensationalists have made profound impacts in the work of the Kingdom and will continue. Nonetheless, all personal feelings and ties must be put aside, as much as possible, to objectively as possible, evaluate both systems, and in this case defend the pre-eminence of Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism.

It is interesting to note the historical development of Dispensationalism and particularly its rise in popularity against the backdrop of Revivalism in America. There is little doubt that the two are closely intermingled. Furthermore, the most fundamental characteristic of Revivalism is man-centeredness. This anthropocentric disposition flourished during the late 1800s and early 1900s mainly because of the following elements: 1) the individualistic tendencies of Dispensationalism; 2) democracy in America; 3) Arminianism’s misnomer of free will. Although this facet cannot be further expanded at this point, it is at least worthwhile to mention as a basis for understanding the domination of Dispensationalism today. Additionally, it is important to see the connection of Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and Democracy as systems (all growing significantly during the same historical period), each being dominantly man-centered.

In “Dispensationalism Today”, Charles Ryrie accuses Covenant Theologians as having God’s redemption of the Elect as his chief goal. Furthermore, he claims that the Dispensationalist’s view of God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. But his further explanation is what is most disturbing. He writes:

Covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle. This is undoubtedly partly due to the spiritualizing of the text of Scripture so that there is little or no future for Israel, thus obliterating the distinctive purpose God has for that people. If that were not obliterated, then the covenant theologian would see that the glory of God is to be realized fully not only in salvation but also in the Jewish people and also in His purpose concerning angels. (emphasis added)

If Ryrie’s accusation that Covenant Theologians do not hold God’s glory in the highest regard, as his ultimate goal, then concession would have to be made. But as shall be made clear, this is not true. The accusation is false. However, before moving on, it must be questioned concerning his comment regarding a distinction between “salvation” and “in the Jewish people.” Are the Jewish people to be compared to angels? Is there a difference between God saving a Jew and God saving a Gentile? Does Revelation, or any other prophecy, describe a distinction between Jews and the Church in heaven? The answers are of course all “NO.”

In defense of the accusation against Covenant theologians by Ryrie, Mathison shows how God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. He cites the Westminster Confession of Faith along with numerous Reformed theologians who have written in support of the notion that God’s glory is his ultimate goal, including A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof. He summarizes with the following conclusion, “Reformed theology clearly recognizes that God’s ultimate purpose is His own glory.” At best, both systems agree on this point. However, there still seems to be an underlying current in Dispensationalism that anthropocentric. This current will be further explained in the following critique of the distinctives of Dispensationalism: the literal hermeneutic, the secret rapture of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the Church.

Although the distinction between the Church and Israel is arguably the most formidable distinction between the two systems, Dispensationalists certainly seem to cling most loyally to their “literal, normal, plain” hermeneutic. Although numerous texts could be pointed out wherein the Dispensationalist uses an inconsistent hermeneutic (Matt. 24:34 to name only one), the most fundamental issue is that of “presuppositional hermeneutics.” In other words, every theologian comes to his desk, just like every scientist comes to his lab, with presuppositions. It is impossible for anyone to be purely objective, both the Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian alike. So when Ryrie claims that Dispensationalists (or literalist as he also uses) do not deny figurative language, symbols or spiritual truths but simply interprets the Bible “normally,” we must then ask, “Who is it that interprets any other way?” Does the Covenant Theologian interpret abnormally? Would most Dispensationalists claim that of Covenant Theologians? It is doubtful. Regardless of Ryrie’s wording, the bottom line between the two is not really normalcy, but a mere difference of opinion in meaning. The Dispensationalist says that the “horse” is literally a horse while the Covenant Theologian says that it represents a powerful nation. This is a difference, and this difference comes from a presupposition. The presupposition determines what is figurative and what is not. To use Matthew 24:34 again, the Dispensationalist claims that this is figurative (Jesus is referring to the entire Jewish race when he uses the word “generation”) while most Covenant Theologians see it as literal (the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70). Go to another text and the reverse is true. Accusations could fly back and forth on any given text. But the hermeneutic is not at issue (or at least at issue alone). The presupposition is. One comes to the Scriptures with the presupposition that God is immutable and sovereign and he relates to man through covenant. This shapes the “normalcy” of interpretation of every passage. The other comes to the Bible with the presupposition that God has a plan to test man, man will fail, and then God will judge him which in turn shapes his “normalcy”. Furthermore, the former requires a greater understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture. Covenant theology does not make sense in a piecemeal manner. Dispensationalism can easily be fragmented, as has been the case over the past 150 years, into numerous factions.

