Covenant Theology and Dispenstionalism

[Wannabee]

Charlie,

Those are some great thoughts. I think you err in regard to dispensationalism's heremeneutic though. In the early years it was still in form, and largely, as you said, founded on contemporary exegesis (eisogesis in many cases) from diverse men, and even perspectives. But over the years there has been an effort to clearly define what the dispensational hermeneutic really is. Ryrie tried, but I don't think he really was able to grasp at it himself. The best treatment of it that I know of would be Robert Thomas' Evangelical Hermeneutics. He gives what is a fairly clear set of hermeneutic principles for the dispensationalist. Most find him very helpful, even if they disagree. I found it clarifying in many ways, but restraining in many ways that I perceived as confining God's Word.

Perhaps much of the differences lie between those, like Thomas, who have a good thorough understanding of hermeneutics, church history, exegetical ability and are truly theologians, and others who simply believe what they're told by their denomination, bite onto every new idea that comes along and fall into the program oriented church program mentality. These two groups, within dispensationalism, are very diverse. It may even be appropriate to somehow devise separate labels for them because of their vast differences.
On the other hand, I have not read a clear statement on Covenant Theology's hermeneutic. In fact, a few years ago we had a rather lengthy discussion on hermeneutics here and CTs did not rise to the occasion to present a set of cogent hermeneutic principles. The discussion was very valuable though, I thought. While I might not completely agree with what I wrote then, this thread should be a bit enlightening, and hopefully squash the idea of some nebulous dispensational hermeneutic.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/dispensational-vs-reformed-hermeneutic-13965/

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

According to Ryrie, the sine qua non or dispensationalism is its (radical) distinction between Israel and the church, and thus the "two peoples of God". This goes hand in hand with the teaching that the church age is a parenthesis not foreseen by the OT.

There are plenty of the "Old Guard" around who maintain that Progressive Dispensationalists, having abandoned certain crucial tenets (notably involving the points above), cannot fairly continue to call themselves dispensationalists at all.

 

[JM]

Dispensationalism has always been a theology in motion.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Dispensationalism has always been a theology in motion.

True.

The developments in dispensationalism spawned variants, but they all still exist, i.e the classics (a la Scofield/Chafer), the revisionists (Ryrie, Walvoord), and the progressives (Saucy, Blaising, Bock). I'm just saying, it's not like there are none of the older variety around. So, not only is the term fluid, but it depends on who is using it.

 

[CharlieJ]

Perhaps much of the differences lie between those, like Thomas, who have a good thorough understanding of hermeneutics, church history, exegetical ability and are truly theologians, and others who simply believe what they're told by their denomination, bite onto every new idea that comes along and fall into the program oriented church program mentality.

What I am about to say is not intended to be mean-spirited. I'm not into needless Dispensationalist flaming, since I have good memories of my education at BJU. I am very familiar first-hand with Disp. theology. However, Robert Thomas is the poorest excuse for a scholar I have ever encountered in this field. His book is perhaps the poorest hermeneutics book ever written.

At the beginning of the book he says something to the effect of, "Now, I'm not a hermeneutician, but" and goes on to critique every hermeneutician of the 20th century. Odd, isn't it, to write a book in a field in which you admit you are not a specialist, AND disagree with all the contemporary specialists?
His solution is to go back to Milton Terry and Bernard Ramm. I'm not going to criticize either of those guys, since they were luminaries in the field. However, Thomas has some romanticized notions about what these guys believed. In his book, Thomas "proves" pre-millennialism and denies preterism. However, Milton Terry was a preterist. Oops.

