1
In the centuries after the
Reformation as Protestants tried to set forth their position against Rome,
various disagreements ensued over how far Roman Catholic doctrine should be
reformed. Lutherans, for example, held to much of the Romanist liturgy, to
infant baptism, to an amillennial eschatology, and to a strong view of
Communion (“Consubstantiation”). Calvinists, while departing from Lutherans on
liturgical aspects and the nature of Communion, nevertheless held on to infant
baptism and amillennial eschatology. Those Christians who insisted upon
believers’ baptism and were less committed to amillennialism (usually known as
the “Anabaptists”) were persecuted and excluded politically and socially as
“too radical” for the general Protestant community.
For the purposes of this
part of the framework series, we will look again at the traditions coming from
Calvin as we did in Part V, Appendix C, when we examined the doctrine of the
extent of the atonement. Here we take a broader view. To put the doctrine of
the Church in perspective we have to show how different trends in Calvinism
result in different views of the origin and mission of the Church. The two
trends we are most interested in are Reformed theology and Dispensational
theology because these views actively compete today with one another in
evangelical, Bible-believing Christian radio programming, magazines, and bookstores.
I will discuss them in the historical sequence of their origin, first a survey
of Reformed theology and then a survey of Dispensational theology.
A SURVEY OF THE RISE AND
INFLUENCE OF REFORMED THEOLOGY
The Protestant Reformers
lived “under fire” all their lives. Europe was rent politically and religiously
by the Protestant-Romanist split. Intrigue, politics, councils, and violence
followed. The Reformers had neither the time nor the energy to wholly reform
Roman Catholic theology. What they did do was to affirm the primacy of
Scripture over the Church (i.e., sola scriptura) and, out of that
belief, affirm also the doctrine of justification by faith.[1]
[Both of these doctrines were discussed in Part III of this series.]
RATIONAL STRUCTURE OF REFORMED
THEOLOGY
Protestant scholars
following Calvin relied upon their scholastic background which had thoroughly
trained them in logic and systematics. Whereas Romanist scholars utilized
scholasticism to expound theology with Aristotelian categories, the Reformers
utilized scholasticism to expound theology with the authority of Scripture and
the doctrine of justification taken into account. They focused upon
soteriological truths within the Bible and therefore concentrated upon New
Testament texts where justification by faith was presented. In the decades
following Luther and Calvin they had to defend Protestantism against a very
strong counter-attack from Rome. One tool they found useful to present and
refute Catholic counter-attacks were establishing detailed, systematic, creedal
statements (e.g., the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort). These
confessional statements continued the tradition of formulating doctrinal
conclusions that had begun centuries earlier with the Apostles’, Nicean, and
Chalcedon creeds. All Christians should give them study, especially in our day
when there is so much unsystematic and fragmentary teaching in our pulpits.
The Structure “Freezes”. Viewed from the standpoint
of Church history (see Chapter Four), creeds show the progressive teaching of
the Holy Spirit in bringing the Church to its destined maturity. In the case of
Reformed Theology, however, it seems that such progress was thought to have
ceased with the great Protestant creeds. Doctrinal understanding was essentially
“frozen” at the 16th and 17th century stage of growth.
Christians living at the time who wanted to apply the Protestant principle of
the authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) to other areas of theology
such as ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church and its ordinances) and
eschatology (doctrine of the future involving prophecy) were stymied. Three
major thrusts were sharply resisted by Reformed theology as it froze up to
further reformation.
Reformed theology continued
the Roman Catholic practice of infant baptism (although modifying its
meaning). Soon this practice came under fire. Students of the Swiss Reformer,
Zwingli, following sola scriptura noted that only believers were
baptized in the New Testament. Since they insisted that people who in Europe at
the time had nearly all been baptized as infants should be re-baptized after
belief, they were called the “Anabaptists.” Zwingli and his fellow Reformers
savagely persecuted the Anabaptist practice.
A second trend toward a more
consistent application of the authority of Scripture was the Anabaptist belief
that the Church cannot be identified with the State in any way. Whereas
Reformed theology continued the Roman Catholic practice of government
sponsorship of one church within a jurisdiction, Anabaptists determined to
form what they called a “Free Church” made up of those who voluntarily were
baptized after conversion. The church and the state were two separate
institutions with two entirely differentm requirements for membership. It was
out of this belief that pacifism developed within Anabaptism because a church
member, it was thought, could not simultaneously serve as a state magistrate.
