Return to Syllabus

BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D

Christians ought not to content themselves with such degrees of knowledge of divinity as they have already obtained. It should not satisfy them, as they know as much as is absolutely necessary to salvation, but they should seek to make progress.

This endeavor to make progress in such knowledge ought not to be attended to as a thing by the bye, but all Christians should make a business of it. They should look upon it as a part of their daily business, and no small part of it neither. It should be attended to as a considerable part of the work of their high calling.

Jonathon Edwards (1703-1758)

1. Spiritual Requisites
   
   As strange as it may seem, theology is studied by those who represent a wide spectrum of religious viewpoints all the way from the devout to the profane. The question with which this chapter deals, however, is how should theology be studied rather than how is studied. It is my conviction that the study of theology is a spiritual exercise calling for certain spiritual qualifications. The basic spiritual requisites for the study of theology are faith (trust); acceptance of the trustworthiness of scripture; spiritual illumination (John 16:12-15); and holy affection toward God.
    

   1. Trust
      Only the one who believes in the God of reality, who has trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, may study theology in anything more than a detached, impersonal way. This is true because biblical faith is based upon internalized biblical knowledge and the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
       

   2. Scripture
      Christian theology is sourced in the Christian scriptures. The student of theology must submit himself to their authority as God's word which would be the height of folly if they are not reliable. If one must be forever in doubt about the accuracy and trustworthiness of scripture it is worse than being at sea without a compass since matters of eternal destiny are at stake.
       

   3. Illumination
      Objective, scholarly pursuit is essential to the understanding of theology (see below) but this may be undertaken by any trained and disciplined person. In order for the knowledge of theology to become theological wisdom the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit is essential.
       

   4. Holy Affection
      The one who does not know God personally surely cannot love him or his word, the source of theology. As noted above, genuine theological knowledge and wisdom begins with fear, reverence, holy awe for God. Or, otherwise stated, properly conceived the study of theology begins and ends with worship of the God of reality.
       

2. Intellectual Requisites
    

   1. Proper Methodology
      
      Among other things, the one who would properly study theology must bring a disciplined mind. He must use the inductive method (drawing conclusions from facts observed) in his study. This means that careful exegetical and hermeneutical principles must be employed. At the same time he must always recognize the dangers of inadequate or incomplete induction. This is done by remembering the "analogy of faith," the balancing deductive principle.
      
      In addition he should have a willingness to be taught, a background of liberal studies, and knowledge of the original languages. The inclusion of those last two items should in no way be construed as meaning that the untrained lay-person cannot understand scripture or theology. This is not a plea for spiritual elitism, but simply a reminder that the fullest understanding of theological truth is facilitated by the largest possible framework of learning.
       

   2. Acknowledgment of Certain Presuppositions
       

      1. The authority of scripture
         
         To begin with, there are certain prevailing attitudes toward the scripture (which is the primary source of doctrine) which must be understood.
         
         Within Christendom there are two levels of debate which result in differences of viewpoint regarding the authority of scripture. On the first level, there is agreement regarding authority, but difference of opinion regarding interpretation. Examples of this would be the Arminian versus the Calvinistic school of theology, or covenant theology versus dispensational theology.
         
         The second level of debate, and undoubtedly the most important in this regard, would be a level wherein there is disagreement over the basis of authority. Examples of this would be liberal versus conservative Protestantism, or Roman Catholicism versus evangelical Protestantism. All those involved in this consideration believe that God has revealed himself in history. They hold that he did this primarily through Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is in some way a witness to this fact.
         
         Furthermore, most would agree that the Holy Spirit mediates the w1tness of Scripture. They would hold that the Bible is to be somehow involved in matters of doctrine and practice, Christian faith and Christian life. But there is disagreement as to the extent that the Bible is thus involved and as to how its contribution is to be determined. The question then is: What means does the Holy Spirit use to mediate the Word of God to our age?
          

         1. The Evangelical Answer
            
            It has been true throughout the history of the church, and it is true today, that the evangelical answer to the question, what means does the Holy Spirit use to mediate the Word of God? is ‘Scripture interpreted by itself’. We believe that the Bible is sufficient (complete) and perspicuous (comprehensible) as far as salvation and service are concerned. The Holy Sprit is held to be the author, witness and expositor of Scripture. As witness he gives inner authentication and testimony to the reliability of the Word of God. Thus all tradition, reason, and experience are placed in subjection to the written Word of God. The proper reason for believing a thing in the realm of faith and life is because the Scriptures say it is so. Thus there is no guidance of the Holy Spirit or prayer, of reason or church, which is contrary to the Scripture.
             

         2. The Traditionalist Answer
            
            The answer given by the traditionalist to the question raised above is ‘Scripture interpreted by official ecclesiastical sources and pronouncements, that is, by church tradition’. This has historically been the view of the Roman Catholic Church. What the church says, God says (the word "church" is to be understood in the sense of the hierarchy when it relates to the Roman Catholic Church). This view does not question the God-givenness of scripture, but it does say that it is neither complete nor understandable in itself. Tradition is also viewed as authoritative and God-given and must be used to augment and interpret the Word of God. The proper reason for believing a thing is because the church says it is so.
            
            While there have been some within Roman Catholicism ^[1] in recent years who have questioned the Infallibility of the Church, its teachings, and the Pope, this dogma has consistently been reasserted. The First Vatican Council in 1870 established that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the church. The Second Vatican Council raised questions in this regard but the Vatican, itself, continues to insist that the church, its teachings, and the Pope are incapable of error in matters of faith.
            
            The biblical basis for the rejection of this theory is found in such passages as Matthew 15:3, 6, and 9, and Mark 7:8, 9, and 13. Although the words of our Lord here are addressed to rabbinic Judaism the principle applies to any system which replaces divine with human authority.
             

         3. The Subjectivist Answer
            
            This is the answer of so-called ‘Christian’ reason. According to this view, not only is Scripture not sufficient and perspicuous by itself, it is also not reliable in many cases.
            
            In answer to the question raised above, the subjectivist would say that Scripture must be tested in light of external, extra-biblical materials such as science, history, literature, social, political, and cultural issues, and so forth. These would aid in determining the extent of the reliability of the written Word and determines its proper interpretation.
            
            The final authority for faith and life, according to this line of thinking, then, is each individual person's reason. The written word is measured by what is learned elsewhere. Since there may be error in the scriptures, they may be considered to be inspiring but they are not inspired. Faith is a matter of being loyal to one's religious convictions. Hence, have faith in faith as long as it is reasonable. The proper reason for believing something is because an enlightened reason says it is so.
            
            The biblical answer to the subjectivist approach to the authority of scripture is found in such passages as 2 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; and Romans 1:21. By the common grace of God man is still a rational creature capable of remarkable intellectual exercise, but because of the Fall his powers of judgment are often not reliable, especially in spiritual matters.
             

         4. The Mystics Answer
            
            In answer to the question previously raised, the mystic would say that in edition to the scriptures, man's psychological and emotional make-up must be brought into play. Personal, religious experience sits in judgment over the Word, and is the final arbiter. Scripture is to be interpreted by one's existential experience. And the proper reason for believing something is because my personal religious experience proves it to be so. Oftentimes this religious experience may be referred to as "the leading of the Holy Spirit," or "the leading of prayer."
            
            Revelation (the disclosure of spiritual truth) is in this viewpoint not limited to the written word of God. This approach to Christian faith and life is held by many who hold evangelical views regarding Jesus Christ and his saving grace. In doing so, they affirm the perspicuity of Scripture but deny its sufficiency. This effectively moves the base of authority from the objective, historically rooted Word of God to the subjective experience of any believer (or, in some cases, to the arbitrary pronouncements of a spiritually accredited elite).
            
            The biblical basis for the rejection of this theory is found in such passages as Jeremiah 17:9; cf. Romans 8:16, 17; and 1 Corinthians 2:9-13. Man's experience, even his religious experience, is not reliable as a test of truth unless governed by God the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, that is not of the Spirit that is not in keeping with the written Scriptures. God does not contradict himself.
            
            Lest misunderstanding arise, it should be pointed out that tradition, reason, and experience do have a place, but it must ever be in subordination to the Scriptures. A rejection of the traditionalist, subjectivist, and mystic answer does not imply that the evangelical viewpoint rejects tradition, ignores history, is irrational, or denies experience.
            
