The Role of the Holy Spirit as the 'Fuel" for the Role of the Believer

Right now I am doing research for the next Men's Reformed Fellowship Meeting at the end of August. I will be speaking on the subject of Reformed Evangelism. At any rate, I picked up a book I have never read before yesterday entitled Come to Me: An Urgent Invitation to Turn to Christ written by our dear friend Tom Wells. I just finished reading the best description of the role of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant that I have ever read! It pertains to what I spoke about Sunday and the correlation between "letting the Word of Christ richly dwell within you" and being "filled with the Spirit". My point on Sunday was that we cannot separate these two things. I spent a great deal of time trying to prove that. I have been laboring to show that the people of the new covenant are what the people under the old covenant (the nation of Israel) never were. The people of the new covenant are marked by obedience. What does this mean? I have tried to explain on the blog and from the pulpit. But here is what Mr. Wells (someone far more gifted than myself) has to say. I had to stop my own reading and writing to share this with you. Labor to understand what he is saying. It is imperative!

"Here are words Jesus said to His friends the night before He was killed, 'If you love me, you will obey what I command. I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you for ever- the Spirit of truth...I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you' (John 14:15-18).

These words introduce us to a new power, the One called in Scripture 'the Holy Spirit'. Jesus spoke of the Spirit to offset the fears of His followers when they grasped the fact that He was going to leave them. They thought that if He were to go away all their hopes would be crushed. 'Not so!' said Jesus. 'Not at all!' Later that evening the Lord Jesus added, 'It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you' (John 16:7).

The coming of the Spirit was of first importance to the disciples, although just then they could not have told you why. The reason was this. To this point in their Christian lives the disciples had depended upon the Lord Jesus to empower them. Jesus encouraged them and instructed them and counseled them and rebuked them when they needed it. They drew upon His wisdom and guidance to keep them going. His presence and ministry to them was the fuel for their own efforts. They could not imagine life without Him. It was unthinkable.

Now here is what is important. These disciples were right in thinking they could not live without the Lord Jesus. This was not a case of mere sentimentality. It struck far deeper than that. Their understanding was sound. They must have the Lord Jesus or die spiritually. It was a simple as that! Yet there He was, telling them to bid Him goodbye. Or so it seemed.

But the all-important fact was this: the Spirit, who was to come, was God also. Just as Jesus Christ is God, so the Holy Spirit is God. Yet while the friends of Jesus could no longer have His physical presence, they still needed His wisdom and guidance. They wanted the refreshment that His counsel had brought them. And these things the Spirit of God would give. The Spirit would take the place of Jesus as the Helper of His friends. He would be 'another Jesus'! He would not be with them visibly as Jesus had been, but He would live within them, 'the Spirit of truth' (John 14:16-17).

Now you must not think of this simply as history. It is history, of course. Jesus' first-century followers found that the Spirit came to them and supplied the place that the Lord Jesus had held among them. All of that is true. But what interests us is this: it happens today. In every age since the Lord Jesus returned to His Father in heaven, He has given His Spirit to His people. The gift of the Spirit sustains us. And, if you come to Christ, He will sustain you as well.

The Bible gives two answers when we ask the question, 'What is it that the Spirit does for believers?' We might call these 'an outside answer' and 'an inside answer'. By an 'outside answer' I mean that the Spirit has done something outside of us to help us greatly. I am thinking of His work in producing the Scriptures. Of course, that was a once-for-all work. I want to take it up later. Just now, however, it is the 'inside answer' on which I want to focus. A major part of the Spirit's work is within the believer. There He plants an inclination to obey and follow the teaching of the Scriptures that He has produced. This 'inside' work necessarily goes on through all the Christian's life. It is this that sustains him.

In the last chapter, I told you that Jesus will assert His lordship over your life if you become a Christian. That is certainly true; He does it with all who follow Him. I do not know what kind of vision that fact raised in your mind. Perhaps none at all. But it is just possible that I led you to think of the Lord Jesus as working against your own inclinations and crushing you into submission. That is not the case. The truth is far different.

The Lord Jesus asserts His lorsdship by sending His Spirit. It is the Spirit's work to give us a love for the ways of Christ. It is not a question of continually beating back the Christian's desires. There is no forcing the believer to be what he should be. That is not how God works. For one thing, there would be no end to that task. If we were not changed inwardly we would need to be pushed along throughout eternity. But that is not the picture the Bible gives us. Not at all!

The Spirit forms our attitudes; that is the main thing. It is not that actions are unimportant. We dare not ignore them. But attitudes lie behind sincere actions, so that is where the Spirit goes to work. Paul shows us the result in his letter to the Galatians. 'The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control' (Gal. 5:22-23).

You do not get such 'fruit' by applying physical force. Love, joy, peace and the rest lie at the heart of what a man is. You must change the person to grow this fruit, and in this work the Spirit is continually engaged. We are commanded to have these fruits, these attitudes, in the Scriptures. And, as I have said, these same Scriptures were themselves produced by the Spirit. But He does not simply leave us with His commands. If we are Christians the Spirit gives us the desire to obey Him. In that way He makes these attitudes our own. His word outside us and His work within us go hand in hand."

The Spirit empowers His people to be obedient!

Summarizing New Covenant Theology (Part 3)

NCT’S PRINCIPLE OF REPRESENTATION

After just reading an article this week by a strong covenant theologian, I am becoming increasingly convinced that this principle marks the greatest departure of NCT from the other two systems. What I call NCT’s principle of representation relates to the manner in which one views ethnic, national Israel. Here it is: the church is the true Israel to which national Israel only pictured in shadow and type.

NCT places a strong emphasis on the type/anti-type dimensions of Scripture. The nation of Israel in the OT is seen as a type and promise. The church in the NT is seen as the anti-type and fulfillment. In other words, the church became what the nation of Israel never was, and never could be. This is not saying that the nation of Israel were not nationally elect. Nor is it denying that there were spiritually elect people of God residing in the Israelite community throughout history. It is simply arguing that from top to bottom and throughout their history, the nation of Israel rejected their status as “God’s people”. That is, they never obeyed God (nationally) as God intended them to and to the degree they themselves intended to obey God (Exodus 19:3-8). Logically, this does not necessitate a view that sees God as failing with His “first” people (Israel), and therefore reaching out to a “second” people (the church). NCT robustly holds to a view of God that emphasizes His sovereignty. And in God’s wise sovereignty He chose redemptive history to play out the way in which He did. As I write this blog I am going to do something that might be a little dangerous. Indeed, I might regret it later. But a thought just crossed my mind, and I want to share it with you. Here it is. I submit to you that the primary purpose of God nationally electing Israel is ultimately threefold: 1) to reveal His power and glory, 2) to show Israel, and the other nations throughout all time the exceeding sinfulness of man and his innate inability to ever obey God perfectly even after being placed in a “privileged and unique relationship” with God Himself, 3) to preserve a line for the Messiah (the Redeemer) to come.

Now this thing I simply call the principle of representation shows that NCT disagrees with DT, which affirms that there are two people of God. NCT would agree with CT that there are one, true people of God. On the other hand, NCT would disagree with CT that this one true people (known as the “Church”) existed in the Old Testament period. If this sounds rather confusing, just take a step back, breath deeply, and refocus. Let me provide something for you that might help.

