Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - Part 3

Critique

The author, although raised in a Dispensational Bible church, is convinced today that the system of Dispensationalism is faulty. This is not to say that the contributions Dispensationalists have made should be discounted. Many Dispensationalists have made profound impacts in the work of the Kingdom and will continue. Nonetheless, all personal feelings and ties must be put aside, as much as possible, to objectively as possible, evaluate both systems, and in this case defend the pre-eminence of Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism.

It is interesting to note the historical development of Dispensationalism and particularly its rise in popularity against the backdrop of Revivalism in America. There is little doubt that the two are closely intermingled. Furthermore, the most fundamental characteristic of Revivalism is man-centeredness. This anthropocentric disposition flourished during the late 1800s and early 1900s mainly because of the following elements: 1) the individualistic tendencies of Dispensationalism; 2) democracy in America; 3) Arminianism’s misnomer of free will. Although this facet cannot be further expanded at this point, it is at least worthwhile to mention as a basis for understanding the domination of Dispensationalism today. Additionally, it is important to see the connection of Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and Democracy as systems (all growing significantly during the same historical period), each being dominantly man-centered.

In “Dispensationalism Today”, Charles Ryrie accuses Covenant Theologians as having God’s redemption of the Elect as his chief goal. Furthermore, he claims that the Dispensationalist’s view of God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. But his further explanation is what is most disturbing. He writes:

Covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle. This is undoubtedly partly due to the spiritualizing of the text of Scripture so that there is little or no future for Israel, thus obliterating the distinctive purpose God has for that people. If that were not obliterated, then the covenant theologian would see that the glory of God is to be realized fully not only in salvation but also in the Jewish people and also in His purpose concerning angels. (emphasis added)

If Ryrie’s accusation that Covenant Theologians do not hold God’s glory in the highest regard, as his ultimate goal, then concession would have to be made. But as shall be made clear, this is not true. The accusation is false. However, before moving on, it must be questioned concerning his comment regarding a distinction between “salvation” and “in the Jewish people.” Are the Jewish people to be compared to angels? Is there a difference between God saving a Jew and God saving a Gentile? Does Revelation, or any other prophecy, describe a distinction between Jews and the Church in heaven? The answers are of course all “NO.”

In defense of the accusation against Covenant theologians by Ryrie, Mathison shows how God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. He cites the Westminster Confession of Faith along with numerous Reformed theologians who have written in support of the notion that God’s glory is his ultimate goal, including A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof. He summarizes with the following conclusion, “Reformed theology clearly recognizes that God’s ultimate purpose is His own glory.” At best, both systems agree on this point. However, there still seems to be an underlying current in Dispensationalism that anthropocentric. This current will be further explained in the following critique of the distinctives of Dispensationalism: the literal hermeneutic, the secret rapture of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the Church.

Although the distinction between the Church and Israel is arguably the most formidable distinction between the two systems, Dispensationalists certainly seem to cling most loyally to their “literal, normal, plain” hermeneutic. Although numerous texts could be pointed out wherein the Dispensationalist uses an inconsistent hermeneutic (Matt. 24:34 to name only one), the most fundamental issue is that of “presuppositional hermeneutics.” In other words, every theologian comes to his desk, just like every scientist comes to his lab, with presuppositions. It is impossible for anyone to be purely objective, both the Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian alike. So when Ryrie claims that Dispensationalists (or literalist as he also uses) do not deny figurative language, symbols or spiritual truths but simply interprets the Bible “normally,” we must then ask, “Who is it that interprets any other way?” Does the Covenant Theologian interpret abnormally? Would most Dispensationalists claim that of Covenant Theologians? It is doubtful. Regardless of Ryrie’s wording, the bottom line between the two is not really normalcy, but a mere difference of opinion in meaning. The Dispensationalist says that the “horse” is literally a horse while the Covenant Theologian says that it represents a powerful nation. This is a difference, and this difference comes from a presupposition. The presupposition determines what is figurative and what is not. To use Matthew 24:34 again, the Dispensationalist claims that this is figurative (Jesus is referring to the entire Jewish race when he uses the word “generation”) while most Covenant Theologians see it as literal (the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70). Go to another text and the reverse is true. Accusations could fly back and forth on any given text. But the hermeneutic is not at issue (or at least at issue alone). The presupposition is. One comes to the Scriptures with the presupposition that God is immutable and sovereign and he relates to man through covenant. This shapes the “normalcy” of interpretation of every passage. The other comes to the Bible with the presupposition that God has a plan to test man, man will fail, and then God will judge him which in turn shapes his “normalcy”. Furthermore, the former requires a greater understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture. Covenant theology does not make sense in a piecemeal manner. Dispensationalism can easily be fragmented, as has been the case over the past 150 years, into numerous factions.

