Lay theological discussions in our day often devolve into vitriolic and uninformed character assaults. Often begun with good intentions, theological discussion often devolves into a most insipid and unproductive endeavor. Whatever the issue, it is rare for two interested people to discuss a theological issue without turning the conversation into a personal assault and defamation of one another. Attempts at dialogue often conclude in a futile stalemate where both sides end up quoting a plethora of verses as though they might out-quote the other. In such so-called discussion, neither side gains much ground since both opponents are adept at avoiding the real issues and are quite skilled in the art of misrepresentation, rhetoric, false assumptions, red herrings, and unwarranted persecution of the opponent, degenerating the discussion into anything but dialogue.
Theological discussion today can be likened to a deployment of armies; men enlist, are armed and trained to wield a catalog of verses and retorts, and are made ready for battle. Within the various theological camps is found little fighting, but much honing of defensive and offensive skills. When intramural theological discussion is held, it is most often only a recounting of great battles, a presentation of verse quoting skills, and/or comparison of battle scars. Debate rarely involves the engagement of meaningful, theological discussion. When those of like mind are occupied in discussion, they often are able to successfully engage one another in a civil manner, yet such debate rarely ventures outside of one’s safety zone. Generally what is discussed among those of similar belief is nothing more than a reaffirmation of what is already believed and the dislike for everyone not in agreement with them. Thus, theological discussion is usually held among men of like mind, and if one decides to venture outside his camp he only does so to fight and rarely seeks a meaningful and profitable engagement. Theological discussion rarely is a meeting of disputant forces, seated around a table, intent upon seeking a successful and peaceful resolution of the truth.
This is a most distressing fact confronting anyone who desires to engage in theological discussion. Whether the discussion is an intramural endeavor or a discussion among broad theological lines, there is little advancement in theological discussion when civility does not reign. Rare is it that one can honestly assess and critique his or her most personally held beliefs. Consider how many dispensationalists truly understand dispensationalism or even know they are dispensationalists. How many who adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith can honestly quote the confession and provide a meaningful and informed understanding of covenant theology? Most laymen today possess second-hand knowledge or worse, hearsay, regarding what they believe. Their theological understanding is nothing more than a catalog of quotes and quips. If one asks why they believe what they believe, they will probably say, “the scripture says so.” If one asks them to show, from scripture, where their doctrine is taught, they will probably present verses that are in agreement with their preconceived interpretation, but do they ever really stop and assess the validity of what they believe? It is doubtful. No matter how often a theological proponent claims he can approach scriptures objectively, the truth of the matter is that no one is objective in his or her reading of the word of God. Every reader subjects the word of God to his or her own preconceptions.
The Feud
If theological discussion is ever to be meaningful and productive, men must be honest in their assessments of themselves and what they believe. Everyone approaches the word of God with presuppositions and most are either ignorant of that fact or unwilling to admit it. The problem is enormous in our day, where most people “know” what they believe because they assume they know it to be truth, rather than because they understand it to be the truth. Like a child that grows up believing the Republican party is right, not because he has examined the issues and understands what Republicanism stands for, but he is a Republican simply because his father imposed upon him his own set of beliefs. He will live and die for the cause if necessary, never really knowing the cause. The problem is that most people embrace theology without honestly assessing it historically; it is as though for them the world began yesterday and they were born with the knowledge they possess. They understand little of history, of their environment, of themselves, and of what outside influences have led them to their preconceptions. This is especially true in theology; assumptions are most often held due to one’s ecclesiastical affiliation and not from an examination of the word of God, history, or one’s own rearing. To attack a man’s religious beliefs is to assault his presuppositions, and to assault his presuppositions is to attack a man himself.
Theological discussion has become a mere series of assaults upon one another, while little insight is held regarding the nature of the feud. Why does a covenant theologian disagree with a dispensationalist? Why are both sides quick to dub the other with an offensive title like antinomian or legalist? Does anyone really understand what either title represents? Why are both covenant theologians and dispensationalists so ready to put aside their differences and join forces against anyone who will offer another point of view? The disputes in this century between dispensationalists and covenant theologians, and even theology in general, have been much like the old feud between the Hatfields and McCoys. They know they dislike one another; they know the other party is wrong, and they are easily provoked at the mere name of the other party. However, if one were to ask why they dislike one another they could only say, “this I know: I am right and the other party is wrong.” But does anyone really understand why? Can anyone really offer an informed analysis of the prevailing feud?