Dispensationalism

Overview of redemptive history from God’s vantage point:

-I will choose a people to worship me. It will be Israel.
-This nation is rebellious. Thus, I will extend my hand of grace to those outside of Israel. This will be a separate entity made up of Jew and Gentile. It will be called the Church.
-However, I will remain faithful to my earlier promises to Israel. Thus, at the end of the day national Israel will worship Me.

Covenant Theology

Overview of redemptive history from God’s vantage point:

-I will choose a people to worship me. It will be Israel/the Church.
-When Christ comes my grace will extend to the nations and they will be joined to Israel/the Church. At this time the church will no longer be largely composed of Jews, but will include Gentiles.

New Covenant Theology

Overview of redemptive history from God’s vantage point:

-I will choose a people to worship Me. It will be Israel. They will not worship Me, and this is My very purpose in choosing them. When they refuse to worship Me, it will reveal to all men his need of Me.
-Within Israel I will preserve a remnant- those who will have faith in Me and worship Me; sincerely trusting in the same promise that Abraham did. From this people will come the true Israel- the Messiah-who will do what the nation never did. He will be perfectly obedient to My law.
-When Christ comes My grace will extend to the nations. This new entity made up of Jew and Gentile will be called the Church. They will be the true Israel, for they will exist in the "true Israel" (their Savior, Jesus Christ). For they will do what national Israel (the people I began with) never did- they will worship Me forever! I will empower them to do so!

Now let me give one more clarification to what NCT teaches. NCT does not deny that there were literal promises fulfilled in national Israel. However, NCT would largely argue that the land promises given to national Israel find their fulfillment (at least partly) in the new covenant inheritance of salvation (Ephesians 1:11; Colossians 1:12; I Peter 1:4).

Here is a way that helps me remember NCT:
One Promise- God will restore sinful man to relationship with His Creator.
One Person- Jesus Christ is the central figure in Scripture (not the people of Israel).
One People- There is only one people of God for all time who know their Creator only through one person- Jesus Christ.
One Path (of interpretation)- The New Testament primarily interprets Old Testament.

So in conclusion, if you can remember these six principle (NCT's principle of: interpretation, separation [of Old and New Covenant], unification [of salvation], progression [of Revelation], application [of law], representation) as we go through a more detailed look at NCT it will do you well. It should keep your thougths organized.

The next posts will follow my traditional outline of the various systems of theology. We will look at some definitions of NCT, some distinctions, and some dissection.

Trying to Focus on the Centrality of Jesus Christ in All Things,
Pastor Andy

Don't Really Know What I Was Thinking

I suppose it is a little ironic that I placed a picture of Moses holding up the tablets of stone that contained the ten commandments on a post that featured a summary of new covenant theology. The picture certainly does not match the post!!

Summarizing New Covenant Theology (Part 2)

This post is a continuation of our summary look at New Covenant Theology that we began yesterday.

NCT’S PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESSION
NCT is different than the other two systems because it affirms rather robustly that Scripture, by nature, is progressive in its revelatory message. In other words, God has chosen, in His supreme wisdom, to reveal His plan of redemption through a revelatory process that does not give all the facts in one event. Instead, He has chosen to reveal fragments of truth at certain moments of history pertaining to His overall goal of redeeming an elect people for His glory.

There seems to be two major categories where the progression of God’s revelation can be seen. First, the Gospel itself is revealed in a progressive manner. Beginning in Genesis 3, and moving through redemptive history to the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and the writings of the Apostles we find that the Gospel becomes clearer and clearer. Think of the confusion that the Apostles had during and even following Christ’s crucifixion. Think of all the Jewish/Gentile issues that the Apostle Paul wrote about. Think of the message of James (the half brother of our Lord) who wrote to clarify that the Gospel did not promote an idea of “cheap grace”- that faith without works is dead. Think about the complementary message of the Apostle John who said that love should reign supreme in the life of the one trusting and resting in Christ. In addition, we also should not forget the book of Acts, and all the issues (Jew/Gentile) that confronted the Jerusalem Council. Remember Peter who was even confused on the relationship between Jew and Gentile. Paul speaks about his confrontation with Peter over this very issue in the book of Galatians. The point is simply that the Gospel becomes clearer the further one moves in redemptive history. As one views the timeline of the Bible he sees that God's plan of redemption was not understood equally by God's people in all ages. The Apostles understood much more than the prophets. The believer's who made up the first century church under the Apostle Paul's ministry understood far more than the Patriarchs. We understand far more than Adam and Eve. NCT seems to recognize this more robustly than the other two systems.

Second, God’s absolute law is revealed in a progressive manner. The law God gave to Adam in the Garden of Eden consisted of being fruitful and multiplying, and not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When we fast forward past Abraham to the time of Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage we find God’s law codified (written down) for the first time. On Mt. Sinai God writes with His own finger on tablets of stone a more extended version of His law. It was certainly more expansive than the law that Adam received in the Garden. But when Christ came, He represented the fullest embodiment of God’s absolute law. He revealed God’s law through the demonstration of His own character and through His preaching (namely the Sermon on the Mount).

Allow me to provide a caveat to the above statements. The other two systems (DT and CT) might at times affirm a progressive revelation of Scripture. However, on a whole both systems fail to allow the progressive revelation of God’s word to effect every aspect of their systems. CT tends to downplay the progressive nature of God’s revelation by emphasizing one covenant of grace. Thus, they effectively "flatten" Scripture. DT tends to overlook the harmony of progressive revelation because they are so focused on God’s promises to ethnic Israel, and the fulfilling of those promises in the future. Thus, they effectively "breakup" the unity of Scripture. NCT neither flattens, or breaks up Scripture. Instead, it offers a unified goal of redemption seen in progressive stages.

NCT’S PRINCIPLE OF APPLICATION
As mentioned above, NCT clearly has a different position on “law” than the other two systems. It affirms a progressive revelation of God’s law. This fifth principle of NCT essentially argues that God’s law is applied differently to His people according to different points in redemptive history.

For example, the Mosaic law (the law established by God that Moses mediated) was given to the nation of Israel upon their deliverance form Egyptian bondage. Surely this law was a revelation of God’s character. Indeed, it was binding. Furthermore, it was in no way arbitrary. Its purpose however was meant to bind and accuse the conscience of those in the nation of Israel. It was meant to condemn the sinner by showing him that he can never obey the commands of God perfectly. It was meant to be a mirror in which one could look and say, “Wow, I am ugly! I have failed again. I can’t be like God, for I am just a sinful creature. I am not living the way I was created to live.” The standards of the law were simply meant to reflect back to the sinner his sinful, unacceptable identity. It was meant to reflect back to the sinner the way in which God viewed him. That was God’s divine purpose for the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:15-22; Hebrews 8:6-7). The mantra of the Mosaic covenant was “Keep the law and you will live”.

