Systems of Theology General Introductionredeemerbiblechurch.com/.../Systems_of_Theology... ·...

Systems of Theology

1. General Introduction

A. Definitions

1. Not Systematic Theology. Systematic Theology is the discipline of logically synthesizing all the biblical material on a given topic in order to draw conclusions about what the Bible as a whole has to say regarding that topic.

2. But Systems of Theology. A system of theology seeks to understand how God has acted in history. Thus the development of a system or model for understanding God’s activity in history falls under the umbrella of the discipline called “Biblical Theology.”

a. Biblical Theology seeks to understand what God has done (and will do) inhistory through the examination of Scripture as it has been progressively revealed over time.

b. Chart 1.1: “Systematic and Biblical Theology.”

B. Warrant (Why Should We Study Systems of Theology?)

1. We already have a system of theology. You don’t have to be conscious of a system of theology to have one. Depending on the books you’ve read, messagesyou’ve heard coupled with your own reading of the Bible, you will have arrangedsome kind of framework for understanding all of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. That framework is active in the process of interpretation.And unless you are self-conscious of the system you are employing, you will not be able to undergo correction from God’s word. Every word from God you will fit into your system without noticing whether or not God has designed it to fit. In other words, you won’t be able to dump your mistaken presuppositions if you don’t know what they are in the first place.

2. We interpret the Bible through the lens of our system of theology. Our tacit beliefs about the progress of God’s redemption throughout history influences, even determines the way we read Scripture.

a. Examples

1) Your system of theology (i.e. your view of what God has accomplished in history) determines your belief of the place of the Ten Commandments in the Christian life. Now take Heb 8:13 for example: “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becomingobsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”

Systems of Theology: General Intro © 2000, 2004 by R W Glenn 1

a) If you have concluded that the Ten Commandments are still in force, then you will not draw the conclusion that the obsolescence of the old covenant entails the disappearance of the Decalogue.

b) If, on the other hand, you have concluded that the Ten Commandmentsare not in force, you will be convinced that everything belonging to the old covenant has disappeared in Christ, confirming your assumption that the Decalogue is no longer in force.

2) Your system of theology also determines your view of the place of national, ethnic, Israel according to the flesh in the future unfolding of God’s redemptive purposes. Now take Rom 11:26: “so all Israel will be saved.”

a) If you have concluded that God has two plans for his people, one for the Israeli people and one for the church (either tacitly or explicitly),then the phrase “so all Israel will be saved” will have reference to thefuture restoration of Israel to the land of Palestine.

b) If, on the other hand, you have concluded that God has one plan for his people, Jew and Gentile together, then you will read the phrase as having reference not to Israel according to the flesh (see 1 Cor 10:18), but to Israel according to the Spirit, the church of the new covenant.1

3. Since a system of theology purports to understand God’s activity in history as it has been revealed in the Bible, there is the potential of heresy entering the church unawares. In such cases, it is the church’s duty to point out such erroneous doctrine for the benefit of the church cf. 1 Tim 4:6.

4. In contemporary church culture, with so many competing theological ideas and practices available for consumption, it is important to delineate where we as a church fit into the spectrum of theology. We need to know what we believe and why we believe it. We need to know if what we believe falls within the boundaries of Protestant orthodoxy, or if it originates with us. We need to commune with the church of the past in order to become the church of the future.

C. Evangelical and Popular Systems of Theology: We will not be addressing every system of theology available to the Christian throughout the history of the church; rather we will address the following evangelical and most popular systems of theology available:

1. Covenantalism

1 Neither example should be construed to mean that there are only two possible explanations available for Heb 8:13 and Rom 11:26 granted the presuppositions noted. For example, some who hold to the belief thatthere is one plan for one people of God may also believe that the phrase “all Israel will be saved” refers to a future Israeli revival.


2. Dispensationalism


2. Covenantalism

A. Definitions

1. Reformed origins: Covenant theology is the result of theological development within the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition.

a. “Covenant theology is...a distinguishing feature of the Reformed tradition because the idea of covenant came to be an organizing principle in terms of which the relations of God to men were construed.”2

b. The term “Reformed” when used of a specific tradition is not to be confused with the Reformation out of which it came. In other words, the term“Reformed” does not simply mean Protestant—for there are Lutheran andArminian theologians who are Protestant, but not Reformed. See Chart 2.1: “Reformed Theology.”

2. Covenant

a. Since the term ‘covenant’ is a biblical term, everyone that holds the Bible to be our sole rule of faith and practice must deal with the various operations of God in Scripture that are referred to as covenants. And all do. Nevertheless, Covenant Theology understands all of God’s work in terms of covenant. In so doing it seeks to place every act of God with relation to man in redemptionwithin the concept of the covenant. “[A]ll of God’s Word pertains to somecovenant and God speaks nothing to man without covenant.”3

b. From the earliest periods in the development of Covenant Theology, covenant has been defined as a contract—an agreement between two parties:

1) “God’s covenant is ‘a mutual promise and agreement, between God and men, in which God gives assurance to men that he will be merciful to them....And, on the other side, men bind themselves to God in this covenant that they will exercise repentance and faith...and will render such obedience as will be acceptable to him.’”4

2 John Murray, “Covenant Theology,” in Collected Writings, Vol 4 (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth,1982), 216.

3 Ibid., 220.4 Ibid., 217.

Systems of Theology: Covenantalism © 2000, 2004 by R W Glenn 4

2) “A covenant in general [signifies] a mutual contract or agreement of two parties joined in the covenant, whereby is made a bond or obligation on certain conditions for the performance of giving or taking something, with addition of outward signs and tokens, for solemn testimony and confirmation that the compact and promise shall be kept inviolable.”5

c. On this basis the idea of covenant took on a fourfold division: contracting parties, conditions, promises, and threatenings. This is, obviously, the key idea in Covenant Theology. See Chart 3.1: “The Concept of Covenant.”

B. The Covenant of Works

1. The end of the 16th century.6 At this time, God’s relationship to Adam and Eve in the garden came to be understood as a covenant. It focused on the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sometimes the Covenant of Works is called a covenant of life, the Legal Covenant, or the Covenant of Nature.

a. Definition: It is covenant in which God promises to man eternal life on the condition of good works performed in the strength of nature, a condition which man in turn accepts. This covenant was made with Adam, not as a private individual, but as the divinely appointed representative of mankind, so that when he fell, we fell. From Rollock forward, the Covenant of Worksbecame part of the staple of Covenant Theology.

1) Parties: God and man.

2) Foundation: This covenant was founded upon man’s holy and perfect nature at creation.

3) Condition: The condition for enjoying the benefits of the covenant was good works performed by virtue of man’s holy nature. This condition (or points of this condition) is found in the Ten Commandments, which has been inscribed men’s heart.

4) Promise: The promise is eternal life implied in the tree of life that Adamwas prevented from consuming.

5) Threat: The threat of the covenant is found in the twofold curse upon man—physical and eternal death.

5 Ursinus, quoted in John Murray, The Covenant of Grace (London: Tyndale, 1954), 1. This quotation isfrom the online version available at www.graceonlinelibrary.org.

6 Robert Rollock, Select Works of Robert Rollock, W Gunn (ed) (Edinburgh, 1849). In his treatise of 1596,Quaestiones et Responsiones Aliquot de Foedere Dei and then in his Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci of 1597 is the first time in the development of Reformed Theology that we see the Covenant of Works clearly set forth inall of its essential features.


6) Repetition: This covenant is repeated again and again from the fall until the Christ, but is expressed particularly in the Law of Moses.7

7) See Chart 4.1: “The Covenant of Works.”

2. Seventeenth century development

a. As the theology of the Covenant of Works progressed, there came to be seen in the Covenant of Works a gracious character, moving away from the strictly legal notions associated with Rollock. Francis Turretin (1623-1687), for example, is representative of this development.8 What he taught, and what was recognized and accented in Reformed theology was that God had no debt to man, strictly speaking, from which man could claim any right. The only debt was God’s own faithfulness to the promise of eternal life. The worthiness of works could bear no proportion to the reward of eternal life.9

b. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-47) is helpful here, for it expresses the combination of the legal and the gracious in the covenant ofworks while at the same time represents an expression of the Covenant of Works generally held by covenant theologians today.

1) “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet theycould never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. The first covenant made with manwas a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in himto his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (7.1-2).

2) “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it” (19.1).

7 “It is true that the covenant of works per se contained no provision for redemption…but this fact shouldnot be construed to mean that the covenant of works is no longer in force or was rendered null and void by theentrance of the covenant of grace. Rather, the covenant of grace should be seen as providing the requisiteredemptive provision as a second level ‘covenantal overlay’ upon the covenant of works.” Robert L Reymond,A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 440.