Such a separation often tended toward
a new monasticism of an attempted withdrawal from the world, repeating the
earlier tendency of Roman Catholic monasteries. Needless to day, this break
with the “established” state churches was labeled by both Reformed theologians
and Catholic authorities as a dangerous radicalism that threatened social
unity. Both persecuted the Anabaptist followers because of it. The eminent
Church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette sums up the situation:
“[Lutheranism and the
Reformed Churches] sought to be the church of the entire community. In this
they succeeded in several lands. Both continued infant baptism and by it
endeavoured to bring into the visible church all who were born into the
community. To be sure, Luther was not entirely happy over this procedure, for
it did not fully accord with his basic principle of salvation by faith. Calvin
taught that many so baptized were not among the elect and did not belong to
that invisible church whose membership was known to God alone. Yet each wished
the visible church to include all in a given area. . . .
Contemporaneously with
Lutheranism and Calvinism there was another kind of Protestantism, much more
radical than either. . . .[Those who adhered to it] looked to the Scriptures
and especially the New Testament as their authority and tended to discard all
that they could not find expressly stated in that basic collection of sources.
They wished to return to the primitive Christianity of the first century. They
thus rejected much more which had come through the Catholic Church than did
Lutherans and the Reformed.
They believed in ‘gathered churches’, not identical with the community at
large, but composed of those who had had the experience of the new birth.
Rejecting infant baptism as contrary to the Scriptures, they regarded only that
baptism valid which was administered of conscious believers. They were
therefore nick-named Anabaptists. . . .[2]
In addition to continuing
Roman Catholic practices of infant baptism and state sponsorship, Reformed
theology also perpetuated Roman Catholic amillennial eschatology. Included in
this eschatological view were the idea of “replacement theology” whereby the
Church replaced Israel in God’s plan, the idea of allegorical interpretation of
biblical texts—especially the prophetic texts, and the idea of the
political-social dominance of the Church whereby state laws would derive from
Scripture and enforce the Christian faith upon all citizens. When Christians
awoke to the sola scriptura principle in defining the nature and destiny
of the Church, amillennialism was challenged. A great variety of prophetic
ideas which were not well developed from the Scripture arose within groups like
the Anabaptists. Eschatology is an exceedingly complex area of interpretation
that takes much detailed study, something that was not possible during the
post-Reformation era. Soteriology, not eschatology, was the central combat zone
of the time. The departures from classical amillennialism, therefore, were
viewed with alarm by Lutherans and the Reformed Churches. Political radicalism
came to be associated with such departures so that Lutherans, Reformed
Churches, and Roman Catholics united against the so-called “radical Reformers”
who entertained fragmentary versions of premillennialism and other more literal
approaches to the prophetic Scriptures. We learn from this period of Church
history that Reformed theology had formulated a defensive, systematic, and
detailed structure that was set into creedal form. Under fire from Rome,
Reformed theology focused upon the central issue of soteriology and essentially
froze any further reformation from Catholic faith and practice. Three major
reformational trends were fiercely resisted: the reform of baptism, the reform
of church-state relations, and the reform of eschatology.
The Structural Content:
TULIP. Soon
after Reformed theology began its systematization, dissent from within arose in
Holland with a group known as the Remonstrants. A Reformed theologian, Jacob
Arminius (1559-1609) who had studied under Calvin’s successor, Beza, became
convinced of the Remonstrants’ beliefs and became so identified with their
position that ever since it has been known as Arminianism. [We studied part of
this controversy in Appendix C of Part V.] Latourette sums up the Arminian
objection: “Rejecting supralapsarianism [God decreed who should be saved and
who should be damned before creation and the fall] and infralapsarianism [God
so decreed after the fall], limited atonement (namely, the teaching that Christ
died only for the elect), irresistible grace, and the perseverence of the
elect, it held that Christ died for all men, that salvation is by faith alone,
that those who believe are saved, that those who reject God’s grace are lost,
and that God does not elect particular individuals for either outcome.[3]
The Reformed Churches met the
Arminian challenge in their typical way: they held a theological convention to
write a creedal answer. Known as the Synod of Dort (completed in 1619), the
convention agreed on the five doctrines that have since become the hallmark of
Reformed theology. Each of these doctrines’ names form the acrostic TULIP.