            What, then, is the place of history and tradition, reason, and experience? May they be controlled by the Holy Spirit's inner witness? At least three things can be stated in answer. First of all, they may receive God's teaching, but never have the right to sit in judgment on the scriptures, and cannot a priori assume scripture is erroneous. Secondly, they may apply the teachings of the word of God to life. And thirdly, they may communicate God's truth to others. ^[2]
             

      2. The self-authentication of Scripture
         
         Another presupposition upon which such study is based is the validity of the principle of scripture self-authentication. ^[3]

To quote Scripture in support of Scripture seems admittedly, from one standpoint, to be arguing in a circle, and to be logically inconclusive. It is important, therefore, to see that in this particular case no occasion exists for such misgiving.

First, let us recognize that every man has surely a right to speak for himself; and that testimony to one's self ought not to be rejected as completely improper. Indeed, if men were not liars and deceivers, or not prejudiced and blind, and lacking in full understanding, their own testimony about themselves would be sufficient. Consider the unique example of the perfect Man.

Although Jesus recognized that the truth about Himself needed confirmation by independent witness to satisfy normal human standards, He nevertheless said, "Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true (RV; cf. John 5:31: 8:13, 14).

Second, not only so, but some truths about people may never be known, unless the individuals concerned themselves bear witness to them. If what they thus said is unreliable, no other means of discovering the truth may exist. Somewhat similarly, the Bible discloses from God Himself truths which cannot otherwise be discovered. For our knowledge of them we are wholly dependent upon divine revelation thus communicated through the Scriptures. Surely no justification exists for thus believing what the Bible teaches about other doctrines, wholly beyond independent human confirmation, if we cannot equally rely completely on what the Bible teaches about itself.

Moreover, if we ere to accept Scripture as our supreme rule of faith and understanding in the one, we ought similarly to do so in the other. In other words, we cannot rightly turn to the Bible for testimony to the otherwise unknown unless we do accept also its testimony to itself.

In the third place, if we believe that the Bible not only claims to be, but is a book from God, then behind and beyond all human writers and contributing agents God himself must be acknowledged as its author: and God cannot lie. His word is always true and always trustworthy. The Bible's witness to itself ought, therefore, to be treated as authoritative and decisive; in a very real sense we need none other.

Fourth, when men wish to confirm witness given about themselves, they appeal to one greater: they take an oath and swear by Almighty God. Similarly, when God wished to make some men doubly sure of His word or promise, He confirmed it by an oath. But when He came to swear, since there was none greater by whom He could swear, He swore by Himself (cf. Heb. 6:13-18). He thus made Himself the guarantor of the truth end trustworthiness of His own word.

This supremely illustrates the principle that in any realm of activity the supreme authority must be self-authenticated. It is impossible to get endorsement or confirmation of such utterances by appeal to some greater authority. Similarly, if the Bible is from God, and therefore possesses supreme authority among men in what it says, it cannot be other than self-authenticated. Truth is settled by what it says rather than by what others say about it, or in criticism of it.

Finally, relief from the possible embarrassment of dependence upon a single witness—and that in this case the witness of Scripture to itself—is provided by the Trinity and the eternity of the Godhead. For God is Three in One; and God still speaks. So the truth and trustworthiness of Scripture as the authoritative and unbreakable divine Word are confirmed to the Christian believer by the witness during his earthly life of the incarnate Son of God, and by the present continuing witness of the illuminating and indwelling Spirit of God.

Despite this careful reasoning some will still bring the charge that it is a circular argument. If we fault this presupposition on the basis of circular reasoning, however, we are saying that we cannot take God at his word.
 

3. The Theological Encyclopedia
    

   1. The Major Heads of Theology
      The major heads of theology are Bibliology, Theology Proper (including Angelology), Anthropology (including Hamartiology), Soteriology (including Christology, Pneumatology), Ecclesiology, and Eschatology.
       

   2. Why in This Order?
      Bibliology is an extension of Prolegomena and provides the foundation for the study. Theology Proper puts the focus where it belongs, namely, theocentrically. This is followed by the handiwork of God in the supernatural and natural. Then the movement is to man, his fall and need. Salvation meets the need. The church is the society of the redeemed, that is, believers in community. Last things deals with the consummation of God's plan of the ages.
       

4. The Question of a System
   
   The consideration of theological systems is a most complex matter. Systems of theology are the result of a combination of factors including the historical, psychological, hermeneutical, theological, and biblical. To be sure, there are those who naively and simplistically, albeit well-meaningfully, insist that their only system of theology is the Bible. Whether this is done willfully or in ignorance this approach is tantamount to a denial of the reality of history. Both the given truths of scripture and their formulation into biblical and theological propositions are historically conditioned. Even the person who disclaims any system at all has a certain hermeneutical mind-set, whether he is aware of it or not. System in theology is not only necessary, it is inescapable.

“The Bible is no more a system of theology, than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics. We find in nature the facts which the chemist or mechanical philosopher has to examine, and from them to ascertain the laws by which they are determined. So the Bible contains truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhjb1t in their internal relation to each other." ^[4]
 

Since God chose to give as an inspired source book rather than an inspired formulation of systematic theology it has been the task of the church to perform that formulation. This accounts, in part, for the variety of systems. All in all, however, the many approaches fit into just a few General categories. The following materials will identify and distinguish them.
 

1. Schools of Historical Theological Distinction
   
   Although the twentieth century has seen an almost frightening development in varieties of theology (see Chapter 4), as has been true throughout the history of the church there are but three basic systems from which they all spring. Each of these systems has, in turn, several confessional (creedal) or sectarian expressions, many of which began as protests against their own ideological roots.
    

   1. The three basic systems: Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Augustinianism
      
      The three basic systems are Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, and Augustinianisrn. Pelagianism has developed into Socinianism and finds current expression in Unitarianism and liberal Protestantism. Semipelagianism was developed into a system known today as Arminianism when related to Protestant theology. It has dominant influence in Roman Catholicism, through the Jesuits, and in Eastern Catholicism (Greek Orthodoxy, etc.), in general. Arminianism is evident today in the various Pentecostal groups, the Friends and in all forms of Wesleyanism. (It is well to note that while, Methodism had its historical roots in Anglicanism it is theologically Arminian.) Augustinianism has developed into Thomistic Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Calvinism.
      
      Contemporary Protestant ecclesiastical expressions are found in: 1) the several branches of Lutheranism, which in turn have spawned groups like the Evangelical Covenant and Evangelical Free churches; 2) the Church of England in its various branches (e.g. Protestant Episcopal), from which have come many Baptist groups as well as Congregationalists and Plymouth Brethren. ^[5] 3) Calvinism is evident today in the various Reformed and Presbyterian groups.
      
      The Augustinian and Pelagian systems developed in the early fifth century in controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. Semi-Pelagianism developed as an attempt to mediate between these two positions. Pelagianism was condemned by the two councils held in Carthage in 407 and 416 A.D. and the Council at Ephesus in 431 A.D. It has always been associated with heresy as Augustinianism has been with orthodoxy. The major points of distinction between these two positions may be outlined as follows:
       

2. The three systems developed: Reformation theology, Arminianism, Socinianism
   
   At the time of the Reformation Luther, an Augustinian monk, and Calvin incorporated many of the tenets of Augustinian thinking into their theology. Socinius, like Pelagius, developed an heretical theology at the same time. In the early seventeenth century the Remonstrants of Holland, following James Arminius' lead, developed Arminian theology. These four views may be distinguished on several major points:
    

3. Calvinism and Arminianism Compared
   
   For the purpose of better understanding this theory as it unfolds and in order to properly distinguish theological systems in current evangelical thought a more detailed comparison between Calvinistic and Arminian thought in the areas of Soteriology, Anthropology and Theology Proper is in order.
    

 

One final note regarding systems is necessary. It will be noted that the system of theology set forth in this treatise does not exactly parallel any of those described above. While it is to a large degree in the Augustinian-Calvinistic tradition there are a number of significant differences that are to be noted. Some will be accounted for in the next section and some in subsequent chapters.
 