8 F Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. G. M. Giger, ed. J. T. Dennison, 3 vol. (Phillipsburg:1992-7).

9 John Murray, “The Adamic Administration” in Collected Writings, Vol 2 (Carlisle, PA: The Banner ofTruth Trust, 1977), 50 is even more forceful in his modification of the Covenant of Works: “The view that inthe Mosaic covenant there was a repetition of the so-called covenant of works…is a grave misconception andinvolves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant, as well as fails to assess the uniqueness of theAdamic administration.”


3) LC, Q20. What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created? A. The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the Sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

4) LC, Q21. Did man continue in that estate wherein God first created him?A. Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein theywere created.

5) LC, Q22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression? A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell in that first transgression.

6) SC, Q12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created? A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

3. The aim of the Covenant of Works: A final comment, and an important one, is that the goal of the establishment of the Covenant of Works was not that manwould find life in it, but that seeing his inability to adhere to the conditions of that covenant he would take refuge in the Covenant of Grace.

C. The Covenant of Grace

1. Definition: The covenant by which God reconciles himself to us in Christ and bestows upon us the two-fold benefit of gratuitous righteousness in the forgiveness of sins and renovation after God’s own image (i.e. the promise of resurrection).

a. Parties: God and those he chooses.

b. Foundation: God’s faithfulness to himself.


c. Condition: Though it is understood with reference to God’s gracious, absolute, and unconditional promise, it should not be construed as eliminating the need for faith. From the side of man there are stipulations that God has imposed.

1) First, faith by which a man believes that God for Christ’s sake is a father to him and that his sins have been forgiven.

2) Second, obedience in conformity of life to the will of God.

3) So then, the conditions of the Covenant of Grace are faith and repentance and a life of obedient holiness. But since faith, repentance and obedience are gifts of God; the Covenant of Grace is still called a covenant of grace.

d. Promise: Eternal life.

e. Threat: Damnation.

f. Repetition: The Covenant of Grace was enacted immediately after the fall in the promise of Gen 3:15: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman,and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” Following this promise, from the Noahic covenant forward, every covenant that God makes in Scripture is understood as an administration or manifestation of the one Covenant of Grace. It is regarded as having taken concrete form in the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3), and progressively disclosed until it reached its fullest realization in the New Covenant.

g. Westminster Standards: “Q32. How is the grace of God manifested in thesecond covenant? A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant,in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith,with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.”

h. See Chart 5.1: “The Covenant of Grace.”

The fundamental distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is clearly set forth in the following:

In the covenant of works there was no mediator: in that of grace, there is the mediator Christ Jesus….In the covenant of works, the condition of perfect obedience was required, to be performed by man himself, who had consented to it. In that of grace, the same condition is proposed, as to be, or as already performed, by a


mediator. And this substitution of the person, consists the principal and essential difference of the covenants.10

2. Expressed implications

a. The Abrahamic and New Covenants are not distinct from one another in Covenant Theology; rather, they represent the progressive unfolding of a single covenant behind them both—the Covenant of Grace.

1) “The new covenant in respect of its being a covenant does not differ fromthe Abrahamic as a sovereign administration of grace, divine in its inception, establishment, confirmation, and fulfillment.”11

2) “[O]nce the covenant of grace had come to expression in the salvificpromises of the Abrahamic covenant—that God would be the God of Abraham and his descendants…and that in Abraham all the nations of theearth would be blessed…everything that God has done since to the presentmoment he has done in order to fulfill his covenant to Abraham (and thus his eternal plan of redemption). This suggests that the divine execution of the soteric program envisioned in the covenant of grace…should be viewed in terms of the salvific promises contained in the Abrahamiccovenant.”12

b. The covenant that God made with Moses is not of a different character fromor governed by a different principle than the covenant made with Abraham.Instead the Mosaic is a confirmation of the Abrahamic. Since the covenantmade with Moses is dependent upon the covenant made with the Patriarchs (esp. Abraham) then it follows that God could never have made a contrary or different covenant. According to this view, God never made any other covenant than that which he formerly made with Abraham. There is oneness in substance, but difference in administration.

1) WCF: “This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the timeof the law, and in the time of the gospel; under the law it was administeredby promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up theelect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament” (7.5).

10 Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 1:49 quoted in S M Baugh, “Galatians 3:20 and theCovenant of Redemption,” The Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 62, fn. 44.

11 Murray, The Covenant of Grace, 11. This is not to say that Covenantalists do not see any differencebetween the Abrahamic and New Covenants. In fact, in the sentence immediately before the one cited here,Murray says that “the new covenant is the expansion and fulfillment of the Abrahamic.” Nevertheless, they see these two covenants as essentially the same insofar as they are manifestations of the one Covenant of Grace.

12 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 513, italics in original.


2) WCF: “Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord'sSupper, which, though fewer in number, and administered with moresimplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in morefulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations” (7.6, emphasis added).

c. There are internal and external participants in the Covenant of Grace.

1) In the external the covenant is extended even to those who are not true believers within the visible church and includes the external benefits of the Gospel that are received through profession.

2) Internal participation has to do with those who are true believers. Only the elect will experience the promised inheritance of redemption.

3) See Chart 7.1: “Participants in the Covenant of Grace.”

d. Since this covenant is conceived, as we have said, as one in substance under both the Mosaic and New Covenant administrations, circumcision and the Passover under the Mosaic Covenant are regarded as having the samesignificance as baptism and the Lord’s Supper under the New Testament.They are seals of the Covenant of Grace that confirmed God’s faithfulness to the promises associated with that covenant.13 See Chart 8.1: “Signs of theCovenant of Grace.”

D. The Covenant of Redemption14: So far, the entire discussion of Covenant Theology has surrounded God’s dealings with men. The Covenant of Works made with Adamand the Covenant of Grace promised to Adam and made with Abraham and his offspring. And this is what dominated the discussions of early (16th and early 17th

century) Covenant Theology. By the middle of the 17th century, however, the discussions about the relationship between the members of the Trinity came also to be conceived in terms of covenant. This signaled a distinct development in covenant theology.

13 Incidentally, this establishes the rationale for infant baptism.14 According to Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 234-35, “The term ‘Covenant of Redemption’ was not…a

uniform designation. It cannot be said to be sufficiently descriptive to serve the purpose of distinguishing theaspects of God’s counsel denoted by it. For this reason the use of other terms by some of the mostrepresentative covenant theologians is easily understood. Furthermore, in some cases, the avoidance of the term‘covenant’ to identify the intertrinitarian arrangements no doubt reflects hesitation as to the legitimacy of thisuse of the term.”


1. Definition: This covenant (sometimes explained as a compact or pact), established between the Father and the Son, is the foundation of our redemption. In it the Father requires from the Son obedience unto death and promises to him in return a kingdom and a spiritual offspring to worship him forever. The Son gives himselfto do the will of the Father and in turn demands from the Father the salvation of the people given to him before the foundation of the world. In this covenant the will of the Father and the Son are the same, but since they are distinct persons,they function distinctly: one giving and sending, the other given and sent.


a. “The whole business of man’s salvation was transacted between the Fatherand the Son long before it was revealed in Scripture, there was a covenant of redemption between God the Father and the Son for the salvation of the Elect.”15

b. “The covenant of redemption may be defined as the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.”16

c. See Chart 6.1: “The Covenant of Redemption.”

2. Relation to the Covenant of Works: There is no expressed relation between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption.

“[C]ovenant theology…holds that the pactum salutis was a covenant of works for the Second Adam, because the Son came with the obligation to personally and perfectly fulfillthe “task”…specified in the intratrinitarian compact which became the historical basis for his claim on the stipulated reward and inheritance (John 17:4-5).”17

3. Relation to the Covenant of Grace18

a. It (the Covenant of Redemption) is the eternal archetype of the historical Covenant of Grace.

b. It is the eternal foundation of the Covenant of Grace.

c. It establishes the power of the Covenant of Grace in that it is what provides for the establishment and execution of the Covenant of Grace.

4. Summary:

Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and, as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace. For Him the law of the original covenant applied, namely, that eternal life could only be obtained by meeting the demands of the law. As the last Adam Christ obtains eternal life for sinners in reward for faithful obedience, and not at all as an unmerited gift of grace. And what He as done as the Representative and Surety of all His people, they are no more in

15 Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity (London, 1662), 546 quoted in ibid., 237.16 L Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939, 1941), 271, italics in original.17 Baugh, “Galatians 3:20,” 68.18 The points below have been adapted from Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 270-71. It is important to note,

however, that just as there is not unanimity on the terminology of the Covenant of Redemption, so CovenantTheologians are not unanimous on the relation of the Covenant of Redemption to the Covenant of Grace. Somego so far as to identify the two.


duty bound to do. The work has been done, the reward is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits of Christ’s accomplished work through grace.19

E. Conclusion

1. See Chart 9.1: “Covenant Theology.”

2. Some Covenant Theologians you may know (and love)

a. John Owen

b. Thomas Watson

c. Jonathan Edwards

d. Charles Hodge

e. B B Warfield

f. C H Spurgeon

g. John Murray

h. R C Sproul

i. Sinclair Ferguson

j. And many more…

19 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 268.


