Proclaim His Excellencies

This blog is moving

2008-12-02T10:05:00.004-06:00

I will be moving this blog to www.proclaimhisexcellencies.wordpress.com Those of you who have an RSS feed be advised.

The Word on Worldliness

2008-11-26T13:19:00.004-06:00

A couple of months ago I read C. J. Mahaney's book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World. This book was and continues to be a source of conviction to me. What a joy it is to have our thirst for our past mindset and activities wane as our thirst for Christ and his transforming work in our lives increases. While I was reading it, my pastor, Drew Conley, was preparing to present a paper on Worldliness at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching at Detroit. I was also very excited to know that he would be presenting his study to our people at Hampton Park. The first question I asked him was, "Have you read Mahaney's book?" To which he answered "No. Intentionally." I appreciated his response. He wanted this to be a first-hand, biblical survey of the topic without too many outside influences. Drew Conley's treatment of the topic was thorough, balanced, and convicting. I was especially excited to see the similarities in the two studies. This tells me Mahaney and Conley are reading the same "book." Nonetheless, I wanted to post a .pdf of the general outline of Pastor Conley's messages as well as the audio messages themselves. I hope this will be of spiritual benefit to you as it has been to our people.

The Word on Worldliness pdf

The Word on Worldliness Part 1

The Word on Worldliness Part 2

The Word on Worldliness Part 3

The Word on Worldiness Part 4

A slight disappointment with the ESV Study Bible

2008-10-28T13:18:00.004-06:00

Before I jolt too many of you out of the excitement (yea even euphoria) that surrounds the ESVSB, let me first begin by saying that I am very impressed overall with it. Especially helpful are the articles on Old and New Testament theology, the canon of Scripture, and the introduction to the gospels and Acts by Darrell Bock. I also found Piper's and Hughes's articles concerning one's reading of the Bible to be very instructive and convicting. My disappointment came in my reading of the introduction to Genesis. Specifically, the section entitled, "Genesis and Science." The author of the introduction does give a good survey of the various ways interpreters have taken the days of creation. He ultimately argues that no violence to the historicity of Genesis is done if one does not hold to a solar day. In the notes of Genesis, the author opts for the "work day" interpretation which also is a metaphorical view of the days of creation. There are a couple of concerns. 1) I know the Hebrew use of "day" can be used in several different senses, but the Scriptures do seem to go out of the way to mention that there was evening and morning. This would seem to limit the use of "day" substantially. 2) On a theological note, I have a concern with giving credence to the "day age" theory or other theories that seek to allow for long periods of time in an effort to square with fossil records and other "scientific" theories. Rom. 5:12 states, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." If one is trying to account for fossil records and the like by expanding the days of creation into long spans of time, then logically there must have been death before Adam was created. Therefore, how could God have looked on his creation and said it was very good if it were already full of death. This also impacts our understanding of the gospel. If sin was not brought into the world through the first Adam and death by sin, how can the second Adam (Christ) be analogous for the taking away of sin? I don't think this is a reason to throw out the ESVSB or else we would have to create an equally large bonfire for all those Scofield Bibles. I would expect more, however, from those who hold the gospel to be the centerpiece of interpretation. I also think that much more research has been done in recent years in the area of creation science that it is not neccessary to account for humanistic theories of origins as did so many orthodox men in the 19th and 20th centuries to whom the "scientific" evidence seemed overwhelming. Ultimately, allowing for such theories does taint the historicity of Scripture, namely Rom. 5:12.

This should probably be a second post, but I was also disappointed in the assumption that Noah's flood was localized. I don't plan to refute the notes in this posting, but I do have to question the nature of the Noahic covenant if the flood were localized. God promised Noah in Gen. 9:11, "Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." If I hold a localized flood, what is the nature of this promise? Did God promise never to send a localized flood again that would kill flesh and destroy a particular part of the earth? If this is the promise of God, then the promise has been violated numerous times.

Don't get me wrong, I do like this resource, but I do have ask whether I would want to put this in my children's hands to study it without any qualifications. We usually do issue disclaimers with any work, but I just haven't seen anyone give any disclaimer yet on this information. I think the notes do not account for a lot of recent creation research which would actually give a fuller appreciation for the interplay of science and the Bible. Rather than science being considered in light of biblical statments, I think the notes on Genesis try to explain the Bible in light of naturalistic origins. I know this is an attempt to be even handed in terms of explaining theory, but provides too much credence to views that may not support biblical authority strongly. Ultimately, the approach in these notes does give ground on the ultimate authority of Scripture as seen in Romans 5 and the Noahic covenant.

Now that this is off my chest, I will continue to enjoy my ESVSB, especially the notes on the N.T. that I find to be remarkably conservative and not given to the assumptions of higher criticism.

Assistant Pastor for Singles

2008-08-10T22:24:00.002-06:00

It is official. Hampton Park Baptist Church has called me to be the assistant pastor for singles. I look forward to this ministry with the singles and serving with Drew Conley and the rest of the staff. I will be preaching as Associate Pastor of Tri-City for the last time on Sept. 7th. I will begin my new position on Sept. 15. I praise the Lord for His sovereign and gracious leadership.

Bible Faculty Leadership Summit 2008

2008-07-31T21:49:00.004-06:00

Today concluded this year's Bible Faculty Leadership Summit. As always it was a very enjoyable time. The theme this year dealt with scholarship within Fundamentalism. The papers that dealt with this theme provoked much thought and discussion. Fundamentalism has made some great strides in this area over the last decade or so, but so much more needs to be done. I am not talking about scholarship for the sake of being recognized by others, but a scholarship that will aid in the setting forth of biblical truth for the health of the church. In other papers that deviated from the general theme, the doctrine of the Trinity appeared to be the other main topic. These discussions demonstrated how important scholarship is if fundamentalists are going to accomplish their self-proclaimed and important task - the preservation of biblical teaching. Many important facets of biblical truth are falling by the way side because scholarly discourse has often been viewed as esoteric and largely antithetical to the qualities promoted by those in pastoral positions. I wished more pastors could have heard these conversation so that professors and pastors alike could affirm what Dr. Mike Barrett always taught me. "There is nothing more practical than the study of theology."

Two asides: 1. The facial hair sported by the Bob Jones faculty was quite impressive.

2. I was able to procur a copy of Phil Brown's and Bryan Smith's A Reader's Hebrew Bible. It is an impressive work, and I think it will prove to be very valuable to those who desire to main

tain their Hebrew skills.