T: Total Depravity of Man. This doctrinal formulation
is an attempt to spell out the effects of the fall on every member of the human
race. The word “total” refers not to the depth of depravity (which
differs from person to person) but to the comprehensive character of the
depravity, i.e., that it affects every area of the soul in such a way that no
one can come to God without God taking the first step. In order to make
salvation wholly of God’s initiating grace and to exclude all human merit,
Reformed theology makes this expression to assert that no one can believe
unless they are first regenerated. This use of regeneration to stand for all of
God’s pre-salvation calling is done for theological consistency with other
Reformed doctrines rather than being the conclusion of detailed exegesis of the
biblical text. A question arises whether protection of God’s initiating grace
and elimination of human merit can be done in a fashion that respects textual details
more than imposing this meaning upon the term regeneration. The doctrine of
regeneration is discussed in Chapter 2 of this Part of the Series.
U: Unconditional Election. By unconditional election
Reformed theology means that God’s choice of who is elected and who isn’t is
not determined by anything
outside of God. It is not
controlled by the relative merit of men or their foreseen positive response to
the gospel offer. In other words, God is Himself not “conditioned” by something
outside of Himself. He is absolutely free to do whatsoever His wills that is
compatible with His nature.[4]
Viewed one way this doctrine simply asserts the Creator-creature distinction
that is in danger of being lost in discussions involving creature free will.
Viewed another way it gets involved in the details of the divine decrees (the
supralapsarian-infralapsarian discussion). Again, the issue arises over how
much emphasis is upon filling in details of a theological system vis-a-vis
researching contextual meaning in the biblical text. The doctrine of election
is discussed in Chapter 2 of Part III of this series.
L: Limited Atonement. By articulating the
limited atonement, Reformed theology tries to protect the work of Christ on the
cross from being wasted on those who reject it and from being contingent upon
human response. More than the other points in TULIP, however, this point most
clearly alters the contextual meaning of specific biblical references. The work
of Christ can be rendered certain by a more balanced doctrinal statement which
more thoughtfully respects biblical references. The limited atonement debate is
discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix C of Part V of this series.
I: Irresistible Grace. The doctrine of the
irresistibleness of grace is the logical extension of unconditional election.
Works that God has chosen to occur will certainly come to pass. Grace extended
to sinners who are the elect ones, therefore, cannot be successfully rejected.
By the term “irresistible” is not meant a steamroller effect; it means that the
grace is never permanently rejected. This doctrinal formulation is a reaction
to Arminian emphasis upon man’s apparent capacity to disobey, block, and thwart
God’s directly revealed will. Of course, in the end God’s total will is never
thwarted. Yet it often in Scripture involves “three-steps-forward-and -two-steps-backward”
along with real “hypothetical options” that must be expounded. The neat
theological formulation of irresistible grace can often be devoid of much
biblical content, content which stimulated the original Arminian objections and
which is buried but not answered.
P: Perseverance of the Elect. This Reformed doctrine can
be understood several ways, depending upon how one reads the phrase. It could
mean that the elect persevere in obedient faith without serious lapses from
which they fail to recover before their death. It could also mean that the
elect persevere in a saved status in spite of unrecoverable lapses due
only to God’s faithfulness to bless and to chasten. This second meaning would
include the idea of loss of rewards after death due to disobedience. The former
meaning is one that was emphasized strongly in later Reformed theology such as
that of the Puritans and by Lordship Salvation advocates today who follow the
Puritans on this point. It entails concepts of false and saving faith whereby
assurance of saving faith is contingent upon continual fruit in the life. Faith
and assurance are separated in this view to “protect” against licentious living
so that the Protestant and Catholic views of faith ironically wind up as
strikingly similar.[5] Not only
that, but this separation of faith and assurance mirrors even more ironically
the Arminian notion of faith! This understanding of perseverance tends to see NT
admonitions as being directed to churchgoers who remain unbelievers.
The first meaning of the
doctrine of perseverance characterized the original Reformers. Calvin, for
example, did not separate faith from assurance; in his view they were
identical. Because one has assurance of his salvation, one can walk by faith.
The danger of licentious living is controlled in this view by divine chastening
and the future judgment of the believer. It relies upon the perseverance of God
in stead of that of the believer. This view tends to understand NT
admonitions as being directed to believers who are in danger of divine
chastening and loss of rewards.