2. Schools of Hermeneutical Theological Distinction
   
   There are two general schools of thought with which we will concern ourselves at this point, both of which are susceptible to further division. One school is impressed by and gives strong emphasis to the unity of scripture. It is convinced that this unity is governed by a covenant motif. Since this unity is viewed as a simple oneness (as over against a composite oneness), since it is viewed as spanning the Testaments, and since the emphases of the Testaments appear to be disparate when taken literally, a dual hermeneutic is necessary to sustain this covenant unity.
   
   On the other hand, the second school gives great emphasis to the diversity of scripture. It is convinced that God's diverse workings, as set forth in scripture, are governed by a dispensational (varied ways in the divine administration of history) motif. Since it is believed that God's message to man is always by means of the normal conventions of language; it is further believed that a single hermeneutic must be maintained consistently to preserve this divinely purposed diversity.
   
   As the respective strengths and weaknesses to these two schools of thought have been probed certain modifications and refinements have been set forth. These will be considered below.
    

   1. Dual hermeneutical approaches
       

      1. Traditional Covenant theology
         
         Collins defines Covenant Theology as that system of theology which "represents the whole of scripture as being covered by two covenants: a) the covenant of works, and b) the covenant of grace.” ^[7] Some further divide the covenant of grace into a third covenant of redemption.
         
         The Covenant of Works is the covenant between the Triune God and Adam as his dependent creature constituting Adam as the representative of the human race; putting him on probation to determine whether he would willingly subject his will to God's end giving him the promise of eternal life for himself and his descendents in the way of obedience. ^[8]
         
         The Covenant of Redemption is "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.” ^[9] The Covenant of Grace is "that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience." ^[10]
         
         The covenant theory arose in the late sixteenth century and was finally first published in the late seventeenth century. It is, therefore, no more ancient than dispensationalism as a system. By the admission of Berkhof the covenant concept is post-reformational (although he finds hints in earlier writers). Augustine and Calvin, for example, could hardly be considered to be formal covenant theologians even though they are the architects of Reformed theology and their writings provide fertile ground for this system. They both held to real rather than federal imputation of sin which is inconsistent with thorough-going Covenant Theology. The system has experienced many refinements since its inception. ^[11]
         
         It should be noted that Alan Patrick Boyd, in a master's thesis ^[12] has disproven Ryrie's statement that "premillennialism is the historical faith of the Church" ^[13] at least as far as the first two centuries are concerned. This, of course, does not prove the validity of amillennialism, covenant theology, or any other system, nor does it disprove dispensationalism as Boyd himself notes:

It is this writer's conviction that historical precedent cannot be employed to disprove a system of belief, but only Biblical precedent. There is much error in the Father's studied in other areas of theology (e.g., Soteriology—incipient Sacerdotalism), so it should be no occasion for surprise that there is much eschatological error there. This writer believes that the Church rapidly fell from New Testament truth and this is very evident in the realm of eschatology. Only in modern times has New Testament eschatological truth been recovered. Dispensational premillennialism is the product of the post-Reformation progress of dogma. Any dispute that it has with other modern eschatological systems must be settled on the grounds of Biblical truth and not historical precedent. ^[14]

The covenant system is based, to a large degree, upon a deductive rather than an inductive approach to Scripture. The biblical evidence cited is most often taken from the biblical covenants such as the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Thus, God's dealings with a man, or a group of men, are made to apply to the whole race. ^[15] In referring to what he calls a ‘national covenant’ with Abraham in Genesis 12 Collins argues that this Old Testament covenant is no different than the New Covenant. “Although in the New Testament this covenant is described as new, such passages as Romans 4 and Galatians 3 show that it is essentially one with the covenant under which believers lived in Old Testament times." ^[16]

To reach this goal of building theological covenants from biblical ones a dual hermeneutic is employed. While the conservative covenant theologian follows a literal (grammatical-historical) hermeneutic for most doctrines he uses a supplementary allegorical (sometimes referred to as spiritual or theological) method for certain things. The allegorical method is used especially in the prophetic portions of the Old Testament thus enabling them to identify promises to Israel and the church as one and the same. An example of this is the following statement by Berkhof:

The covenant with Abraham already included a symbolical element. On the one hand, it had reference to temporal blessings, such as the land of Canaan, a numerous offspring, protection against and victory over the enemies; and on the other, it referred to spiritual blessings. It should be kept in mind, however, that the former were not coordinate with but subordinate to, the latter. These temporal blessings did not constitute an end in themselves, but served to symbolize and typify spiritual and heavenly things. ^[17]

!t seems rather arbitrary to take one part of a promise literally and another part of the same promise spiritually. This hermeneutical inconsistency renders those aspects of the system dependent upon the supplementary hermeneutic immediately suspect. It requires artificial exegesis of large portions of the Old Testament and leads to forced interpretations whereby the New Testament is superimposed upon the Old. Since the governing motif of Scripture is the covenant of grace (and redemption) the danger is to force all of God's purposes into a soteriological or redemptocentric mold. Also, since there is such a strong emphasis upon the unity of the covenant little consideration is given to the possibility that God could have a variety of sub-purposes leading to a grand all-comprehensive purpose greater even than the covenant itself.

Because of the distinctions made between the Covenants of works and Grace, and because of certain unguarded statements, some have accused the covenant theologians of advocating two ways of salvation. ^[18] An honest and charitable reading of their entire-works, however, will reveal that this is not the case.

2. Covenant Premillennialism
   
   Through the use of its dual hermeneutic traditional Covenant Theology sees little difference between Israel and the church. This in turn leads to a view that has no need for a future for Israel. As a result, most covenant theologians are either Amillennial or Postmillennial in their eschatology.
   
   A growing number of covenant theologians, however, who are impressed with the strength of the system, namely its emphasis upon biblical unity, have questioned its eschatology. The question arises over an unease with the dual hermeneutic as related to certain passages of the New Testament, especially Revelation 20. They are convinced that there will be a future millennial form of the Kingdom of God on earth and that this more nearly approximates the historic view of the church. For this reason they often refer to themselves as historic or classical premillennialists (in contrast to dispensational premillennialists). ^[19]
    

2. Single hermeneutic approaches
    

   1. Introduction
      
      These approaches to the interpretation of Scripture are built upon four basic principles.
       

      1. The First Principle
         The first principle is commitment to literal (historical grammatical) interpretation of Scripture as an overall principle. Ramm helps us to understand what is and is not in view.

The literal interpretation as applied to any document is that view which adopts as the sense of a sentence the meaning of that sentence in usual, or ordinary, or normal conversation or writing. The issue is not over a narrow, unimaginative literalism as against a fanciful, imaginat1ve allegorism. The issue is whether a document is to be fundamentally approached in the normal, customary, usual way in which men talk, write, and think; or whether that level is to be taken as preliminary. ^[20]

Many have stumbled over the designation "literal” since it seems to them to rule out the presence of figures of speech and other genre of literature than straight forward narrative or prose. Properly understood, however, literal interpretation incorporates figurative language and variety in genre. Such forms are to be taken at face value and understood as devices to convey more graphically literal significance through figurative expression.

The literal meaning of the figurative expression is the proper or natural meaning as understood by students of language. Wherever a figure is used its literal meaning is precisely that meaning determined by grammatical studies of figures. Hence figurative interpretation does not pertain to the spiritual or mystical sense of Scripture, but to the literal sense. ^[21]

Commitment to literal interpretation as an overall principle has certain strengths that should be noted. a) It has the advantage of being consistent with itself. It assumes that language is designed to communicate rather than to obscure. Whether figures of speech are used or not, all speech is to be taken in its normal, natural sense. b) It provides the interpretive exercise a basis in fact. Its meaning is established by such objective data as grammar, syntax, logic, history, geography, archaeology, etc. c) It is testable by all thus providing the same control over the interpretive process that scientific experimentation does in the sciences. d) It views the biblical record as historical, rooting its message and the great works of God in time and space. e) It recognizes and respects the integrity of the various literary genre of Scripture. f) Finally, the literal method of interpretation is consonant with the biblical record since fulfilled prophecy has been literally fulfilled.

Faithful adherence to this first principle leads to a recognition of the distinction between Israel and the church without a denial of the larger unity of God's redemptive purposes, and to a premillennial view of Christ's second coming without denying the validity of his current kingship and kingdom.