Vacaville Bible Church

2008-07-18T09:34:00.002-06:00

My family and I just returned from a week of ministry at Vacaville Bible Church in Vacaville, CA. This church is an assembly of truly warm and spiritually-minded people. I spoke in three services on Sunday. We then loaded up and went up to Hartstone Bible Camp where Vacaville Bible Church holds their family camp. In total, the Lord gave me the privilege of ministering the word over 20 times, and Emily taught 4 sessions to the ladies.
My morning sessions were with the teens and we discussed knowing and obeying God's will.
My sessions with the men dealt with Money, Possessions, and Eternity largely based on Randy Alcorn's book.
My morning general sessions dealt with prayer.
My evening sessions dealt with God's amazing grace from Titus 2 and Colossians 2-3.

After camp, Emily and I were able to take the boys on a quick vacation to San Francisco and the Monterey Peninsula. In light of all that is happening in terms of possible ministry transition, it was a great blessing to minister away from K.C. for a while as well as spend some valuable family time together.

A ministry transition

2008-07-03T10:56:00.003-06:00

I have spent most of my morning on the phone answering questions concerning my announcement last evening to my church. I announced that I would begin exploring the possibility of a ministry transition. I am finding how hard it is to explain in only one phone conversation all that has factored into my decision. I have come to some firm conclusions concerning ministerial philosophy and ministerial structure (polity). I have also become more firmly entrenched in my theological emphases that dominate my ministry in the Word. God has used a long and complex process to help me better understand my "holy ambition" (to borrow John Piper's terminology). Below is a general letter that is reflective of the announcement that I made to the congregation of Tri-City ministries last night.

Dear friends,

Recently, I had introduced the idea of a holy ambition during the course of one my sermons at Tri-City Ministries. This idea is not unique to me, but it is one that I ran across during the course of my private reading. It is an idea that made a profound impact on my life. Simply defined, a holy ambition is something that you really, really want to do, and God wants you to do it, too. This is what gives our lives focus. A holy ambition not only keeps us from following selfish or sinful ambitions, but it also causes us to forego pursuing even other good things. There are many good pursuits in life, but we can’t do everything. We must weed through the many good things that we could do and follow what is most important to us and what God wants us to do most. It is a holy ambition, for instance, that kept Paul from doing a good thing, namely going to Rome. There was something more important that God would have him do. Developing a holy ambition is a key sign of spiritual development.
My holy ambition has developed more clearly over the last few months, but not before God taught me some key lessons.
1. God had to teach me the joy and satisfaction of handling His Word accurately, powerfully, and joyfully despite how many people were gathered to hear it. My joy of handling the Word cannot be derived from the size of the audience, but rather from the privilege of speaking of Scripture’s central topic: Jesus Christ.
2. God had to teach me that ministry passions and a holy ambition make the pursuit of position irrelevant. I cannot allow a rank or position to cloud what God would have me do. By His grace, God has begun and is still working in me to delight in serving according to my ministry passion rather than pursuing a particular position or rank. Following hard after Christ and my holy ambition is supremely more joyful and commendable by God than pursuing rank, notoriety, or position.
Once God worked in these specific areas, my ministry passion or holy ambition became more sharply known to me. Most uncomfortably, I have had to reckon with the fact that the pursuit of God’s ambition for my life at this time demands a change of ministry direction. I believe it is necessary for me at this time to forego something that has been very good, in order to pursue what is most important to me and what God wants me to do most. Serving at Tri-City has indeed been a good, commendable, and blessed thing.
It has been good to serve with my whole family.
It has been good to serve wonderful, loving people.
It has been good to serve godly and willing servants training in the seminary.
It has been good to serve under caring leadership.
It has been good to serve with dear friends.
God’s leading, however, requires that I follow after a ministry passion that is burning in my heart and cannot be ignored. My change of ministry direction does not require that I launch into uncharted territory, but to return to a type of ministry with which I am familiar. I have spent most of my adult life in a college setting teaching and ministering to college age students and singles. This has been my life. I love college students, I think like college students, and I love the opportunity to give biblical data to those at such a critical crossroads of life. Having been away from this kind of ministry over the last couple of years has caused me to miss it greatly. The saying is very true that absence makes the heart grow fonder.
God seems to be directing me back toward a ministry that is more intensely involved in the lives of singles and college-age adults. God has already begun this process, and I want my friends to hear the details from me personally before I pursue another ministry possibility any further. Hampton Park Baptist Church in Greenville, SC has asked if I would consider becoming their Singles’ Pastor. This position would include several aspects of ministry.
1. I would be responsible to shepherd, disciple, and teach a group of single adults through the structures of Sunday School and various Bible studies throughout the week.
2. I would greatly desire to see the area secular colleges reached with the gospel of Christ. I specifically would like to target Furman University through Bible studies and student-led events. I think God has given me the desire, personality, and academic background to minister effectively on a college campus.
3. I would also oversee the mentoring and additional ministerial training of the many ministerial students who attend Hampton Park. Bob Jones University is a large Christian school and the faculty desires to mentor all of their students, but it can be nearly impossible. I don’t think we should lay the blame on BJU. I think the local churches in the area should take up the slack and mentor this next generation of ministers of the Word. I would consider this particular ministry a great privilege.
4. My drive to teach in an academic setting would also be fulfilled. Not only would I teach Bible at Hampton Park Christian School, but I would also pursue teaching in a college or seminary as an adjunct faculty member.
I have had several conversations with Hampton Park’s pastoral search committee. They have voted unanimously to have me come to the church to candidate. I will be preaching and teaching at Hampton Park on Aug. 3. The church will then take a vote later in the week to decide whether or not to call me. I am asking for you to pray with me about this. I want nothing more than to follow the ministry passion that God has given me. Someone may ask, “Why would a guy who is an Associate Pastor move somewhere else to become a Singles’ pastor rather than pursue the next step of being a senior pastor?” I refer to the earlier discussion. I must follow my ministry passion first. God will take care of position. I must take care of the depth of my ministry, and God will take care of the breadth. Will I ever be a senior pastor? I don’t know. If that is the position that would best allow me to live out my ministry passion, then I accept it joyfully. I don’t believe that is how God is leading me right now.
I have found the following Puritan prayer particularly encouraging and convicting in the last few months:

O Lord,
I hang on thee, I see, believe, live,
When thy will, not mine, is done;
I can plead of nothing in myself
in regard of any worthiness and grace,
in regard of thy providence and promises,
but only thy good pleasure.
If thy mercy makes me poor and vile, blessed be thou!