Reformed theology soon began
to be identified as “covenant theology” because it organized its doctrine using
the concept of a covenant. Since the Bible expressed salvation through
covenants, this form seemed to later Reformers like God’s archetypal
soteriological structure for managing all redemption. Reformed theology used
several such covenant structures to express itself, but the most prominent is
the “covenant of grace.” This covenant must not be confused with any of the biblical
covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Siniatic, Palestinian, and New). It is a
theological structure that derives from an inductive generalization of biblical
covenant material. It is the source of the frequent appearance of the word
“covenant” in titles of ministries based upon Reformed theology.[6]
Covenant Structure. It is a hypothesized
contract between God and the elect to completely redeem them. Its objective
basis is the atonement of Christ. Its subjective requirement is belief on the
Son which results from irresistible grace. It implies a unity of content amidst
all the biblical covenants. And it guarantees and applies all the blessings God
has ordained for His elect. Logically, it is developed primarily from NT
terminology which is seen to be the final interpretation of earlier Old
Testament texts.
Effects of the Covenant
Structure Upon Biblical Interpretation. This covenant structure with its soteriological
orientation has a number of important effects upon how Reformed adherents must
interpret Scripture. The primary effect occurs in minimizing the differences
among the biblical covenants in order to emphasize the one Covenant of Grace
that allegedly underlies them. Since the Covenant of Grace always involves the
elect and only the elect and always centers upon eternal salvation, texts that
speak of temporal historical details that concern both believers and
unbelievers tend to be neglected. Whatever the biblical covenants’ “fine print”
says, in this view must always be interpreted in the light of eternal
redemption.
Thus by emphasizing this one underlying covenant with the elect conceived of as a homogeneous group, Reformed theologians insist that there can be only “one people of God.” Distinctions among God’s working with the Gentile nations, Israel, and the Church are suppressed. “Replacement theology” results whereby the Church replaces chronologically Israel in God’s plan. With the crucifixion of Christ, Israel’s role in history is finished in the perspective of this covenant theology. Terminology in the Abrahamic and other biblical covenants regarding Israel, the land, the Temple, and a theocratic political reign from Jerusalem is usually reinterpreted in “spiritual terms” that understand the “deeper meaning” to refer to the Church. The NT is viewed as actually “correcting” the meaning of certain OT texts.[7] If the Church replaces the nation Israel, in this view, it must inherit a political mission. Covenant thinking produces a tendency, therefore, for overt political domination, for “Christianizing the world”, for establishing state and national churches, and for adherence to a post-millennial eschatology.
Much of the material of this
Appendix is taken from my article, “A ‘Meta-Hermeneutical’ Comparison of
Covenant and Dispensational Theologies” to be published in a forthcoming issue
of The Chafer Theological Seminary Journal.
By downplaying differences in
the various programs of God throughout history, covenant theology must
attribute to OT saints an advanced understanding of the gospel that rivals that
of NT saints. So, for example, if an OT exhortation says “bring a sacrifice
into the Temple”, the meaning in this view, is that there is a clear
consciousness of Messiah as the coming Lamb of God. Historical progression in
biblical revelation is not fully appreciated. Biblical texts are interpreted
theologically rather than placed in their historical context. This method of
interpretation finds itself unable to distinguish between the features of an OT
saint’s walk with God and a NT saint’s walk with Him. Features unique to the
Church age are left unappreciated.
Another effect of covenant
theology upon biblical interpretation is how NT passages that cite OT passages
as “fulfilled” are understood. If a passage from the OT prophet Joel, for
example, is said in the NT to be “fulfilled” on the day of Pentecost, that must
mean that Pentecost fulfills the whole complex of second advent prophecy in
Joel. OT textual details of geophysical catastrophism must be reinterpreted
metaphorically. Recent developments in Reformed theology, in fact, have taken
this tendency to its logical conclusion: there will be no physical second
advent of Christ. This event has already happened, presumably at A.D. 70 when
Jerusalem fell. Other more moderate Reformed theologians such as R. C. Sproul
and Kenneth L. Gentry save a future advent but strip away most of OT prophecy
(and the book of Revelation) as already fulfilled. This position is known as
“preterism” and is becoming popular.[8]
To sum up: Reformed theology
utilizing the concept of a covenant structure “behind” history not only has
frozen the 16th and
17th century
level of theology into permanent creeds but has also established its own unique
rules of Bible interpretation. It therefore centers upon soteriology, the
doctrine that was central to the Reformation era, and a very close relationship
between the state and the church. It views with deep suspicion any further
extension of the sola scriptura principle in reforming theology.
