An Examination Of The Presuppositions
Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology

11. Concluding Remarks

I trust the Lord will somehow use the above examination of dispensational and covenant theology to minister grace to your hearts, and stir you up to search the Scriptures to see what things are so (cf. my editorial, "A Plea For A Berean Spirit," BRR, Vol. 9, #1, pp. 4-6). I earnestly desire, and desperately need, your reciprocal contributions to me, If you see areas where my thinking should be corrected by Scriptures, please inform me. I have been under both the dispensational and covenant systems. I know that most of you are wrestling with these matters. May the Lord give us light as we seek His will in the Word. I offer the following concluding observations for your consideration.

11.1 Is Covenant Theology Sacrosanct? John Murray many years ago suggested that

It would not be . . . in the interests of theological conservation or theological progress to think that the covenant theology is in all respects definitive and that there is no further need for correction, modification, and explanation. Theology must always be undergoing reformation . . . It appears to me that covenant theology . . . needs recasting (The Covenant of Grace [1954], pp. 4-5).

It would be my judgment that if covenant theology were "recast" in line with Scripture, then it would cease to maintain its distinctive character. Covenant theology is permeated with gratuitous assumptions, and strained Scriptural interpretations. The "Five Points of Calvinism," as far as I can tell, are in no way dependent on the accouterments of covenant theology, although historically Calvinism bas been articulated primarily by covenant theologians. Thus, we should not think that a questioning of the peculiarities of covenant theology is tantamount to a denial of the doctrines of grace.

I believe that George P. Hutchinson has discerned something important when he said:

We should also note that the charge of adding to scripture may also be leveled at certain aspects of classic covenant theology. For just as Edwards and Shedd were dependent on certain philosophical leanings for the restatement and defense of scriptural truth, much of covenant theology was dependent on certain extra-scriptural legal ideas prevalent in the seventeenth century, ideas which may very will have been used to the distortion of the covenant theology of scripture (The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology [Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972], p. 111).

11.2 Should Calvinistic Baptists be "Covenant Theologians"? Douglas Shantz believes that "Baptists convictions are . . . compatible with covenant theology . . . one can be a covenant theologian without sacrificing Baptist convictions" (pp. 7, 18; cf. p. 15). Erroll Hulse says that "Reformed Baptists and Reformed non-Baptists . . . accept covenant theology in every sense but differ over the implications of Heb. Ch. 8" ("Unity, The Covenant and Baptism," Reformation Today, #53, Jan.-Feb., 1980, p. 7). I believe that such unqualified endorsements of covenant theology need to be carefully evaluated in the light of the many tensions between Baptist convictions and historical covenant theology, especially in light of the apparent paucity of exegetical evidences for the major pillars of covenant theology (i.e.., that the covenant of works/covenant of grace are the two primary covenants in Scripture. David Kingdom believers that "Baptists will never seriously disturb Reformed paedobaptists" until they acknowledge that the covenant of grace is one (Children of Abraham, p. 21). I submit that a Biblical theology more closely aligned with Scripture will not be attained until the covenant of works/ covenant of grace concepts are challenged.

Erroll Hulse evidences misunderstanding when he says, "Some panic-stricken Baptists have-been so foolish as to abandon covenant theology by adopting a false kind of dispensationalism -- setting up the old covenant against the new" ("What Is Covenant Theology?." Reformation Today, March-April, 1980, p. 20). It would be my observation that the Baptists he refers to have not spoken out of "panic," but out of serious study. Further, is it fair for Mr. Hulse to assume that the only alternative to covenant theology is some from of dispensationalism? Mr. Hulse goes on to say, "I venture a prophecy that when correctly handled covenant theology will be the best vindication of the Baptist position" (Ibid., p. 20). But covenant theologians see it as "impossible to maintain the truth of the covenant of grace and its inseparably related truth of infant baptism without adhering to the doctrine of sovereign grace" (H. C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, May 1, 1980, pp. 342). I venture to say that Baptists will be frustrated as long as they try to vindicate their position on the basis of historic covenant theology.

11.3 Crucial Questions to Consider Before God's Word, In Light of the Presuppositions Examined.

1. Does the Bible teach that God has two separate purposes, an earthly one for Israel and a heavenly one for the church?

2. In the final analysis, is dispensationalism Christ-centered or Israel-centered?

3. Does the Bible teach that the "covenant of works/covenant of grace" are the two "primary" covenants in Scripture?

4. Is "covenant" a specifically historical term? Does a covenant have an historical moment when it is "cut"?

5. Is it Scriptural to apply "covenant" terminology to the pre-temporal Trinitarian counsel?

6. Does the Bible teach that the "Old Covenant" is the entire period from the fall to Christ's coming?

7. Does the Bible teach that there is a "covenant of grace" above history, inaugurated after the fall, which is then mirrored in the subsequent historical covenants?

8. Covenant theologians constantly use the phrase, "the covenant," in their writings (cf. Erroll Hulse, Reformation Today, #53, p. 6). What "covenant" is in view? Where is this "covenant" revealed in Scripture, and where was it "cut" in history?

9. Does the status of being "under law" accurately describe the pre-fall condition of Adam?

10. Where does the N. T. require that the Ten Commandments be preached before the gospel?

11. Where does the N. T. describe the Christian as facing the "hard lesson" of being "not under the law," yet "under the law"?

12. Is the New Covenant based on the same "do this and live" principle as the Old Covenant?

11.4 A Generalized Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

DISPENSATIONALISM	COVENANT THEOLOGY
Two separate purposes	One covenant of grace
Israel: Future earthly purpose	Israel: Present political model
Law/Grace opposed	Law/Grace fused together
Law postponed to future	Law carried over into the New Covenant
Redemptive history chopped up	Redemptive history flattened
Assume literalism, avoid N. T. use of O. T.	Assume one covenant avoid historical covenants
Read the O. T. without N. T.	Read the N. T. into the Old Covenant
Eschatological rigidity (only  dispensational premillennialism tolerated)	Eschatological liberty (historic pre-mill, a-mill, and post-mill allowed)

11.5 Suggested Reading.

D. L. Baker. Two Testaments: One Bible [IVP, 1976].

A. J. Bandstra. The Law and the Elements of the World [Doctoral dissertation, 1964, Free University of Amsterdam).

John Brown, Commentaries on Romans and Galatians.

F. F. Bruce. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Eerdmans, 1978].

D. M. Canright, Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced.

Oscar Cullmann. Salvation In History [SCM Press, 1965], pp. 297-306; 319-338.

C. H. Dodd. Gospel and Law [Columbia Univ. Press, 1951], 83 pages.

D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? - The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology [To be issued in 1980 by Eerdmans].

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., The Centrality of the Resurrection [Baker]; "Contemporary Hermeneutics and the Study of the N. T.," Studying the N. T. Today [Pres. & Ref., 1976]. Vol. 1, pp. 3-18; "Systematic Theology and Bible Theology," The N. T. Student and Theology [Pres. & Ref., 1976], Vol. 3, pp. 32-50.

R. T. Kendall. Calvin and English Calvinism [Oxford Univ. Press. 1980]. 237 pages.

M. G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority [Eerdmans].

Herman Ridderbos. Paul: An Outline of His Theology [Eerdmans]; The Coming of the Kingdom [Pres. & Ref.].

Ernest Sandeen. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 [Baker, 1978].

Jon Zens. "'As I Have Loved You': The Starting point of Christian Obedience," Baptist Reformation Review, Second Quarter, 1980 (Vol. 9, #2), pp. 4-26.