NCT simply does not view the Mosaic law as the unchanging, eternal, moral law of God. In other words, it is argued that God did not give His the law at Mt. Sinai in order to fully reveal Himself. Rather, He gave it to show man the exceeding sinfulness of man- to reveal his depravity. However, NCT does not deny, rather it affirms, that the Mosaic law contains elements of God’s absolute law. A distinction can be made between what is called “absolute” law and “covenantal” law. Absolute law refers to the law written on the heart of every human being (Romans 1) who is created in the image of God. Covenantal law refers to a particular revelation of God’s law that cannot change according to a particular covenant. In order for new law to come, a new covenant must come. The law and the covenant are bound up together.

Let me make myself very clear. NCT does not deny in any way whatsoever that there has been, is, and always will be an eternal standard of righteousness (laws for true believers to follow). But if we hold that God is sovereign, then we must simply recognize His right to reveal His law to man as He chooses and wishes. NCT simply argues that He chose to do this progressively, rather than in one shot at Mt. Sinai. From this NCT concludes that if the main function of Mosaic law was to reveal sin, then when the new covenant was established a fuller revelation of God's law was given and the citizens of the new covenant are no longer bound to Mosaic law.

So if believers today are not bound to Mosaic law, are they bound to law? Absolutely! However, it is not Mosaic law, nor do believers relate to this law the same as the nation of Israel did to their law (the ten commandments). The law of Christ, contained primarily in the New Testament Scriptures, is now in force for the church. But while the law of Christ reveals the standard of obedience for the new covenant believer, the new covenant believer is not related to this law in the same way that an old covenant believer (the nation of Israel) related to the law of Moses. The main reason for this is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (more on this in later posts). The believer in the new covenant, in contrast to someone in the old covenant, has a desire to obey God and the ability to do so because of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:1-16; Galatians 5:16-24; Hebrews 8:10, cf. Jeremiah 31:33). In addition, the law of Christ is not composed of legally binding and conditional stipulations.

Let me offer to you a comment by Fred Zaspel pertaining to the law that I will probably quote again at some point because it is so good:

“The law of God is always binding and could never be anything else. Before Moses there was no formal codification of it. Since Moses there have been differing codifications of it in accordance with covenantal relationships. The Old and New Covenants entail varying responsibilities, some of which are identical to each other (because of a common basis) and some exclusive of each other (because of fulfillment and further revelation). But the standard of conduct for today’s believers is found in the framework of New Covenant teaching, not that of the Old Covenant. To this rule of life He is bound as to law, and this law, like that of Moses, is sufficient to bring men ‘to an acknowledgement of their sins’”.

My only point under this fifth principle is simply that NCT sees the application of the law in the life of the believer as different depending upon the point in redemptive history.

Lord willing I will give the sixth principle on tomorrow’s post. I do not want to move too quickly. There is much in what I have said in this post to think about. The goal of these posts is not simply to disseminate information for "information's sake". Rather, the goal is to provide some thoughts on how Scripture fits together, so one can come to conclusions pertaining to this important topic that are based upon Scripture after careful, thoughtful, and sincere study. Everyone must be convinced in his own mind. But remember that God’s word is to richly dwell within us (Colossians 3:16). Our thinking must be saturated with Scripture!

Thankful for the New Covenant,

Pastor Andy

Summarizing New Covenant Theology

INTRO

Well, we have finally made it to the last major theological system within evangelicalism. We have taken a peak at both dispensationalism and covenant theology. As I have stated in previous posts, NCT is the most consistently Biblical of the three systems. I will spend several posts in an effort to prove this. I have also asked Mike if he would be so kind as to post something on this subject seeing that he has held to NCT longer than I have. Indeed, Mike is the one who originally introduced me to such a thing (as NCT) and encouraged me to read about it. Thus, anything he says on this subject will be a shot in the arm for this blog.

I want to start my analysis of NCT a little different than I did the other systems. Before following my standard outline (definitions, distinctions, dissection), I want to paint with broader brush strokes. In the first couple of posts, I want to focus on the major aspects of NCT. NCT is similar to a beautiful painting that shows the intricate details of trees, a rushing brook, mountains, and animal life. Instead of focusing on the details of the painting, however, let’s look at the obvious things in the painting- the things that stick out. I want to do this because NCT is a little different than the other two systems in my estimation. NCT requires one to cut loose presuppositions (previous thoughts) one typically possesses who has grown up or been part of an evangelical church any number of years. As I made clear in other posts, I had to cut loose my dispensational predilections when I began seeing that there were other ways to understand Scripture. My point is simply that NCT is a more precise system in many ways, I believe, than the other two systems. It answers certain key questions in which the other two systems fail. In order to understand the answers provided by NCT, one has to cut loose his traditional manner of thinking about Israel, the church, and the “law” just to name a few topics. Of course, “cutting loose one’s presuppositions” is always important in studying anything. I would just say that, for me, it was even more imperative when I began studying NCT. Quite frankly, it teaches things most believing Christians are not used to hearing. Nevertheless, we must let the word of Christ indwell us richly as we spoke about Sunday (Colossians 3:16). Scripture is to have the final say in all things. When Scripture rubs against our previously held positions, this is a good thing, not a bad thing. May Scripture control our thinking!

So I want to begin our look at NCT by giving you six basic principles of NCT. These appear in no particular order.

NCT’S PRINIPLE OF INTERPRETATION
Let me make a few general comments. NCT teaches that the New Testament Scriptures must always interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, if one wants to understand the Old Testament, he must turn to the pages of the New Testament and read. An understanding of what the NT says about the OT renders a proper understanding of the OT. If we allow the OT to interpret the NT, then we run the risk of confusing the identity of both ethnic Israel and the church. This is what DT tends to do. On the other hand, if we only allow the NT to interpret the OT some of the time, then we run into the danger of being inconsistent in our overall interpretation of the Bible. This tends to be the propensity of CT. I strongly believe that when we allow the NT Scriptures to tell us the true meaning of the OT Scriptures, Christ holds a more central place in redemptive history.

The Reformers used an interpretive principle when they broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. They called it the Analogy of Faith. It was a principle that compared Scripture with Scripture to show the unity of God’s revelation. In other words, the Reformers would allow more clear passages of Scripture to elucidate and clarify more ambiguous passages. They did this with both the OT and NT. NCT, on the other hand, does the exact same thing except they emphasize the importance of giving logical priority to the NT over the OT. In fact, this was the way the Apostles interpreted God’s plan of redemption (see Acts 2:14, Peter’s sermon). In addition, the author of Hebrews does this throughout his letter. And, of course, the Apostle Paul does it throughout his letters as well.

NCT’S PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION
Within NCT is a firm affirmation that the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) is completely different in character to that of the New Covenant. There is strong separation between these two covenants. They stand in strong contrast to each other. And this fits in accordance with God’s overall sovereign plan of redemption. It is argued that Scripture always emphasizes the discontinuity between these covenants, not continuity, as CT proponents will argue.

The clearest way in which one sees that the New Covenant and Old Covenant are separate, contrasting covenants involves a simple observation regarding the people of each covenant. For instance, the people of the Old Covenant (the people of the Mosaic economy) were largely composed of unbelieving rebels. Interestingly, the nation of Israel broke the covenant before it was even ratified! They were led by one rebellious and idolatrous king to another. They never obeyed the stipulations of the covenant perfectly. There did exist genuine believers among the nation, nevertheless, from top to bottom the nation was composed of rebellious idolaters (I Kings 19:18; Psalm 73:1; Romans 9:6-8). On the other hand, the people of the New Covenant are all regenerate. All citizens of the New Covenant are real believers in Jesus Christ, chosen before the foundation of the world. In addition, all believers in the New Covenant are characterized by obedience and submission to Christ their King (Jeremiah 31:34).