The really obnoxious thing about Thomas is that he doesn't know what is old and what is new. The central premise of his book is that "pre-understanding" has no role in hermeneutics. There is grammar and there is history, period. He rejects historical-grammatical-theological hermeneutics. He has the audacity to call a theological hermeneutic "new" and "evangelical," when it has been clearly taught since the Reformation. In his book, he adamantly denies that the Bible has any right to determine its own hermeneutical principles. Instead, he calls the apostles use of the OT "Inspired Sensus Plenoir Applications" (ISPA's), which he then brushes off as being meaningless to our approach to Scripture. For him, hermeneutics is a straight line, not a spiral. He also rejects the analogy of faith as anything but a last-resort check on exegesis. This necessarily drives him not to see typological references in the Old Testament except as a last resort. Also, there are no canonical horizons such as Christ or the gospel that provide a framework in which to read the Bible. There are simply individual passages speaking with individual voices.

In summary, the "new" "evangelical" hermeneutic is the belief that the interpreter must come to a passage with some information in his mind other than the words of that passage. Whether that is a Reformed person coming to a passage with an apostolic or Christ-centered hermeneutic, or a feminist liberal coming to it with a postmodern reader deconstruction theory, it is really the same thing. So, Thomas names amillennialism, preterism, open theism, theonomy, evangelical feminism, and evangelical missiology as fruits of the "new hermeneutic." Thomas has effectively made himself the Gail Riplinger of hermeneutic studies. All deviations from proper (Dispensational) hermeneutics find their source in the corrupt "new" hermeneutic.

It's strange, isn't it, that the Reformed and Lutheran hermeneutics are called "new" and lumped in with the hermeneutics of feminism and open theism? Robert Thomas seems to have never deeply interacted hermeneutically with anyone before Ramm and Terry, and after Gadamer.

On the other hand, I have not read a clear statement on Covenant Theology's hermeneutic. In fact, a few years ago we had a rather lengthy discussion on hermeneutics here and CTs did not rise to the occasion to present a set of cogent hermeneutic principles.

This actually highlights another difference in mindset between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism. When I was learning theology from Dispensationalists, it was a science. You take the raw data, plug in the "formula," and out pops your exegesis. It is clean and simple, except for a few difficult passages due to grammatical ambiguity and such. Then, learning from covenant theologians, I am constantly reminded that exegesis, like reading, is an art. Principles of interpretation can be stated, but they are not exhaustive. The Bible displays interlocking themes, intertextuality, typological significance, canonical horizons, and law/gospel contrast. It is unimaginable that you would actually capture all the meaning of a biblical passage through any one method of examination.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks Charle,
I found your comments on Thomas quite enlightening. You see rigidity where I see perspicuity. Reading Thomas helped me to form and sharpen my understanding in regard to hermeneutics. However, it is entirely possible that I took what helped and dismissed the things that I thought were impositions as I read through. However, if one came at his work with good historical knowledge and already doing hermeneutical work then I could see how a reaction such as yours would develop. I think your assessment harsh, but ringing with a bit of truth. Having sat under Dr. Thomas perhaps gives one a different perspective as well. He is a gentle, humble and gracious man. He'll stand on what he believes, but with grace and dignity. I'm sure that shades my reading of what he writes, though I disagree with his treatment of prophecy (the whole ISPA thing).
I have to wonder if there are differing perspectives of what "principles" means. I see it as a systematic approach that I generally follow in striving to mine the depths of God's Word with integrity and submission to what God is saying. Some perceive them as rigid rules. I use these to help keep me from imposing myself and teaching "Joe" rather than Christ. We all (most of us) have such principles, but few can articulate them.
As I read through the thread that I linked above, I found that I could no longer make some of the statements that I made. Dr. Scott had some influence on me being able to think through some of my rigidities, for lack of a better word. I continue to be a non-conformist, with CT and Dispensational leanings that sort of put me out in no-man's land. But I sort of like it out here. And, I'm increasingly finding that I'm not alone

 

[CharlieJ]

Thank you for your graciousness. What irks me about Thomas is not what he believes, but how he presents it. Whether Antiochine typology or Alexandrian allegory or medieval quadriga, or Lutheran Christo-centrism or post-Reformation covenantal theology, all ages and groups of Christendom prior to Dispensationalism have agreed on a theological dimension to hermeneutics. For Thomas to call this idea "new" and lump historic Christian hermeneutics with open theism and evangelical feminism is simply to display his own ignorance while smacking 2000 years of Christian theology in the face.

