An Examination Of The Presuppositions
Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology
Introduction
A study of the presuppositions of covenant and
dispensational theology is a vast topic. This study, therefore, makes no claims of being
exhaustive. But I have taken care to represent the two positions accurately in order that
the Scriptural evaluation of them will not involve a shooting down of strawmen. What
follows, then, is a distillation of my study of these two systems. I hope it is organized
in such a way that we can come to grips with the truth claims made by each one.
1 . THE
IMPORTANCE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS.
No one approaches the Scriptures neutrally, as if he is
absolutely objective and void of predispositions. Unconverted men, obviously, approach the
Scriptures as prejudiced sinners. Converted men, having the Holy Spirit, come to Scripture
with the ability to discern spiritual things. Among professing Christians, then, you
discover different emphases, or interpretive schemes, which account for the various
systems. For example. dispensationalists come to Scripture with the presupposition that
God has an earthly purpose for Israel, and a heavenly purpose for the church. Covenant
theologians, on the other hand, come to Scripture with the presupposition that there is
one covenant of grace with various administrations. Since there is no neutrality in
approaching Scripture, and since presuppositions are a given reality, the necessity of
presuppositions being based on careful exegesis is underscored. Thus our understanding of
the whole of Scripture affects our approach to the parts; and our
examination of the parts. methodologically speaking, leads us to make
generalizations about the whole (cf. Eddie Johnston, "Biblical Interpretation and the
Church," BRR, Vol.9, #1, pp.21-23).
It is not wrong to have presuppositions. But in light of
how influenced we are by them, I trust that we can see the importance of evaluating
whether or not the presuppositions of any system are based on textual evidence. If they
are not, then what is built on them rests on a shaky foundation. An evaluation of the
presuppositions of dispensational and covenant theology, therefore, is both appropriate
and of critical importance.
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
(SCRIPTURE ALONE).
Both dispensational and covenant theology claim to be
based on Scripture. Yet their theological presuppositions have obviously driven them to
divergent conclusions. Since both claim adherence to sola Scriptura, they should be
open to what Scripture says to them. However, we immediately discover that what
constitutes "Biblical evidence'' for both sides is determined by different methods.
When a dispensationalist reads an argument by the covenant theologian, he replies that it
is not "literal" enough. When a covenant theologian reads a dispensational
argument, he replies that "explicit'' evidence is not necessary. Here, I simply wish
to outline some of the problems which surface because of hermeneutical differences.
2.1 First. fidelity to the usage of words in their
Scriptural contexts is critical. As Dr. Gordon Clark puts it, "a Christian theologian
should use Biblical terms in their Biblical meaning" (First Principles of
Theology, unpublished ms., p.402). Many mistakes in interpretation have occurred
because a meaning, foreign to the analogy of Scripture, was packed into a Scriptural word
or concept. "Scriptural exegesis is to be gained, 'not from a man's private feelings
and already formed opinions, but from the actual context, from attention to and comparison
of what precedes and follows with other passages of Scripture'" (H. Heppe, quoting
Bucan, Reformed Dogmatics [1861; Baker, 1978], p. 35)
2.2 Thus, in principle, our beliefs and actions must be based
on specific Scriptural evidence. "If we accept something as a point of doctrine,
or as a religious practice, we must have some direct precept of revelation or some direct
precedent in the Scriptures for it'' (Don Fortner, ''Who Should Be Baptized?,'' The
13th St. Baptist Church Bulletin, March, 1980).
2.3 However, as basic as this may sound, covenant
theologians tend to reject what they call the ''untenable assumption'' that "only
doctrines and practices explicitly stated in Scripture can be regarded as true or
valid" (J.G. Vos, Baptism: Its Subjects and Modes, p.4). Gordon Clark believes
that "it is not necessary to find explicit N.T. justification for every Christian
doctrine .... The correct principle of interpretation is not the Baptist one of discarding
everything in the O.T. not reasserted in the New; but rather the acceptance of everything
in the Old not abrogated by the N.T. teaching'' (First Principles, pp.763-764).
Armed with this hermeneutical approach, covenant theology
can then impose doctrines and practices which lack N.T. warrant. ''That the N.T. fails to
give a specific injunction about tithing would no more do away with it than the New
Testament's failure to mention children's relationship to the Covenant of Grace does away
with that relationship" (Raymond Zorn, Westminster Theological Journal,
XXXVII, #2, Winter, 1975. p.294; cf. Jon Zens, "Principles of New Covenant Giving,
BRR, Vol.8, #2, pp.33-44). "Covenant Theology, therefore, has a particular
hermeneutical stance, emphasizing the continuity of O.T. and N.T.... Covenant theologians
understand the Mosaic covenant. for example, as an essentially gracious revelation of
God'' (Douglas H. Shantz, ''Baptists and Covenant Theology," Fellowship For
Reformation and Pastoral Studies. Vol . V . # 10 [12/12/77]. pp 4 -5). This broad
hermeneutical stance opens the door for the sufficiency of "implicit" evidence
instead of ''explicit" evidence from Scripture (cf. my reviews of G. Brimless Children
of Promise, and J.G. Vos's Baptism: Its Subjects and Modes in BRR, Vol.9, #1,
pp. 32-41).
2.4 It is the conclusion of this author that while there
are elements of truth in dispensational and covenant theology, at critical points they
both fail to do justice to Biblical data which challenges their undergirding
presuppositions. It will be the purpose of this paper to interact with both systems in
order to move toward a theology which will be more sensitive to the revealed counsel of
God. Our goal should not even be to arrive at an ''airtight'' system which has all the
answers. But our goal must be that we would see Christ exalted in the Scriptures, and that
we would with humility receive what these sacred oracles say to us about Him, the One in
Whom all the promises of God are ''Yes" and ''Amen.''
|