A SURVEY OF THE RISE AND
INFLUENCE OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY
Dispensationalism developed
within Protestant circles after Reformation theology had come to dominate
Holland, Switzerland, most of Germany, and England. Reformed attempts at
political dominion had resulted in less than admirable spiritual conditions in
the churches. New questions in the 18th and 19th centuries
focused on other areas of theology than soteriology. In spite of the different
theological focal points, however, history shows clearly that dispensationalism
arose within Calvinist circles.[9]
Let’s look at the
reformational directions of dispensational theology and its various structural
components.
If at first the Protestant
movement aimed at clarifying how salvation is wrought, it later had to contend
with two further issues: what is the proper function and
mission of the church and
does sola scriptura apply to natural history? The Function and Mission
of the Church. The rise of Protestant “state churches” left much to be desired.
There arose repeated attempts at spiritual renewal. The Puritan controversy in
England was one such attempt which ultimately failed. In America Puritanism
tried to create a modern counterpart of ancient Israel which collapsed when it
couldn’t propagate its agenda into succeeding generations. New England rapidly
became “Unitarianized.” Higher criticism of the Bible was beginning to show its
unbelieving presence in Protestant academic circles.
New questions demanded
answers.
What was God’s will for the church? Increase the political power of the
organized visible church? Try once again to bring OT Israel’s cultural forms
into present society as some groups of Puritans had nearly succeeded at doing?
Or regroup as a community distinct from any state structure as the early church
had done? What should the church do about the newly discovered, culturally-diverse
peoples throughout the continents, all without a gospel witness? Dispensational
theology arose out of concerted Bible study that sought answers to these
questions. The Church, it was discovered, was a lot more distinct from Israel
than classical Protestantism had assumed. Dispensational theology was a
dominating force in the modern missionary movement.
Dispensationalism’s
Extension of Sola Scriptura to Natural History. Other circumstances in the
18th and 19th centuries shaped the focus
of Dispensational theological reforms. Mankind’s idea of history was being
challenged not only by increased awareness of new peoples who lived far the
European homeland of Protestantism but also by discoveries in geology that
seemed to point to a high antiquity of the human race. Major political
revolutions in America and France proved how rapidly profound changes in
history could occur. Structures of parliament and king no longer seemed
immutable. The whole complex issue of historical development came on center
stage.
Unbelief took the lead in
explaining historical development in terms of natural forces. Unbelief could do this
because classical Protestantism had stimulated study of the natural world
without providing specific interpretative standards from the Bible. The
authority of the Scripture was a clear principle to Protestant thinkers in
matters of theology but not always in other matters. In fact, as tension
increased between biblical history and secular attempts at universal history,
Reformed theology tried to solve the problem by extending accommodating trends
found in Calvin’s writings.[10]
The idea here was to retreat from historical details of the text, or at least
minimize them, to avoid what was considered “unnecessary” conflict with
historical science. This accommodation, however, only promoted further
departures from the biblical picture of world history and eventually set the
stage for the rapid growth of higher criticism of the Bible in the 19th century.
Throughout the intellectual world a new paradigm arose in which the Bible was
dissected into supposedly conflicting strands with “fake” history and
counterfeit authors. In short, the origin of the Bible was now placed solidly
within the non-miraculous naturally-evolving world order.
If early Protestants had
faced the issue of whether the church controls the canon or the canon controls
the church, the later Protestants faced the issue whether natural forces of
historical development explained biblical faith or biblical faith explained the
natural forces of development. Dispensational theology provided a scheme that
explained natural and human history from a clear biblical framework. One
historian calls the dispensational view of history as “anti-humanist and
anti-developmental” and “a negative parallel to secular concepts of progress”
that “opposed the liberal trends at almost every point.[11]
It was out of Dispensational theology, therefore, that the modern creationist
movement originated.[12]
Like the Anabaptists before
them, Dispensationalists sought to use the original Protestant principle of sola
scriptura to reform ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) and with that
effort clarify the will of God for Christian living as distinct from the modus
operandi of OT saints living in the nation Israel. Along the way,
Dispensationalists established a scheme of human and natural history that
totally opposes modern unbelieving alternatives.
The three components of classical dispensational theology are
emphasis upon a literal interpretative approach to biblical covenants, a
doxological ultimate purpose to history, and separate identities for Israel and
the Church.
