Bible, Theology & Philosophy

The life of the mind—including the life of the theological mind—experiences rhythms in which attention waxes and wanes. At one moment a significant plurality of thinkers will be focused upon some particular topic, but at a later moment their focus will have shifted to a different theme. Those who work with their minds instead of their hands will find that these ebbs and flows determine at least a part of their task. Whatever one’s discipline, one constantly feels the pressure to respond to the questions that are being asked at the moment. For the most part, even theologians are not free simply to ignore the immediate in favor of more remote personal interests.

The present moment is especially propitious for theologians who wish to think about the Trinity. Through its brief history, American evangelicalism (including fundamentalism) has produced few minds that have given themselves to understanding Trinitarianism. More typical have been those who, like J. Oliver Buswell, were willing to jettison certain aspects of the traditional doctrine that they perceived as meaningless. For his part, Buswell tried to dispense with the eternal generation of the Son, even though he acknowledged that his proposal was “somewhat revolutionary” (Systematic Theology 1:111). One wonders at the “somewhat.”

While Buswell serves as a convenient illustration, he is hardly alone. During his generation, the greatest challenges to orthodox Trinitarianism came either from theological liberalism (which pantheized God and divinized humanity) or else the unreconstructed Arianism of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both approaches represented a direct and immediate threat to the deity of Christ. In those days, reflection upon the Trinity occurred primarily in the context of defending the deity of Christ. Other Trinitarian questions tended to fade in importance.

Dear Stephen,

Because we occupy rather distinct corners of the Lord’s vineyard, it has been some time since I have given much thought to you or to the university that you lead. My attention was riveted a few weeks ago, however, by a public clamor that was being raised against Bob Jones University. It is not necessary to rehearse the details of that commotion here, except to say that it brought certain matters to my attention.

First, it made me aware that your ministry (by which I mean both yours personally and the university’s institutionally) is facing sustained and sometimes very harsh public censure. Second, it alerted me to the fact that, while your critics are of different kinds, the most vocal detractors will be satisfied with nothing short of the complete collapse of Bob Jones University. Third, it made me aware that some of the most vitriolic criticisms are being leveled through venues in which careful analysis and personal accountability are notably absent—namely, venues such as Internet weblogs and social media services.

While I am not close enough to Bob Jones University to judge much of what takes place in the institution, many of the criticisms themselves simply lacked credibility. Both the vehemence and the virtual incoherence of the critics left me thinking of a lynch mob. The degree of their speculation about what you must have known or done behind closed doors was—well, it was hardly the mark of fair-mindedness or even-handedness.

On the contrary, as I have thought about what has taken place at Bob Jones University over the past fifteen years, I find many reasons to rejoice. Beginning under your father’s presidency, the ministry seems to have followed a trajectory of moderation and increasing responsibility. It is a trajectory of which I sincerely approve.

Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read the rest of the series.

Below are my final thoughts on the “95 Theses Against Dispensationalism.” I could wish that these criticisms of dispensationalism were less hapless. The system itself is open to more piercing critical analysis than has been demonstrated by the “Nicene Council.” I do not really care whether I am this or that kind of theologian; I do care about being biblical! So if I am “dispensational” in my outlook rather than leaning to Covenant Theology, so be it. As I have said before, I prefer to be viewed as a “biblical covenantalist” and have done with the dispensational moniker altogether. For continuity’s sake I have started numbering where I left off last time.

5. Underlying covenant theology

Although the “95 Theses” make no explicit mention of covenant theology (CT), it is always lurking in the background, shaping the thinking behind the formulations of the Nicene Council. Now it is certainly not a crime to be a covenant theologian. Christians generally have benefitted greatly from some of the work of the Puritans and the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. None can read the works of Boston, Edwards, the Hodges, Warfield, Cunningham, Candlish, Kuyper, Bavinck, Murray, Van Til, and a host of others without benefitting. But I make bold to suggest that none of the really beneficial materials produced by these men—that is to say, nothing that can be shown to come directly from the text of Scripture—is reliant upon covenant theology for its existence, other than the fact that CT has a conceptual, and thus instrumental, genius for promoting abstract thought (no small complement coming from a dispensationalist).