Systems of Theology, Lecture 1

8/14/2019 Systems of Theology, Lecture 1

1/44

Systems of Theology

1. General Introduction

A. Definitions

1. Not Systematic Theology. Systematic Theology is the discipline of logicallysynthesizing 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 Godhas acted in history. Thus the development of a system or model for

understanding Gods 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) in

history through the examination of Scripture as it has been progressivelyrevealed 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 dont have to be conscious of asystem of theology to have one. Depending on the books youve read, messages

youve heard coupled with your own reading of the Bible, you will have arrangedsome kind of framework for understanding all of Gods 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 notbe able to undergo correction from Gods 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 wont be able to dump your mistaken presuppositions if youdont 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 Gods 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 inthe Christian life. Now take Heb 8:13 for example: When He said, A

new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming

obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

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


2/44

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 Commandments

are not in force, you will be convinced that everything belonging to theold covenant has disappeared in Christ, confirming your assumptionthat 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 ofGods 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 ashaving 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 Gods activity in history as it

has been revealed in the Bible, there is the potential of heresy entering the churchunawares. In such cases, it is the churchs 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 andwhy 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 oftheology 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 that

there 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.



3/44

2. Dispensationalism



4/44

2. Covenantalism

A. Definitions

1. Reformed origins: Covenant theology is the result of theological developmentwithin 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 termReformed does not simply mean Protestantfor there are Lutheran and

Arminian 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 tobe 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 Gods work in terms of covenant. In sodoing it seeks to place every act of God with relation to man in redemption

within the concept of the covenant. [A]ll of Gods Word pertains to somecovenant and God speaks nothing to man without covenant.3

b. From the earliest periods in the development of Covenant Theology, covenanthas been defined as a contractan agreement between two parties:

1) Gods covenant is a mutual promise and agreement, between God andmen, 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


5/44

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, withaddition 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, Gods relationship to Adam and Eve inthe 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 aprivate individual, but as the divinely appointed representative of mankind, so

that when he fell, we fell. From Rollock forward, the Covenant of Works

became part of the staple of Covenant Theology.

1) Parties: God and man.

2) Foundation: This covenant was founded upon mans holy and perfect

nature at creation.

3) Condition: The condition for enjoying the benefits of the covenant was

good works performed by virtue of mans holy nature. This condition (orpoints of this condition) is found in the Ten Commandments, which has

been inscribed mens 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 uponmanphysical and eternal death.

5 Ursinus, quoted in John Murray, The Covenant of Grace (London: Tyndale, 1954), 1. This quotation is

from 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 in

all of its essential features.



6/44

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), forexample, 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 onlydebt was Gods 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 of

works 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 beenpleased to express by way of covenant. The first covenant made with man

was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him

to 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 perpetualobedience; 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 worksper se contained no provision for redemptionbut this fact should

not be construed to mean that the covenant of works is no longer in force or was rendered null and void by the

entrance 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 of

Truth Trust, 1977), 50 is even more forceful in his modification of the Covenant of Works: The view that in

the Mosaic covenant there was a repetition of the so-called covenant of worksis a grave misconception and

involves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant, as well as fails to assess the uniqueness of the

Adamic administration.



7/44

3) LC, Q20. What was the providence of God toward man in the estate inwhich 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 theforbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they

were 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, heentered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect

obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good andevil, upon the pain of death.

3. The aim of the Covenant of Works: A final comment, and an important one, isthat the goal of the establishment of the Covenant of Works was not that man

would 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 andbestows upon us the two-fold benefit of gratuitous righteousness in the

forgiveness of sins and renovation after Gods own image (i.e. the promise of

resurrection).

a. Parties: God and those he chooses.

b. Foundation: Gods faithfulness to himself.



8/44

c. Condition: Though it is understood with reference to Gods 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 Christs 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 obedienceare 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 Noahiccovenant 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 the

second 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 isclearly 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



9/44

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 boththe 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 salvific

promises of the Abrahamic covenantthat God would be the God of

Abraham and his descendantsand that in Abraham all the nations of theearth would be blessedeverything that God has done since to the present

moment 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 graceshould beviewed in terms of the salvific promises contained in the Abrahamic

covenant.12

b. The covenant that God made with Moses is not of a different character from

or 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 onenessin 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 administered

by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and

other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, allforesignifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and

efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the

elect 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 the

Covenant 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 difference

between 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.



10/44

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 more

simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in morefulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews andGentiles; 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 truebelievers 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 thePassover under the Mosaic Covenant are regarded as having the same

significance as baptism and the Lords Supper under the New Testament.They are seals of the Covenant of Grace that confirmed Gods faithfulness to

the promises associated with that covenant.13 See Chart 8.1: Signs of the

Covenant of Grace.