It is the meek and humble who are shown thy covenant,
know thy will, are pardoned and healed
who by faith depend and rest upon grace,
who are sanctified and quickened,
who evidence thy love.
Help me to pray in faith and so find thy will,
by leaning hard on thy rich free mercy,
by believing thou wilt give what thou has promised;
Strengthen me to pray with the conviction
that whatever I receive is thy gift,
so that I may pray until prayer be granted.
Lord, help me to cry out in prayer
as parched ground opens wider and wider until rain comes.
So shall I wait thy will, pray for it to be done,
and by thy grace become fully obedient.

To the praise of His glorious grace,
Christopher D. Barney

Understanding Progressive Dispensationalism

2007-03-29T12:23:00.000-06:00

Progressive dispensationalism tends to be understood by covenant theologians one way and by dispensational theologians another. Because progressive dispensationalists may agree with the covenant theologian in a few areas, the dispensationalist might view progressive dispensationalism as being on the “slippery slope” toward covenant theology. Covenant theologians may view such agreement as welcome change. Both covenant and dispensational theologians may view the movement negatively by understanding the system to be nothing more than an artificial system that is simply looking for the middle ground. The fact is that dispensational theology has been through many modifications. The progressive isn’t keeping points so as to find middle ground. Rather, further modifications or correctives (at least his mind) have been made. Whether or not these “correctives” take the form of “concession” is irrelevant. To hold theological views simply because of perception would be a theological system ruled by politics rather than biblical data. In this article I will investigate these modifications of the progressive dispensationalist.
Kenneth L. Barker is often credited as the scholar who set this modification of dispensationalism in motion. On December 29, 1981, Barker presented his presidential address at the 33rd meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. His lecture on the “False Dichotomies Between the Testaments” contained many of the core views of progressive dispensationalists today. The label “progressive dispensationalism” was introduced at the 1991 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The three men who have given a voice to this position are Darrell L. Bock, Craig A. Blaising, and Robert L. Saucy.
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to present this system in its entirety. So as to maintain consistent comparison with my previous articles on theological systems, this discussion will focus on testament priority and interpretive focus.
Testament Priority. Like traditional dispensationalism, progressives allow the Old Testament to stand on its own merits, but progressives are also willing to look to the New Testament for further insight as to how these Old Testament promises may already be unfolding presently. Darrell Bock explains this testament priority as “complementary.”
“When progressives speak of a complementary relationship between Old Testament and New Testament texts, they are claiming that a normal, contextually determined reading often brings concepts from the Hebrew Scripture together; so that both old and fresh associations are made…. What makes this hermeneutic dispensational is the insistence that exegetical meaning be retained as it appears in each testament in the currently read context…. On the other hand, New Testament texts that point to the current activity of God and even point to Old Testament promises to explain that activity are also best honored contextually when they are seen as relevant to the current activity of hope being described…. It argues that we should continue to read the Old Testament as still telling us something about Israel in God’s plan, while being sensitive to how the New Testament complements that hope by expressing fulfillment today in Christ” (Bock, “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 1999).
This complementary approach to the testaments creates an “already, not yet” hermeneutical model. Progressives reject the idea that this is double fulfillment or allegorical interpretation. Bock argues on the basis of other doctrines that fit an “already, not yet” paradigm:
“But we would argue that it is decidedly biblical. Salvation itself has an “already, not yet” quality to it in that we are justified now but await glorification. There is nothing inherently problematic, then, that eschatology will reflect a parallel kind of structure.”
It is the progressives’ aim to keep the tension of the New and Old Testament alive rather than ascribe an overall priority to one or the other.
Interpretive Focus. Differences exist between traditional and progressive dispensationalists in the area of interpretive focus as well. As mentioned earlier, dispensationalism holds to a multi-track approach to interpretive focus. The concern of progressives is that a multi-track approach presents problems when determining the nature of relationship among these multiple themes. As a response, progressives suggest that some themes can be understood only in light of broader themes. In this hierarchy of themes, progressives view the kingdom of God as that unifying theme of all Scripture. The unifying theme of the kingdom of God is broad enough to include not only the spiritual work of God in the world but also God’s political restoration of all things unto His Son, Jesus Christ.
Israel and the Church. The hermeneutical differences between the progressive and the traditional dispensationalist undoubtedly affect his understanding of the relationship between the church and Israel and between the church and the kingdom of God. The progressive does indeed maintain a distinction between Israel and the church, but at the same time recognizes some degree of association. The distinction remains when it comes to structures through which God works in each period. Temporally speaking, these structures belong to distinct periods in God’s plan. There is no distinction, however, when one is thinking of the theological-redemptive makeup of the people of God. Progressives, therefore, hold that there is but one people of God who have been located within different structures of God’s program. Robert Saucy summarizes the case:
“In the final sense it is perhaps best to say that “the people of God” are one people because all will be related to him through the same covenant salvation. But this fundamental unity in a relation to God through Christ does not remove Israel’s distinction as a special nation called of God for a unique ministry in the world as a nation among nations. Nor does it define the totality of the people of God as ‘Israel,’ requiring that the church is somehow a ‘new Israel’” (Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 190).
In short, the progressive holds that there is one people of God manifested in two distinct institutions, Israel and the Church.
The Kingdom of God. The concept of the kingdom of God is a significant difference between traditional and progressive dispensationalists as well. The progressive dispensationalist views the kingdom of God as a unified concept. Bock and Blaising explain, “Instead of dividing up the different features of redemption into self-contained ‘kingdoms,’ progressive dispensationalists see one promised eschatological kingdom which has both spiritual and political dimensions.” The kingdom of God is the broad concept of God’s rule (both spiritual and political) and has been manifested through various means upon the earth. In past dispensations this rule of God has been seen in the kingly acts of God and more politically in the kingdom of Israel. With the arrival of the King of kings, Jesus Christ, the eschatological kingdom has been inaugurated. Christ inaugurated the spiritual dimension of the kingdom, which will have a fuller expression (namely political) in the millennial kingdom. Ultimately, the kingdom of God will find its fullest expression in the eternal kingdom. Consequently, the progressive views Christ’s offer of the kingdom to be in its full eschatological sense. The kingdom of Christ’s offer is not strictly spiritual (covenant amillennialism), nor is it strictly political (some forms of dispensationalism). Christ offered the eschatological kingdom, which includes both spiritual and political dimensions. This formulation is consistent with progressive dispensationalism’s complementary view of the testaments. Bock and Blaising argue for the present operation of the eschatological kingdom based on their complementary hermeneutic:
“That kingdom [eschatological] is always centered on Christ. The progressive revelation of one or another aspect of the eschatological kingdom (whether spiritual or political) prior to the eternal reign of Christ, follows the history of Jesus Christ and is dependent on Him as He acts according to the will of the Father. Whether or not certain features of the eschatological kingdom (whether spiritual or political) will be enacted or revealed prior to the full establishment of that kingdom is not to be determined by reasoning from full-orbed descriptions of Old Testament prophets alone. Rather, it is a matter of the Father’s will for this and any intervening dispensation, a matter which is discerned through New Testament revelation. The New Testament clarifies how the kingdom predicted by the Old Testament prophets is being revealed today, how it will in fact appear in a millennial form, and how these contribute to that everlasting kingdom in which all prophecies will be fulfilled” (Bock and Blaising, Progressive Dispensatinalism, 54).
To speak in terms of the “already, not yet” model, the progressive views the kingdom of God as already in operation, but not yet in its full expression.
Progressive dispensationalists differ from traditional dispensationalists as to the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God. Although progressive dispensationalists see the church as a portion of the kingdom of God and not as its equal, they are willing to identify the church as a present manifestation of the eschatological kingdom of God. This is a major modification to past dispensational formulations. Robert Saucy affirms this church/kingdom of God relationship:
“The establishment of the kingdom of God on earth is still future. The believer is related to this kingdom through faith in the King and is therefore an heir and already a citizen of the coming kingdom. The King has already bestowed some of the blessings of the kingdom on its citizens, so it is possible to speak of the presence of the kingdom now…. The kingdom promised in the Old Testament, with its central features in the Davidic covenant, thus finds its fulfillment according to the New Testament teaching both in the present church age and in the future” (Saucy, 190).
To summarize: Progressive dispensationalism is a modification of traditional dispensationalism that holds to a complementary concept of testament priority. This complementary view maintains the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy while at the same time allowing for the New Testament to explain how the prophecy could be unfolding even before its complete fulfillment. This model of prophecy has been termed “already, not yet.” Furthermore, progressives acknowledge the necessity of a multi-track approach to interpretive focus, but view these multiple track in terms of hierarchy. The theme of the kingdom of God occupies highest place in the hierarchy and consequently serves as progressive dispensationalism’s overall unifying theme.