NCT’S PRINCIPLE OF UNIFICATION

As I pointed out in my posts on CT, Genesis 3 provides a promise that is progressively revealed until Christ came. This promise by God said that the Seed (Christ) of the woman would crush the head of the serpent (Satan). The first coming of Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He fulfilled the promise through His obedience. NCT understands that this promise provides only one way of salvation- by grace through faith. In other words, at every point in redemptive history, salvation has always been by grace through faith (Romans 4, Abraham’s faith; cf. Genesis 15). Though there exists discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, there exists continuity in the only instrument of salvation being faith in the promise of God to redeem sinful man. This was the basis of Paul’s argument in Galatians (Galatians 3:16-18). The Old Covenant, though very different than the New Covenant, does not change God’s promise made to Abraham, which is simply an extension of His promise in Genesis 3.

Lord willing, I will post the final three principles of NCT tomorrow.

Blessings,
Andy

A Concise Commentary on Covenant Theology (Part 3)

DISSECTION OF COVENANT THEOLOGY

Allow me to make some brief comments about the overall system of covenant theology. Again, I am not pursuing a detailed critique. Yet, a few features of CT need to be examined in light of Scripture. These features will also be compared to DT and NCT (New Covenant Theology) to a certain extent in this post. This post will conclude our discussion of covenant theology.

A Word About CT’s View of the Church
CT has an interesting understanding of the identity of the Church. On the one hand, CT adherents agree with NCT proponents in seeing the church today as the true Israel of God. On the other hand, they disagree with NCT and DT because they say that the nation of Israel in the OT existed as the church. They conclude, therefore, that the church did not start on the Day of Pentecost (the day the Spirit of God was poured forth). Rather, they argue that the church has always been in existence. Part of their argument for this centers around a particular understanding of a word in the Septuagint translation of Scripture. The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. In other words, it is simply the Old Testament Scriptures translated into Greek. Essentially, they argue that a Hebrew word, which means “assembly” is translated ekklesia in the Septuagint version. The Greek word ekklesia simply means “church”. In this version, “church” describes the nation of Israel in the wilderness. To me this is a historical argument, not a Biblical, or linguistic argument. It seems to me that the more Biblical argument would see the church beginning in the new covenant era, for Christ Himself said, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18).

On the other hand, it seems that CT rightly sees the church as the true Israel of God today. That is, they do not see two peoples of God, but one (contra DT). The church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (I Peter 2:9). The Scriptural support for seeing the church as the fulfillment of all the OT prophecies concerning national Israel is abundant (Galatians 6:16; Romans 11; Acts 15:14-18; Revelation 3:9; Romans 2:28-29; and Philippians 3:3).

A Word About CT’s View of One Covenant of Grace
CT proponents argue for one covenant of grace (which flows from the covenant of redemption in eternity past among the members of the Godhead) in which exist various manifestations throughout redemptive history. Interestingly, much has to be assumed in order to argue that a covenant of grace took place in Genesis 3:8-19. When one reads the account there is, to be sure, a promise of Christ destroying Satan (the serpent of old…see Revelation 20:2; cf. Romans 16:20). “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all the cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life; and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed (Christ); He (Christ) shall bruise you on the head (the resurrection event), and you shall bruise him on the heel (the crucifixion event)” (Genesis 3:14-15). We find here a promise that is spoken to the serpent. Now surely, Adam and Eve overheard this promise. However, the promise does not prove that a covenant was made here. Who was the covenant made with (the parties involved)? Remember, these are words spoken directly to the serpent, not Adam (or Eve).

Well, much more could be said. However, the simple point I am trying to make is that an argument insisting Genesis 3:14ff. composes a covenant seems to be a stretch. Thus, I would depart from CT here. At the same time I would strongly affirm that a Gospel promise was surely made in these verses. It just was not given in typical “covenant” fashion.

A Word About CT’s emphasis on the Unity of Scripture in General and the Gospel in Particular
This is certainly a strength of CT. Unlike, DT, which seems to divide Scripture up into so many segments (one begins to wonder if there is any unity and cohesiveness whatsoever in God’s sovereign decrees), CT robustly insists that Scripture is unified from top to bottom. There is one people of God. There is one way of salvation. Scripture never contradicts itself. CT sees Scripture as a tightly woven tapestry. If you pull on one thread, the whole thing will unravel before your eyes. In other words, things come together and make sense in God's divine Revelation. This must be true if we serve a logical God (which, by the way, we do… and shame on anyone who denies this). Thus, CT is a much more logical, Biblical, and Gospel-centered system. Nevertheless, it is not perfect. In fact, I have only pointed out some of its flaws above. I think there is a better theological system that seems to answer more questions, and at the same time remains more Biblical and Christ-centered. It is to that system in which we will turn in the next series of posts.

CONCLUSION

If I may, allow me to conclude my commentary on CT by revealing its influence in my own spiritual journey. Those who hold to CT are Reformed men who have bravely and influentially propounded the doctrines of God’s glorious grace throughout church history. In other words, they are “Calvinists”. They stress God’s grace, and evaluate man’s will honestly in light of Scripture. They affirm the authority of Scripture. They understand that God gave Scripture to us in a logical manner. They try and make the Gospel the center of their system. It is because of these reasons (and many more) that my spiritual journey led me to discard my dispensational commitments for a more Biblical system in which I found CT to be. I cannot thank some of my college and seminary professors enough for their help in getting me to question my dispensational presuppositions. I appreciate the one-on-one time that a particular professor (Dr. Capshaw) took with me in order to convince me that theology was much bigger than end time prophecy charts and C.I. Schofield Study Bibles. He introduced me to the world of a gracious, and covenantal God. He chose to question my dispensational worldview both inside and outside of class. He did it in an almost angry manner. He was upset that so many of his students bought into dispensationalism simply because it was what we grew up with. He ignited in me and my friends a love for truth. He showed us the tough path in pursuing truth. There would be critics. There would be “traditionalists” who would not be open to any theology that questioned dispensationalism (and fundamentalism). But if anything was important- he argued-truth was! If anything was worth being criticized over, it was God's truth. Essentially, he argued (very simply) that God’s Word must have the final say. Most of all, he refused to accept a lazy attitude when it came to thinking through hard issues. To this day, I do not know if he was ever a classical covenant theologian. Indeed, I do not think he was. But I do know that he was closer to CT than DT. And more importantly, he did not believe in DT just because “everyone else did”. He shaped my theology more than he knows, and I gained a great appreciation for truth in his office, in the school dining hall, as well as in class. I have taken what he taught me (the importance of truth over all things), and have tried to apply it consistently to my whole belief system. He helped me think more Biblically. And I will admit, in the same way, that CT helps us think more Biblically and Christ-centered.