A Literal Interpretative
Approach to Biblical Covenants. By the time Dispensational theology arose, Bible
students were awakened to a better sense of historical development than was
known in the original days of the Reformation. They were more alert to
interpret, therefore, the biblical covenants in their historical contexts rather
than treat them as direct sources for systematic theology. A covenant made at
one stage of history might differ from a later covenant.
Perhaps even more important
was a new appreciation for the concept of contract law. Covenant language
relates intimately to ordinary street language. People enter into contracts
with each other to stabilize relationships and to build trust. Ordinary
economic and business life (whether in biblical times or in modern society)
requires contractual relationships. People in every culture have their own
manner of entering into contractual relationships, but they always have the
same essentials. The contract defines the parties to it, codifies their
expected behavior and establishes some sort of enforcement criteria or
standards. Therefore, each contract must have a lexicon of words with common
meanings imputed to them by all parties involved.
Two vital implications for
the science of interpretation (hermeneutics) follow. First, the meaning of
contract terminology must be conservative for the duration of the contract from
origin to fulfillment. Second, only literal meanings can be verified or
falsified against the enforcement criteria or standards. Two
key figures in the rise and
spread of Dispensational theology, John Nelson Darby and C. I. Scofield, both
studied law in their early years, so they certainly were aware of the
hermeneutics of contract law. How natural for them, therefore, after
discovering the contractual structure in the Bible, to insist upon strict
literal and conservative interpretation of contract or covenant terminology.
These implications are so obvious it is hard to understand how biblical
interpreters could have overlooked them for centuries. Imagine an insurance
company telling Mr. Jones and his surviving family, after a tornado destroyed
his house, that the policy covered his “home” the “real meaning” of which is
his family, not the building they lived in. Everyone would agree
that changing the meaning of the original wording from its literal meaning to a
metaphorical one amounts to contract fraud.
Dispensational theology
views the biblical covenants the same way.
Whether the new world
covenant of Noah’s day, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant, or any
later biblical covenant, they all must be interpreted
literally. If not, the
faithfulness of God to fulfill each term of each covenant cannot be shown
through appeal to subsequent history. When the Abrahamic Covenant, for example,
says that land within specific geographical boundaries will “certainly” be given
to the descendants of Abraham (Gen.15:18-21), it means just that. This
terminology means literal land and can’t be “revised” to refer to immaterial
blessings given to the Church later on. It also requires a fulfillment in exact
geographical conformity with the text.
This approach to the
biblical covenants is very different than that of most Reformed Covenant
theology. Covenant theology assumes that the NT is the “final word” on how
these biblical covenants are to be fulfilled. It looks for NT “fulfillment formula”,
viz., clauses in the NT of the general form “and X fulfilled Y”, where “X” is
some NT event or saying and “Y” is an OT reference. If X turns out to be
something not within the normal meaning of the original OT text, then
Covenant theology alters the meaning of the OT text to fit X.[13]
Dispensational theology
refuses to do so. Instead it insists that no OT covenant is fulfilled until
there is an X that corresponds to the normal meaning of the original OT text.
The problem with the Covenant theology approach using NT fulfillment formulas
can be illustrated with the Jeremiah 31:15 / Matthew 2:16-18 texts. The Matthew
text has a fulfillment formula with X representing Herod’s political policy of
genocide toward Jewish male babies two years or younger in the Bethlehem
region. Y is the Jeremiah text that analyzes God’s chastening of Israel during
the fall of the Kingdom. Jeremiah speaks, not of babies being killed in
Bethlehem (a town south of Jerusalem) but of Jewish young men being led into
captivity through the town of Ramah (a town north of Jerusalem). Moreover, the
Jeremiah reference isn’t a prophecy; it’s an analysis of history through the
divine disciplinary provisions of the Mosaic and Palestinian biblical covenants.
Matthew uses a fulfillment formula, not to show fulfillment of a biblical
covenant or prophecy but to show that the Bethlehem genocide fulfilled a
pattern of God’s working with the nation Israel since the Kingdom had been
lost. There is no need to make Jeremiah 31:15 into a prophecy and alter the
meaning of “Ramah” into “Bethlehem”, “young men” into “babies”, and “captivity”
to “death.” NT fulfillment formulas thus refer to many different kinds of
“fulfillments”—pattern or analogical as well as prophetic. They do not
necessarily refer to only covenant or prophetic fulfillment.[14]
Dispensational theology,
instead of starting with the NT and trying to work backward to the OT, starts
with the OT and works forward. If a biblical covenant is not fulfilled in the
NT, then it speaks to events yet future. The dispensational approach insists
upon the conservative nature of covenant terms throughout historical time. In
this manner it preserves a straightforward, objective method of verifying
fulfillment of covenant promises.