Systems of Theology

3. Dispensationalism

A. Introduction

1. Dispensationalism is novel to Christian theology. Relative to Protestantism in general and to Covenant Theology in particular, it is a new approach to understanding Scripture. It is simply anachronistic to suggest that Dispensationalism (as a system) existed in the history of the church prior to its formulation by the English minister, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882).

This is sometimes disputed by dispensationalists:

The widespread prejudice and ignorance of the meaning of dispensationalismwas illustrated when I was asked…to write an article on dispensationalpremillennialism. In my manuscript I referred to The Divine Economy, written in 1687, in which the author Pierre Poiret (1646-1719), discussed seven dispensations.The editor omitted this from the manuscript, and when I protested, he said, “That is impossible because John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism.” It would bedifficult to find a statement more ignorant and more prejudicial than that.

Another work on dispensations, written by John Edwards and published in 1699, was titled, “A Compleat [sic.] History or Survey of all the Dispensations and Methods of Religion.” Also Isaac Watts (1674-1748) wrote on dispensational distinctives.20

We could add the work of Jonathan Edwards to the distinguished list of dispensational “fathers.” His “A History of the Work of Redemption” (published posthumously in 1774) delineates three broad dispensations: (1) Fall to Incarnation of Christ; (2) Incarnation to Resurrection; (3) Resurrection of Christ to the End of the World. In his exposition, Edwards subdivides each broadperiod into numerous categories.21

It is regrettable that Walvoord would imply that Dispensationalism as he understands it finds its roots in such writings as the ones he cites. As we will discover momentarily, the idea of God operating in the world through a variety of dispensations is not what makes the system unique.

For now, let it be said, that it is patently false to suggest that the system of theology known as Dispensationalism has any footing in the history of the church prior to the end of the 19th century. Most contemporary dispensationalists would not agree with Walvoord’s assessment: “The first straw man is to say that dispensationalists assert that the system was taught in postapostolic times.Informed dispensationalists do not claim that. They recognize that, as a system,

20 John F Walvoord, “Reflections on Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158: 134.21 See Jonathan Edwards, Works, Vol 1 (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1998 reprint of the 1834

edition), 532-619.

Systems of Theology: Dispensationalism © 2000, 2004 by R W Glenn 14

dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that the outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier.”22

2. Dispensationalism is not rooted in a unified Christian tradition. It is a tradition all its own. It arose in the 19th century not as a movement from within themainstream of Christianity, but from the outside. At the same time, its adherents were from many denominations (Presbyterian, Baptist, and Brethren). It even became the impetus for the founding of new denominations (like the phenomenonof the Bible churches).

Because of this independence the answers to the questions we have about Dispensationalism will be found in the individuals responsible for spearheadingthe movement. And because Dispensationalism has been so independent, there are almost as many definitions of Dispensationalism as there are prominentteachers of it.

3. Dispensationalism is difficult to define. John S. Feinberg, an avowed dispensationalist writes: “As to essentials of Dispensationalism, there has been much confusion.”23 This statement is made by way of introducing a host of criticisms for how many different (and erroneous) ways traditional dispensationalists have defined their position and explained its distinctiveness.

This is not to say that there haven’t been similar problems within the ranks ofCovenant Theology.

The covenant idea has been attacked from without and within, has undergonephilosophical developments beyond biblical recognition, has been the basis for the progression and the setback of Reformed doctrine, and is still being used as a way of distinguishing Reformed from non-Reformed systems of theology.24

Yet when all is said and done, it is fair to say that the problem of definition largely belongs to Dispensationalism as opposed to Covenantalism. The persistent use of the Westminster Confession of Faith until today makes this point for us.

The fact that Covenantalism is rooted in a specific tradition has helped it retain a greater measure of cohesion. “[D]ispensationalism has not been a static tradition.There has been no standard creed freezing its theological development at somearbitrary point in history.”25

22 Charles C Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 62.23 John S Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the

Relationship between the Old and New Testaments (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 68.24 Willem Van Gemeren, “Systems of Continuity,” in ibid., 37. 25 Craig A Blaising & Darrell L Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,

1993), 21-22.


This is not to say that Dispensationalism defies definition. Difficulty is not synonymous with impossibility. We begin with the term “dispensation.”

B. Defining “Dispensation”: A dispensation is a stage in God’s self-revelation and plan of salvation.26 The English word has its origin in the Greek oikonomía, which amongother things, refers to a plan that involves a set of arrangements. It is sometimes used this way in the NT with reference to God’s plan for bringing salvation to mankindwithin the course of history cf. Eph 3:9. God has a plan involving a sent of arrangements for bringing about the salvation of his people.

This may give you the idea that what is definitive of Dispensationalism is the belief ina series of stages in which God reveals himself and his plan of salvation. Yet, as we alluded earlier, this is not unique to the system of Dispensationalism. Covenant theologians and dispensationalists (as well as everyone in between) universally acknowledge that God has revealed himself and the plan of salvation in stages.

The reason why everyone acknowledges dispensations in Scripture is because of the historical form of the Bible. Since the Bible was written over the course of 1500 years to different people in entirely different contexts, all of it doesn’t apply to us or speak to us in the same way. Applying the concept of dispensation to Scripture(much like the concept of covenant) helps us to make sense of this arrangement. It seeks to answer questions like, Should we observe the dietary laws in the OT? How are we to appreciate the sacrificial system in Leviticus? What kind of transition took place at Christ’s exaltation? That God operated differently with mankind during different periods of time helps us to explain the historical form of the Bible. So in a very real way, if you believe in the absolute truthfulness of Scripture, you must acknowledge dispensations.

Although covenantalists understand all of the covenants from the Noahic forward to be representative of the one Covenant of Grace, they, too, believe that God has worked differently in different redemptive epochs: “[T]he precise character of the grace bestowed and of the promise given differs in the differing covenantadministrations.”27

Writing with respect to the seven dispensations commonly delineated by most dispensationalists, one covenantalist writer says, “Of course people who are nondispensationalists [sic.] might well accept that these were seven distinct ages, and might even say that the labels were appropriate for singling out a prominent feature ofGod’s dealings with human beings during each age.”28

So it is not whether or not you believe in dispensations that makes you a dispensationalist, but how you conceive of the nature of those dispensations and their relationships to each other.

26 OED Shorter 1.697.27 Murray, The Covenant of Grace, 12.28 Vern S Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), 21.


C. Kinds of Dispensationalism: Different prominent proponents of Dispensationalismconceive of these relations in varying ways. For the purposes of our study, we will divide Dispensationalism into three types, citing along the way the names of those men responsible for clarifying and popularizing Dispensational teaching.

1. Classic

2. Revised

3. Progressive

D. Classic Dispensationalism

1. Definition of the dispensations: The Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917) by Rev C I Scofield (1843-1921) is a representative example of and the most popular expression of the teaching of Classic Dispensationalism. In it he defines a dispensation in the following way: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God”29 and as “ordered ages which condition human life on earth.”30

From the perspective of the Classic Dispensationalist, the stages of God’s self-revelation and plan of salvation may be defined as different arrangements under which human beings are tested. God has arranged the relationship of mankind to himself to test his obedience to him.

2. Number of dispensations: There are seven such dispensations in Scripture: Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and Kingdom. See Chart 1.2: “The Seven Dispensations.”

3. Dualistic redemption: In Scripture, God is pursuing two different purposes, one related to heaven and the other related to earth. These two purposes affect God’s dealings with humanity and result in an anthropological dualism: a heavenly humanity and an earthly humanity. This is the most important feature of Classic Dispensationalism. See Chart 2.2: “The Two Redemptive Purposes of God.”

a. Earthly humanity: One of God’s purposes in redemption is to release the earthfrom the curse and restore upon it a humanity free from sin and death. This is described as the earthly purpose of God. God will restore the paradise lost in the fall and grant immortality to earthly humanity.

29 C I Scofield (Ed), The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1917), 5.30 Ibid., 1250.


It is important to understand that the earthly humanity is everlasting. It is to first appear in the Millennium, but will not have reached its eternal glory untilthe end of that time. It will then continue on the new earth populating it forever. The earthly humanity will begin at the generation of the saved who are alive at Christ’s return after the so-called seven-year “Tribulation Period.”They and their descendants who have faith will be preserved from death.

They will not be resurrected from the dead, for they would never have beendead; nor will they be transformed into a resurrection mode of life. They are an earthly people and as such will experience the earthly salvation that Godhas designed according to his purpose for the earth.

b. Heavenly humanity: God has a second purpose, a heavenly one in which he envisions a heavenly humanity. This group of people is made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who will be resurrected from the dead. All the saved of previous dispensations are dead and all those of the presentdispensation prior to this dispensation are dead as well. Now they are with the Lord, but their future hope is in the resurrection wherein they will receivetheir heavenly inheritance.