To deny the secret rapture of the church and the ensuing seven years of horror on earth before Christ’s second (third?) return is nearly an abomination (at least in the Bible belt). Yearly “Prophecy Conferences” at countless churches and books and movies like the “Left Behind” series fuel thoughts that the secret rapture is certainly biblical. So when one is confronted with the notion that this entire train of thought might not be biblical after all, it is certainly difficult to accept. To say the least, the doctrine is not overtly biblical. John Walvoord concedes that is completely circumstantial. To say that God’s people will be spared wrath, in the form of persecution, would simply be unbiblical (1 Peter is full of the contrary as one example). The main texts that Dispensationalists use, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, neither necessarily refer to the removal of the Church from the world. Only a presuppositional hermeneutic can lead one to that conclusion. The meaning, clearly enough, is that those saved will not face wrath but are appointed “to receive salvation.” Why reclassify the meaning of the word “salvation” to mean something different than eternal salvation? Is that an inconsistent hermeneutic? Furthermore, those who appeal to the promise to the church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10, to be spared of the testing to come, must allegorize that church to represent the Church in the future. Why shouldn’t it be the literal church at Philadelphia? Another passage that Dispensationalists refer to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. The reference to the “last trumpet” establishes a problem if another trumpet is to be sounded at the visible coming of Christ (Matt. 24:31). Either the “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15 is not the last one, or the two events are not two events. Without accounting for the attempts that Dispensationalists make to explain these texts, it is sufficient to say that a literal, plain hermeneutic will not lead one to a doctrine of a secret rapture. Only with a presuppositional hermeneutic will one arrive at such a destination.

As has been stated more than once, the distinction between Israel and the Church is the most significant distinctive of Dispensationalism. As opposed, the unity of the two for Covenant Theologians is also important. However, the importance for the Covenantal Theologian is not based on the same reasoning as that of the Dispensationalist. The unity, for the Covenant Theologian, comes from a covenantal view of God’s relating to man. God always relates to man through covenant. The unity isn’t necessary to fit the system. The unity necessarily comes from the system. Moreover, the system is based not on anything to do with man, but completely on God’s character. Man is merely the recipient of the covenant. He may break it, but God will not. He may be unfaithful, but God will not be. The system is not man-centered. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, sees the distinction between the two groups as necessary to fit the system. Their system is man-centered instead of God-centered. God is testing man to see what man will do. When man fails, then God judges man and starts all over again. Man is on the center stage. History becomes man’s story rather than God’s story, even though most Dispensationalists will claim a sovereign God. Their claim falls apart, as Mathison explains: “because of their weak view of depravity and their belief in unlimited atonement, dispensationalists have a confused doctrine of election – an unstable mixture of conditional and unconditional election. As a result, the biblical doctrine is corrupted.” Additionally, who God is characterizes how he relates to man. Although there is no overt biblical support for this facet of the argument, it at least seems logical to note that a sovereign, faithful, immutable and omniscient God is necessary to Covenant Theology. On the contrary, Dispensationalism could exist within Arminianism, open-theism, and other views that need not a sovereign, faithful, immutable or omniscient God. Although the latter does not deny that God could be any or all of those attributes, it certainly does not seem to be a system derived from the character of God who possesses those attributes. Therefore, based on God’s character alone, it would seem logical, if not necessary, that God would relate in a consistent manner to man. It is Covenant theology that is described by this consistency, in particular with how it views Israel and the Church. Furthermore, to reiterate a previously stated point, it is Christ who has fulfilled all that Israel lacked. This makes the Church a further developed people of God, not a separate people of God. It should be noted as important to ask of the Dispensationalist how the “two path” and “parenthesis” notions fit together, as well as how the object of faith for Old Testament saints, New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles can be unified (it must be Christ according to Acts 4:12) and yet not unify. The Church stands on the shoulders of Israel and the Jewish faith. Therefore, there is no need to shun Israel today or the Jewish people. Rather, Christians should recognize the great heritage that exists in Israel and among the Jewish people and ought to have a great burden in their heart for the evangelism of the Jews. On the contrary, Dispensationalists make unfair claims when they state Covenant Theologians have no place for Israel in their hearts. The command given was to go to ALL the world. Evangelism is to all people. And because there is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved than that of Jesus Christ, the Jews of all people need to hear this. Their pump has been primed if they know the Old Testament. However, if the Old Testament is divided, and the unity is broken, the Messianic Jew could certainly suffer from a minimized view of Christ and His work.

And so it must be said that there is no perfect system. One day all will be sorted out, but for now it is imperative that all test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The Dispensationalist should be encouraged to search his Bible not only with a zoom lens, but also with a wide-angle lens. He must “back up” and see the whole picture. He must understand that “context is king”, not his literal hermeneutic. He must see who God is, and understand that He works according to His character. He must appreciate prophecy, but not be consumed by it, understanding its purpose is not to have a detailed map of the future but to live a hope-filled life in these tumultuous times. He must see how Israel was chosen not because of her worth but because of God’s good will and mercy. He chose Israel. And thus, He chooses each one, who are known as the Elect. And finally, he must see that our God is a God of faithfulness, a covenantal God who relates to man by means of covenant. And by understanding this about God, he can then know so much about more His work, His world, and His story.