The Olive Branch
The two prevailing systems of theology most attested to and fought for are dispensationalism and covenant theology. They are the Hatfields and McCoys of evangelicalism in our century. There is a movement afoot today to raise meaningful discussion between those who hold to dispensationalism and those who hold to covenant theology. Charles C. Ryrie, a leading dispensationalist, recently republished his groundbreaking work of 1966, Dispensationalism Today, answering many of the questions raised in discussion and dispute over his theological views. Progressive dispensationalists have sought to understand the differences that separate them from non-dispensationalists, as seen in the book Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, where leading dispensational scholars elicited a response and dialogue to their theology by non-dispensational scholars. Those from a covenant theology background have equally been engaged in scholarly discussion of the issues, as evidenced by the text Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern Poythress. One exception to this dialogue may be the book Wrongly Dividing the Word of God: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John Gerstner. It has met with much disdain by its dispensational opponents. Despite Dr. Gerstner’s seemingly hostile approach, being perhaps more brazen than most would like, there is much of importance to consider in his text. This aside, the past twenty years has borne witness to increasing discussion among theologians seeking to extend the olive branch to the other in hopes of meaningful dialogue.
Equal to this movement has been a grassroots effort to raise the question of the validity of either dispensationalism or covenant theology as a viable and useful system of theology. The question has been raised regarding whether there is another option outside of these two dogmas that can give meaning and insight into the word of God. One answer put forth has been given the title new covenant theology. Some consider it a hybrid of the two prevailing theologies of our day. Non-dispensationalists have called it antinomianism or dispensationalism and the dispensationalist has seemingly ignored it. This book will seek not only to define the two prevailing theological dogmas of our day, but will also endeavor to identify antinomianism as an unnamed and prevailing system of theology since the early Reformation. This is necessitated by the fact that Dr. Gerstner has labeled dispensationalism antinomian and because new covenant theology has also been egregiously so labeled. This book will endeavor to introduce and define new covenant theology as it relates to these other systems of dogma, attempting to establish it as an entity all its own and worthy of consideration as a valid answer to theology’s most pressing question. It is time for new covenant theology to grow up and assert itself as a viable system of theology distinct from its counterparts.
The Peace Process
The purpose of this text is to trace the origins of the four systems of theology listed in the last paragraph: covenant theology, antinomianism, dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalism included in this category), and new covenant theology. A brief history of the development of each dogma will be set forth, then a useful and concise definition of each of these systems will be offered based upon their most germane theological presupposition. In summation, there shall be a discussion of the prospect of unity in the continuing theological discussions as it reflects upon these prevailing theological systems. In order to accomplish this most arduous task, a basic assertion underlies every word of this series. Each article begins with the assumption that every orthodox theological system seeks to answer a singular question. That is, every system of theology is engaged in the pursuit of the answer to the most pressing question of the Christian religion. Theology addresses many peripheral matters: law and grace, continuity and discontinuity, justification and sanctification, and Israel and the church, yet all of these topics have a fundamental question that must be answered before meaningful discussion can be had in addressing these biblical tensions. The most pressing question of the Christian faith, as it addresses theology is this:
How does God relate to men?
The way a man answers this question determines how he interprets scripture and how he addresses those aforementioned peripheral matters of importance.
A covenant theologian addresses the issue of biblical continuity and discontinuity far differently than a dispensationalist, an antinomian, or a new covenant theologian. Every theologian of the four disciplines approaches the issue from a unique prevailing presupposition that becomes the answer to the question posed: ”How does God relate to men?” The answer to this question not only gives meaning to God’s salvific work, but also gives pertinent information to the Christian as he tries to understand that work of God in relation to his life as a Christian. Systematic theology grew out of a desire to explain how men are to understand their relationship to God. Understanding this fact is vital to understanding systematic theology.
Ignorance is not the path to truth. Richard A. Mueller notes that theological discussion is suspect because of a prevailing ignorance amongst most involved in the discussion. He writes, “We detect no dearth of theological systems, but even a cursory examination of most of these products reveals a failure to reflect concerns of the contemporary church and a certain intellectual and spiritual distance between dogmatic system and Christian piety or the Christian pulpit.” [1] Richard Muller hits at the heart of the matter: systems of theology are devised to explain the Christian’s existence and life, and any theological discussion that fails to end in a discussion of practical religion should be discarded. This book is important because, in our day, everyone possesses a theological presupposition and that presupposition affects his or her Christian practice. Practice is derived from the answer to the fundamental question of all theological formulation. How theology defines God’s relation to men has a direct bearing upon the Christian faith and life. The theological confusion and ignorance of our day has led to confused Christian expression. There is a pressing need for Christians to understand the question that is most precursory to their Christianity and living.