2. The Second Principle
   
   The second principle is the progress of revelation. God's purposes are revealed in distinguishable stages and the text of Scripture must be read in light of the historical setting thereby provided. Revelation was not completed in one exhaustive act, but was unfolded in a long series of successive acts. Further, since revelation involves the communication and interpretation of creation, providence, and redemption since these great works of God unfold themselves in installments so it is with revelation. That is, God employed a principle of periodicity in the unfolding of revelation.
   
   A related and equally important concept is that God's revelation is organic in nature assuring an essential unity but allowing for the distinctions that come through development. In the progressive unfolding of revelation truth previously not known or needed is given. This does not exclude perfection at every stage but it does allow for change. As the quality of the seed is no less perfect than that of the fully developed tree so the quality of Old Testament revelation about Israel is no less perfect than that of New Testament revelation about the church. Old Testament truth is not wrong because it is incomplete any more than New Testament truth supplants Old Testament truth because it is more recent. Seed and tree have continuity in shared life but discontinuity in form and function. A seed is not a tree. Israel is not the church.
   
   Acknowledgment of the preceding ideas is merely a reaffirmation of the fundamental hermeneutical canon that ‘all of the Bible is for me but not all is addressed to me’. ^[22] Not all of recorded revelation is directly addressed to the same group of people. Wherever the revealed record encompasses timeless truth it may be viewed as applying to the reader at any point in history but the primary interpretation of any passage must be limited to the audience to whom it was originally addressed.
   
   This guards against the tendency to read back or superimpose the New Testament upon the Old Testament while allowing for a basic unity in God's unfolding plan. Because of the singularity of divine authorship of Scripture and the unifying purpose of God to establish his kingdom and glorify his name there is both a literary and organic relationship between the Testaments. The Old provides background and introduction to the New; the New provides insight into and fulfillment of the Old. At the same time, because of the multiplicity of human authorship, the reality of history, and the periodicity of the revelatory process there is genuine diversity in the divine administrative repertoire.
    

3. The Third Principle
   
   A proper philosophy of history which consummates in a goal within time is the third basic principle. As McClain points out ^[23] every true philosophy of history should have at least three marks.

First, it should give recognition to every aspect of reality (past, present, and future) and should deal with this life as well as the life that is to come. Only a biblically Christian philosophy can do this because of its unique resource of the omniscient God. It will acknowledge that this life is not the best but it is “good" (cf. Gen. 1:31: 1 Tim. 4:4), while the future life is perfect.

Second, it should fit into a rational scheme of thought that is, it should make sense of all the aspects of reality alluded to above. It should not be characterized by either extreme pessimism (as e.g. in atheistic existentialism or Christian amillennialism) or extreme optimism (as e.g., in the various postmillennial schemes whether liberal or conservative). Thus, it will allow for progress toward a goal in history but also recognize that the age is getting worse.

Third, it should have beneficial practical effects here and now. Life, in spite of the tragedy of sin, is something worthwhile, and all the true values of human life will be carried over into the coming, openly manifest form of the Kingdom.

In the covenant system there is one special program of God that is presented, viz. the taking out from among mankind of the elect. This theology, then, may be fairly designated as being redemptocentric, that is, soteriological in emphasis. Without diminishing the significance of this redemptive work, one of God's grandest purposes, it is important to note that this is an unnecessarily narrow view of theology. As Walvoord notes,

All the events of the created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose into the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical standpoint, that is the reductive error—the use of one aspect of the whole as the determining element. ^[24]

The inadequacy of a redemptocentric theology may be noted in several ways. a) It fails to account for those scriptures that indicate that God will be glorified through the conscious, eternal punishment of the lost. The Psalmist speaks of the fact that man's wrath will be an occasion of praise to God (Psalm 76:10) and Paul points out that those who are vessels of wrath provide occasion for the display of God's justice, power and patience. b) It cannot deal straightforwardly with God's national purposes for Israel, the place in history of the Gentile nations, or the purposes for the non-elect. c) It does not give adequate place to other dimensions of reality not readily related to redemption, such as spirit beings (angels and demons), the non-rational creation, or aspects of human experience such as beauty, knowledge, etc. (Phil. 4:8), whereas Scripture declares that all that is done is for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). d) It overlooks the fact that redemption is declared by Paul to be a grand truth that contributes to an even greater purpose—the glory of God (Eph. 1:3-14, note especially verses 6, 12, 14).

Traditional covenant theology, in its amillennial form, is consummated outside of history. That is, only in eternity will God's purposes and program be vindicated. Postmillennial covenant theology does provide for a consummation of God's purposes for history in history but only in a romanticized way. The church leads the world in the triumph of good over evil. Both of these philosophies of history, however, rule out a literal Messianic Kingdom on earth.

In contrast, the "single hermeneutic" approach views theology, as the outworking of a number of God's purposes, all of which accomplish his glory and thus it is theocentric. By this it is meant that all the purposes of God, whether redemptive or non-redemptive, whether related to the spiritual or the natural world, whether involving creation, providence or salvation; dignify God by displaying one or more of his perfections.

In further contrast, this school of thought sees a consummation of God's purposes within as well as beyond history. This grows out of its premillennial view of the return of Christ. God will then, in the Messianic Kingdom, through the second Adam and within history, do what Adam and all his other progeny failed to do. Then, "the kingdom of the world [will] become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15). In his discussion of "Premillennialism as a Philosophy of History" Richard notes three reasons why historical ends should be within history.

First, the purpose of creation and history is the glory of God. The millennium shows this purpose to be consummated within history itself. Second, time is the arena of God's conflict with Satan. "To place the ultimate triumph in eternity would mean a defeat for God in time. God has chosen the earth to fight the battle with Satan." ^[25] The earth will be the venue of God's victory. Third, historical ends beyond history are an unaffirmable contradiction. Ends beyond time and history are not historical. ^[26]

1. The Fourth Principle
   
   The final principle is that of a unifying factor which provides a focal point at every juncture of history (whether focusing on Adam, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, Christ, the apostles, or today) and regarding ever layer of history (whether relating to heilsgeschichte—salvation history—or history in general) while acknowledging and preserving genuine areas of diversity.
   
   When viewed from God's vantage point the unifying factor of theology takes the form of personal self-manifestation. From man's vantage point it may be described as personal responsibility. Because God is the ultimate reality, and all else that is owes its existence and meaning to him, the unifying factor of theology, viewed godward, must be his own self-manifestation. As he works his great works of creation, providence, and redemption and as he displays the perfections (attributes) of his ineffable character he brings glory to himself.
   
   When used of God, glory contains within its range of meaning at least three ideas. First, it may have the sense of brightness or splendor. When used this way the emphasis is upon God's presence (Rev. 15:8; 21:11, 23). Second, on occasion it refers to great power or strength. The emphasis in this usage is upon his action (John 2:11; 11:40; 12:41). Third, it often refers to majesty and honor. In such cases it is position that is in view (John 1:14; 17:1, 5, 24; Rev. 1:6; 7:12; 19:1). ^[27]
   
   As far as theology is concerned the self-manifestation of God is addressed to man. Viewed from a manward perspective, then, the unifying factor must be man's responsibility to respond appropriately to this manifested glory. The only correct response is faith which in turn presumes obedience to God's revealed word and will. As revelation progressively unfolds in history this faith response may take different forms from period to period, but man's responsibility to believe God remains constant.
   
   There are at least three schools of thinking that are built upon these four principles. They differ from one another on significant points but are at least attempts to adhere to a single hermeneutic.
    

2. Dispensational Theology
   
   The most widely held and well-known school of thinking claiming to follow a single hermeneutic is dispensationalism. Like other approaches to theology, this has gone through a refining process through the years so that its more contemporary proponents often avoid many of the weaknesses of its earlier adherents. Charles Ryrie has stated that "a dispensation is a distinguishable economy (way of administering things) in the outworking of God's purpose." ^[28] Much of the remainder of his book is an elaboration upon this definition.
   
   The following outline is a condensation of Earl D. Radmacher's development of the main points of the definition of a dispensation.

This definition has certain theological implications. The major heads of theology where they are apparent are Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology. While these will be elaborated later in this chapter it may be noted here that the "dispensation of grace" is not held to be the only period in history that salvation is by grace; that a sharp distinction is maintained between Israel and the church; and that the second coming of Christ is held to be not only premillennial but pretribulational also.