I say all of this to say that for a period of time I held to CT because I thought it answered more questions regarding the unity of God’s Divine Revelation than did DT. And for this I am very grateful. Yet, even with that being said, I do not believe CT holds answers to every theological question. I personally believe that the last system we will discuss (New Covenant Theology) answers the most questions that many seem to have about God and His Scriptures. So, it will be NCT to which we will direct our attention next.

Begging God to Help Me Become More Biblical,
Pastor Andy

A Concise Commentary on Covenant Theology (Part 2)

The following post is a continuation from yesterday's. It picks up right where we left off (II. Distinctions of CT).

Covenant of Grace
CT proponents argue that this covenant naturally flows from the covenant of redemption, and necessarily enters the history of man due to the failure on Adam’s part in the Adamic covenant. Because of Adam’s sin, God determined to establish another covenant by which man could be saved. CT argues that the covenant of grace describes the actual outworking (in time and space of redemptive history as God would determine it) of the covenant of redemption. The parties of this covenant are viewed as God and the elect people of God with Christ serving as the representative and mediator of these redeemed elect (Hebrews 8:6). The condition of this covenant is simply faith in Christ, who is our Mediator (Romans 5:1). The promise of this covenant is eternal life (Jeremiah 31-32; John 3:16). This particular covenant, it is argued, is manifested in various revelations. Yet, these various revelations are just that- revelations of the same covenant of grace.

Those holding to CT propose that the first revelation of this covenant occurred, of course, in the Garden of Eden directly following the fall (Genesis 3:15 ff.). This first revelation is followed by the other revelations including:
· Noahic Covenant
· Abrahamic Covenant
· Mosaic Covenant
· Davidic Covenant
· New Covenant

Now that we have flown over CT to capture a bird’s eye view, allow me to point out some features of CT that distinguish it from DT primarily. These features also distance it from NCT to a degree. First, as pointed out above, CT utilizes Scripture’s many references to “covenant”. The term “dispensation” is sometime used by CT adherents (Hendriksen’s New Testament Commentary is notorious for this), however they are referring to the various revelations of the one covenant of grace. So they are not agreeing with the DT when they use this term. In distinction from the dispensationalist, the covenant theologian emphasizes the continuity in which God relates to man throughout redemptive history. The dispensationalist does the exact opposite- emphasizing discontinuity (this is the point of emphasizing dispensations).

Second, CT allows the New Testament Scriptures to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures when it comes to prophetic passages (passages dealing with promises to Israel). This accounts for their position that the true Israel is the church. They see the promises given to ethnic Israel in the OT as being fulfilled in the church. They give logical priority to many passages in the NT which affirm this, the most obvious being Galatians 6:16; Romans 11; Acts 15:14-18; Revelation 3:9; Romans 2:28-29; and Philippians 3:3. On the other hand, CT allows the OT to interpret the NT on other key points.

Third, CT main purpose seems to be more Gospel centered than DT. It teaches that God’s primary goal is to bring glory to Himself by redeeming His one people from their sins through the work of His Son Jesus Christ. This is God’ s only “program”. He does not possess two programs: one for ethnic Israel, one for the church. In other words, He does not have one purpose for national Israel, and one purpose for the church. The church is not a parenthesis; it’s not plan “B”.

A final distinction of CT, which flows from those listed above, includes a belief that the church existed in the Old Testament. The church began with the Abrahamic covenant. The other two systems (DT and NCT) argue that the church began on the day of Pentecost.

Tomorrow I will conclude my commentary on CT by giving a brief dissection regarding some of its important features. I apologize to those of you who desire for me to “speed the train up”. However, I just do not want to be guilty of information overload. Nevertheless, I appreciate the eagerness of many of you, and will try and “bang” out these posts a little quicker. As you can see, my preaching is similar to my writing….I move very s l o w. Sorry. Please bear with me.

Yours,
Andy

A Concise Commentary on Covenant Theology

As we did in our survey of DT, we will divide our survey of CT into three sections: definitions, distinctions, and dissection.

SOME DEFINITIONS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
Let’s begin by giving three brief definitions of CT. The first one will be taken from Ligon Duncan, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi. He defines covenant theology this way: “Covenant theology is…an approach to understanding Scripture- an approach that attempts to Biblically explain the unity of Biblical revelation”. This is a good definition because it includes the motive of the covenant theologian. His motive-as defined by Duncan- essentially involves a determination to reveal the cohesiveness of God’s overall message in Divine revelation. Thus, this system, in contradistinction to dispensationalism, promotes continuity rather than discontinuity of God’s revelation.

Herman Witsius (a prominent Dutch Reformed theologian of a bygone era) says the following about the importance of the covenants found in Scripture: “In studying divine covenants in general, one is treading through understanding God’s redemptive plan throughout history. This is a matter of eternal salvation. It answers the question: how may a sinful man approach God (Exodus 3:5)”. Witsius’ definition is valuable because he shows that covenant theology is concerned not only about how divine revelation fits together (per Duncan’s definition), but with a primary emphasis on understanding the unity of the Gospel in particular in Divine revelation. Thus, CT is also Gospel centered in its approach. ( I would say that DT is more “Israel” centered than Gospel centered. So here is the first clear distinction between the two systems- CT promotes continuity of the Scriptures with an emphasis on the Gospel. On the other hand, DT promotes the discontinuity of the Scriptures (i.e. dispensations) and is “Israel” centered.)

Therefore, if one combines the two definitions above he sees that covenant theology is a system of thought, which desires to be Biblically based in an effort to provide greater clarity of the Gospel as proclaimed in both the Old and New Testaments by insisting that understanding the concept of ‘covenant’ provides this clarity. In addition, CT was made popular as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Essentially all of the early Baptists held to CT.

SOME DISTINCTIONS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
As stated above, covenant theology aggressively affirms that understanding the Biblical concept of ‘covenant’ is the key which unlocks the proper interpretation of Scripture. The theme of God’s grace reaching out to fallen sinners in Scripture is revealed to us in the covenant schema. In order to understand the Biblical use of ‘covenant’ one must discard contemporary uses. In our day and age, marriage is a type of covenant. For a marriage to take place two parties who have fallen in love mutually determine that they desire to become a spousal unit as recognized by the church (usually) and the state. In the same vein, a business contract is a form of covenant. Two or more parties mutually determine, and agree to certain business terms that will fulfill the desires of each party involved. However, in Scripture, God’s covenant with man is presented as being unilaterally imposed, not mutually agreed upon. In other words, in its initial establishment, the covenant is one-sided. God alone presents the conditions and promises of the covenant to man. Man does not initiate the contact first. Of course, this is not to say that it is not mutual in any sense of the term, for after its initial establishment by God it can certainly become mutual.
Wayne Grudem defines a Biblical covenant this way, “A covenant is an unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and man that stipulates the conditions of their relationship” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 515). At its root, a covenant contains several essential elements. These include parties, conditions, and promises.

Although CT affirms the existence of various covenants in Scripture, they primarily emphasis three over-arching covenants: 1) the covenant of redemption, 2) the Adamic covenant, and 3) the covenant of grace. Though none of these terms actually exist in Scripture, CT proponents insist that the evidence for such covenants do exist in the Bible. Let us examine each covenant, in their turn, from the perspective of the covenant theologian.