The Boundaries Imposed
This book does not address the questions that many are raising, such as, “What should we think about Israel?” “Are law and grace antithetical or can they be reconciled?” “How does the Old Testament relate to the New Testament?” These questions are important and need answers, but before they can even be discussed and answered there must be an examination of prevailing presuppositions in theological dogma. Therefore, this book shall address those prevailing presuppositions as they answer the question that is most germane and fundamental to every theological discussion of how God relates to men. This text will not necessarily involve itself in a discussion of biblical texts, as that is often a fruitless endeavor if one ignores his presuppositions. Richard A. Mueller writes:
This plethora of traditions and types of theology clouds the sola Scriptura of the Reformers, because any number of these separate theologies – particularly the denominational and private-interest theologies – lay exclusive claim to biblical truth. If one comes to theological study with a fairly open mind, the problem of affiliation, alignment, and basic perspective will be enormous. [2]
Thus, the importance of getting to the very heart of the matter necessitates the examination of theological presuppositions. Everyone approaches the study of the scriptures having answered the question, "How does God relate to men?" The answer dictates the manner in which every biblical interpreter understands what he reads. Greg L. Bahnsen writes, and his conclusion is the scheme this book shall employ:
It is not hard to understand, then, that the assumptions that each party brings to a religious (or any fundamental) disagreement will both define their difference of opinion and determine how each one responds to the arguments of the other […] all assumptions can affect a person’s reasoning and conclusions [...]. [3]
The main thesis of this book, therefore, is that all theological systems possess a most essential presupposition; they seek to answer the question, “How does God relate to men.” How this question is answered determines how pressing theological questions and texts are interpreted. This approach sets the proper boundaries that separate and designate differences in theological belief.
Scope and Sequence
The design of this book is intentional. While at times the discussion may seem a bit involved, it is necessary to properly identify and define the four systems of theology in discussion (covenant theology, antinomianism, dispensationalism, and
new covenant theology). Each theological dogma will be introduced historically, and then a definition will be put forth. This may appear out of sequence to some, but the order is necessary. Every system of theology has grown up in history. Understanding the issues of the day, the environment, the tensions, and the people, is essential to a proper definition of a system of theology. If misrepresentations and errors of identification are to be avoided, the time in which a system of theology developed must first be understood. Just as a text of scripture needs to be examined in light of its situation, context, purpose, and occasion, so does the historical development of theology need proper introduction if it is to be honestly represented and engaged. One is cautioned--the four mentioned systems of theology are not easily understood or explained. A simple, trite definition and summation of them may misrepresent and do no more than contribute to the ignorance of our day. Take covenant theology as an example: it has grown up as a theological dogma in the space of five centuries. It has been developed by the greatest theological minds of the past five hundred years. Are we really so morose as to think that a simple, trite expression can fully express this giant? Systems of theology are intricate. They are multifaceted, involved, and complex, and in order to adequately identify them, a more than cursory introduction of their tenants needs to be presented. It is hoped this approach will not only provide the reader with an informed and honest understanding of these four systems of theology, but that it will also facilitate educated decisions regarding what one believes and why it is a held belief.
A Plea to the Reader
As noted, the chapters that follow may become somewhat involved. The reader, despite an interest and understanding of the issues, is encouraged to persevere through the information as it develops. Each chapter builds upon the others to form a book and must be digested if the conclusions drawn at the end are to be understood. As the chapters are read, the reader is simply asked to assess the validity of the foremost thesis of the book by asking: Are theological systems an attempt to answer the question, “How does God relate to men?” If so, are the answers presented for covenant theology, antinomianism, dispensationalism, and new covenant theology accurate? If the answer to both questions is in the affirmative, the reader will come to see that new covenant theology is antithetical to the other three theological systems and will have a clear and terse definition for new covenant theology. New covenant theology can then take a step forward in distinguishing itself as a viable and veritable answer to theology's most pressing question of Christianity. It is hoped this book will be more than informative; it is hoped it will be to the glory and furtherance of the majesty and wonder of our God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
[1] Richard A. Mueller, The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation, 7, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 20.
[2] Ibid., 21,22.
[3] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, (Philipsburg: P&R, 1998), 463, 64.