However, I love Dispensationalists. Some of my favorite professors are Dispensationalists. I have Dispensational ministerial students over to my home occassionally for prayer meetings. I don't think that Dispensationalists are bad Christians. For the most part, they simply haven't had any deep historical theology. Many lay people aren't even aware that there have ever been Christians who didn't believe in the Rapture. I was "burned" and "bitter" for a while, but it's not worth it. Love, forgiveness, and leadership by example is what the situation calls for.

Also, I can relate to being in no-man's land. It happens when people lose their Dispensationalism proper but don't have anything to turn to. After all, why jump into a new bandwagon just because the old one didn't turn out so great. Progressive Dispensationalism was an attractive alternative for me, but it is so ambiguous that it would be like declaring hermeneutical agnosticism. I can now firmly call myself a covenant theologian, but I had to work through issues such as, "Is there really a covenant of works and a covenant of grace?" I think giving up pre-millennialism was the hardest step so far, though not technically necessary for covenant theology. So, I don't blame you, Joe, for not being exactly where I am. It's far better to work through issues one at a time than to accept a whole system just for convenience's sake. Best wishes to you.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks Charlie,

One thought, in reaction to your closing comments: I have to consider the reality that it is entirely possible that you've gone too far in your shift. We are reactionary by nature. The pendulum swings wide, and it takes much discernment and wisdom to avoid the swings. It seems to me that those who were most steeped in dispensationalism swing most wildly at times. I'm not sure exactly where you started, but for me it isn't a swing so much as added clarity as I continue growing in Christ. I am bothered by "systems" that men seem to have to follow so rigidly. Rather than, "Thus saith the Lord," we often hear, "CT teaches," "Witsius said," "The confessions are clear on this." This board is confessional, and I strive to honor that. But the confessions are commentaries/systematics, not Scripture. I began to fall into that a few years ago, then realized I was leaning on the wisdom of men, in a sense, more than Scripture.
Systematic systems are good guides, but poor masters.

 

[CharlieJ]

It is possible that I am reactionary in my theology. At least, it seems impossible to prove otherwise. I don't really like the pendulum idea, because I don't see covenant theology and dispensationalism as being on a continuum. I also don't see them as strict alternatives, as if on every single point of redemptive history you have to be either one or the other.

For myself, I grew up Christian and started reading my parent's old Bible college theology books (like Thiessen's Systematic) when I was around 10. I read my Bible every day from age 14 until I was into college, when I started memorizing whole NT books. I was in high school when I wanted to preach on the rapture, so I began studying it. After weeks of study, I couldn't find enough positive teaching on it to believe it. The answers from my pastors seemed contrived. Before I graduated high school, I stopped believing in the rapture, even though I didn't know anyone else who didn't believe in it.

In college, I had to read Ryrie's Dispensationalism and was disturbed by it. I had most of the NT epistles memorized, and his explanations didn't seem to fit with the apostolic hermeneutic (even though I had never heard that term). I devoured books by Walvoord and Ryrie, but became increasingly dissatisfied with their conclusions. I was especially disturbed by Ryrie's insistence that the OT saints were saved by grace through faith in God, but not necessarily Christ. The DTS doctrinal statement says that the pre-Christian saints did not understand the typology of the sacrifices, but I knew Jesus had blamed the Pharisees for not seeing him in the Scripture. Having read only one book by a Covenant theologian, which was only partially about Covenant theology, I stopped believing in Dispensationalism.

After that, I was at first attracted to the Progressive Dispensationalism of my professors, but began to read much more widely. I found comfort in George Ladd, who denied what I saw as the problems of Dispensationalism while still having an eschatology that was familiar to me and a hermeneutic which seemed pretty close.