Covenant of Redemption
According to adherents of CT, this covenant was made between the three persons of the Trinity in eternity past. The basis of their argument is rooted in Ephesians 3:11, which speaks of God’s one eternal purpose from the beginning. Ephesians 3:11, it is argued, points back to Ephesians 1:3 ff. In this opening chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians we find a description of the way in which God’s one eternal purpose of redemption (the salvation of sinners) was planned before the creation of man. Verse four explicitly states that this was planned “before the foundation of the world”. Other verses that are used to argue for this planned redemption of sinners in eternity past include 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; and James 2:5.

It is argued by CT adherents that this one eternal purpose of God to redeem fallen, sinful man is covenantal in nature. The nature of this covenant is revealed in the various roles that Scripture assigns to each member of the Trinity. It must be stated that these various roles are unified in their one purpose- to redeem man. In other words, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unified in their plan of redemption. On the other hand, the carrying out of this unified plan takes place through the harmonious, yet distinct functions of each person of the Godhead. At this point it should be said that all of the arguments set forth by CT stays firmly within the bounds of orthodoxy in their understanding of the Trinity. They affirm, whether than deny, all the early church councils on the person of Christ, and the nature of the Trinity. No conservative, Bible believing evangelical who understands Scripture would deny the distinct, yet harmonious roles of the Trinity in the carrying out of redemption. But CT argues that these distinct roles reveals a covenant among the members of the Godhead. That’s the point that I want you to see.

Let me try and explain where they come from on this point. They would argue, for example, that God the Father is the originator of the covenant of redemption, for God the Father agreed to give the Son a people for His own possession that the Son would redeem through the cross (John 17:2,6). And the Father sent the Son to redeem this people (John 3:16; Romans 5:18-19). On the other hand, God the Son is seen as the executor of this covenant of redemption, for the Son agreed to serve as the representative of elect sinners (Romans 5:18-19). This meant He would fully obey God, even to the point of death as a sacrifice for the sins of the elect (Philippians 2:6-8). In other words, the Son executed the plan. And furthermore, just as the Father sent the Son, the Son, in turn, would send the Spirit as part of fulfilling His role in this covenant (John 15:26). God the Holy Spirit is then seen as the applier of this covenant of redemption, for it was the Holy Spirit who empowered Christ to fulfill His role (Matthew 3:16). In addition, He empowers God’s people after Christ’s ascension (first to the Apostles, Acts 1:8; then to all the elect, Acts 2:17-18).

Evidence for such a covenant among the Godhead is not proven by going to Scripture and looking for the word covenant when the Trinity is spoken about. Instead, passages such as John 6:37-38; Romans 5:12-21; I Corinthians 15:22; Luke 22:29; and Psalm 2:7-9 are used in order to show that the Trinity is covenantal in nature due to the distinct part that each person of the Trinity played in accomplishing their agreed upon plan of redemption.

That concludes our discussion of the first main covenant that CT emphasizes- the covenant of redemption. The next post will feature the second major covenant emphasized- the Adamic covenant. However, let me finalize this post by making an important clarification. As I stated above, no Christian who truly understands Scripture will disagree with what the CT is arguing in principle. In other words, the concept of distinct, yet unified roles being performed by the members of the Trinity as part of their overall plan to redeem man cannot be denied by any honest student of Scripture. God can do whatever He wants, and this is how He chose to redeem sinful man. The Trinity is complex and mysterious, yet there is much about it that we can understand. This argument is straight forward. It is not difficult to grasp. There are other mysteries about the Trinity that we do not know. This is not one of them. In fact, I would argue that grasping this is paramount to truly understanding the Gospel. In addition, I would like to commend a book to you that I have found extremely helpful in this discussion. The title of it is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. The book’s author is a former professor of mine at Southern Seminary (Bruce Ware). Interestingly, Dr. Ware does not hold to CT. He holds to the newer version of DT, often called Progressive Dispensationalism. Yet, his book sets forth the Biblical understanding of the various roles each member of the Trinity played in the accomplishment of redemption. For your information, Dr. Ware is an extremely humble and godly man. He was one of my favorite professors at Southern. I tried to take as many classes with him as I could. Here is yet another example of a dispensationalist having a strong influence on me. Yet, I would not agree with him on every issue.

Grateful for God's Glorious Plan of Redemption,

Pastor Andy

A Very, Very Brief Crash Course in Dispensationalsim (Part 2)

Below is pt. 3 of 3 continued from the last post. Last post we saw:
1) Definitions of Dispensationalism, and 2) Distinctions of Dispensationalism. It would be helpful to read yesterday's post before pursuing this post. Also, pictured to the right is C.I. Scofield.


Dissection of Dispensationalism
Now that the “broad strokes” have been painted regarding DT as a system, allow me to elaborate on a few features of DT that I mentioned above which need to be analyzed in greater detail:
· DT’s supposed “literal” interpretation of Scripture
· Promises to ethnic Israel
· The purpose of the various dispensations

DT’s Supposed “Literal” Interpretation of Scripture
Let me clarify something very important. One of the most frustrating things I have seen proponents of DT do is claim for themselves a “literal” hermeneutic (interpretive method of Scripture). Of course, the implication behind such a claim suggests that no other system holds to this method of interpretation. I know this from personal experience, for I used to be a dispensationalist. Their claim is simply false. Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology both literally interpret the Scriptures. That is to say, CT and NCT hold to the grammatical – historical hermeneutic that the Reformers promoted.

So if this is true, then why do dispensationalists claim this as a unique hallmark of their system, and furthermore, does their understanding of “literal” differ in any significant way compared to CT and NCT? The first part of the question probably dates back to the days of liberalism when folks were doing anything but interpreting the Scriptures “literally”. In the liberal days, the miracles of Scripture were denied, many parts of Scripture were slandered, and anything good said about Jesus related to His supposed humanitarian spirit. Therefore, some very prominent, bold, and godly men rose up and claimed the “fundamentals” of the faith. One of the fundamentals of the faith concerned a literal interpretation of Scripture. This was essentially a call to affirm the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. If this is what dispensationalists mean by “literal”, then we are okay with that. Indeed, they do mean this. I know many dispensationalists, and have been influenced by many, who would literally die before denying the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. In fact, some of these men are the boldest men I have ever known. However, that is not all they mean by “literal”. Their understanding of “literal” possesses a non-negotiable position that sees ethnic, national Israel as holding a special place in God’s heart (even today…yea forever!) This is troubling, and unbiblical. Their argument would go something like this- “in the Old Testament God promised the nation of Israel that they would be His people. He promised them land and many blessings. This was a unilateral commitment on God’s part that began with His promises to Abraham. These promises continued throughout the days of Moses, even though the people were characterized by rebellion. When Christ came, the nation of Israel rejected their King. However, God cannot be done with Israel because of the promises He made to Abraham. Regardless of their rebellion and initial rejection of their King, God will see to it that they do not reject Him again. Therefore, God will someday bring to fruition the promises He made to the nation of Israel long ago.” The only conclusion to such an argument is that there are two peoples of God. In addition, it even appears that ethnic Israel sits in a superior position to that of the church. The church is viewed as a “parenthesis” in God’s redemptive plan. To be sure, this is the exact reverse of anti-Semitism; it is Jewish favoritism.