D. The Covenant of Redemption14: So far, the entire discussion of Covenant Theology

has surrounded Gods 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 beconceived 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 nota

uniform designation. It cannot be said to be sufficiently descriptive to serve the purpose of distinguishing the

aspects of Gods counsel denoted by it. For this reason the use of other terms by some of the most

representative 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 this

use of the term.



11/44

1. Definition: This covenant (sometimes explained as a compact or pact), establishedbetween 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 thewill 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.



12/44

a. The whole business of mans salvation was transacted between the Father

and 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 theElect.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 theologyholds that thepactum salutis was a covenant of works for the

Second Adam, because the Son came with the obligation to personally and perfectly fulfillthe taskspecified 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 Covenant

Theologians are not unanimous on the relation of the Covenant of Redemption to the Covenant of Grace. Some

go so far as to identify the two.



13/44

duty bound to do. The work has been done, the reward is merited, and believers are

made partakers of the fruits of Christs 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.



14/44

Systems of Theology

3. Dispensationalism

A. Introduction

1. Dispensationalism is novel to Christian theology. Relative to Protestantism ingeneral 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 dispensationalism

was illustrated when I was askedto write an article on dispensational

premillennialism. 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 be

difficult 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 toIncarnation of Christ; (2) Incarnation to Resurrection; (3) Resurrection of Christ

to the End of the World. In his exposition, Edwards subdivides each broad

period 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 varietyof 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 dispensationalistswould not agree with Walvoords 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


15/44

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

2. Dispensationalism is not rooted in a unified Christian tradition. It is a tradition allits own. It arose in the 19th century not as a movement from within the

mainstream of Christianity, but from the outside. At the same time, its adherentswere from many denominations (Presbyterian, Baptist, and Brethren). It evenbecame the impetus for the founding of new denominations (like the phenomenon

of the Bible churches).

Because of this independence the answers to the questions we have aboutDispensationalism will be found in the individuals responsible for spearheading

the 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 avoweddispensationalist 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 havent been similar problems within the ranks of

Covenant 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 some

arbitrary 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.



16/44

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

B. Defining Dispensation: A dispensation is a stage in Gods self-revelation and planof salvation.26 The English word has its origin in the Greekoikonoma, which among

other things, refers to a plan that involves a set of arrangements. It is sometimes usedthis way in the NT with reference to Gods 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) universallyacknowledge that God has revealed himself and the plan of salvation in stages.

The reason why everyone acknowledges dispensations in Scripture is because of thehistorical 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 doesnt 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. Itseeks 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 Christs exaltation? That God operated differently with mankind duringdifferent 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 mustacknowledge dispensations.

Although covenantalists understand all of the covenants from the Noahic forward tobe 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 arenondispensationalists [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 of

Gods 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.



17/44

C. Kinds of Dispensationalism: Different prominent proponents of Dispensationalism

conceive 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 thosemen 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 adispensation 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 God29 and as ordered ages which condition human life on earth.30

From the perspective of the Classic Dispensationalist, the stages of Gods 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 tohimself 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 Godsdealings 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 Gods purposes in redemption is to release the earth

from 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 inthe fall and grant immortality to earthly humanity.

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



18/44

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 until

the end of that time. It will then continue on the new earth populating itforever. The earthly humanity will begin at the generation of the saved who

are alive at Christs 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 been

dead; 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 heenvisions 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 receive

their 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 toheaven with heavenly people and heavenly objects involved.31

4. The church: The church represents a parenthesis in the history of Gods 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 something

additional 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.



19/44

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 ClassicDispensational as well. See Chart 3.2: The Church as Parenthesis.

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

If the OT is interpreted literally, Gods earthly purpose for his earthly people is

revealed. If it is interpreted spiritually, then it reveals Gods spiritual purposefor his spiritual people. See Chart 4.2: Hermeneutics of Classic

Dispensationalism.

When it comes to the NT, the spiritual purpose for the spiritual people is

discovered 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 itsdispensation.

6. The covenants: When it comes to the covenants of the Bible, ClassicDispensationalists see the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12) as the foundational

covenant in Scripture. One of the promises made to Abraham was that hisdescendants 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 Gods 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

Abrahams 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 dowith Gods 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 newcovenant 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 Chart

5.2: The Covenants.

7. The kingdom(s)



20/44

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

b. The kingdom of heaven, on the other hand, refers exclusively to thefulfillment of the covenant made with David in which he promised to establish

the kingdom of his son. The kingdom of heaven, a phrase only found inMatthews gospel, begins to appear with the presence of Jesus Christ, adescendant 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 Godis 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 ageand which have to so with the sphere of Christian profession during

this age; (c) the prophetic aspectthe kingdom to be set up after the return of the

King in glory.35

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

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

future time.