L S Chafer (1871-1952): “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinctive 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 objects involved.”31

4. The church: The church represents a parenthesis in the history of God’s earthly redemption. The church is not related to that earthly purpose, so it is like a parenthesis inserted into history.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, thought that the term “parenthesis” was not strong enough so he called it an intercalation.

The word “intercalation” literally refers to the insertion of an additional day into the calendar. Used more generally it refers to the insertion of somethingadditional or extraneous, thus becoming part of a sequence.32

“The present age of the Church is an intercalation into the revealed calendar or program of God as that program was foreseen by the prophets of old. Such, indeed, is the precise character of the present age.”33

31 Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 93 (1936): 448.32 OED Shorter 1.1391.33 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 4 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 40.


Therefore the church is seen as an insertion into the redemptive purposes of God, completely unforeseen in the pages of the Old Testament. This teaching, closely related to the earthly and heavenly redemption concept, is foundational to Classic Dispensational as well. See Chart 3.2: “The Church as Parenthesis.”

5. Hermeneutics (= principles of interpretation): The hermeneutics of Classic Dispensationalism follows a dualistic scheme as well.

If the OT is interpreted literally, God’s earthly purpose for his earthly people is revealed. If it is interpreted “spiritually,” then it reveals God’s spiritual purpose for his spiritual people. See Chart 4.2: “Hermeneutics of ClassicDispensationalism.”

When it comes to the NT, the spiritual purpose for the spiritual people isdiscovered through literal interpretation.

When speaking of literal interpretation, they mean grammatical and historical.What grammatical means is obvious, but historical has two senses: (1) it can refer to interpretation done in light of the historical references in a text; or (2) it can refer to interpretation done in light of the relationship of that text to its dispensation.

6. The covenants: When it comes to the covenants of the Bible, Classic Dispensationalists see the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12) as the foundational covenant in Scripture. One of the promises made to Abraham was that his descendants would be as numerous as the dust of the earth cf. Gen 13:16. This is interpreted as having reference in the first place to God’s earthly purpose for his earthly people. Abraham would become a great nation in a land specified by God.This covenant could also be interpreted spiritually. And as such has reference to Abraham’s spiritual descendants, the heavenly people. It is believed that the NT makes this spiritual interpretation of the OT explicit.

All the covenants of the OT were interpreted as earthly covenants. This includes the new covenant. Darby believed that when it appeared in the Bible, the new covenant always had national Israel as its addressees so that it had nothing to do with God’s heavenly people. Chafer, although he followed Darby very closely, believed that there was a new covenant in force for the church in our present dispensation. He argued that this covenant was completely different from the new covenant mentioned in the OT that is to be made with Israel and the house of Judah. They believed that the earthly covenants made for the earthly people would be fulfilled for them in the Millennium and the eternal state. See Chart5.2: “The Covenants.”

7. The kingdom(s)


a. The kingdom of God, mentioned in all four gospels refers to the inward rule of God in the hearts of believers. It is therefore eternal in extent.

b. The kingdom of heaven, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the fulfillment of the covenant made with David in which he promised to establishthe kingdom of his son. The kingdom of heaven, a phrase only found in Matthew’s gospel, begins to appear with the presence of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David, finds its culmination in the millennium, and merges with the kingdom of God in the eternal state.

The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven….The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligencies [sic.]willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the Church, or saints of past or future dispensations; while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth….The kingdom of God…is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual; while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth.34

The phrase, kingdom of heaven (lit. of the heavens), is peculiar to Matthew and signifies the Messianic earth rule of Jesus Christ….The kingdom of heaven has three aspects in Matthew: (a) ‘at hand’ from the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist to the virtual rejection of the King, and the announcement of the new brotherhood; (b) in seven ‘mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,’ to be fulfilled during the present age…and which have to so with the sphere of Christian profession during this age; (c) the prophetic aspect—the kingdom to be set up after the return of theKing in glory.35

1) Scofield taught that the kingdom of heaven had three forms (see above quote):

a) It is present in the preaching of Jesus. Jesus offered the kingdom to Israel, but they rejected it, so it was postponed to a future time.

b) It is present in mystery form in Christendom—the earthly, political, liturgical form that names Christ as its king.

c) It will be fulfilled in the Millennium (future). The Davidic Covenant is solely a political not a redemptive covenant (the way we may understand redemption). It will be fulfilled according to the earthly purposes for which God established it, and for the earthly people to whom it was made. See Chart6.2: “The Kingdom of Heaven.”

34 Scofield Reference Bible, 1003.35 Ibid., 996.


8. Conclusion: What is it that sets apart the Classic Dispensationalist fromthe covenant theologian? Or better put, what is it that distinguishesClassic Dispensationalism from other systems of theology? The answer isfound in the bifurcation of the earthly and heavenly, Israel and the church.This is the foundation from which it operates. Just as the covenants of works, grace, and redemption are foundational to covenant theology (because they seek to account for the relationship between the different dispensations of God), so too is the dualistic notion of redemption foundational to Classic Dispensationalism.


Systems of Theology

E. Revised Dispensationalism

1. Introduction: Although we are calling the position held by second-generation dispensationalists a revised position, they would not see their work as modifyingthe position held by their predecessors.

a. “Like all doctrines, dispensational teaching has undergone systematizationand development in its lifetime, though the basic tenets have not changed.”36

b. In fact, Ryrie does not see himself in any way revising the position held by Scofield and Chafer; rather the reason he originally published his book on dispensationalism in 1965 was to “present classic dispensational teaching in a positive way in order to correct misunderstandings and allay suspicions aboutit.”37 This is important to keep in mind. So even though we would call Ryrie a Revised Dispensationalist, he would not necessarily call himself one.

2. Definition of the Dispensation: In Revised Dispensationalism the definition has had a shift in emphasis. It has moved from being primarily concerned with time,to being primarily concerned with action.

a. “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.”38

b. “Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations.”39

c. The concept of the dispensation is seen from three perspectives: from God’s perspective it is an economy; from man’s, it is a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, it is a stage in it. See Chart 1.3: “The Dispensations”

3. Number of dispensations: As far as the number of dispensations, from Ryrie’s perspective there is room for latitude. Though Ryrie himself follows the samescheme as Scofield, he says that “these matters of number and name are relatively minor.”40

36 Charles C Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 11.37 Ibid.38 Ibid., 28.39 Ibid., 29.40 Ibid., 45.


4. Progressive Revelation: To talk about progressive revelation is another way of talking about what we addressed in an earlier lesson; namely, the historical formof the Bible. God did not reveal himself all at once, but did so over time. That the Bible was revealed over a period of some 1500 years (its historical form!)gives testimony to this reality.

In the context of Revised Dispensationalism progressive revelation has been defined as “the continually unfolding revelation of God given by various meansthroughout the successive ages. In this unfolding there are distinguishable stages of revelation when God introduces new things for which man becomesresponsible. These stages are the economies, stewardships, or dispensations in the unfolding of His purpose. Dispensationalism, therefore, recognizes both the unity of His purpose and the diversity in the unfolding of it.”41

It is at this point that Revised Dispensationalism is not much different from any other system of theology. Remember that simply because someone acknowledgesboth (1) different economies in the outworking of God’s purpose and (2) the continual unfolding of God’s revelation by various means throughout successive ages, does not makes him or her a dispensationalist (Classic or Revised).

Here is evidence of this from the Covenant theologian, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949): “The method of Biblical Theology is in the main determined by the principle of historic progression. Hence the division of the course of revelation into certain periods...it remains certain that God in the unfolding of revelation has regularly employed [the principle of periodicity]….The principle of successive….Covenant-makings as marking the introduction of new periods, plays a large role in this and should be carefully heeded.”42

Ryrie himself admits this: “Charles Hodge, for instance, believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall—Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end.... In other words, a person can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive revelation, withoutbeing a dispensationalist.”43

Therefore it seems fairly clear that taking into account progressive revelation is not a distinguishing feature of Dispensationalism. Why, then, do we bother mentioning them? Because they are included as a staple part of the defense of Dispensationalism in the literature.