Well, all would agree that God’s promises to Abraham will be completely fulfilled. However, dispensationalists are the only ones (out of the three systems we are studying) who would say these promises to ethnic Israel were not fulfilled in the church. We would say they are fulfilled in the church because that is what the New Testament teaches. Both CT and NCT give logical priority to the NT over the OT when it comes to prophecy and God’s promises to national Israel. The New Testament is clear that the church is the true people of God. NCT would go even further and say that the nation of Israel was only a picture and shadow of the church- the true people of God. But these affirmations by both CT and NCT in no way deny a literal interpretation of Scripture. Both CT and NCT believe God’s promises to national Israel are literally fulfilled- they are literally fulfilled in the church, the true people of God, not national, ethnic Israel!

Therefore, it is erroneous and misleading for DT to claim a literal interpretation of Scripture as a unique feature of their system. They steal the term “literal” and make it mean only one thing. And if anyone departs from their understanding of “literal”, then they make the accusation that that person (or system) does not hold to a literal hermeneutic. This is a mistake at best and fallacious at worst.

Promises to Ethnic Israel
As stated above, one does not have to believe that ethnic Israel holds a place of first priority in God’s heart in order to hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture. When I say that CT and NCT do not believe literal promises will be fulfilled to a literal nation of Israel at the end times, I am not denying the possibility that many Jewish people will come to saving faith in Jesus Christ throughout the new covenant era. To deny this would be a direct contradiction of Scripture (Gal. 3:28: Rom. 9-11). Furthermore, such a view is ultimately anti-Semitic. God can do whatever He wants. My point is simply that God is not bound to nationally redeem Israel, anymore than He is nationally bound to redeem the United States. God is not in covenant with “nations” and “governments”. The only nation He was in covenant with was ancient Israel. But the promises made to national Israel (the Apostles are clear in the NT) were fulfilled in the church because ancient Israel was only a type of the true people of God. The church is the anti-type. Indeed, it would even be correct to say that God is in covenant with only one “nation” today- the church (I Pet. 2:9).

The Purpose of the Various Dispensations
As I pointed out above, DT affirms that the basic reason behind God relating to man differently via various dispensations was to reveal the guilt of sin in man’s heart. One would have a hard time denying the concept behind this claim. Certainly, God cut covenant with Israel on Sinai to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin. In other words, the purpose behind the covenant was to exacerbate sin and reveal to man his wicked and hopeless state apart from Divine grace. In other words, the concept is truly part of the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, there appears to be some truth possessed by DT regarding this concept in its barest form, especially as it pertains to the Mosaic era.

In conclusion, I would like to end on a rather personal note. Most of my life has been spent in churches that largely held to DT. My college degree (B.A. Bible) is from a strong dispensational school, although much of the Bible faculty were not classical dispensationalists. Recent family heritage suggests that many of my ancestors were Baptist preachers who were likely dispensational in their theology. Of course, I do not know this for sure because they are not alive for me to ask them theological questions. I know that two of my great, great grandfathers pastored the same Baptist church in Wayne County, WV. I came to know the Lord and was baptized in this church. The pastors have, for the most part, been dispensational. Most of my extended family are believers, and they too have been raised and influenced by pastors who held to some form of dispensational theology. I say all of this to say that God uses dispensationalists, primarily because they get the Gospel right for the most part, although they are very wrong in other areas. If you talk to some Reformed folk, they act as if dispensationalists should be subject to “theological leprosy camps”. I do not believe so. Nevertheless, I still think they are largely wrong in their belief system. My study of each theological system convinces me that the issue is one of precision when it comes to "getting the Gospel right". It is our responsibility and solemn duty to uphold the Gospel in such a way that we are precise about what it is. I believe, at the end of the day, that dispensationalism confuses the Gospel in many areas. It does not get it wrong per se, but it distorts it. One must be fully convinced in his own mind. Nevertheless, the Gospel must never, never be muddled, or distorted in the slightest. It is left to the reader, therefore, to judge which system is the most clear about the Gospel. This will take much study and thought, but the Gospel is the most important thing in the world, so it is worth the time and energy. With that being said, these posts are not meant to be arguments against the distinct positions as much as they are meant to simply provide general information regarding their major beliefs and presuppositions. This last section (Dissection of DT) has not served as a detailed critique. Its purpose was simply to “set the record straight” regarding some misconceptions that I believe DT adherents possess as it pertains to the other theological camps.

Pursuing Truth with Precision,
Andy

A Very, Very Brief Crash Course in Dispensationalism

Picture of the man who made dispensationalism popular- J.N. Darby (sweet hair and sideburns)

There will be two posts on dispensationalism. Overall, I want to outline three points regarding DT. First, I will highlight some technical definitions of DT. Next, I will outline some primary elements of DT that distinguish it from both Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. And lastly, I will provide a brief dissection (or analysis) of some significant features of DT.

Definitions of Dispensationalism
Let’s begin by looking at some concise definitions of Dispensationalism (DT). The first one is taken from Wayne Grudem who does not hold to DT. Grudem defines DT as:

“A theological system that began in the 19th century with the writings of J.N. Darby. Among the general doctrines of this system are the distinction between Israel and the church as the two groups in God’s overall plan, the pretribulational rapture of the church, a future literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel, and the dividing of biblical history into seven periods, or ‘dispensations’, of God’s ways of relating to His people” Grudem, Systematic Theology).

Lewis Sperry Chafer who has served as one of DT’s most prominent theologians defines it this way,“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, while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved” (L.S. Chafer).

The last definition will be taken from perhaps the most popular Dispensational theologian of all time who made dispensationalism popular among laymen with his Scofield Reference Study Bible. He captures (very concisely) the major thrust of DT. His name is C.I. Schofield and this is a comment he made concerning dispensationalism, “Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the church, we find that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct, and future destiny all is in contrast” (C.I. Scofield).


Distinctions of Dispensationalism
Now that we have some working definitions, let us flesh out the major tenets of this particular system of thought. First, it is clear from Grudem’s definition above that DT emphasizes the concept of “dispensations”. Dispensations are simply periods of time that DT adherents organize their whole system around. These periods reveal that God has a history of relating to man differently throughout various stages in redemptive history. Though some DT supporters hold to more or less dispensations than others, most argue for seven dispensations. Each dispensation is marked by a judgmental transition to the next dispensation. In other words, each dispensation ends with God’s judgement in some form or another on man for not responding positively to the privileged position he was placed in by God. The primary texts used to support the concept of dispensations are 2 Timothy 2:15 and Ephesians 3:5-10.

DT typically teaches that the first dispensation is the age of innocence. This beginning age covers ground from the creation of Adam to Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Garden. God’s expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden marks the specific judgement in this first age.

The second dispensation is most commonly called the age of conscience. This second age begins with the expulsion from the Garden, and carries through to the flood. This age of conscience ends with God’s judgement of the flood.

The age of human government is viewed as the third dispensation. The end of the flood marks its beginning, and this dispensation ends at the tower of Babel. Of course, the judgement that marks the end of this dispensation is God’s act of dispersing the people by confusing their languages.