It should be noted that in the mind of this writer whether there are four dispensations or seven is not of great significance. The four basic principles set forth in paragraph 2.a) above are the crucial issues. Consequently, the system of interpretation set forth in this theology is better described as modified dispensationalism.
 

3. Ultradispensational theology
   
   This is a relatively narrowly held view, unfairly identified by some non-dispensationalists with traditional dispensationalism. Most dispensational theologians distance themselves from the teachings of this system that are peculiar to it alone.
   
   Charles Ryrie has defined ultradispensationalism as "…that school of interpretation which places more than one dispensation between Pentecost and the end of the church age." ^[29]
   
   It is important, as suggested above, to distinguish this system from dispensationalism. This may be done by noting their view of the church, the body of Christ, i.e., when it began; by noting their view of church ordnances, i.e., whether water baptism and the Lord's Supper are for this age; and by determining their view of the epistles, i.e., which ones apply to the church.
   
   Ultradispensationalists may be divided into two categories. Both distinguish what they call the Jewish church from the body church and hold that the body church did not begin on Pentecost. The more extreme form divides Acts into three parts with the church not beginning until near or after the close of the Acts record during Paul's first imprisonment. For reason they reject both ordinances and hold that God's revelation for the church is limited primarily to the Prison Epistles. ^[30]
   
   The less extreme advocates of the Ultradispensational School hold that the church began sometime before Paul wrote his first epistle. They agree that this was not until God was through dealing with the Jews through Peter and when he turned to the Gentiles through Paul. They all disagree as to whether this was Acts 9 or Acts 13:46. This group accepts the Lord’s Supper but rejects water baptism and they accept all the Pauline epistles.
   
   Some of the problems of this system are itemized below. ^[31] Perhaps the most basic problem is in their mistaken concept of a dispensation. They confuse what man understands with what God is doing at a given time. There is a failure to see that there may be progress of doctrine within a given dispensation as to the written record. The issue is when God began the church not when man began to apprehend the truth.
   
   Other significant problems lie in the area of exegesis. For example, there is an inconsistent interpretation of "church" in the book of Acts. In Ephesians 3:1-12 they exercise forced exegesis in an attempt to establish the idea that church truth was revealed to Paul only. This is easily answered by an observation of the plural form “apostles" (v. 5) and by noting the previous revelation contained in such passages as John 10:16 and 14:20. ^[32]
   
   As noted above, they call for a sharp distinction between the so-called Jewish church, which is pre-Pauline, and the body church, which is an exclusively Pauline revelation. The very tenuous distinction for which they call is based upon the assumption that the Jewish church was basically legalistic while the pure grace of God only came into existence with the body church.
    

4. Kingdom Theology
   Whether God's administration of history is divided into four, seven, or more dispensations is really of very little theological significance. That there are no less than four such economies (dispensations) seems to be of more moment. The crucial issues for the understanding of theology are the four basic principles set forth earlier.
   
   Among the objections which are raised against the system of thought designated as dispensationalism is the very name itself. In my estimation this is a valid objection. I believe it wrongly focuses the primary thrust of theology as well as the system thereby designated. This can be demonstrated by answering a simple question. Is the central issue of theology the fact that God administers his program and purpose in different ways as history unfolds?
   
   My answer would be no. The framework (various economies of God) must be viewed as subservient to the overall design. It seems that God has one basic program, the kingdom, which is evidenced in history in a variety of forms. This one basic program has one ultimate goal, the glory of God.
   
   Within these larger items a variety of smaller ones may be found. The kingdom concept is a complex one and is far more comprehensive than is God's program for Israel or his program for the church. As used at this point the term “kingdom" is to be understood in its comprehensive sense to mean sphere of sovereignty. This sphere of sovereignty encompasses the three ideas of reign, realm, and subjects ruled.
   
   Since there is only one sovereign there is ultimately only one kingdom. This one kingdom, however, has two dimensions, both of which are called kingdoms in scripture. They are not mutually exclusive and may exist concurrently. For want of better terminology these two dimensions may be designated as overt and covert.
   
   The latter is more inward and indirect; the former is more manifest and assumes earthly governmental forms. The covert dimension may be categorized as 1) God's providential governing of the universe (e.g., Ps 103:19; 145:13; 66:7) and 2) his spiritual governing of believers. The latter takes corporate form in the church (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5) and individual form as regards each believer (e.g. Ps 5:2; 84:3; John 3:3, 5).
   
   At least three aspects of the overt dimension may be identified: 1) the Old Testament theocratic form (e.g. Exod. 19:6; 1 Sam. 8:4-9; 10:17-25; 13:13-14); 2) the millennial theocratic (messianic) form (e.g. Acts 1:6; Rev. 20:4-6; Is. 11:6-16; 35:1-10); and 3) the eternal universal form (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 22:3-5).
   
   In a similar manner the overall purpose, the glory of God, is accomplished by many lesser purposes. The redemption of the elect, the condemnation of the unbelieving, the building of the church of Jesus Christ, the evidence of his common grace in the world, and many other things all demonstrate some aspect of his blessed character and thus manifest his glory.
   
   It would seem that a label for a theological system should in some way try to represent its major thrust. If this is true then the title “Dispensational Theology” may be faulted. But what terminology should be substituted in its place? Should it be Kingdom Theology, Doxological Theology, or should it be Promise Theology as suggested by Walter Kaiser? ^[33] For purposes of this discussion, this system will be designated as Kingdom Theology. By this is meant a view which says that as far as the sweep of history is concerned the larger purposes of God for past, present and future are kingdom-oriented rather than Israel-and-church oriented. This is not to be confused with what Walvoord designates as kingdom theology in referring to George Ladd’s writings. ^[34]
   
   To this writer's knowledge Ladd has never so labeled his thinking even though the kingdom theme has been prominent in his writings. ^[35] If Kingdom Theology could be viewed as a genre of theology then his views may well be subsumed under the broad heading, albeit bearing its own distinctives.
   
   This writer's views, while giving prominence to the kingdom of God, are no more to be confused with Ladd's then his are to be confused with Augustine's, Harnack's, Dodd's, etc. ^[36] God administers the universe in a variety of forms with certain entities (Israel, the church) being prominent. The distinctions between these entities are real but not absolute, for they, together with other groups of his submissive subjects within his sphere of sovereignty constitute one company of the redeemed (on the basis of one sacrifice to reverse the curse of sin).
   
   One of the areas of sharpest disagreement between dispensational and non-dispensational theologians relates to the problems of unity and diversity as regards God's program(s) and purpose(s). Generally speaking, the non-dispensational approach to theology emphasizes that God's dealings in history display a unitary character (e.g., in the case of the covenant theologian this is built around the covenant of grace). On the other hand, the dispensational approach tends to emphasize the diversity of God's working in history (e.g., the call for a sharp distinction between Israel and the church; the insistence that God works variously in each dispensation).
   
   It would appear, on occasion, that those who represent these schools of thought assume that unity and diversity are mutually exclusive. This statement should not be construed as meaning neither that non-dispensationalists deny any elements of diversity nor that dispensationalists deny ell evidence of unity. The issue under discussion is overall emphasis in the respective schools of thought.
   
   There is good biblical analogy, however, to demonstrate that this is not true. Biblical teaching on the diversity within the one Body of Christ, the church (1 Cor. 12), and the truth of the three persons within the godhead who share the same numerical essence are cases in point. Likewise, it is my conviction that only as both elements (unity and diversity) are acknowledged may we adequately understand God's overall program and purpose. It is my concern that at this point to relate to what is believed to be dispensationalism's failure to reckon enough with the unity side of the issue.
   
   In the dispensationalist’s zeal to maintain a distinction between Israel and the church, which distinction up to a point I believe to be valid, he has sometimes overstated his case. Without rejecting the legitimate distinctions that may be drawn between Israel and the church the following items, which emphasize unity in God's plan, should be considered.
   
   From a biblical-theological standpoint what did God intend when he created the universe and populated it with various spirit and human beings? What end did he have in view as he began the course of events we now call history? If the fundamental ontological truth is the triune God, what is fundamental economic truth?
   
   Without hesitation and in general terms, this may be answered—the glory of God. And what is his plan to effect his glory? It is his intent to extend the sphere of his sovereignty over all intelligences and to display the same to the entire universe. God's ultimate purpose, both logically and eschatologically, is singular (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:28) and supremely doxological (e.g., Rev. 4:9-11; 5:13).
   