Understanding Dispensational Theology

2007-03-21T08:31:00.000-06:00

Once again I am up against the lack of space by which to fully explain such a large term as dispensationalism. Because of space constraints please forgive me if I paint the system broadly. The characteristics are based on the writings of many well-known proponents of dispensationalism. If you read this and say, “I’m a dispensationalist, and I don’t believe that,” then please go publish your own book. After it has gained wide acceptance we will be sure to include your ideas as well (In case you are frowning, that last statement was intended to be humorous). Also, if you have not read my previous article on covenant theology, then please read it first. I will be explaining some aspects of dispensationalism by means of contrast with covenant theology.

Basics
In contrast to covenant theology, dispensational theology tends to emphasize the distinctions or discontinuities within the program of God. John Walvoord explains, “While not denying an essential unity to divine dealings in human history, it [dispensational theology] distinguishes major stewardships or purposes of God, particularly as revealed in three important dispensations of law, grace, and kingdom.” Just as covenant theology recognizes these various administrations but emphasizes the continuity, dispensational theology recognizes the uniform working of God but chooses to emphasize the
discontinuity. Charles Ryrie, a leading spokesman for dispensationalism, has attempted to put the essence of dispensationalism in one paragraph.
“To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In this household-world God is dispensing or administrating its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these economies are the dispensations. The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies” (Dispensationalism, 33).
Ryrie’s definition of dispensationalism shows the emphasis of this system upon discontinuity. While covenant theology acknowledges various administrations, they still find their orientation within the covenant of grace. Dispensationalism allows these different administrations to stand on their own merits. To the dispensationalist, these administrations reveal more than the redemptive plan of God alone.