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

c) It will be fulfilled in the Millennium (future). The DavidicCovenant 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 Chart

6.2: The Kingdom of Heaven.

34 Scofield Reference Bible, 1003.35 Ibid., 996.



21/44

8. Conclusion: What is it that sets apart the Classic Dispensationalist fromthe covenant theologian? Or better put, what is it that distinguishes

Classic Dispensationalism from other systems of theology? The answer is

found 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 differentdispensations of God), so too is the dualistic notion of redemption

foundational to Classic Dispensationalism.



22/44

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 systematization

and 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 apositive way in order to correct misunderstandings and allay suspicions about

it.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 Gods

purpose.38

b. Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In Hishousehold-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 theoutworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the

dispensations.39

c. The concept of the dispensation is seen from three perspectives: from Gods

perspective it is an economy; from mans, 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 Ryries

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

36Charles C Ryrie,Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 11.

37 Ibid.38 Ibid., 28.39 Ibid., 29.40 Ibid., 45.



23/44

4. Progressive Revelation: To talk about progressive revelation is another way of

talking about what we addressed in an earlier lesson; namely, the historical form

of the Bible. God did not reveal himself all at once, but did so over time. Thatthe 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 means

throughout 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 Gods purpose and (2) the

continual unfolding of Gods 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 revelationinto certain periods...it remains certain that God in the unfolding of revelation has

regularly employed [the principle of periodicity].The principle ofsuccessive.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 FallAdam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses

to Christ, and Christ to the end.... In other words, a person can believe indispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive revelation, without

being a dispensationalist.43

Therefore it seems fairly clear that taking into account progressive revelation isnot 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.



24/44

a. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. What is significanthere is that Ryrie states that this truth has been presented in different ways by

different people. And he quotes from Chafer saying that Chafer summarizes

the position. The following quote is from a book by Chafer calledDispensationalism, 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 thisdistinguishing mark of Revised Dispensationalism: The dispensationalistbelieves 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 objectives

involved, 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 ofwhether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most

practical 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 thatthose who employ such a method ignore typology, figures of speech, genre,

and the like. It is negatively defined as being a hermeneutic that does notallegorize the Scriptures. Ryrie says that what marks out the dispensationalist

is in the dispensationalists claim to use the normal principle of interpretationconsistently in all his study of the Bible.47

This represents a departure from Classic Dispensationalism. Scofield called

for 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.



25/44

If all Ryrie means when he refers to literal interpretation is that interpretation

ought 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 the

pen 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 as

well 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 doesthe 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 arein no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very

existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality

of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the

meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that theyconvey to the reader.49

In the first use, he seems to mean grammatico-historical; in his second useof the term, he seems to mean literal as opposed to figurative; and the third

use 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 Applying

the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1994), 112-113.49 Charles C Ryrie,Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 87, italics added.



26/44

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 whatis viewed by the Revised Dispensationalist as an erroneous teaching of

Covenant Theology. Revised Dispensationalists believe that althoughcovenant 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 inthe 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 thecommencement of this plan in time. Following the fall mans capacity to

glorify 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 interpretationto refer to grammatico-historical interpretation, b and c of Ryries sinequa non do not appear unique to Revised Dispensationalsim, while on theother 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 bydispensationalists 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, The

Pleasures of God: Meditations on Gods 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 Covenantal

in his convictions.51 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 137.



27/44

The earthly purpose of Israel of which dispensationalists speak concerns the

yet unfulfilled national promises that will be fulfilled by Israel during the Millennium

as 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 todaywho 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 joinwith the resurrected and translated of the church age to share in the glory of

His reign forever.

53

This represents a slight departure from ClassicDispensationalism.

7. The Church

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

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 churchs 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 itsexistence was not mentioned until the NT era.

b. Church as parenthesis: Related to this is the notion of the church asparenthesis 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 appropriatelyused to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in Gods

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.



28/44

8. The Kingdom: The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven distinction hasundergone 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 divine

government. When contrasted with the universal kingdom of God, the kingdom ofheaven 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 of

those 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 settingforth 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 notionthat 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 dispensational

argument, 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 thedispensational position.

b. The essential component of Classic Dispensationalism remains intact in the

revised position: the notion of dualistic redemption.

55The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 1320

56 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 on

the kingdom question from four different men within the Revised camp are presented: Alva J. McClain, John

Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Charles Ryrie, two of which were on the editorial committee for theNew

Scofield Study Bible.57 Ryrie,Dispensationalism, 154-55.