5. The sine qua non of Revised Dispensationalism. Ryrie uses this language in his book and sets forth a three-fold answer:

41 Ibid., 33.42 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975

reprint of the 1948 edition), 16.43 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 38, italics added.


a. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. What is significant here is that Ryrie states that this truth has been presented in different ways by different people. And he quotes from Chafer saying that Chafer summarizesthe position. The following quote is from a book by Chafer called Dispensationalism, originally published in 1936, and revised a year before his death in 1951.44 This is the very passage that Ryrie quotes in support of this distinguishing mark of Revised Dispensationalism: “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 which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly objectivesinvolved, which is Christianity.”45

Ryrie goes on to say that the distinction between the church and Israel (the heavenly and earthly peoples) is “probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the mostpractical and conclusive.”46

Note that although Ryrie does not say in his first point that a dispensationalist keeps the heavenly purposes of God in redemption and His earthly purposes distinct, he quotes from someone who does in support of his point of keeping Israel and the church distinct.

b. A dispensationalist consistently employs a system of hermeneutics usually called literal or grammatico-historical interpretation. This does not mean that those who employ such a method ignore typology, figures of speech, genre,and the like. It is negatively defined as being a hermeneutic that does not allegorize the Scriptures. Ryrie says that what marks out the dispensationalistis in the “dispensationalist’s claim to use the normal principle of interpretationconsistently in all his study of the Bible.”47

This represents a departure from Classic Dispensationalism. Scofield calledfor “absolute literalness” but at the same time encouraged the use of non-literal or allegorical methods of interpretation for OT history. The approach to interpretation from the perspective of Classic Dispensationalism called for a literal interpretation of OT prophecy and a non-literal interpretation of OT history. Ryrie does not claim to employ such a method. See Chart 2.3: “Comparison of Classic and Revised Dispensational Hermeneutics”

44 I checked the original to see if Ryrie is quoting Chafer accurately, and he is. 45 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas: DTS Publishing, 1936, 1951), 107.46 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 39.47 Ibid., 82, italics in original.


If all Ryrie means when he refers to literal interpretation is that interpretationought to be of the grammatico-historical type, then no covenantalist would disagree with him. The covenantalist would use the grammatico-historicalmethod consistently in all his study of the Bible. The following is from thepen of a Covenantalist:

[I]t is appropriate to specify what methods are likely to yield results in line with the biblical writers’ intent.

We are, of course, assuming that before we can ask, “What is God teaching me now through this passage?” we must first ask, “What did God teach the original hearers through this text?” If God speaks to us in Scripture, He certainly spoke aswell to the original readers in a way that they could understand. Grammatical-historical exegesis attempts to uncover the meaning a text would have had to its original human author and readers. This involves asking: what was the cultural, social, geographical, linguistic, and historical background to the original situation;what is the usual significance of the words, phrases, and idioms used; what special circumstances or problems were the author or his original hearers facing; how does the passage fit in with what that particular human author says elsewhere; what type or genre of speech/writing is this; what was the purpose of the book as a whole; how does the passage function literarily in the larger text; and where do the original hearers stand in redemptive history.48

Yet Ryrie seems to use the term “literal” in a variety of senses in his description of Dispensational hermeneutics: “Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the realityof the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.”49

In the first use, he seems to mean “grammatico-historical”; in his second use of the term, he seems to mean literal as opposed to figurative; and the thirduse is difficult to define. The point here for our purposes is that the watchword for the Revised Dispensationalist is “literal.” If all that is beingaddressed is grammatico-historical exegetical method, then every conservative (and Protestant) scholar would agree. Now without getting into things too deeply here, since it is used by Ryrie to distinguish (Revised) Dispensationalism from other systems of theology, there seems to be more to the term than simple grammatico-historical exegesis.

48 Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applyingthe Bible (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1994), 112-113.

49 Charles C Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 87, italics added.


c. A dispensationalist understands the underlying purpose of God in the world as the manifestation of his own glory. At first blush this may not seem to be unique to Revised Dispensationalism. But it is offered up in response to what is viewed by the Revised Dispensationalist as an erroneous teaching of Covenant Theology. Revised Dispensationalists believe that although covenant theologians “strongly emphasize the glory of God in their theology,” in practice, they believe the underlying purpose of God in the world to be the salvation of men. Revised Dispensationalists, on the other hand, suggest that the saving program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying himself.

I think Ryrie has missed the point of Covenant Theology here. There is no doubt that Covenant Theology believes that the underlying purpose of God in the world is to glorify himself.50 What they suggest is that God has chosen to do that through redemption. The plan of salvation, as we all know, was initiated before time began, and the creation of the world was the commencement of this plan in time. Following the fall man’s capacity toglorify God was strictly limited. It is only through redemption, promised in Gen. 3:15, that man (and the creation that was cursed) could be restored to a place before the fall (and as the Bible teaches, far more glorious than that)where his crowning achievement in creation will manifestly glorify him.

Giving Ryrie the benefit of the doubt by understanding “literal” interpretation to refer to grammatico-historical interpretation, “b” and “c” of Ryrie’s sinequa non do not appear unique to Revised Dispensationalsim, while on the other hand, “a” does.

6. Dualistic Redemption: See Chart 3.3: “The Two Redemptive Purposes of God”

a. Ryrie affirms that “the earthly-heavenly, Israel-church distinction taught by dispensationalists is true.”51

50 See, for example, Jonathan Edwards, “Dissertation on The End for Which God Created the World” in Works (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974 reprint of the 1834 edition), 1.94-121 and John Piper, ThePleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press, 1991, 2000), 97-119. Although John Piper is not a Covenantalist, per se, he is not a dispensationalist and is strongly Covenantalin his convictions.

51 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 137.


The earthly purpose of Israel of which dispensationalists speak concerns the yet unfulfilled national promises that will be fulfilled by Israel during the Millenniumas they live on the earth in unresurrected bodies. The earthly future for Israel does not concern Israelites who die before the Millennium is set up. The destiny of those who die is different. Believing Israelites of the Mosaic age who died in faith have a heavenly destiny. Unbelieving ones will be cast into the lake of fire. Jews today who believe in Christ are members of the church, His Body, and their destiny is the same as Gentile believers during this age. But to those Jews who will be living on the earth in earthly bodies when the Millennium begins and to those who will be born with earthly bodies during the period will fulfill the promises made to Israel that have remained unfulfilled until the Millennium.52

b. Ryrie, however, claims (with others) that the earthly-heavenly, Israel-church distinction will not result in eternal, metaphysical separation between the groups. In the eternal state the distinction is a nominal one: “Israel will join with the resurrected and translated of the church age to share in the glory of His reign forever.”53 This represents a slight departure from Classic Dispensationalism.

7. The Church

a. The church was unrevealed in Old Testament times. By this is meant two things:

1) The church did not exist until the day of Pentecost. This is because theexistence of the church is dependent upon the exaltation of Christ. Since the church is the body of Jesus Christ, it could not be initiated prior to Jesus’ exaltation and the subsequent pouring out of the Spirit.

2) The fact of the church’s existence was not mentioned until the New Testament era. So not only was the church unrevealed in OT times in the sense that it did not exist, but it was unrevealed in the sense that its existence was not mentioned until the NT era.

b. Church as parenthesis: Related to this is the notion of the church as parenthesis or intercalation. Like their Classic Dispensationalist fathers, Revised Dispensationalists continue to hold that the church is an intercalationin the earthly redemptive program of God. Ryrie, in fact, criticizes those dispensationalists who would wish to dispense with the term “parenthesis”:“So either or both words [parenthesis or intercalation] can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God’s program for Israel.”54 (134). See Chart 4.3: “The Church as Parenthesis”

52 Ibid., 136-137.53 J Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, quoted in Ibid., 137.54 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 134.


8. The Kingdom: The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven distinction has undergone some modification. Notice the following quote from The New ScofieldReference Bible:

The kingdom of heaven is similar in many respects to the kingdom of God and is often used synonymously with it, though emphasizing certain features of divinegovernment. When contrasted with the universal kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven includes only men on earth, excluding angels and other creatures. The kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of profession as shown by the inclusion ofthose designated as wheat and tares, the latter of which are cast out of the kingdom.55

What we see here is more of a willingness to see the terms as referring to the same thing, yet there persists a desire to maintain a distinction.56 And this desire differs from theologian to theologian. Thus the proponents of Revised Dispensationalism have allowed a measure of latitude when it comes to setting forth a biblical theology of the kingdom. Ryrie says that whether or not one holds to the distinction is not necessary for one to see the kingdom as not yet arrived.He suggests is that what matters is what one believes about the Davidic Kingdom.Ryrie quotes from John Walvoord: “Another major confusion in this discussion is the mistaken notion…that the distinction often affirmed between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven is essential to the dispensational argument.Actually one could maintain this distinction and be amillennarian or deny it and be a dispensationalist….As far as affecting the premillennial or dispensationalargument, in the opinion of the reviewer is irrelevant.”57

9. Conclusion

a. The most fundamental shift from the classic position has been the claim that a consistent use of a literal hermeneutic is somehow essential to the dispensational position.

b. The essential component of Classic Dispensationalism remains intact in the revised position: the notion of dualistic redemption.

55 The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 132056 While the distinction is still to one degree or another held by some Revised Dispensationalists, this is not

true of all of them. In Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 39-46 four different perspectives onthe kingdom question from four different men within the Revised camp are presented: Alva J. McClain, JohnWalvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Charles Ryrie, two of which were on the editorial committee for the NewScofield Study Bible.

57 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 154-55.


