Dispensationalism 101: Part 2 - Covenental Thought
Image
From Dispensational Publishing House; used with permission.
Last time, we began this series by considering the difference between dispensational and covenantal theology. We thought about some basic things that we must understand in order to deal properly with that issue. We begin this article with a brief review.
Covenantalism in a Nutshell
The terms covenantal and Reformed are often used interchangeably. There are dispensationalists who speak of being Reformed, yet the way they use the term Reformed is in respect to salvation, referring to the doctrines of grace. Another might refer to himself as a Calvinist-dispensationalist, but this is a rather awkward phrase, since Calvinism is typically used in the discipline of soteriology, not eschatology. This designation would be used to refer to men like John MacArthur and faculty from his school, The Master’s University,1 and others who have embraced the doctrines of grace and who apply a consistently literal hermeneutic, especially in the prophets, while not reading Jesus into every Old Testament verse or giving the New Testament priority.2
When trying to define a system and associate certain teachers with it, there are nuances that make such a feat difficult. For example, James Montgomery Boice was pretribulational3 and premillennial4, yet he also practiced paedobaptism.5 Not all covenantalists are amillennial6 or postmillennial. And not all premillennialists are dispensationalists (e.g., Boice and George Eldon Ladd).
Covenants
In covenantal thought, covenants are the interpretive framework through which to read Scripture. They say the covenants are the theological structure by which the Bible organizes itself. The contention of this author is that though there are several covenants in Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, New Covenant, etc.), the covenants that covenantalists build this system around are not explicitly found in Scripture. The first extrabiblical covenant (no malice in saying this) that this system is based on is the covenant of law (or works7). They lodge support from such passages as Deuteronomy 30:15-20. This is the agreement between God and Adam where God promised life for perfect obedience.8
The other covenant (besides those agreed upon by dispensationalists) that they rely on is the covenant of grace (referring to the gospel).9 In this covenant there is agreement between the offended God and the offending sinner. According to Michael Horton in Pilgrim Theology, such a sinner has been “forgiven, justified, and renewed solely on the basis of Christ’s person and work.”10 Unfortunately, to his chagrin, Horton also says, “These covenants are not always explicitly visible.”11
Paedobaptism
A third element of covenantalism, alongside the two covenants, is the water baptism of infants, also called paedobaptism. The esteemed covenant theologian Louis Berkhof, says, “It is on the point of infant baptism that the most important difference is found between us and the Baptists.”12 He even admits at the outset that there is no explicit biblical command nor any single instance in the Bible in which we are told that children were baptized. Covenantalists see baptism as a sign and seal that replaces Old Testament circumcision. There are many fine presentations that refute paedobaptism, however.13
The Church, the New Israel
A fourth view that is espoused by covenant theology is that the church is the fulfillment of new covenant prophecy. This is woven into the covenant of redemption.14 For this they see one people of God—not the unique mystery of the church that is revealed by the Paul, the “apostle of Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13; cf. Eph. 3). In order to arrive at this conclusion, they see absolute continuity of believers before and after Pentecost rather than the dispensational view of more discontinuity between the two.
Again, this is a vastly simplified view of covenant theology, but it provides a starting point to show distinctions between it and dispensational thought.
Notes
1 John F. MacArthur, Faith Works (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), p. 225.
2 More of these particulars will be augmented later in the series.
3 Pretribulationism teaches that God will remove His church from the Earth (John 14:1-3; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) before pouring out His righteous wrath on the unbelieving world during seven years of tribulation (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 9:27; 12:1; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; Rev. 16).
4 Premillenialism teaches that Jesus Christ will return to earth and rule with His saints for a thousand years. This is a time where He lifts the curse He placed on the earth and fulfills the promises given to Israel (Isa. 65:17-25; Ezek. 37:21-28; Zech. 8:1-17), including a restoration to the land they forfeited through disobedience (Deut. 28:15-68).
5 Paedobaptism is the practice of baptizing infants or children who are deemed not old enough to verbalize faith in Christ.
6 Amillennialism is the belief that the thousand years referenced by John in Revelation 20 are not a literal, specific time.
7 A brief treatment of the covenant of works is found in R. C. Sproul’s What Is Reformed Theology? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), pp. 111-13.
8 Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.2, in Trinity Hymnalf (Atlanta: Great Commission Publications, 1990), p. 852.
9 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, pp. 113-16.
10 Michael Horton, Pilgrim Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), p. 160.
11 Ibid., p. 60.
12 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), p. 632.