   While this singular purpose may be worked out in several realms of reality ^[37] it is misleading to talk of multiple programs of God. Just as his purpose is singular, so is his program—namely the establishing in a final way of the Kingdom of God throughout the universe (e.g., Rev. 11:15). Yet, while this program is not multiple it is multiform. The kingdom appears in a variety of forms throughout history. Nonetheless, there is one king or sovereign and one kingdom or sphere of sovereignty toward which all things move.
   
   Since God in his wisdom has allowed sin to enter his universe we may expect to see him systematically moving to extend his sovereignty back into the areas sin has affected and Satan has claimed. Progressively, as his purposes move toward their climax, he will reestablish his sovereignty in increasingly overt ways in every realm where it has been usurped, from the moral and spiritual to the political and physical; from the personal to the corporate; from the human to the superhuman.
   It is claimed by some that the church has supplanted Israel and today is fulfilling the promises made to her. ^[38] This requires an allegorizing of so many passages of scripture that it is an unsatisfactory approach. On the other hand, there are those who, in their desire to preserve the distinction between the two, call for two new covenants, one for Israel and the other for the church. ^[39] Nonetheless, there are certain things commonly shared by both. Neither represents the ultimate or sum total of God's program. Both share in the larger kingdom program of God although from somewhat different vantage points. Both may share their enjoyment of God's blessing to the same source, viz. God's promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:7-9).
   
   Paul illustrates this truth by the figure of the olive tree in Romans 11. The root of the olive tree seems to represent the place of God's blessing which exists as a result of God's covenant promises with Abraham. Since what was promised to Abraham came to fruition in his seed, and since his seed is epitomized in Christ (Gal. 3:16, 29), the olive root probably is a figure of Christ. All who are grafted into the root, whether Gentiles or Jews, partake of the blessing originally promised to Abraham (Rom. 11:11-24).
   
   This would further suggest that in the final analysis there is one covenant fellowship or one people who make up the household of faith. Both are designed to glorify God, one as a national entity and the other as en extra-national entity.
   
   Some dispensationalists, in their desire to distinguish church and kingdom, deny any significant relationship at all. This, of course, is untenable in light of such passages as John 3:3, 5; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15. Other theologians have equated the church with God's kingdom on earth. This view may be traced back at least to Augustine and is reflected in various forms in Reformed Theology. ^[40] Yet others see the church as charged with the responsibility of establishing that kingdom. ^[41]
   
   A better approach would be to understand the church as an aspect of God's comprehensive kingdom program. One dimension of God's overall kingdom program is the inter-advent form of the kingdom (Matt. 13:1-52). The church is a part of this form of the kingdom. Thus, while church and kingdom cannot be equated nor completely separated from one another they can be distinguished. ^[42]
   
   The relationship that does exist between the two is based upon what they share in common. They both look to the same God who is King of kings both now (1 Tim. 6:15) and in the future (Rev. 17: 14; 19:16). Currently, their interrelationship may be summarized in terms of the common message, namely the gospel of grace (Acts 2:39; 20:24-25; 28:23, 31). Likewise, due to her relationship to Christ, the church anticipates a future relationship to the kingdom as well (2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 20:6; 22:3-5).
   
   It is commonly held by dispensationalists that there are four separate major unconditional biblical covenants established between God and Israel. Some would carry this a step further and see these covenants limited to Israel only. It is herein proposed that there is in reality only one basic covenant, namely the Abrahamic. This in turn is developed in its several parts by a series of elaborations or clarifying codicils.
   
   The provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant fall into three groupings. There were personal promises to Abraham himself. They assured him of individual wealth, prominence, etc., and were fulfilled in his lifetime and thereafter. Secondly, there were national promises to his natural defacements. These included a land in perpetuity (Gen 15:18-21; 17:8) and the assurance that they would be a great nation (Gen. 12:2; 15:5). Finally, there were universal promises to his spiritual heirs (Gen. 12:3, 17:7; Gal. 3:7-9, 14).
   
   The second and third aspects of the covenant were elaborated upon as Israel's history unfolded. The unconditional land promises were developed in more detail in the so-called Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 30:1-10) but this in reality is simply an amplification of those parts of the basic covenant.
   
   The unconditional national (kingdom) promises were developed in more detail as David is selected by God as the one through whom this part of the covenant would be extended (2 Sam. 7:12-16). For this reason it is usually called the Davidic Covenant, although it, too, is merely an enlargement of the original covenant.
   
   Similarly, the unconditional universal promises are developed more extensively in the New Covenant. This also is an aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant and, in light of the statement "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen. 12:3); it includes believing Israelites (Jer. 31:31-37) and believers from among the nations which form the church of Jesus Christ (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).
   
   This suggestion regarding the "new" covenant needs elaboration since it proposes to solve the apparent problem in a somewhat different way than is usually done. The non-dispensationalist often concludes that because the covenant is to be with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31) and because it is related to the church (1 Cor. 11:23-26) the two entities may be viewed as one for all practical purposes. On the other hand, many traditional dispensationalists, convinced that Israel and the church are distinct from one another, propose that there must be two new covenants so as to preserve this distinction.
   
   In support of the proposal offered above the following matters should be noted. First, the newness of this covenant (Jer. 31:31) is in relation to the Mosaic Covenant not the Abrahamic Covenant (Jer. 31:32). Thus it is not to be construed as something that will supplant the Abrahamic Covenant. That covenant, with its inclusion of both Jew and Gentile, still stands and is elaborated more fully by Jeremiah and Paul.
   
   Second, the New Testament passages make the same comparison, but add new specificity in their dealing with the "new" covenant. It is "new" in relation to the "old" or "first" (Mosaic) covenant (2 Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb. 8:6-9; 15) and is sealed by the blood of Christ (22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).
   
   Third, this provides spiritual cleansing both for Israel, yet in the future (Zech. 12:10-31:1, cf. Jer. 31:33-34) and for the church of God, today (1 Cor. 11:22-26); note especially the reference to the church of God in verse 22 as compared with 1 Cor. 10:32 where church is distinguished quite decisively from the “Jews”.
   
   Fourth, it should be noted that just as his promises are sure to be fulfilled, so God's promises of future spiritual deliverance for the nation Israel are certain of fulfillment (Jer. 31:35-37). Past national disobedience does not alter God's future covenant faithfulness.
   
   Finally, as the writer to the Hebrews delineates the inhabitants of the “heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God" (Heb. 12:22-24), he includes two groups of saints—"the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" and "the spirits of righteous men made perfect." These groups seem to represent present day saints ^[43] and Old Testament saints ^[44] who have been glorified. Also, included in this gathering is "Jesus, the new covenant mediator.” The strong implication is that there is but one new covenant and that both groups of saints are beneficiaries of it. This is true because both groups were anticipated in God's pledge to Abraham long ago.
   
   One of the most unfortunate claims of older dispensationalism relates to the equality, privilege, and future of Israel vis-à-vis the church. These two groups have been designated as an earthly people and a heavenly people, respectively. With this categorization has come the implication of inferior and superior or less favored and more favored. Chafer wrote:
    

The dispensationalist believes that 'throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people end earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity. ^[45]
 

Thankfully, Ryrie correctly repudiates this sharp dichotomy. ^[46] Chafer goes on to say, “Why should this belief be deemed so incredible in the light of the facts that there is a present distinction between earth and heaven which is preserved even after both are made new…. ^[47]

It is widely held, even by more recent dispensationalists, that wherever the bride figure occurs in the New Testament it refers to the church. ^[48] This teaching is used to reinforce the distinction between Israel and the church and to preserve this distinction in the future. It is sometimes even implied that because e the church alone is the bride of Christ and Israel is only presented in allegorical form as an unfaithful wife the standing of the one is greater than the other. ^[49] Such views are highly questionable since the church is not uniquely referred to as the bride of Christ. ^[50]

Like Israel in Hosea is likened to Yahweh's wife so the church in Ephesians 5:22-33 is likened to a bride. The figure is most appropriate to describe a particular relationship in both cases but it is hardly the basis for an elaborate doctrine of exclusiveness.