Systems of Theology

F. Progressive Dispensationalism

1. “Dispensationalism or not Dispensationalism? That is the question.” Progressive Dispensationalists, by their very name, consider themselves to be dispensationalists.

a. “Progressive dispensationalism is a phenomena of change within the dispensational tradition.”58

b. “Progressive dispensationalists are themselves revised dispensationalists who through more developed historical-literary interpretation have come to whatthey believe is a more accurate understanding of certain biblical issues.”59

Robert L. Saucy, another prominent Progressive Dispensationalist, sees this development of dispensationalism as a mediating position: “In our opinion there is a mediating position between non-dispensationalists and traditionaldispensationalism that provides a better understanding of Scripture.”60

Yet as respected a dispensationalist as Charles Ryrie does not feel comfortableincluding their views within the orb of Dispensationalism. He questions whether or not the progressives can “proclaim honestly their continuity with the dispensationalist tradition.”61

2. Tenets of Progressive Dispensationalism

a. Unified redemptive purpose: The description of this relationship is related closely to the purpose(s) of God in redemption. See Chart 4.1: “The Purposes of God in Redemption”

1) As we saw with Covenantalism, the overarching covenant of grace is what relates the various eras of redemption. Thus there is a very high degree ofcontinuity between the ages. God is relating to man through one unchanging covenant of grace administered differently in different periodsof time. There is thus one purpose in redemption.

58 Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 56, italics added.59 Ibid., 52.60 Robert L Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface between Dispensational and

Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 27.61 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 89.


2) By contrast both Classic and Revised Dispensationalism are known for its recognition of multiple purposes in divine redemption, which includeearthly, national, political, social, and spiritual purposes. And some of these purposes have been emphasized more strongly in some dispensations than others.

In order to explain the relationship between these different purposes of redemption Classic Dispensationalism advocated an earthly/heavenlydistinction or dualism.

3) Revised Dispensationalists rejected an eternal/metaphysical dualism(while still advocating a church/Israel distinction). This forced them to choose between a more heavenly or a more earthly view of eternity. Some chose the heavenly and others chose the earthly. This modification of the earthly and heavenly dualism brought believing Israel from the OT and Millennial Israel together. Believing Gentiles from earlier dispensationswere brought together in one eternal redemption.

Yet, as I just said, the church/Israel dualism resulted in an inability on the part of the Revised position to comprehend how the church could be related to the plan of redemption without sacrificing the fulfillment of ethnic, national, and political promises that make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

b. The dispensations. As we have been saying from early on in our study of systems of theology, that God has operated differently in different periods of time is universally acknowledged. What is debated (and hotly!) is the natureof the relationship between those epochs in salvation history. For Progressives, the dispensations are seen as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation of redemption and its accomplishment.\

1) In describing the dispensations as successive, the progressives understand the dispensations to be progressing by revealing different aspects of the final unified redemption.

2) They reveal a qualitative progression in the manifestation of divine grace.That is, the manifestations of grace get progressively better as redemptionunfolds in history. So unlike Covenantalism, the dispensations are not simply different historical expressions of the same experience of redemption even though they culminate in one redemption plan.


3) The political-social and spiritual purposes of God complement one another such that one does not replace the other or run independently of each other. They are related aspects in the holistic plan of redemption. The final dispensation will reveal all these aspects in complementaryrelationship to each other. Prior to the final dispensation, earlier dispensations my reveal one or more aspects of the final dispensation in which the plan culminates. Because they all have the same goal, there is a real progressive relationship between them.

c. The kingdom: Progressives hold that the redemptive unity is expressed in the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God.

In contrast to Classic and Revised positions, Progressives see one promisedeschatological kingdom that has both spiritual and political dimensions. This kingdom has always been centered in Christ. While traditionaldispensationalists divide up the different aspects of redemption into self-contained “kingdoms,” Progressives put primary emphasis on the eternal kingdom for understanding all previous forms of the kingdom including the Millennium. And they see no distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God (as had earlier dispensationalists).

As the theme of biblical history, the kingdom is that program through which God effects his lordship on the earth in a comprehensive salvation within history….

The historical plan of God, therefore, is one unified plan. Contrary totraditional dispensationalism, it does not entail separate programs for the church and Israel that are somehow ultimately unified only in the display of God’s glory or ineternity. The present age is not a historical parenthesis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it; rather, it is an integrated phase in the development of the…kingdom. It is the beginning of the fulfillment of the eschatological promises.Thus the church today has its place and function in the same mediatorial messianickingdom program that Israel was called to serve.62

It is important to note that the Progressive dispensationalist still places a greatemphasis on what appears to be “earthly” redemptive purposes for a timebefore the new heavens and the new earth. “According to biblical revelation, the focal point of the conflict between the powers of evil and the kingdom of God is the earth….Thus God’s kingdom, which today may be said to be overthe earth, will one day be established on the earth.”63

62 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 27-28, italics added.63 Ibid., 28, italics in original.


This pervasive mediatorial kingdom program, ultimately fulfilled through the reign of Christ, is the theme of Scripture and the unifying principle of all aspects of God’s work in history.

The historical plan of God, therefore, is one unified plan. Contrary totraditional Dispensationalism, it does not entail separate programs for the church andIsrael that are somehow ultimately unified only in the display of God’s glory or ineternity. The present age is not a historical parenthesis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it; rather, it is an integrated phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom. It is the beginning of the fulfillment of the eschatological promises. Thus the church today has its place and function in the same mediatorialmessianic kingdom program that Israel was called to serve.64

Since the kingdom is understood as the expression of God’s unified redemptive purpose, the theme of the kingdom central to the system. This should be clear from our first point (point “a”). See Chart 4.2: “The Centrality of the Kingdom.”

d. The church

1) Integral to God’s redemptive purpose (not an intercalation). Although Progressive Dispensationalists agree with Revised and Classic dispensationalists that there is a place for ethnic, national Israel in the eternal plan of God, they differ in their assertion that the church is a vital part of this very same plan of God.

The appearance of the church does not signal a secondary redemptionplan, either to be fulfilled in heaven apart from the new earth (Classic) orin an elite class of Jews and Gentiles forever distinguished from the rest ofhumanity (Revised). On the contrary, they suggest that the church today is a revelation of spiritual blessings that all the redeemed will share in spiteof their ethnic and national differences. As a result, progressives advocate a holistic and unified view of eternal salvation. God will save mankind in its ethnic and national plurality. But he will bless it with the samesalvation given to all without distinction.

2) The church is not viewed as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation (alongside Israel and Gentile nations),nor is it a group of angelic-like humans destined for the heavens in contrast to the rest of redeemed humanity on the earth.

“The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.”65

64 Ibid.65 Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 49.


Saucy seems more willing to tread down traditional Dispensational lines by setting forth the similarities and differences between the church and Israel. “Their difference,” he says, “lies not on the spiritual plane in theirrelationship to God, but in their specific identity and corresponding function in God’s historical kingdom program.”66

Nevertheless, it is their concept of the church that has brought the Progressives much grief from their dispensationalist brethren. Rememberthat Ryrie says that probably the most basic and most telling theological test of whether or not one is a dispensationalist is the Israel/churchdistinction. This is what causes him to question the legitimacy of a Progressive claim to Dispensational tradition. In a chapter dedicated to Progressive Dispensationalism, he says that “already progressive dispensationalism certainly appears to be more than a development within normative dispensational teaching. Some so-called developments are too radical not to be called changes.”67

This seems to be a very legitimate criticism; for any system of theology that would seriously undermine the earthly/heavenly, church/Israel distinction may be correctly called a non-dispensational system. At the same time, there is still a very clear vestige of Revised Dispensationalismin the Progressive position that becomes clear in their discussion of hermeneutics.

e. Progressive dispensationalism sees itself as employing a more nuanced formof grammatico-historical exegesis: “Progressive dispensationalists arethemselves revised dispensationalists who through more developed historical-literary interpretation have come to what they believe is a more accurateunderstanding of certain biblical issues.”68

Yet we should also say that when it comes to biblical prophecy, they read these passages in the same way as the Classic and Revised Dispensationalists:“The unity of the historical kingdom program, however, must be interpreted in such a way as to allow for the natural understanding of all the biblical prophecies.”69

66 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 218.67 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 178.68 Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 52. 69 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 28.


What seems to be of great moment for the Progressive Dispensationalist in terms of their hermeneutics is the future of ethnic, national Israel. It is their belief that “natural” hermeneutics will yield a place for Israel “in accordancewith a dispensational system”70: “In forging a mediating position that sees a historical unity of God’s kingdom program of salvation, yet allows distinctions especially as regards Israel, we have suggested that this conclusion results from taking the Scriptures in their ‘natural understanding.’”