Hermeneutical Features
Throughout most of the recent literature concerning dispensationalism there is mention of the threefold sine que non (the absolutely indispensable part) of the system. The first essential mark of the dispensationalist is the consistent distinction between Israel and the church. Lewis Sperry Chafer states,
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity” (Dispensationalism, 107).
Charles Ryrie sees this distinction as “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive” (Dispensationalism, 39).
The second mark of a dispensationalist is the consistent use of a literal hermeneutic. The term literal does not imply that the dispensationalist rejects all figurative expressions. For this reason Ryrie would rather use the words normal or plain. The dispensationalist will interpret figuratively if the text is either impossible to take literally, or if the context suggests figurative language clearly. It is this second mark of consistent literal interpretation that serves as the basis for the first mark of consistent distinction between Israel and the church.
The third mark of a dispensationalist is one’s view of the underlying purpose of God in the world. While the covenant theologian supposedly holds to a soteriological purpose of God’s purpose in this world (as explained earlier), the dispensationalist sees the purpose as the glory of God (doxological). Walvoord affirms this mark of dispensationalism.
“The larger purpose of God is the manifestation of His own glory. To this end each dispensation, each successive revelation of God’s plan for the ages, His dealing with the non-elect as with the elect…combine to manifest divine glory” (“Review of George Ladd’s ‘Crucial Questions About the Kingdom,’” Bib Sac, 1953).
This three-fold sine que non of dispensationalism is somewhat insufficient in that it is more indicative of the system than foundational to the system. Although the three-fold sine que non is certainly characteristic of the system, it is best to investigate the underlying hermeneutical underpinnings that lead to such characteristics. The first mark of consistent distinction between Israel and the church is actually an interpretational ramification. Ryrie himself states, “This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation” (Dispensationalism, 40). Accordingly, this mark of dispensationalism will be treated below in connection with other resulting theological propositions.
The second mark of a consistent literal hermeneutic is also the result of a more foundational hermeneutical principle. This statement of a consistent literal hermeneutic receives a negative response by covenant theologians. Many covenant theologians claim that they also adhere to a historico-literal hermeneutic. The dispensationalist’s claim to literalness must add a referent to its broad assertion. Dispensationalism consistently follows a literal (normal or plain) hermeneutical principle with reference to Old Testament prophecy. Some covenant theologians admit readily that they interpret Old Testament prophecies non-literally (O.T. Allis). The confusion occurs amid the claims of other covenant theologians that do claim to interpret Old Testament prophecy literally. John Feinberg offers some helpful insight:
“Both sides [dispensational and covenant theologians] claim to interpret literally, and yet they derive different theological systems. This suggests that the difference is not literalism v. non-literalism, but different understandings of what constitutes literal hermeneutics” (Continuity and Discontinuity, 74).
Both dispensational and covenant theologians may employ basic rules of historico-literal hermeneutics, but they apply these rules within the framework of testament priority. Each system understands the grammatical and lexical information, but testament priority determines the overall meaning of those words and their grammatical connections. Covenant theologians look to the New Testament for guidance in the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Dispensational theologians realize that one can find some further insight to Old Testament passages from the New Testament, but the meaning that was understood by the hearers of the day must be allowed to stand on its own merit and be fulfilled accordingly. Feinberg echoes this idea himself.
“Dispensational and nondispensational thinkers agree that the NT fulfills the OT and is a more complete revelation of God; but there is disagreement as to what that means for the priority of one testament over the other. Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority, and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often begin with the OT, but wherever they begin they demand that the OT be taken on its own terms rather than reinterpreted in the light of the NT”(Continuity and Discontinuity, 75).
For the dispensationalist, if there is a prophecy concerning a promise of land to Israel, then that prophecy will result in Israel’s procurement of the prescribed land. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, would either interpret such a promise figuratively or interpret the literal fulfillment as part of a larger, spiritual truth to be applied to all the people of God. The dispensationalist’s idea of consistent literal interpretation, therefore, is understood within the framework of Old Testament priority.
The third mark of dispensationalism regarding the doxological purpose of God in the world also needs further refinement. As mentioned before, covenant theologians are indeed doxologically oriented in their theology, but soteriologically oriented in their interpretative focus of Scripture. Dispensationalists claim to be doxologically oriented both in their theology and in their interpretive focus. Ryrie is representative of this claim:
“To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center. The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God” (Dispensationalism, 40).
The difficulty with Ryrie’s statement is that he seems to charge the covenant theologian with minimizing the glory of God, which is certainly not the case. Ryrie does not make a clear distinction between theological goal and interpretive focus. John Feinberg notes this weakness in Ryrie’s statement as well.
“Ryrie claims that distinctive to Dispensationalism is the idea that God uses history [God’s purpose in this world] to bring himself glory. I disagree, because I cannot imagine a nondispensational Calvinist, for example, who would say anything different. However, I think dispensational and nondispensational systems do differ on their emphases [the means by which God reveals His glory to man] in regard to what God is doing with history” (Continuity and Discontinuity, 84-85).
Interestingly enough, Ryrie states in his Basic Theology that soteriology is “the theme of the Old and New Testaments” (319). Ryrie himself concedes that ones interpretive focus may be distinct from one’s theological goal. (Please note that I do not point out perceived inadequacies of Ryrie’s statements lightly. I respect him too much. He is more of a scholar than I may ever be. Sometimes we only have more insight because we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.)
There is, however, a reason for the use of such a broad term (doxological) concerning interpretive focus. The reason is found in the aforementioned quotation, “To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself” (emphasis supplied). The idea of the glory of God is the only term broad enough to include the multiple themes of Scripture. These multiple themes are apparent in the writings of dispensationalists. Dispensationalists have been anything but monolithic on this idea of Scripture’s overarching theme. Alva McClain , for example, would contend that history is the gradual implementation and outworking of the kingdom of God. Other dispensationalists such as Arnold Fruchtenbaum view the people of Israel as a major theme for the proper understanding of Scripture. Ryrie even admits in the quotation above that God’s redemptive plan is a major theme of Scripture. Rather than concluding that dispensationalism is confused as to the major theme of God’s revelation, one should credit the system with calling attention to the multiplicity of themes that may be neglected under a more monolithic approach. Nondispensational treatments of the nature of the covenants and of Israel’s future invariably emphasize soteriological and spiritual issues, whereas dispensational treatments emphasize both the spiritual/soteriological and the social, economic, and political aspects.
The difference of interpretive focus can be explained in terms of tracks. In covenant theology, one arrives at his doxological goal by means of a single track (Gods’ redemptive plan) through which other biblical themes are understood. In dispensational theology, one arrives at his doxological goal by mean of a multi-track system in which each theme stands on its own. Interpretive focus is a major hermeneutical foundation for both systems. Whether one takes a single or multi-track interpretive focus has a profound effect on his theological orientation.
To summarize: dispensational theology is a system that emphasizes discontinuity. One of the bases of this discontinuity is Old Testament priority. The Old Testament, especially prophecy, stands on its own merit and will receive a literal fulfillment as understood by the hearers of the time. The second basis is that of interpretive focus. Dispensationalism sees the doxological nature of theology revealed by means of a multi-track approach. The fact that such a variety of overarching themes of Scripture have been suggested by some within the system demonstrates that dispensationalism as a system does not confine the multiple themes of Scripture under the umbrella of one overriding theme.