The bride metaphor is used again by John in the Apocalypse (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

Contrary to traditional dispensational interpretation, the text does not seem to support the contention that this term applies to the church exclusively. It is only by implication that church saints are seen to be included in the term, although as will be seen below there is little question about this implication.

A comparison of 21:9 with 21:10 will show that the bride of verse 9 is identified by John with “the holy city, Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God" of verse 10. Revelation 21:2-3 shows that "the holy city, new Jerusalem" is a metaphor used by John to describe "the tabernacle of God" come to be among men, that is, His people.

The people so described, who will enjoy the blessings of residence in this city (Rev. 21:4-6), are said to be those who overcome (Rev. 21:7). John gives us a twofold description of the overcomer: he believes that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:4-5), and he is one of the brethren who are victorious in resisting Satan because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, who did not love their lives to death (Rev. 12:10-11). In light of the context and the last clause of Revelation 12:11, the second description of an overcomer quite clearly relates to martyred Tribulation saints, while the first description shows that church saints are also overcomers. There is one final qualification, however, that must be noted. The tabernacle of God, which is the New Jerusalem, is said to be "those who dwell in heaven" (Rev. 13:6).

Thus, we may conclude that the bride, the Lamb's wife, is composed of glorified saints of the church and the Tribulation periods, at least, and probably from all previous ages as well. ^[51] This conclusion is verified by the context of 19:5-8, which describes the Lamb's wife in a heavenly scene. Also the reference to the nations and kings of the earth in 21:24-27 shows that other believers (nonglorified) will enter the city from the outside (the new earth).

In light of these observations, it seems highly tenuous to maintain that the church has a future that is wholly distinct from other glorified saints. That she may be continued as a distinct group of believers as a part of a larger whole seems entirely reasonable, but to separate her from the bliss enjoyed by other saints seems to be biblically unwarranted. ^[52]

It is sometimes taught that the status of the Old Testament Jewish believer was inferior to that of the New Testament Christian because the former related to God by way of an "old” (Mosaic) covenant while we today are related to him through a "new" covenant. The Old Testament saint somehow had to make his way before God in a legalistic framework while we are blessed with a grace framework. Furthermore, he was without the indwelling enablement of the Holy Spirit while we have divine power unavailable to him.

Certainly, if no differences were acknowledged we would have to fly in the face of much scripture. One wonders, however, if the correct antithesis is being drawn from scripture. There is an incorrect use of and way of relating to the Law. Its intent as given in the Mosaic Covenant must be understood. It provided a rule of life for a redeemed people ^[53] not a means of redemption. As Paul indicates in Galatians 3:19-25 it was to show up transgressions until the seed (Christ) should come; it was not designed to give life; and, it was to be a child-leader until Christ came. Neither is it true that grace ended with the giving of the law and commenced again with the coming of Christ. God's dealings with man have been by grace from the beginning to this day.

Paul clearly states that the law was added alongside the promise for a specific purpose and time (Gal. 3:17-19). It was given as a temporary addition and in no way abrogated the covenant with Abraham or the promises contained therein. Grace did not end with the giving of the Law and to call for such is to call for an unwarranted antithesis between the two. Law and grace are antithetical only when they operate in the same place or sphere. If both were given for salvation there would be an antithesis.

The purpose of the Law, however, was different from that of grace. It was given to reveal God’s holiness, man's unholiness, to shut up mankind under sin and to lead mankind to the Savior. It was not given to save which is the function of grace alone. Hutchison captures the proper relationship between the Abrahamic (and thus the new covenant—see above) and the Mosaic covenants in the following statement:
 

The key principle operative in both is the principle of faith. Yahweh revealed His glory to Abram in Ur and gave him a Divine command. The covenant which was ultimately established (Gen. 15, 17) was unconditional in every way, yet God's personal dealings with Abraham always reflected the necessity of faith reflected by obedience. This pattern extended to each patriarch to follow, and ultimately to Israel as a nation. Through the Exodus and Law God revealed His glory to Israel and His standard for obedience. The Abrahamic promises remained operative throughout this time, yet the participation of a given individual or generation in their blessings depended upon obedience to the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic covenant thus became a test as to whether one was under the covenant relationship which God promised to Abraham…and ultimately fulfilled only by the grace of God. ^[54]
 

Surely there was as much grace in God's dealings with Israel as in His dealings with the church. In the progress of revelation the New Testament explicates this much more fully and we are the beneficiaries. Hutchison also gives us a clue to the questionable nature of that teaching which limits the Holy Spirit's work among believers in the Old Testament period. His statement is, "…Yahweh will also provide the supernatural enablement to keep the Law through new hearts (Deut. 30:6)". ^[55] Moses' words are, "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendents, so that you may love him with all your heart and ...with all your soul, and live" (Deut. 30:6). ^[56] God's work is viewed as internal (in the heart) and with a view to life and a certain kind of behavior (thoroughgoing love). With the completed revelation of the New Testament this is seen to be the work of God the Holy Spirit. The question is, ‘Is there any reason to limit this work of his in Old Testament saints?’

Various answers have been given to this question. Chafer, for example, is unwilling to affirm that the Old Testament saints were regenerated ^[57] and forthrightly rejects the possibility that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. ^[58] Others acknowledge that there was regeneration in the Old Testament ^[59] and that some form of selective and temporary indwelling was experienced as well. ^[60] There are yet others who make a very convincing case that both of these ministries of the Spirit were realized by the Old Testament believer. ^[61]

It is my conviction that the last named view is the most defensible biblically and theologically. From a biblical standpoint the evidence adduced against this view falls into two categories; the historical record of how certain Old Testament characters relate to the Holy Spirit and a limited number of didactic passages wherein instruction on the subject is given. Regarding the first category Wood has very adequately demonstrated that they (Samson, Saul, David, etc.) do not provide any basis for a doctrine of selective and temporary indwelling. ^[62] In many, if not all, of the cases usually cited to prove selective and temporary indwelling what is actually in view is enablement for a specific ministry rather than indwelling.

David's experience, as recorded in Psalm 51 is cited so often it perhaps calls for comment. In verse eleven he cries out, "Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me." Is this an indication that David was concerned that he was about to be disindwelt by the Holy Spirit?

In the first place, there is nothing that suggests that this is a reference to the Holy Spirit's indwelling of David, and, even if that is what David had in mind, we have no indication that his concern about being forsaken by the Spirit of God is a valid one. In all likelihood the concern expressed in this psalm relates to what we would call in the New Testament terms the filling (controlling) of the Holy Spirit rather than his indwelling. This is more in keeping with the context, in which David is confessing his sin and seeking for a renewed evidence of the Spirit's power in his life.

Rather than an implicit teaching that the indwelling Spirit comes and goes from men at will in the Old Testament, David’s cry is the cry of a genuinely contrite heart who senses that his sin is worthy of bringing separation from God's presence and separation of the Spirit from himself. Nonetheless, and no doubt absent from David’s mind in the midst of his contrition, it is no more possible for God's child to be separated from Him in the Old Testament than it is in the New; it is no more possible for the Old Testament believer to lose the Holy Spirit than it is for the New Testament believer. The redemptive work of God in every dispensation (administration of the kingdom) is based on His changeless character and is ministered by the changeless Spirit. ^[63]

There are two basic didactic passages used to support a doctrine of selective and temporary indwelling. Walvoord appeals to John 1:31-39 as support for this idea. ^[64] In response, Wood relates this passage to the baptizing work of the Spirit as he would form the Body of Christ in a day yet future as those words were spoken. He goes on to note, "The passage says nothing in respect to the Spirit's not having done other work in previous time…" ^[65]

The second passage is John 14:16-17, "… he abides with you and will be in you." Again, Walvoord uses this passage to teach sharp distinction as to personal indwelling between Old and New Testament saints. ^[66] There seems little question that our Lord is calling for some distinction between past and future in this passage. What question there is relates to the tense of the verb translated "will be" in verse seventeen.