13 See the baptism class at Biblical Expositor, which presents a Biblical, theological and historical case for believer’s baptism. “Baptism Class,” <http://www.biblicalexpositor.org/site/outlines.asp?sec_id=180007636&secu… Internet; accessed 2 June 2016. Furthermore, professors Henrick Stander and Johannes Louw, recognized authorities in Patristic studies, give irrefutable evidence that paedobaptism was not the practice of the early church. See their work Baptism in the Early Church (England: Reformation Today Trust, 2004).
14 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, pp. 114-15.
Parker Reardon Bio
Parker Reardon is a graduate of Word of Life Bible Institute, Pensacola Christian College and The Master’s Seminary, where he received a doctorate in expository preaching. He is currently serving as the main teaching elder/pastor at Applegate Community Church in Grants Pass, OR, and as adjunct professor of theology for Liberty University and adjunct professor of Bible and theology for Pacific Bible College.
- 55 views
The point here is that God always speaks with the intent that the audience will understand something, and usually they are expected to understand most of what He has said.
I resonate with what you are saying here, Aaron. Thanks for sharing this.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Sleep and then the Christian Sabbath (or the Lord’s Day or Sunday as you prefer) overtook me. I should have “signed out” until Monday.
I am trying to establish an agreed historical context for Biblical revelation that hopefully serve as a framework for further discussion. I have made assertions and identified assertions but I need to move to substantive arguments and appreciate your humoring me in this.
In this vein, I am glad for your “lawyering” and testing my statements to ensure that we have in fact found common ground on certain particulars.
I do not deny that Moses may have used sources in writing the Pentateuch but these sources would not have been authoritative, inerrant, infallible, and inspired unless incorporated and re-written by Moses into the Pentateuch.
In furtherance of this thought, I offer two more statements for your consideration:
11. Moses only knew with certainty (with certainty sufficient to record as Scripture) about Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph and the events of their lives because of what God directly revealed to Moses.
12. Moses only knew with certainty about Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph and the events of their lives because of subsequent revelation, revelation imparted to him hundreds of years after the fact, by God.
I will pick this up again tomorrow evening to address your caveat about No. 7.
Thanks,
JSB
Additional statements:
13. The only authoritative source for Moses in writing Genesis was God.
14. God was personally acquainted with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.
15. God was an eyewitness to the lives of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. m
16. God is the ultimate (and only authoritative) source and author of the Old Testament.
17. God is the ultimate (and only authoritative) source and author of the New Testament.
18. The New Testament is as authoritative a source about Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph and the events of their lives as the Old Testament.
JSB
ok
In regard to No. 7, Moses was on Mount Sinai alone with God forty days and forty nights. Thereafter, God spoke with Moses in the Tabernacle off and on over an extended period of time. “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” (Exodus 33:11)(ESV). More likely than not, during the forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai, and thereafter in the Tabernacle, God revealed to Moses much more that what is recorded in Genesis and Exodus. Even if God had dictated Genesis and Exodus to Moses, this would have taken less than forty days and forty nights. Moreover, the Pentateuch is not written “as a man speaks to his friend.” Also, Moses spoke to God on more occasions than the forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai and in the Tabernacle.
In light of statements Nos. 1-18, several conclusions can be drawn. One conclusion is that, what the patriarchs knew and when, cannot be determined merely by reading through Genesis. Genesis was not written to the patriarchs and is not an exhaustive account of what God revealed to them. What the New Testament says of them is just as probative as the Old Testament accounts. God wrote all the accounts. We are not justified is despising our privileged New Testament position and limiting our understanding through speculation of what an Israelite in his tent preparing to enter the “promised land” might have understood concerning the patriarchs.
When Jesus said to the Jews, as recorded in John 8:56, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad,” we should take this statement at face value and recognize that the day of Christ was revealed to Abraham. Indeed, the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham. “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’” (Galatians 3:8)(ESV). Abraham did not have the Scripture because it had yet to be written. Yet God revealed the Scripture to him beforehand.
Regardless of what the Israelite in his tent may or may not have known, we know that Abraham “was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:10)(ESV). The patriarchs, while in the “promised land,” desired “a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:16)(ESV). This is the inheritance, the homeland, they were seeking. To the Israelite in his tent, Moses said, “You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.” (Deuteronomy 29:2-4). Some of them knew but not all. “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” (I Corinthians 10:11)(ESV). We know because God has more plainly revealed it to us.
JSB
I don’t think there is anything particularly controversial about any of that at face value. But I don’t think it addresses what I am concerned about.
First, I don’t think this is about what OT people knew and when they knew it. We are not called to preach that. That has not been given to us as an authority. Only the Scripture has. And our preaching must be based on the Scripture. So you could be completely right that they knew more than the text tell us (and I think you are right), and it doesn’t make any difference. God, in his wise providence, has not given that to us. So why do we think we should “fill in the gaps” of what God has given us? Is not the Scripture sufficient to make us wise to salvation and to equip us for every good work? Of course it is, as I am sure you would agree. So whatever they might have known outside of Scripture is, more or less, irrelevant since our job is not to preach what they might have known or did know. It is to preach what the Scriptures say, and for that, the is sufficient.