Theological Ramifications
Just as testament priority and interpretive focus affect a covenant theologian’s ecclesiology, so do these hermeneutical foundations affect the ecclesiology of the dispensational theologian. The key issues within dispensational ecclesiology are the same as noted above in covenant theology, namely the relationship of the church to Israel and the kingdom of God.
It is on the basis of Old Testament priority and multi-track interpretive focus that the dispensationalist formulates a key characteristic of his theology and specifically his ecclesiology. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.
Charles Ryrie’s line of argumentation for this distinction is based on a multi-track interpretive focus:
“Though God’s purpose for Israel and God’s purpose for the church receive the most attention in Scripture, God has purposes for other groups as well. He has a purpose and plan for the angels, which in no way mixes with His purpose for those who reject Him, which also is distinct from other purposes (Prov. 16:4). He has a plan for the nations, which continues into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:2), and those nations are distinct from the bride of Christ. God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purpose for the church than He does about the other groups”(Dispensationalism, 39).
Not only is this distinction the logical outcome of a multi-track interpretive focus, but also of an Old Testament priority. If Israel and the church are to be identified as one, then the prophecies of future Israel would have to have been fulfilled in the church literally. Since no literal fulfillment exists, then they are two groups that must maintain their distinction. Dispensationalism’s basis of Old Testament priority is evident in the words of J. Dwight Pentecost. He states that there is a “divine purpose: Israel – the earthly promises in the covenants; Church – the heavenly promises in the gospel” (Things to Come, 201). Elsewhere Pentecost argues, “Since the church today is composed of both Jews and Gentiles without national distinction, it would be impossible for the church to fulfill God’s promises made exclusively to the nation of Israel” (Thy Kingdom Come, 173).
The other issue is the church’s relationship to the kingdom of God. Both covenant and dispensational theologians hold that there is more than one facet to the kingdom program. As is true with covenant theology, dispensationalism understands the kingdom of God in spiritual and earthly representations. Alva McClain uses the term universal to refer to the spiritual kingdom and the term mediatorial to refer to the earthly kingdom. J. Dwight Pentecost uses the term eternal to refer to the former and the term theocratic to refer to the latter. Roy Beacham offers a clear discussion of the two-aspect view of the kingdom of God.
“Specifically, God’s kingdom appears to be portrayed in two overlapping yet distinguishable realms. In the broadest sense, the Scriptures teach that God rules at all times over every aspect and entity of the created order. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of a limited rule of God, a rule that is localized on earth, framed within time, and centered on a select human constituency.
The broadest sense of God’s rule, His dominion over all of creation at all times is commonly called the universal kingdom of God…. This earth-oriented, time-related, ethnic-centered kingdom is called, by some, the mediatorial kingdom of God. Other names are assigned to this limited kingdom, such as the kingdom of Israel and Judah, the kingdom of David, or the messianic/millennial kingdom” (Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, 235).
Other dispensationalists have introduced a formulation of the kingdom of God consisting of four aspects. Ryrie uses the terms universal kingdom, Davidic/Messianic Kingdom, mystery form of the kingdom, and spiritual kingdom. The major difference between the two-aspect and four-aspect formulation of the kingdom lies in the present nature of the kingdom of God. According to Alva McClain, the church is related to the kingdom of God only in that it falls under God’s universal dominion. There is no relation between the church and the mediatorial kingdom. McClain states that the mediatorial kingdom is “something altogether different from that general rule of God over all the nations which is exercised providentially without interruption” (The Greatness of the Kingdom, 292). There can be no relationship between the church and the mediatorial kingdom because the mediatorial kingdom is a Jewish institution that began with Abraham. Jesus Christ, the rightful Davidic heir, offered to mediate this kingdom but was rejected by the nation of Israel. Since Christ, the rightful heir, is not presently on earth, there is no mediatorial kingdom present on earth during this dispensation. The church therefore belongs to a period of time that McClain calls the “interregnum.” This is commonly called the postponement theory of the kingdom of God.
The four-aspect formulation of the kingdom was proposed by those dispensationalist theologians that desire to make some kind of connection between the church and an earthly manifestation of the kingdom of God. Dispensationalists such as Ryrie affirm that the church is not equal to the Davidic or messianic kingdom promised in the Old Testament. However, Ryrie attempts to establish a connection between the church and the kingdom of God beyond McClain’s idea of the universal kingdom to which all entities belong. Ryrie uses the term spiritual kingdom to refer to that aspect of God’s rule that is evident in the lives of believers. The term mystery form of the kingdom refers to the broader idea of “Christendom.” This covers any earthly manifestations of God’s rule between the first and second advents of Christ. This time frame was not prophesied by the prophets in the Old Testament, but rather it is a mysterious phase of the kingdom that Christ revealed to his disciples through various parables in Matthew 13.
J. Dwight Pentecost opened the door to a closer relationship between the church and the kingdom of God. Pentecost holds to four aspects of the kingdom of God, but his designations are much different. He uses the terms the eternal kingdom, the past theocratic kingdoms, the present theocratic kingdom, and the future theocratic kingdom. Pentecost’s concept of the present theocratic kingdom is not much different from the mystery form of the kingdom held by Ryrie and Walvoord, but his terminology blurs the sharp distinctions that other dispensationalists have commonly held. The terminology seems to suggest one earthly kingdom manifested in three different phases. Pentecost, however, still maintains that the church is different from the messianic kingdom promised in the Old Testament.

Concluding Remarks
Several articles could be written on the different views of the Kingdom of God within dispensationalism. I have tried to map out the major views and in so doing went just a bit over 3,000 words. Thank you for your patience as I needed a few extra words to maintain some degree of accuracy.

Understanding Covenant Theology

2007-02-27T09:54:00.000-06:00

Although challenging, I have managed to reduce my discussion of CT to under 2500 words. I apologize for the lack of citation, but the brevity of the article would not permit me to give full citation with commentary. I also understand that I am painting with a broader brush than I would normally desire to use, but once again brevity leaves me with no other option. With apologies aside, I can only hope that this information will be beneficial to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Basics
Covenant theology centers on the foundational idea of continuity concerning the promised redemptive work of God in history. As the nomenclature suggests, this theological system finds its continuity in the covenant idea. Most covenant theologians identify two governing covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (some covenant theologians propose an additional “covenant of redemption” made in eternity past).
In both covenants, God is the author and man is the agreeing partner. Both covenants are conditional, promissory, and doxological in their aim. The covenant of works was the covenant in operation before the fall of man. In this covenant, God appeared as the Creator, and man appeared as His perfect, created being. These two parties entered into a covenant that was contingent upon the obedience of the created being. After the fall of man, God instituted the covenant of grace. In this covenant, God appears as Savior and man as a sinner. Unlike the covenant of works, the covenant of grace requires a mediator to act in behalf of fallen man. The covenant of grace rests on the merits of this mediator (Jesus Christ) rather than on the actions of man, thus making the covenant of grace a much surer covenant. It is surer because, while man is changeable, the divine mediator is absolute. The covenant of grace did not replace the covenant of works. These two covenants work side by side. Man is born under the covenant of works, whereby he is under condemnation. Through faith in the person and work of Christ one may participate in the covenant of grace, which delivers him from condemnation. The Scriptures reveal and develop the covenant of grace that delivers man from condemnation under the covenant of works. The covenants made to individuals such as Abraham and David must be understood in light of this overarching covenant of grace. In essence, the covenant of grace provides the framework for continuity in this theological system.
An adherence to continuity, however, does not necessitate the rejection of discontinuity. Covenant theology consists of varying administrations whereby God demonstrated this covenant of grace. Covenant theologians identify at least two administrations of the covenant of grace: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Even though covenant theology recognizes different administrations and even refers to them as dispensations, proponents of the system are quick to return to the idea of unity by stressing the unchanging character of the covenant itself. The difference between the two administrations consists of the clarity of revelation and fullness of salvation rather than varying methods of God’s salvific work. For the covenant theologian, it is not a matter of pitting continuity against discontinuity, but rather emphasizing continuity over the idea of discontinuity.