Here we see the Revised Dispensational notion of “natural” interpretationrearing its head.71 Though as with Ryrie’s description of the hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, there is ambiguity as to what “natural” would mean. For earlier in his book, Saucy says,

Non-dispensationalists are often accused of using a spiritualizing or even an allegorizing method of biblical interpretation, especially in the areas of prophecy that relate to the issue of the church and Israel. Moreover, these critics say, a hermeneutical presupposition is involved, and therefore the differences between theologies entail fundamental approaches to biblical hermeneutics. An analysis ofnon-dispensational systems, however, reveals that their less-than-literal approach to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies does not really arise from an a priori spiritualistic or metaphorical hermeneutic. Rather, it is the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.72

Suffice it to say that the issue is not whether or not the progressives employ a literal hermeneutic, but how the term literal is defined.

f. The covenants: Progressivism offers a more unified view of the covenants.

1) The Abrahamic covenant is seen as the foundation for all other covenants.The blessings of the other covenants explicate the promise given to Abraham:

The covenant with Abraham is foundational, for it picks up the promise of the Noahic covenant (made with all life) and directly addresses human existence. It offers God’s blessing upon human life both individually and in its collective national identities. The story of the Bible, from Abraham on, is the story of God’srelationship with human beings as set forth in this covenant and developed from it as its features are expanded and detailed in subsequent revelation.73

70 Ibid., 27.71 See fn. 46. 72 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 19-20.73 Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 172.


“Thus, while there is in the present salvation in Christ a partial fulfillment ofthe spiritual blessing promised to all people through Abraham and his seed, manyaspects of the promise remain to be fulfilled, especially those dealing with the ‘greatnation’ seed and the ‘land,’ but also the final inheritance of spiritual salvation.”74

2) The Davidic covenant is a feature (or aspect) of the Abrahamic blessing and the means by which the blessings are now inaugurated and will be bestowed in full. As a result, Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic kingdom in his reign in heaven at the right hand of the Father, though he does not yet reign as Davidic king on earth until he reigns on earth during the Millennium:

In His present and future Davidic ministry, Jesus receives and mediates the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. In Him and through Him that covenant is andwill be fulfilled. He mediation of the blessing extends to all peoples, to Jews and Gentiles who trust in him. But He mediates it in stages, with the national and political blessings awaiting the dispensation of His return.75

So far we have seen that the New Testament teaches that the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant begins in the coming of Jesus as the promised seed of David.Our study affirms that through his victorious life, death, and resurrection Jesus has been exalted to the position of highest honor and supreme authority at the right handof God as the Messiah, the Davidic king….[T]he evidence dealing with the restoration of Davidic kingship reveals only an initial fulfillment of the covenant promises during the present age. The…prophecies about the reestablishment of theDavidic dynasty in Jesus and his enthronement stop short of presenting the actual reign of Christ over an established messianic kingdom.76

Remember, that the reason why Saucy says this is because hebelieves that a “natural understanding” of the OT prophecies demand that Christ’s Davidic reign take place on this earth as it is now.

3) The new covenant is the form in which the Abrahamic covenant has been inaugurated in this dispensation and will be fulfilled in full in the future.As a result, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yet fully realized until the Millennium.

74 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 58. 75 Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 193-94.76 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 80.


Systems of Theology

4. New Covenant Theology

A. Definition: Until the publication of Tom Wells & Fred G Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense, it was very difficult to define New Covenant Theology. This is not because there were not plenty of New Covenantalist writings in print; rather, it is owing to the failure on the part of its adherents to produce a single authoritative work on the subject.

B. History: Though New Covenant Theology is a relatively new school of thought, it is not without precedent in the history of the church. Throughout their book, Wells andZaspel provide ample quotations from church history in support of their position:“Early church history bears out…that the contrast between the Old and New Covenants as consecutive dispensations has been the center of attention.”77

Since the time of the Reformation the emphasis on the contrast between the Old and New Covenants has been predominantly held by the Anabaptists. And it is for the Anabaptists that the main exponents of New Covenant Theology have the greatest affinity:

In reviewing the Anabaptist thought on Scripture, we see its kinship with what has come to be called “biblical theology.” That does not mean that they were fully successful in understanding the relations between the Old and New Covenants,but they appear to have headed themselves in the right direction. Not only that, theytried to steer their adversaries into the same stream. There they failed. Whether anyone noticed or not, they adopted the Reformation slogan sola scriptura and took it more seriously than their opponents, but traditional ways of theology won the day.78

C. Tenets: All of the following points are foundational on the first one. They “rest on the reality of a revelation from God which has been given to us with progressive clarity throughout human history and which reaches its fullest and highest point in the NT Scriptures.”79

1. The NT is the apex of God’s revelation. Therefore the Old Testament ought to be read in its light. “[T]he NT holds logical priority over the rest in determiningtheological questions upon which it speaks.”80

2. The lordship of Christ implies his authority as the new lawgiver.

3. The work and teaching of Christ represents a higher revelation of the character of God than the Ten Commandments.

77 Tom Wells & Fred G Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick, MD:New Covenant Media, 2002), 23.

78 Ibid., 29-30.79 Ibid., 33.80 Ibid., 8.

Systems of Theology: New Covenantalism © 2004 by R W Glenn 36

4. The priority of biblical and exegetical theology to systematic theology.

NCT is a fresh attempt to put the text first. This in no way implies thatothers do not make the same effort. Not at all! In fact, most of the positions adopted by NCT were not originated within its ranks. It does not exist because it alone holds these positions. It is made up of men who have been part of a subgroup that does not,in our opinion, take the priority of the text as seriously as it might.81

D. The Covenants

1. The New Covenant

a. A Contrast with the Old Covenant. “The discontinuity is not absolute, but real, prominent in the NT, and a feature that is ignored at the peril of the church.”82

1) Terminological: “[I]n the NT the word covenant is almost always used to assert discontinuity. The evidence for this is overwhelming, as well over ninety per-cent [sic.] of the occurrences of covenant in the NT are demonstrably used to assert discontinuity.”83

2) Theological: The New Covenantalists largely construct their frameworkfor understanding the New Covenant from their criticism of Covenantalism, which posits a single covenant of grace with two administrations: Mosaic and New. The New Covenantalists argue that the Bible teaches not two administrations of one covenant, but two covenants.As a result, they assert the following: “To speak of two covenants instead of two administrations of one covenant leads one to expect greater differentiation between the covenants than the two-administrationlanguage suggests.”84

3) Greater than all prior covenants in that it brings God’s purpose of redemption to its conclusion. It represents the goal of God’s redemptiveactivity.

2. The Mosaic Covenant:

81 Ibid., 22.82 Ibid., 56-57.83 Ibid., 45. See also pp. 281-83.84 Ibid., 48.


Israel under the Mosaic Covenant illustrates the fact that the salvation of individual Israelites was not its immediate goal. As part of redemptive history thiscovenant contributed its part to the ultimate salvation of God’s regenerated people, but as an immediate goal the covenant is virtually silent on this subject!85

3. The Abrahamic Covenant: The Abrahamic Covenant offers the framework for understanding all of redemption history that follows. Even though the emphasis in New Covenant Theology is on the distinctions between the two later covenants (Old and New), this ought not to be taken to mean that the Abrahamic Covenant is of secondary importance. On the contrary, from this theological perspective, the Old and New Covenants allow us to see the full significance of the AbrahamicCovenant:

Here again, looking back from the high point of revelation clarifies something that otherwise would have remained cloudy. From the NT we can see that the Abrahamic Covenant spoke of two distinct peoples, Israel and the church, thatwould experience two kinds of redemptive histories with two covenants to guidethem. They stand in typological relation to one another. One would experience a physical and national redemption, starting with deliverance from Egypt and guidedby the Old or Mosaic Covenant. The other would experience a spiritual,transnational redemption, starting with deliverance from sin and guided by the New Covenant. In retrospect this is easy to see in some detail; in prospect we could not grasp it in any comprehensive way.86

“[T]he promises to Abraham must have a physical and a spiritual application.However, we must insist that there are not two different things promised, but rather, the physical aspect is the visible pledge and testimony to the spiritual or true promise. The spiritual aspect is the real thing promised and supersedes the physical aspect.”87

4. The Davidic Covenant: The Davidic Covenant finds fulfillment in the resurrection/ascension of Christ. “[T]he kingdom promised to David has, in somesense, already been established at the ascension of Christ.”88

E. The Relationship between the Covenants. The relationship between the covenants is teleological. When the New Covenantalists suggest a teleological relationship between the covenants, they mean to affirm two things:

1. That there is a real unity that exists between the covenants; namely, the bringing of “glory to God in the salvation of a people that no man can number.”89

85 Ibid., 278, italics in original.86 Ibid. 277, italics in original.87 John G Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Webster, NY: Sound of Grace, n.d.), 5.88 Ibid., 34. Surprisingly, I was unable to find a single reference to the Davidic Covenant in Wells &

Zaspel, New Covenant Theology.89 Wells & Zaspel, New Covenant Theology, 276.