Second, I agree that we must not despise what the NT says. Where God speaks we have no justification to limit that or deny it. But that’s the key. It’s revelation. If that is not available to us, and I hope we can agree that it’s not, what do we use to interpret? My answer is the text. We are not called to preach our imaginative connections that are concocted in our well-meaning, but uninspired minds, no matter how much we might think it looks like what the NT authors did under inspiration.
And a caveat is simple: Is the NT revelation regarding a passage an actual interpretation of meaning? Or is it one of the other many uses (analogy, typology, borrowed language, etc.)? Because that matters a lot in how we interpret the OT in light of the NT. If we take borrowed language for instance and try to make it an interpretation of meaning, we are going to read the OT wrong and make it mean something it didn’t mean and doesn’t mean. So we have to decide that first.
What you don’t address and what my concern is is what about when there is no revelation of meaning? Some here and elsewhere (Johnson, Enns) are saying we are to use the apostolic hermeneutic to interpret OT passages, even when (or Johnson says “especially when”) the NT doesn’t address them. But as I pointed out, we don’t really know what they did (see the multiple options) or how they did it. All we know for sure is that they were inspired and we are not.
That Abraham was looking for a heavenly city did not mean that he was not also looking for an earthly land. And his and his descendants’ desire to be buried in the land speaks volumes to the significance of the promise to them and the way the understood it. So to set the land promises as over against heaven is, to my way of thinking, a false dichotomy. Both are certainly true and neither can be discarded or minimized.
I don’t know if you saw it earlier, but my comments about some thinking like Enns were discounted and I was accused by someone (I don’t remember who) of calling people liberals. But when I posted Enns’ comments, someone expressly said they agreed with him. I think that’s a major problem for biblical studies.
So in the end, I think this is both more complex and more simple than many are making it. But I continue to argue that we have either inspiration or the text as the basis for our authority (as Walton argues), and with the absence of the former, we have only the latter.
I am reassured that the application of the grammatical-historical method is not controversial. The Scriptures should be preached—all of the Scriptures—in the broader as well as the narrower context. In part, what I mean by that is, as I have earlier demonstrated, the New Testament is as authoritative a source about Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph and the events of their lives as the Old Testament. The actual text of Scripture is of utmost importance, yes, but also what can be concluded from the text of Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Otherwise, there would be no warrant for preaching but merely the public reading of Scripture.
In regard to the New Testament’s use of the Old, I agree with you that care must be taken. I also urge you to be careful of limiting your reading of the Old Testament without taking into careful consideration the New Testament, what the Old Testament says and does not say, and the implications thereof. For example, in Romans 9:24-26, Paul invokes Hosea to demonstrate that the offspring of Abraham entitled to the covenant promises made to Abraham are not only less inclusive than ethnic Israel but also more inclusive,
… even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Was Paul here providing an actual interpretation of the meaning of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23? According to Geerhardus Vos,
The Israelites will become individually sons of Jehovah [[Hosea] 1.10]. This promise is applied by Peter and Paul [I Pet. 2.10; Rom. 9.25, 26] to the calling of the Gentiles, not, however, because Hosea was thing of that, but because the underlying principle was the same, and because the Gentiles had been organically incorporated into the covenant of Israel.
Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (The Banner of Truth Trust: Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1948, 1975), at 294. Although a mystery to most Jews, the Gentile inclusion was consistent with this principle set forth in Hosea and evidenced innumerable times in the text of the Old Testament by those who had an ear to hear.
In regard to the land, I have mentioned before that this land will literally be present in the New Creation, when the New Heavens and the New Earth come together as a result of the transformation of the Old. As Doug Wilson says, “Heaven is Not My Home, I’m Just a-Passin’ Through.” This will be a literal earth, a “heavenly earth,” a land truly worthy of the Old Testament prophecies of the land promise. That Abraham and his descendants’ desired to be buried in the land speaks volumes of their understanding that they would enter this land through death and resurrection.
As recorded in Genesis 17:8, God told Abraham, “And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” Abraham and his descendants died and were buried. How could this promise come true? Through death and resurrection; resurrection in incorruptible bodies into an incorruptible land. Their hope was not resurrection in fallen bodies into a sin wracked world. You may read the text of Scripture differently and draw different conclusions but this is a reading of the text of Scripture and a drawing of reasonable if not good and necessary conclusions therefrom.
JSB
Discussion