Hermeneutical Features
New Testament Priority. The Old Testament as an administration of the covenant of grace presents the revelation of God in promises, types and ordinances to Israel. The New Testament is that administration of the covenant of grace by which the Old Testament administration is fulfilled. As a result, the covenant theologian tends to seek continuity amid the discontinuity of testaments by following a New Testament priority. New Testament priority means that one seeks the real meaning in the New Testament of a “pictured” meaning found in the Old Testament. The degree to which covenant theologians hold New Testament priority varies greatly. Some hold to a priority that views the New Testament as the absolute finality of fulfillment of the Old Testament (Lester Kuyper, The Scripture Unbroken, 56). Other covenant theologians hold a more open view of Old Testament fulfillment. Loraine Boettner (The Millennium, 4), for instance, allows for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy to still happen in the future. According to his view there is not only a spiritual but also a political fulfillment of the kingdom promises for His people (Note that these future promises are fulfilled by the church, not Israel. The church inherits the political fulfillment as well. Boettner is postmillennial). There is yet another small group of covenant theologians who have recently rethought the idea of New Testament priority as being an oversimplified way of solving the interpretational tensions presented by the Old and New Testaments. VanGemeren, for instance, states, “The NT is not the finality, fulfillment, or fruition of the Old…. The ‘fruition’ properly belongs to the New Covenant and to Jesus Christ, but that is not the same as the writings of the NT…. Old and New stand together and not over against each other (tota Scriptura)” (“Systems of Continuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity, 54). Despite a plea from this small group of covenant theologians, New Testament priority has been and still is a characteristic of covenant hermeneutics, for it emphasizes continuity most readily.
George Ladd refers to the significance of testament priority in covenant hermeneutics when he writes, “Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a nondispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled, for (a) the first coming of Christ was accomplished in terms not foreseen by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and (b) there are unavoidable indications that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church (The Meaning of the Millennium, 27).
Doxological focus through one central theme. Another hermeneutical ramification of covenant theology’s framework of continuity is a focus upon God’s soteriological purpose. Covenant theologians are indeed doxologically focused in their overall theology. Berkhof asserts this clearly in his discussion of the nature of the covenants of works and grace. Both covenants agree as to author, contracting parties, external form, contents of the promise, and “the general aim, which is the glory of God” (Systematic Theology, 272). However, covenant theology focuses upon God’s salvific work as the unifying theme of Scripture. The soteriological focus of Scripture is the means by which one can understand and appreciate the doxological focus of theology. Berkhof goes on to articulate in one sentence this idea of doxological focus of theology in connection with a soteriological focus of revelation. He states, “God reveals His will and the way of salvation to men, in order to glorify Himself in the redemption of sinners” (Systematic Theology, 58).
Summary. Every theologian of any orthodox system claims that he has arrived at his theological conclusions through careful exegesis of the Scripture. This discussion in no way questions the covenant theologian’s pursuit of exegetical accuracy. One must admit, however, that there are strong presuppositions that guide the otherwise objective method of exegesis. Before one interacts with the text, he must make decisions concerning the coherence of Scripture. How one deals with the issue of discontinuity and continuity lays the foundation for later determinations concerning semantic range, literal versus metaphorical meaning, and how literary genre affects that meaning. When a particular system commits itself to the emphasis of continuity or discontinuity, there are major hermeneutical ramifications. Covenant theology’s commitment to the emphasis of continuity has resulted in a hermeneutic that focuses on universal soteriological truths generalized in covenant form within a New Testament priority.

Theological Ramifications
Israel and the Church. The redemptive focus and New Testament priority of covenant theology views the church as spanning both the Old and New Testaments. The church, which is mentioned specifically in the New Testament, is seen implicitly in the Old Testament. The church’s spanning of the testaments, therefore, raises two questions worthy of investigation. What is the relationship between the church and Israel? Similarly, what is the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God?
Typically, covenant theologians identify the church and Israel as essentially the same. The unity of the church and Israel is the logical result of a continuitous system. If the people of God of all ages (Israel and the church included) are one body (the body of Christ), and the body of Christ is the church, then the church and Israel are one. Israel and the church relate to each other in terms of “essential nature” and “external organization” (to use the terms of Berkhof). Other theologians use the terms “spiritual” and “visible” (Mathison). How covenant theologians relate the corresponding visible representatives of God’s people varies. Some covenant theologians hold that the church has replaced Israel fully. The church is seen to have been the fulfillment of Old Testament typology. Practically speaking, then, the future of the external organization of national Israel is fulfilled in the church, thus leaving no future place and purpose for national Israel in God’s redemptive plan.
Due to Israel’s continued existence as a nation, some covenant theologians have begun to rethink the future place of Israel in God’s redemptive plan. Anthony Hoekema voices one of the more popular positions held by covenant theologians today. Hoekema states, “The future of believing Israelites is not to be separated from the future of believing Gentiles. Israel’s hope for the future is exactly the same as that of believing Gentiles: salvation and ultimate glorification through faith in Christ” (The Bible and the Future, 201). Israel’s future, according to Hoekema and many other covenant theologians, is its incorporation into the church. Some covenant theologians, however, are more open to seeing future Israel playing a role in God’s redemptive plan. George Ladd speaks of the salvation of Israel as “bringing a ‘wave of life’ to the whole world…. It may be that in the millennium, for the first time in human history, we will witness a truly Christian nation” (A Theology of the New Testament, 562).
Although covenant theologians present various views on the relationship of the visible people of God manifested through Israel and the church, they agree that there is but one people of God. The people of God in the Old Testament were the body of Christ just as the New Testament church is. Therefore, the church existed within national Israel in the Old Testament, but the church today has its own identity free of national distinction.
The Kingdom of God and the Church. Covenant theologians, to some degree, identify the church with the kingdom of God. For some, the church is virtually the whole of the kingdom of God, and for others, a portion of it. This degree of identification is yet another ramification of one’s testament priority. Those who see the New Testament as the complete fulfillment of the Old Testament will identify the church as virtually the whole kingdom of God. Other theologians who allow for future fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy beyond the time of the New Testament will view the church as a portion of the kingdom. Therefore, testament priority affects church/kingdom relationship, and church/kingdom relationship affects the covenant theologian’s millennial view. Although many theologians may view the church/kingdom relationship as the determining factor of one’s millennial position, it is actually determined by a more foundational hermeneutical principle, namely testament priority.
The amillennialist either denies or ignores the idea of a future earthly kingdom of God. Holding to a New Testament priority, he views the kingdom of God as having already found its prophetic fulfillment in the New Testament. If the kingdom of God is primarily spiritual, then this kingdom and the invisible church are nearly synonymous, for one cannot be a member of one and not the other.
Postmillennial covenant theologians view the church and the kingdom of God as being nearly identical as well. The major difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism lies in the concept of an earthly kingdom. Postmillennialists anticipate the development of an earthly kingdom that is both visible and organized. Amillennialism views the kingdom of God as transcending that of an earthly, organized kingdom, but postmillennialism holds that an earthly, organized kingdom is developing and will continue to strengthen and gain prominence in the earth, thus ushering in the return of Christ. There is a common bond between both millennial positions, however. The overarching hermeneutical principles of continuity and New Testament priority lead to their equation of the kingdom of God and the church although divergent in the specifics of manifestation.
The covenant premillennialist occupies an interesting position within covenant theology. George Eldon Ladd is one of the most prolific writers among covenant premillennialists. He states, “Premillennialism is the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God’s redemptive purpose in the new heavens and the new earth of the Age to Come. This is the natural reading of Revelation 20:1-6” (The Meaning of the Millennium, 17). Such a statement would seem to suggest that this covenant theologian has abandoned his New Testament priority. Ladd, however, remains true to this tenet of covenant theology. He does not come to this premillennial position by means of Old Testament prophecy, for he is not willing to abandon his identification of the church with Israel. Ladd writes that he has been correctly identified “as a nondispensationalist because I do not keep Israel and the church distinct throughout God’s program” (p. 20). He relates his rather anomalous millennial position to his covenant theology when he states, “A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament.” Ladd admits that his view of Old Testament prophecy is not unlike that of the amillennialist. He states, “The alert reader will say, ‘This sounds like amillennialism.’ And so it does. I suspect that the amillennial writer will heartily agree with all that has been said thus far” (p. 27) The difference between Ladd and the amillennialist is similar to the difference between postmillennialists and amillennialists. The difference rests upon Ladd’s affirmation of an earthly kingdom. The difference between Ladd and the postmillennialist lies in his very literal interpretation of Revelation 20. He views this earthly kingdom as something to be established in the future, not that it is developing currently or in operation presently. Covenant premillennialism, therefore, identifies the kingdom of God as the rule of God manifested in both spiritual and earthly aspects. Differing from amillennial and postmillennial positions, covenant premillennialism does not identify the church and the kingdom as essentially the same. The church may be the current manifestation of the kingdom of God, but it is only a portion of this broader concept. Unlike those holding other millennial positions, covenant premillennialists are unwilling to equate fully the concepts of the church and the kingdom of God, but the two entities are nonetheless seen to share an intimate relationship.