2. That this unity must be understood as one “in which each covenant contributedsomething to the fulfillment of redemptive history, but what each contributedcould be quite different from the contributions of the other covenants.”90 So each covenant is heading toward its telos (end) in the New Covenant. See Chart 5.1: “The Teleological Relationship between the Covenants”

F. The Church

1. A New Testament entity. A feature of the newness of the New Covenant is thatthere is now “a new people of God, called in the NT ‘the church’ and ‘the body of Christ.’ The New Covenant, then, is the bond between God and man, established by the blood…of Christ, under which the church of Jesus Christ has come into being.”91

2. Exists in (anti-) typological relationship to Israel.

3. Exists in an organic relationship to Israel. “From the standpoint of eternity future, looking back, the church will prove to have been God’s elect individuals fromevery era.”92 For this point appeal is made to Paul’s “olive tree” illustration fromRomans 11:

Paul describes here the process by which the true church was formed. First, God stripped all Jewish unbelievers from the ancient nation, leaving only the spiritualchildren of Abraham. Then he added to them (starting at Pentecost) both Jews and Gentiles, as they were born again, to continually augment his new community, thechurch of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:47b). Certain things follow from this. First, ancient Israel with her unbelieving branches was never the church of Jesus Christ.Second, Paul does not contemplate unbelievers being added to the olive tree. If God had intended that, he would have had no reason to strip off the unbelieving branchesto begin with. Third, there is nevertheless an organic relation between the church and God’s individually elect people from ancient Israel. We who are believers in JesusChrist are now part, with them, of the olive tree as it exists today, i.e., the “invisible” or “universal” church of God.93

4. Represents a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant: “Old Testament writers often see the promises as fulfilled to the literal nation of Israel while NT writersfind their fulfillment in the church.”94

90 Ibid.91 Ibid., 56-57, italics in original.92 Ibid., 63.93 Ibid., 65-66.94 Ibid., 60.


Systems of Theology

1. Review

A. Covenant Theology

B. Dispensational Theologies

1. Classic Dispensationalism

2. Revised Dispensationalism

3. Progressive Dispensationalism

C. New Covenant Theology

D. Chart 6.1: “A Synopsis of the Systems”

2. Preliminary Considerations

A. The Myth of Absolute Objectivity

1. Objectivity and modernity

2. The post-modern solution

3. Toward a biblical solution

B. The Impossibility of a Comprehensive System of Theology

1. The Bible is not a textbook for a system of theology; its very form testifies to this reality.

2. Thus in our efforts to make sense of the whole of God’s revelation, we must recognize that we are at best engaging in approximation.

C. The Best Scholarship Often Entails Moving the Discussion forward Rather than Answering Every Question Completely. We ought to expect a certain amount of loose ends.

3. A Way Forward: In light of our preliminary considerations, it may seem as if the entireenterprise of understanding the whole of God’s revelation in some comprehensive way is utterly impossible. This is not the case. Instead, knowing what we do about our own limitations and the limitations of the Bible actually puts us in a better place to glean truth from the Scripture. Let us begin, then, with a way forward.

Systems of Theology: Assessment © 2004 by R W Glenn 40

A. The nature/form of the Bible also tells us that its message is sufficiently redundant.Therefore, we ought to limit the tenets of our system only to those truths which are expressed in the most detail and in the most (textual) locations. We need to weigh both the quality and the quantity of the texts involved.

B. By limiting ourselves to “A,” we are in a better position to be righteously dogmatic.That is, we will be able to major on the majors, minor on the minors, andacknowledge the unknowable.

C. We ought to obtain a working knowledge of the history of Christian theology so that we can see how certain ways of understanding the Bible came into being. This will be to our advantage for at least two reasons:

1. We will be able to test our own reading of the Bible against that which has been preserved for us in nearly 2000 years of church history.

2. We can be more objective when looking at theology from a minimum safe distance.

D. Acknowledging our own subjectivity helps us to be more objective than beginning our biblical inquiries with the naïve assumption that we are already objective.

E. Acknowledging our own subjectivity and the limitations of the Bible for answering our every theological question makes us more teachable. We will be more disposedto learning from the Lord through his word and through his people. To me, the greatest downfall of many of the adherents to the various systems is that they hold on to the complete system with a white-knuckled grip. If we, instead, embrace the Reformation axiom, ecclesia reformata, ecclesia semper reformanda (the reformedchurch is always reforming), we will be more apt to go where God is really leading us.


Systems of Theology

4. Toward a System of Theology:95 Below is my attempt at setting forth positively what it is we believe about redemption as a whole. By “positively” I mean to say that I am not going to tell you what’s wrong with Covenantalism, the various forms of Dispensationalism, and New Covenantalism. This, though helpful to a certain degree, would result in formulating what we do not believe rather than what we do believe, or at least in exposing the weaknesses of the various systems. It is far more helpful to set forth what we do believe; what seems to be the teaching of Scripture on this subject.

A. Begin with the End: In my own meditation on this subject for a number of years, it seems to me that this is the most fundamental and therefore foundational axiom for a more biblical system of theology.

1. Biblical evidence

a. Matt 5:17-18; 28:18-20

b. Mark 1:14-15

c. Luke 24:13-49

d. Examples from the Gospel of John

1) John 5:39-47

2) Understanding/misunderstanding cf. 2:19-22; 3:4; 4:11, 33-34; 6:34-35, 52, 60-62; 7:24ff., 41-42; 8:13ff., 19, 27, 31ff.; 10:6, 19-21, 24, 31-33, 39; 11:16; 12:16, 29-30; 13:28, 36-37; 14:5, 8; 16:17-18.

3) The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit following Jesus’ glorification cf. 14:26; 16:12-15.

e. Acts cf. 2:23, 30-32; 3:18-26; 7:52; 8:26-35; 10:42-43; 13:32-33; 26:6-7, 22-23; 28:23.

f. Rom 3:21-22; 16:25-26

g. 2 Cor 1:20; 3:4-16

h. Gal 3:8, 15-29; 4:4

i. Eph 1:10; 3:4-7

95 Though we ended our last lesson with the point: “God’s Revelation in Scripture Finds Its Fulfillment inthe Person and Work of Jesus Christ,” we will not begin there today. We have revised the material for these ourlast lectures.


j. Col 1:25-27; 2:16-17

k. 2 Tim 3:14-15

l. Titus 1:2-3

m. Heb 1:1-2; 2:2-3a; 3:1-6; 7:12, 18-19; 8:1-6, 13; 9:1-9a; 10:1, 9b-10, 20; 11:39-40; 12:18-24

n. 1 Pet 1:10-12

o. Jude 3

2. Implications

a. Jesus himself is the centerpiece of redemption history.

b. Jesus is the grid through which we must understand previous revelation, if we are going to understand it at all.

c. The NT is the starting point for all our reading of Scripture. It teaches us howto understand the previous revelation.

B. Purpose of God in Redemption Is Unified in Christ cf. Rom 11:11-36; Gal 3:8, 27-29; Eph 2:11-22.

C. The Church and Israel. The church and (believing) Israel are related to one another in this way: one looks forward to Christ and one looks back to him. So the church and Israel have their unity in the person of Christ.

1. Faithful Israel is fulfilled in Christ. Israel’s history is recapitulated in Jesus’ life; this point is Matthew’s primary contribution to Christian theology.

a. Like Moses, Jesus was delivered from a slaughter of infants cf. Matt 2:13-14 w/ Exod 2:1-10.

b. Like Israel, Jesus comes out of Egypt cf. 2:15 w/ Hos 11:1.

c. Like Israel, Jesus is the beloved son cf. Matt 3:17 w/ Exod 5:22-23

d. Like Israel, Jesus is tested in the wilderness for forty segments of time cf. Matt 4:1-11 w/ Deut 8:1-3.


e. Just as there were twelve sons of Israel, Jesus calls twelve apostles cf. Matt 10:2-4.

f. Just as God gave Israel the Law from a mountain, so Jesus gives his Law froma mountain cf. Matt 5-7; Exod 19-20.

g. Just as the twelve tribes were sent out to conquer the land, so the twelve apostles are sent to preach and heal and exorcise cf. Matt 10-11.

h. Just as God fed Israel with miraculous bread, so, too does Jesus feed the people with miraculous bread cf. Matt 14-15.

i. Just as Moses’ face shone from his encounter on the mountain with the Lord,so, too, did Jesus’ garments shine when he was encountered by the Lord on the mount of his transfiguration cf. Matt 17.

2. The church is the body of Christ, and therefore has its fullness in Christ cf. 1 Cor 12:12, 27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12, 15-16; 5:29-30; Col 1:18, 24.

D. The Covenants

1. Function in redemption history like acts in a play cf. Gal 3:15-19.

2. Anticipate the fulfillment of the promise in Christ.

E. The Chart


Systems of Theology General Introductionredeemerbiblechurch.com/.../Systems_of_Theology... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Systems of Theology General Introductionredeemerbiblechurch.com/.../Systems_of_Theology... ·...