A Doxological Ultimate
Purpose to History. Whereas Reformed Covenant theology centers upon God’s plan
of salvation and makes redemption the ultimate purpose to history,
Dispensational theology gives recognition to multiple workings of God, not just
to His redemptive program. Speaking of the book of Revelation, John Pilkey
writes of this larger perspective:
“It furnishes an
authoritative context larger than the Gospel of salvation and larger than
salvation itself. . . .As mortals, we remain in various kinds of trouble; and
salvation strikes us as an all-consuming, universal concern. Yet the angels of
heaven have never been saved; the demons cannot be saved; and the redeemed in
heaven have nothing from which to be saved. If life in the resurrected state
has a purpose, goals must exist beyond salvation. Because the book of
Revelation has been given to us in our present mortal condition , we are able
to anticipate these goals despite our natural preoccupation with personal
salvation.”[15]
By focusing upon areas
beyond redemption, Dispensational theology insures that all of the universe
falls under a plan of God that is intimately linked to the biblical covenants. Sola
scriptura is expanded in a detailed fashion so as to apply to natural
history as well as to human history (see Chapter One of this Part of the
framework series). As a result, Dispensational adherents have been far more
antagonistic to secular theories of historical progress as we noted above than
classical Reformed theologians.
Another effect of placing
redemption inside of a larger context is that the NT interpreter can fully
recognize the contingent nature of God’s historical offers. As we mentioned in
the introduction to this Part of the framework, biblical history has many
“offers” and “hypothetical options.” The most controversial such offer to the
Reformed-Dispensational debate is the apparent offer that Jesus made to the
nation Israel of the Kingdom. In Matthew 11:14-15 He points out that if Israel
would accept Him as the Messiah, then John the Baptist fulfilled the OT
prophecy of Elijah who was to usher in the Kingdom of God in history (cf. Mal.
3:1; 4:5). The Kingdom “could” have come to Israel at that historical moment.
Of course, if it had, then how could the Cross have occurred? Reformed Covenant
theologians are horrified at such talk, believing that it somehow denigrates
the Cross to a sort of “Plan B” that God thought up at the last minute to deal
with the rejection His Son. Such a fluid history in their minds denies the
sovereign power of God. It only does so, however, if such contingency lies
outside of the plan of God. If His sovereign plan includes these contingencies,
then His sovereignty clearly is not threatened. Dispensational theology is,
therefore, free to explore textual details in these matters without prematurely
limiting possible meanings by a theological structure.
The ultimate purpose of
history lies within the sovereign will of the Creator Who has expressed Himself
in Scripture and outside of Scripture has Lord of the heavens above as well as
over the earth beneath. It is doxological as Paul notes in Romans 11:36
encompasses all things, not just redemption.
Separate Identities of
Israel and the Church. No more controversial topic occurs between Reformed Covenant theology
and Dispensational theology than the matter of how the Church is related to
Israel. Because Reformed theology has insisted upon one, grand, unifying
covenant of grace behind all the biblical covenants and because of its emphasis
upon divine election of individuals, it allows only “one people of God.”
Distinctions between Gentiles, Israel, and the Church are downplayed out of
fear that such distinctions will somehow rupture the unity of means in salvation.
Adherents of Reformed theology criticize Dispensational theology for devoting
too much attention to such distinctions. Some go so far as to accuse it of
promoting multiple ways of salvation.[16]
As we point out, however,
the Church didn’t exist before Pentecost (see Chapter Two of this Part of the
framework series) so the OT covenants couldn’t have been addressed to the
Church! All of them, except the Noahic (which was addressed to animals
as well as to men), were addressed to the nation Israel. Jews were the
recipients of these covenants—not Gentiles as the Apostle to the Gentiles notes
in Romans 3:1-2; 9:3-5. Jesus clearly declared that He was sent not to the
Gentiles, but to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). Even
the clause so frequently quoted by Reformed theologians as support for election
of one homogeneous people of God (Matt. 1:21) in context refers to Jews, not
Gentiles. Over against all “replacement theology” and modern anti-Semitic
fringe groups, Jesus dogmatically proclaimed to a non-Jew that “salvation is
from the Jews” (John 4:22).