Dispensational and Covenant Theology

2007-02-26T21:11:00.000-06:00

I originally posted this information on Sharper Iron a couple of years ago, but I thought it beneficial to have it posted on my own site. The goal of the essays is informational rather than polemic. I am not arguing for a particular point of view. Rather, I am simply trying to provide information so that discussions of hermeneutical systems might be guided accurately rather than littered by the straw men that are too often raised up.
Very often covenant theologians will criticize dispensationalists for misrepresenting their positions, and dispensationalists will criticize covenant theologians for misunderstanding their positions. These misunderstandings are due largely to one-way reading. Too often a dispensationalist will go to a dispensational author to find out about covenant theology. The covenant theologian engages in similar practice. Consequently, one receives a skewed view of the other system. Examples are plenteous. For instance, John Gerstner in his book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, states that dispensationalists “claim a thorough faithfulness to Scripture…This conviction can lead to a spiritual arrogance bordering on a feeling of infallibility.” He goes on to write, “Scofield and all his followers exercise a kind of papal infallibilism.” Rather than discussing the differences of interpretational methods, Gerstner jumps to the supposed attitudes and spiritual condition of his opponents. Likewise, dispensational writer Arnold Fruchtenbaum in his book Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology says of covenant theologian Lorraine Boettner, “It is obvious that Boettner does not know the difference between Jews as a nationality and Judaism as a religion.” Boettner does indeed know the difference, but he was trying to relate the Jews to their religion more closely than Fruchtenbaum desired.
Statements such as those cited above lead me to suggest that we often debate with the caricature of the opposing system rather than with its true formulation. As a result, theological systems have nearly become a test of fellowship. The caricatures we have erected cause each side of the discussion to view the other as being less than orthodox. Fundamental, conservative dispensationalists often resist fellowship with fundamental, conservative covenant theologians. Although pleasantries may be exchanged between the two, there often exists too much suspicion to maintain any fellowship that is meaningful. This is not a plea to tolerate any change in theological formulation that would undermine conservative orthodoxy. This is a plea for Christian theologians to demonstrate kind reasonableness toward their Christian brothers who may differ in their hermeneutical guidelines. Granted, a dispensational fundamentalist may not be able to cooperate in ministry as closely with a covenant fundamentalist (will the new church building have or not have a baptismal pool?!), but that doesn’t mean that we should sever fellowship and cooperation altogether.
Consequently, I thought it would be best to write a series of articles that offers an explanation of each theological/hermeneutical system without the strain of evaluation. If we are going to disagree in this area (and we will), should we not be as clear as possible with what we disagree. It is one thing to debate so long as the one with whom I debate agrees that he holds the position I am describing. It is an exercise in futility to debate over a point that my opponent doesn’t even claim to hold. By gaining an understanding (may I even say “appreciation”?) of other theological systems we can speak more directly to the true areas of disagreement and avoid the straw men.
Please note that I am not setting myself up as the only one who has an unjaundiced eye by which to discuss theological systems. Let me say from the outset, I am a premillennial and pre-tribulational theologian. Though some within dispensationalism would not care to claim me as their own, I use the term of myself. I understand my tendency to see covenant theology through a dispensationalist’s eye. For that reason I have enlisted the help of my covenant brethren to critique my representative statements of covenant theologians, and they have rigorously yet graciously accomplished the task. I am thankful for all the help they have offered over the years. I hope that I have helped them understand dispensationalism as well. With the permission of the site director at SharperIron.org, I will present a series of 3 articles that I hope will be of benefit. 1) Understanding the Covenant Theologian 2) Understanding the Dispensational Theologian 3) Understanding Progressive Dispensationalism and Covenant Premillennialism.

Welcome to Proclaim His Excellencies

2007-02-26T10:01:00.000-06:00

I am a bit late in "getting in the game" concerning a blog site. At the same time, this has been intentional. I wanted to be sure I had a proper focus and purpose for having such a site. The focus of this sight will not be on what everyone else is doing, but rather on what God desires to do with our lives. I hope my entries will strike the balance between academic investigation and personal spiritual transformation. Some of my entries will be largely academic providing food for thought in the areas of theology and hermeneutics. Other posts will focus on my pastoral ministry. I hope these more anecdotal entries will encourage the reader as I share what God is teaching me in the ministry. I certainly do not view this site as a venue by which bestow my wisdom upon those who read, but as a running commentary of my journey to know God better through the study of His Word and to serve His people better as His servant.