To deny the secret rapture of the church and the ensuing seven years of horror on earth before Christ’s second (third?) return is nearly an abomination (at least in the Bible belt). Yearly “Prophecy Conferences” at countless churches and books and movies like the “Left Behind” series fuel thoughts that the secret rapture is certainly biblical. So when one is confronted with the notion that this entire train of thought might not be biblical after all, it is certainly difficult to accept. To say the least, the doctrine is not overtly biblical. John Walvoord concedes that is completely circumstantial. To say that God’s people will be spared wrath, in the form of persecution, would simply be unbiblical (1 Peter is full of the contrary as one example). The main texts that Dispensationalists use, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, neither necessarily refer to the removal of the Church from the world. Only a presuppositional hermeneutic can lead one to that conclusion. The meaning, clearly enough, is that those saved will not face wrath but are appointed “to receive salvation.” Why reclassify the meaning of the word “salvation” to mean something different than eternal salvation? Is that an inconsistent hermeneutic? Furthermore, those who appeal to the promise to the church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10, to be spared of the testing to come, must allegorize that church to represent the Church in the future. Why shouldn’t it be the literal church at Philadelphia? Another passage that Dispensationalists refer to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. The reference to the “last trumpet” establishes a problem if another trumpet is to be sounded at the visible coming of Christ (Matt. 24:31). Either the “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15 is not the last one, or the two events are not two events. Without accounting for the attempts that Dispensationalists make to explain these texts, it is sufficient to say that a literal, plain hermeneutic will not lead one to a doctrine of a secret rapture. Only with a presuppositional hermeneutic will one arrive at such a destination.

As has been stated more than once, the distinction between Israel and the Church is the most significant distinctive of Dispensationalism. As opposed, the unity of the two for Covenant Theologians is also important. However, the importance for the Covenantal Theologian is not based on the same reasoning as that of the Dispensationalist. The unity, for the Covenant Theologian, comes from a covenantal view of God’s relating to man. God always relates to man through covenant. The unity isn’t necessary to fit the system. The unity necessarily comes from the system. Moreover, the system is based not on anything to do with man, but completely on God’s character. Man is merely the recipient of the covenant. He may break it, but God will not. He may be unfaithful, but God will not be. The system is not man-centered. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, sees the distinction between the two groups as necessary to fit the system. Their system is man-centered instead of God-centered. God is testing man to see what man will do. When man fails, then God judges man and starts all over again. Man is on the center stage. History becomes man’s story rather than God’s story, even though most Dispensationalists will claim a sovereign God. Their claim falls apart, as Mathison explains: “because of their weak view of depravity and their belief in unlimited atonement, dispensationalists have a confused doctrine of election – an unstable mixture of conditional and unconditional election. As a result, the biblical doctrine is corrupted.” Additionally, who God is characterizes how he relates to man. Although there is no overt biblical support for this facet of the argument, it at least seems logical to note that a sovereign, faithful, immutable and omniscient God is necessary to Covenant Theology. On the contrary, Dispensationalism could exist within Arminianism, open-theism, and other views that need not a sovereign, faithful, immutable or omniscient God. Although the latter does not deny that God could be any or all of those attributes, it certainly does not seem to be a system derived from the character of God who possesses those attributes. Therefore, based on God’s character alone, it would seem logical, if not necessary, that God would relate in a consistent manner to man. It is Covenant theology that is described by this consistency, in particular with how it views Israel and the Church. Furthermore, to reiterate a previously stated point, it is Christ who has fulfilled all that Israel lacked. This makes the Church a further developed people of God, not a separate people of God. It should be noted as important to ask of the Dispensationalist how the “two path” and “parenthesis” notions fit together, as well as how the object of faith for Old Testament saints, New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles can be unified (it must be Christ according to Acts 4:12) and yet not unify. The Church stands on the shoulders of Israel and the Jewish faith. Therefore, there is no need to shun Israel today or the Jewish people. Rather, Christians should recognize the great heritage that exists in Israel and among the Jewish people and ought to have a great burden in their heart for the evangelism of the Jews. On the contrary, Dispensationalists make unfair claims when they state Covenant Theologians have no place for Israel in their hearts. The command given was to go to ALL the world. Evangelism is to all people. And because there is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved than that of Jesus Christ, the Jews of all people need to hear this. Their pump has been primed if they know the Old Testament. However, if the Old Testament is divided, and the unity is broken, the Messianic Jew could certainly suffer from a minimized view of Christ and His work.

And so it must be said that there is no perfect system. One day all will be sorted out, but for now it is imperative that all test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The Dispensationalist should be encouraged to search his Bible not only with a zoom lens, but also with a wide-angle lens. He must “back up” and see the whole picture. He must understand that “context is king”, not his literal hermeneutic. He must see who God is, and understand that He works according to His character. He must appreciate prophecy, but not be consumed by it, understanding its purpose is not to have a detailed map of the future but to live a hope-filled life in these tumultuous times. He must see how Israel was chosen not because of her worth but because of God’s good will and mercy. He chose Israel. And thus, He chooses each one, who are known as the Elect. And finally, he must see that our God is a God of faithfulness, a covenantal God who relates to man by means of covenant. And by understanding this about God, he can then know so much about more His work, His world, and His story.

Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology “stresses the unity and continuity of redemptive history,” holding that God relates to man through covenant. Covenant theology sees no distinction, spiritually, between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. The Old Testament believers looked in faith to the coming Messiah (their object of faith being Christ) as do the New Testament believers look in faith to the already come Messiah, Jesus Christ. God’s sovereignty is supreme in that He has always been the initiator of the covenant relationship, and because He is unchanging, so are His ways. O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as a “bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Throughout history, hold Covenant Theologians, God has worked by initiating the bond, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, through the mode of shed blood, under the complete context of his sovereignty. Geerhardus Vos explains further that “the outstanding characteristic of a berith (the Hebrew word for covenant, tyr]B=) is its unalterableness, its certainty, its eternal validity, and not its voluntary, changeable nature.” In other words, Covenant Theologians see God as the author of history, sovereign over the course of every wind. He did not write history as an ad lib script to be completed by man. The covenant’s “certainty” and “eternal validity” is not based on anything to do with man. This comes from God’s character. It is His faithfulness that makes the covenant a certainty. Therefore, Covenant Theology makes its argument to be a God-centered theology, basing its understanding of all things according to who God is, not what man has done.

While Dispensationalists claim an adherence to a literal hermeneutic, they accuse Covenant Theologians of using a double hermeneutic. However, Covenant Theologians claim a consistent hermeneutic, interpreting literal as literal and figurative as figurative. Poythress provides some help here when he writes, “To define literal interpretation is not so easy as it might appear. Ryrie invokes other, related terms like “normal” and “plain” to explicate what he means by literalness. But by itself this explanation is not enough. Our sense of normality depends radically on our sense of context, including a whole world view. One major aspect of the problem of defining “literal” is that in many instances words, but not sentences, have a literal normal meaning. Moreover, for both words and sentences context is all-important in determining meaning at any given point in an act of communication. What contexts areas to be looked at, and how they are to be looked at, in determination of meaning is very important.”

What Poythress clarifies in this explanation is that the Covenant Theologian’s aim is the right meaning, not just the literal meaning. The author may not have intended the literal meaning, but rather used a term figuratively. Arguably, those in the Dispensational camp would claim that this end is their goal as well. Yet many Dispensationalists make the accusation that Covenant Theology allegorizes or spiritualizes the normal meanings of words, and therefore interprets them incorrectly. As has already been stated, the fair question to both sides would be, “Who determines which words are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively?” Covenant Theology does not accept the accusation by Dispensationalists that it allegorizes at will, but rather holds to the notion that context determines meaning and sometimes that meaning is figurative.

Within Covenant Theology, individuals may maintain any of the following eschatological views: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, as opposed to the Dispensational system which allows for Dispensational Premillennialism only. Within the three systems linked to Covenant Theology, the secret rapture of the church is not an element. There is only one Second Coming, not two. The two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 refer to the resurrection of the individual soul from death and secondly, the resurrection of the body to eternal life, according to Covenant Theologians. Note that Revelation 20:6 states “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ.” This description is descriptive of all believers, not simply a certain group within a specific period of time. “The rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years has ended. But then the general resurrection occurs, which involves all people and includes both body and soul (Rev. 20:11-15).” Not only will there not be a secret rapture according to Covenant Theologians, but present-day believers need not fear of going through the Tribulation either. Particularly thought provoking is the consideration of Matthew 24:34, where Christ states that the present generation would not pass away until all that he had promised in the Olivet Discourse regarding the Tribulation had occurred. Many with the Covenantal perspective believe that this much of this prophecy was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

As was stated previously, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of the relationship between Israel and the Church. As opposed to this view, Covenant Theologians view a unity between them. Although Dispensationalists claim that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament, many passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel are used of the Church in the New Testament, including Exodus 19:5-6 in 1 Peter 2:9, Jeremiah 24:7 in 2 Corinthians 6:16, Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Luke 22:20, and Leviticus 19:2 in 1 Peter 1:15 to name a few. Mathison provides further clarification by explaining that one must distinguish between the nation of Israel (all Israeli nationals) and the True Israel, or Old Testament saints. The nation of Israel included believers and unbelievers, as does the visible church today. The latter was the spiritual body, the people of God, the Elect. It is that group, when Covenant Theologians refer to Israel, which maintains a unity with the Church (the True Church). In other words, God’s people are his people now and always. He does not have two groups of people, on two different tracks, or in two different spiritual spheres. Whereby the New Testament believer looks back (historically speaking) to Christ in faith, the Old Testament believer looked forward in faith to the promise of the Messiah to come. If one can understand the biblical doctrine of Election, then one can understand this unity that Covenant Theologians claim exists between Israel and the Church. Just as God will reject Gentiles who have refused Christ, so He will also reject Jews who have refused Christ. Romans 11 paints a clear portrait of unity which Covenant theologians hold exists between Israel and the Church. “God does not plant a brand new tree. He does not break off believing Jews and believing Gentiles from their respective trees and graft them into a third, new tree, all the while maintaining the unbelieving Jewish tree.” This grafting idea in Romans 11 is made clearer when one does not see the Church as simply a “straight-line continuation of Israel,” but rather sees the Church in light of Christ’s fulfillment of all that the Old Testament held in promise. Inasmuch as Israel had fallen short of God’s standard, Christ fully met the standard (2 Cor. 1:20). If this notion of unity is true, and if it exists only and completely because of Christ’s fulfillment, then the New Testament believer should, upon discovery of this truth, have an expanding worship of God because of who he is and what he has done in Christ to make us “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).