29/44

Systems of Theology

F. Progressive Dispensationalism

1. Dispensationalism or not Dispensationalism? That is the question. Progressive

Dispensationalists, by their very name, consider themselves to bedispensationalists.

a. Progressive dispensationalism is a phenomena of change within thedispensational tradition.58

b. Progressive dispensationalists are themselves revised dispensationalists who

through more developed historical-literary interpretation have come to what

they 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 thereis a mediating position between non-dispensationalists and traditional

dispensationalism 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 whatrelates the various eras of redemption. Thus there is a very high degree of

continuity between the ages. God is relating to man through one

unchanging covenant of grace administered differently in different periods

of time. There is thus one purpose in redemption.

58Blaising & 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.



30/44

2) By contrast both Classic and Revised Dispensationalism are known for its

recognition of multiple purposes in divine redemption, which include

earthly, national, political, social, and spiritual purposes. And some ofthese 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/heavenly

distinction 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. Somechose 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 berelated 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 ofsystems of theology, that God has operated differently in different periods of

time is universally acknowledged. What is debated (and hotly!) is the nature

of the relationship between those epochs in salvation history. ForProgressives, 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 redemption

unfolds in history. So unlike Covenantalism, the dispensations are notsimply different historical expressions of the same experience of

redemption even though they culminate in one redemption plan.



31/44

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. Thefinal dispensation will reveal all these aspects in complementary

relationship to each other. Prior to the final dispensation, earlierdispensations my reveal one or more aspects of the final dispensation inwhich 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 thebiblical 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 traditional

dispensationalists 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 to

traditional dispensationalism, it does not entail separate programs for the church and

Israel that are somehow ultimately unified only in the display of Gods glory or in

eternity. 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 ofthekingdom. It is the beginning of the fulfillment of the eschatological promises.

Thus the church today has its place and function in the same mediatorial messianic

kingdom 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 time

before 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 ofGod is the earth.Thus Gods kingdom, which today may be said to be over

the earth, will one day be established on the earth.63

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



32/44

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 Gods

work in history.

The historical plan of God, therefore, is one unified plan. Contrary to

traditional Dispensationalism, it does not entail separate programs for the church and

Israel that are somehow ultimately unified only in the display of Gods 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 mediatorial

messianic kingdom program that Israel was called to serve.64

Since the kingdom is understood as the expression of Gods 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 Gods redemptive purpose (not an intercalation). Although

Progressive Dispensationalists agree with Revised and Classic

dispensationalists that there is a place for ethnic, national Israel in theeternal 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 redemption

plan, either to be fulfilled in heaven apart from the new earth (Classic) or

in 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 spite

of their ethnic and national differences. As a result, progressives advocate

a holistic and unified view of eternal salvation. God will save mankind inits ethnic and national plurality. But he will bless it with the same

salvation 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. Thechurch 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 incontrast to the rest of redeemed humanity on the earth.

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

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



33/44

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 Gods historical kingdom program.

66

Nevertheless, it is their concept of the church that has brought the

Progressives much grief from their dispensationalist brethren. Remember

that 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 progressivedispensationalism 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 thesame time, there is still a very clear vestige of Revised Dispensationalism

in 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 are

themselves 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 readthese 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.



34/44

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 system70: In forging a mediating position that sees a

historical unity of Gods kingdom program of salvation, yet allowsdistinctions especially as regards Israel, we have suggested that thisconclusion results from taking the Scriptures in their natural understanding.

Here we see the Revised Dispensational notion of natural interpretation

rearing its head.71

Though as with Ryries description of the hermeneutics ofDispensationalism, 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 of

non-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 Gods blessing upon human life both individually and in its collective national

identities. The story of the Bible, from Abraham on, is the story of Gods

relationship 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.



35/44

Thus, while there is in the present salvation in Christ a partial fulfillment of

the spiritual blessing promised to all people through Abraham and his seed, many

aspects 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 blessingand 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 duringthe 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 and

will 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 ofthe 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 hand

of 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. Theprophecies about the reestablishment of the

Davidic 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 Christs 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.



36/44

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 NewCovenant Theology. This is not because there were not plenty of New Covenantalistwritings 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 isnot without precedent in the history of the church. Throughout their book, Wells and

Zaspel provide ample quotations from church history in support of their position:

Early church history bears outthat the contrast between the Old and NewCovenants as consecutive dispensations has been the center of attention.77

Since the time of the Reformation the emphasis on the contrast between the Old andNew 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 Scri

Systems of Theology, Lecture 1

Documents

Transcript of Systems of Theology, Lecture 1