The future destiny of history after the Church, as
foreseen in the OT covenants and in the book of Revelation, continues with the
Jewish-Gentile distinction. Dispensational theology, therefore, recognizes
multiple peoples of God. Salvation is always the same in this view, by
substitutionary blood atonement, but those who are saved do not form one
homogeneous elect people of God. God has separate identities for ancient
Gentile nations (addressed by nation in the OT prophets), for OT Jews, and for
NT Christians. Each group fits within the one doxological purpose of God
without conflict.
The distinction between
Israel and the Church is discussed in Chapters 3 and 5 of this Part of the
framework series. It is important to clarify the different modus vivendi utilized
by each group for daily living in obedience to God. Further development of the
social consequences is presented in Appendices B
and C following.
CONCLUSION
Reformed theology is to be commended
for its clarification of soteriology, its adherence to sola scriptura (at
least in directly theological matters), and its intellectual discipline of
systematically organizing Bible doctrine. We must note, however, that it did
not fully carry out Reformation of the Church. Many things were left in a
compromised state with Roman Catholic traditions.
Dispensational theology
expressed another reformational wave in Church history that expanded the
authority of Scripture, especially in defining the nature and mission of the
Church. Dispensationalism, by separating the Church from both ancient nation
Israel and modern national states, became the home of the modern missionary
movement as well as the chief impetus of Fundamentalism in America. It has lent
sympathetic hearing to the emergence of the modern state of Israel and to the
cause of Jewish missions. It’s literal method of interpreting the biblical text
has also spawned most of the modern creationist movement.
[1] For an excellent, well-documented, well-written discussion of how the doctrine of justification has waxed and waned throughout Church history and especially during the Protestant-Roman Catholic conflict read Ron Merryman , Justification By Faith Alone and Its Historic Challenges (Merryman Ministries, 4306 Grouse Ridge Drive, Hermantown, MN 55811, 1999). Contact Rev. Merryman at merryman@skypoint.com for information on ordering a copy.
[2] Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1953), p. 778f.
[3] Ibid ., p. 765.
[4]
Note the phrase “that
is compatible with His nature”. Critics of Christianity, particularly of
Protestant
Calvinism, sometimes have the
mistaken notion that the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty implies
that He can do anything,
whether rationally or ethically absurd or not. This error attributes
“voluntarism”
to God (the idea that He can choose to do anything, regardless of His nature).
[5]
Recent research has
exposed the remarkable difference in meaning of the term “faith” between the
original Reformers such as Luther and Calvin and later Reformed theology. See the bibliographic references listed in
Zane C. Hodges, A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation: Absolutely Free (Grand
Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1989), pp. 207-210.
[6] A good comparison of this covenant structure in Reformed theology with Dispensationalism is Renald E. Showers, There Really is a Difference! (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990).
[7]
Note how Reformed
scholar Willem VanGemeren puts it: “The Reformed exegete approaches the [OT]
prophets from the perspective of the unity of the covenant”. He clearly says
that the NT “sets aside” and “corrects” literal interpretation of OT prophets.
“Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of
Prophecy (II)”, Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984), 269, 271.
[8]
See for example, R. C.
Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1998) and a debate between
Drs. Kenneth Gentry and Thomas Ice in The Great Tribulation: Past or
Future? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999).
[9]
George M. Marsden,
Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980),
pp 46, 60. To find out the
key ideas and the personalities behind dispensationalism read Charles C. Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995).
[10] R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 114-124.
[11] Marsden, pp. 54, 63.
[12] John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry Morris who triggered the modern creationist movement with their book The Genesis Flood , as well as numerous scientists in the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research all follow Dispensational theology. Reformed theology with a few exceptional adherents (who ironically were influential in publishing The Genesis Flood when other Christian publishers wouldn’t) has either been lukewarm toward the movement or overtly hostile to it.
[13] See footnote 7.
[14] Hosea 11:1 / Matthew 2:15 is another such instance of a NT fulfillment formula that does not refer to prophetic fulfillment. Here again a general pattern of God’s working is fulfilled: events in the life of Israel’s Messiah correspond with events in the history of the nation. For more detailed discussion of this point see Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1989), pp. 945-948; and Charles H. Dyer, “Biblical Meaning of ‘Fulfillment’,” in Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp51-72.
[15] John Pilkey, The Origin of the Nations (San Diego, CA: Master Book Publications, 1984), p. 279f.
[16]
See John Gerstner,
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Nashville:
Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991), pp. 149-69.