My point is that at every decisive moment in my life, I was not lured away by some other system of theology that I had read. Rather, I was forced to drop the system that I had due to too many anomalies. All my changes were gradual. By the time I picked up Vern Poythress' Understanding Dispensationalists, he didn't have to convince me of much. I was already there. Even today, I am still more familiar with Dispensational theology than any other system. In that, I believe that I have given it a fair shake.

On another note, I find it preferable to be within a stream of historical theology if possible. Much of modern "Biblicism" seems to me to be a Hegelian dialectic. "Well, the Calvinists say this, and the Arminians say this, so the truth MUST be somewhere between them." All that does is say that everybody up until the current person was wrong. I don't believe in something because it is a historical position, but I do believe that we ought to honor historical doctrines by searching them out, whether they be biblical. We ought to be "historical if possible," if I may tweak the Dispensational phrase. I had some hangups, such as whether the Bible actually taught a covenant of grace, and what the role of the law was in the New Covenant, but I am now convinced that the broad contours of "Covenant theology" are in fact biblically defensible.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks Charlie,

Good synopsis of your journey. I appreciate understanding and how things were shed, rather than grasped (groped for). The pendulum analogy does break down, but I find it helpful because people have a tendency to be reactionary. Just look at a freshman Calvinist. They're positively obnoxious.
History is a great instructor, and bears out the errors of the past, eventually. But lies die hard, and return with new labels. Arians dot the landscape with different faces (JW). Sebbelians are found in every town (Pentecostals). And, of course, Pelagius is alive and well, often in Dispensational churches. CT, as a system, has only stood for a few hundred years. Rome stood much longer than that, and still thrives. Even Calvinism wasn't a system until long after Calvin was dead. And each one is still in flux, to a certain degree. It will be interesting to see how history treats the differences between CT and Deut.

I hadn't thought of the Hegelian dialectic idea. It was more of a pursuit of truth that seems to keep me from embracing any particular system, rather than any desire to maintain a middle ground. If the truth is somewhere between CT and DT, then the DT needs to become more like the CT, and the CT needs to become more like the Deut. But most hate the very thought of that, and would rather cling to their system. I think that is much of the problem with claiming adherence to a system. I don't want to identified with Ryrie or Scofield, so identify me with Calvin instead. And actually, I fully agree with your last phrase. I am also convinced that the broad contours of CT are biblically defensible. I suppose we will now have to define "broad."

-----Added 2/2/2009 at 02:23:32 EST-----

I saw this in another thread and thought it described the diispensational hermeneutic I learned pretty well, with minor editing.

1. It is Christocentric. Christ is not a piece of earthly real estate.

2. It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants. It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel).

3. It takes seriously the time frame references in Scripture, as well as the original audience, and does not seek to rip them from their historical context.

4. It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. all 66 volumes).

5. It takes seriously the authority of the New Testament in interpreting Old Testament prophecy.

Heh, works for me.

 

[A.J.]

Anyone know any good online resouces for Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism? I don't think I understand either area fairly well and I want a clear scholarly description of both. Maybe an online course or something that's clear and cut.

See What The Bible Says About The People Of God by Nathan Pitchford, and this Covenant Theology Webpage which features two excellent articles from Robert Reymond.

Be sure to check this book also.

Amazon.com: Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: Books

In this book, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger does not only discuss the key Bible texts in the debate, and the possible problems associated with each eschatological position. He also offers a discussion of the history of the various views, and examines Biblical themes and presuppositions. After reading this book, one would have a better grasp of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions. I am reading God of Promise right now by Horton. We'll see how it goes.

MY gf also purchased Riddlebargers book on Amill. I'll get to that eventually.

 

[Quickened]

I had some hangups, such as whether the Bible actually taught a covenant of grace, and what the role of the law was in the New Covenant, but I am now convinced that the broad contours of "Covenant theology" are in fact biblically defensible.

What did you read to further your understanding in terms of the CoG? I am assuming its not just one thing (based on your prior posts). Another question i have is what occured that you originally had some hang ups with the CoG?

(side note) i have appreciated you insight and contributions in this thread!