The fourth dispensation is called the age of promise. This age originates with God’s covenant with Abraham. It carries through to Israel’s bondage in Egypt. Of course, it ends with God judging Israel by placing them as slaves in Egypt.

The age of law is known as the fifth dispensation. From the forming of theocratic Israel at Mt. Sinai in the giving of the 10 commandments to the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 marks this period’s beginning and ending points. Obviously, DT says that this dispensation ends with God’s judgement in turning his focus off of Israel to the church (his new people).

The age of grace is identified as the sixth period. It is usually marked from the Day of Pentecost to the judgement of the apostate church and world. It is self-evident, therefore what this period’s specific judgement of God is.

The final period is often categorized as the age of the kingdom. It is marked by the second coming of Christ to the end of a 1,000 year (DT sees this as being literal) reign of Christ over restored Israel and the church. This period ends with the Great White Throne judgement.

Second, it is also clear that the followers of DT choose as their main point of emphasis a very strict separation of Israel and the Church, which logically results in two distinct peoples of God. The leaders of DT argue that God’s purpose for Israel is largely earthly, and has a largely earthly objective (Gen. 12:1; Dt. 8:7-9). On the other hand, they say that God’s purpose for the Church is heavenly, and has a heavenly objective (references used for support of argument: Phil. 3:20-21; Heb. 3:1; I Pet. 1:4). Thus, Israel is understood as being the centerpiece to Christ’s earthly presence (references used for support of argument: Lk. 1:31-33; Jer. 32:37-38). In contrast, the Church is understood as being the centerpiece of Christ’s heavenly presence (references used for support of argument: Jn. 14:2,3; Phil. 3:20-21).

Third, in addition to DT's major point of emphasis in separating ethnic Israel and the church, there exist some secondary elements that should be noticed as it pertains to each dispensation. It is argued that each dispensation contains certain key elements. First, every dispensation, they say, is marked by God’s “test” of man by placing him in a privileged position in relation to God and giving him a unique revelation of his will. It is simply man’s duty to obey God under these divinely appointed circumstances. Second, man’s unilateral failure to obey God’s will perfectly is highlighted in each dispensation. Third, as we have already seen, God closes each dispensation with judgement. And finally, each dispensation functions to reveal man’s guilt of sin before God.

Each of the three systems under discussion possesses a central method of interpreting the Scriptures, which brings us to the fourth major distinction of DT. DT is rooted in its adherent’s self-proclaimed literal interpretation of Scripture. What they mean by this is an allowance for the Old Testament Scriptures to stand on their own apart from the New Testament Scriptures. The result is that they allow the Old Testament Scriptures to interpret the New Testament Scriptures when it comes to prophesy. In other words, logical priority is given to the Old Testament over the New Testament. This explains their major distinctions regarding eschatology (last things) compared with the other two systems of thought to be considered in this series of posts. If one conducts their study of Scripture with this particular brand of interpretation, which demands Old Testament priority over the New Testament Scriptures, then the result is a strong stance regarding God’s promises to national, ethnic Israel. The Dispensationalist's classic argument used to support their interpretive method is based on a statement such as this, “Since Christ’s first coming included the literal fulfillment of prophecy (birth, death, resurrection), then His second coming will include a literal fulfillment of His promises to Israel.” We will not take the time to critique this statement right now, though it must be pointed out that there are many reasons why this statement is misleading and erroneous. At this point suffice it to say that adherents of DT claim that the main thrust of their theological system shows that God’s main purpose in the world is basically twofold: 1) to keep His promises to ethnic Israel, and 2) to save the Church.

One can determine on their own if this system can be seen as Gospel centered or not. Certainly, it will come down to an issue of degrees when judging which theological system is most Gospel centered. Regardless of one’s conclusion in determining the veracity of DT, it must be asserted that many of the men who have held to this position throughout church history have been godly men who unquestionably love the Gospel. That does not make them right. Indeed, I would argue that dispensationalists (especially of the classic breed) are largely wrong. Furthermore, their theological presuppositions give way to various practical implications as it relates to the church.

(Part 2 will be continued tomorrow)

Comparing Three Theological Systems: Dispensational Theology, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology

Introduction

For many months now I have been asked by several people to give (in some format or another) a synopsis of three major views regarding how the message of Scripture fits together. This desire grew out of a Sunday school class that I taught primarily dealing with what is known as New Covenant Theology. To be honest, I did not know exactly how to do this. I thought, should I write a paper? I concluded no. That is too academic. Should I preach a sermon on this topic? I concluded no. I am enjoying my preaching series through Colossians too much. For months I did not know how to do this until I decided to start a blog. In fact, this was one of the primary reasons for starting the blog. It provides a convenient opportunity to discuss issues like this apart from a Sunday sermon or Sunday school class (or an academic paper for that matter...that sounds boring to most people). Therefore, in the next few posts the three most common and systematized theologies will be explained, and examined to some degree. In other words, I will give an overview (and that is all that it is...trust me) of the most common methods among theologians on the topic of how the message of the Bible fits together. I call these theological systems because the adherents of each system all claim that a holistic interpretation of Scripture supports their respective system. In other words, each school of thought seeks to establish a logical, cohesive, and Biblical (thus theological) argument. All three positions are considered evangelical, and (generally speaking) all of its adherents believe in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. In addition, all three systems support an evangelical, Biblical understanding of the Gospel as well.

As one studies these respective systems it is important to bear in mind that various men hold to hybrid positions regarding these three systems. For example, one might be “dispensational” in his view on the future for ethnic Israel, but “covenantal” in that he supports an overarching covenant of grace given in the Garden of Eden. If that example confuses you, then just ignore it. Perhaps by the end of the blog postings it might make sense.

Our examination will begin with dispensational theology (DT), also known as dispensationalism. DT was not organized as a system until the 19th century by J.N. Darby. DT is probably the view held most prominently today by evangelical laymen as a whole even though many are not aware of it. Popular author Tim LaHaye has made this position even more famous in recent years due to the publication of his book series entitled Left Behind.

An examination of DT will be followed by an examination of covenant theology (CT). If DT is the most popular today, then CT is considered the most classical of all the positions. In addition, it is the position held by most Reformed folk. It was made famous during the Protestant Reformation. Most give its organizational credit to the famous reformer Ulrich Zwingli. Although, some would downplay Zwingli’s direct contribution.

We will conclude with an examination of New Covenant Theology (NCT). Men like Tom Wells, John Reisinger, and Fred Zaspel have made this view popular. Labeled by many as a “grass roots” movement among the churches, NCT is quickly gaining popularity among those of the reformed Baptist persuasion.

The purpose of these posts is not to critique each system in detail. Rather, these posts are to provide general, objective information concerning the primary tenets of each system of thought. When I discuss New Covenant Theology it will be obvious which system I personally hold to. In this discussion, I will critique the other two schools of thought (DT and CT) a little more directly.

Any questions or comments are encouraged! The time frame on the posts will be determined on how much discussion is generated. For instance, if there are no comments after my posting on the topic of Dispensationalism, then I will move on to the next system- CT. I pray that these posts will be helpful, especially to those who have been waiting for me to do this for months. Thanks for your patience (and persistence).

Love in Truth,
Andy