There is textual question about whether we about whether we should here read estai, which has very strong manuscript evidence (p66, p77, ? , A), or estin (is B, D, W). The first edition of the Bible Societies text ^[67] prefers the latter but only gives it a (D) rating; that is, there exists a “very high degree of doubt” whether estin is in fact the better reading. Interestingly, the third edition has exchanged readings and gives preference to estai, also with a (D) rating. Two considerations seem to favor the future tense: (1) the present tense seems more like a scribal correction to harmonize with the other present tenses in the verse, ^[68] who contends that "the present tense appears to be less like a correction." (2) The movement of thought in the passage almost requires acme change. ^[69]

But what distinction is called for? Jesus indicates that
 

…this change in relationship is the key to the believer's knowing the Spirit. ^[70] The reason given (hoti, because) as to why Christians may know Him in this indwelling is that "he abides with you, and will be in you" (par’ humin menei kai en hemin estai). The change in prepositions marks a change from nearness to inner presence, and the change in tense from present (menei, abides) to future (estai, will be) indicates that with the coming of the counselor something that had not hitherto been true was to commence.

It is questionable whether the elaborate theology that has sometimes been built on this fact is entirely legitimate. If the above suggested textual reading is indeed the proper one, some distinction between the pre-Pentecostal and the post-Pentecostal relationship between believer and the Spirit must be maintained, but it would appear rather speculative to press it too far. Certainly there does seem to be a greater intimacy of relationship suggested between the believer and the Holy Spirit today, which intimacy provides for the development of Christ-like character; but to assign Old Testament saints to a status as less than first-rate citizens of God's Kingdom on this basis is not warranted. God works with different groups of saints in different ways in the different dispensations (administrations of the Kingdom), but each has adequate provision by Him for the kind of life that he requires. ^[71]
 

But this does not adequately account for the difference for which Jesus seems to call. It would seem that Hunt may have captured the significance of the change intended in suggesting a distinction between individual indwelling which is true of all saints of all ages, ^[72] and the corporate indwelling of the church ^[73] is true only since Pentecost. He writes:
 

If it can be generally agreed that meno par' humin refer to the Spirit's close relationship with the people before Pentecost, then the strong distinction between pre-Pentecost non-indwelling of each individual saint post-Pentecost-indwelling of each saint cannot be held. How was the Spirit "with" (para) them beforehand? His close relation with them included His individual indwelling of each but not collective indwelling in the since of church.

The implications of estai en humin, on the other hand would have its fullest expression at Pentecost which manifested a twofold significance: (1) through the agency of the Holy Spirit, Christ baptized His followers into one body (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:4; 1 Cor. 12:13), and (2) it marked the beginning of worldwide evangelism by the Church (John 16:1-11; Acts 1:8).

The Spirit's "coming" constituted the disciples as members of a new spiritual unity, the Body. Before Pentecost, there were individual believers scattered “to" and “fro" within Israel's ranks. These people were related by faith to God through His Spirit.

They did not know, however, the dimensions of being a part of the Body of Christ for there was not yet a Body to relate to because Christ had not yet been crucified. Before the dawning of the Church, the Spirit of Yahweh was standing in the midst of Israel as a nation and was working on it from without, while renewing and indwelling each individual who trusted Yahweh. ^[74]
 

It would seem that this thesis is worthy of serious consideration. It honors the biblical text while setting forth a theological premise which allows for diversity between Israel and the church and at the same time preserves the thread of unity which binds all revelation together.

One of the oft repeated accusations brought against those who hold to dispensational distinctions is that they believe in two ways of salvation. Some anti-dispensational writers have insisted that dispensationalists teach that men were saved by works in some dispensations and faith in others. These charges are not without foundation.

For example, the use of the term “grace” to name one dispensation tends to lead to misunderstanding. It should be noted in fairness, however, that this is not intended to imply that there is no grace in other dispensations. Rather, it is meant that it is more characteristic and evident today then in previous times. ^[75] In addition, there is the confusion by some of making a dispensation equivalent to a way of salvation.

A dispensation (economy, administration) however, is not a way of salvation. Rather, it is one aspect of God's administration of history of God’s economy. Salvation, at no matter what point in God’s administrative function, is always based on the death of Christ.

Certain unguarded and misunderstood statements have been made especially by some dispensationalists of the past. For example see the Scofield Reference Bible, page 1115, note 1; ^[76] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, III, 343 and IV, 162. ^[77] It must be recognized that they refer to ways of life rather than ways of salvation and they are speaking of various ways that faith is expressed. In other words, when they speak of the condition of salvation it is in the sense of "evidence of" salvation.

What then should be said about salvation that is different from those who hold to a dual hermeneutic? The basis of salvation is the same in every age—the death of Christ. The requirement is the same in every age—faith. The object of faith is the same in every age—God. The content of faith changes in each different administration of the kingdom—it depends on the particular progressive revelation given by God at that time. It is in the last item especially where the difference lies. ^[78]

As was noted earlier, another significant area of theological distinction for Kingdom Theology relates to their view of the church. It is held to be a distinct kingdom entity from Israel and from Old Testament Gentile believers. The distinction is emphasized in the New Testament in that the church is set forth in God's purposes as a living organism, the Body of Christ. This is never predicated of Israel. Contrary to the analysis of most non-dispensationalists, this does not destroy the continuity in the line of redemption. At the same time it preserves a distinction as to grouping as set forth in scripture. ^[79]

In relation to eschatology Kingdom Theology also has some far reaching implications. A consistently literal hermeneutic leads to belief in the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies which requires a theocratic future for Israel. This leads to a belief in the millennial or messianic form of the Kingdom which, when properly understood is integrated with one's whole system of theology, not merely added on at the end.
 

References:

¹ See for example, Hans Kung in his book Infallibility? An Inquiry)
² For a further development of the doctrine of the authority of Scriptures, see James I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, pp. 41-74.
³ The material following is from N. Stibbs, Witness of Scripture to its Inspiration, Revelation and the Bible, Carl F. H. Henry, editor, pages 108-109.
⁴ Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, I, 1
⁵ Kindred to these latter, but springing from European Anabaptist roots are various Brethren groups and the Mennonites.
⁶ Table material is taken from Romans: An Interpretive Outline, by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas (pp. 144-147.
⁷ George N. M. Collins, Covenant Theology, Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 144.
⁸ See Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 215.
⁹ ibid, p. 271
¹⁰ ibid., p. 277
¹¹ Dee Cornelius Van Til, Covenant Theology, Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 306).
¹² A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr), Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1977.
¹³ The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 17
¹⁴ Boyd, op. cit., p. 91
¹⁵ For example, see Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 279.
¹⁶ Collins, op. cit.
¹⁷ Op. cit., p. 296
¹⁸ See for example, O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 39; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 291, 614; J. B. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, p. 414.
¹⁹ This viewpoint is presented for example by George E. Ladd in the Gospel of the Kingdom.
²⁰ Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pp. 53-54
²¹ Ibid, p. 141
²² The classical example of this canon is found in a comparison of Matthew 10:5-7, where the disciples are told to proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom to Israel only, and Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15, where the same group is told sometime later to proclaim the gospel to all the nations of creation.
²³ The Greatness of the Kingdom p. 527
²⁴ John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 92
²⁵ Grant C. Richison, God's Weltanschauung for Creation, Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1965, p. 17
²⁶ Ramesh P. Richard, The Premillennial Interpretation of History, Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (July-September 1981:208-9)
²⁷ See Euan Fry, Translating 'Glory' in the New Testament, The Bible Translator 27 (October 1976); 421-425 for development of these ideas.
²⁸ Dispensationalism Today, p. 29
²⁹ Dispensationalism Today, p. 197
³⁰ See C. Stam, The Controversy, p. 14.
³¹ For more detail see Ryrie's discussion in Dispensationalism Today, pages 198-205.
³² See also E. Sauer, Triumph of the Crucified, p. 73 ftnt.
³³ The Eschatological Hermeneutics of "Evangelicalism": Promise Theology, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13 (1970):91-99
³⁴ John F. Wa1voord, The Millennial Kingdom, pp. 222-23
³⁵ See e.g., Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, Jesus and the Kingdom, and A Theology of the New Testament, pp. 45-l34.
³⁶ See Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pp. 57-60
³⁷ e.g., in the animate and inanimate creation; in the spirit world, both wicked and holy among human beings, both redeemed and reprobate; in the nation Israel and the church of Jesus Christ; in heaven and hell.
³⁸ See 0. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 42
³⁹ See L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, VII, 98-99; Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial-Faith, pp. 105-125).
⁴⁰ For a more recent statement see L. Berkhof, The Kingdom of God.
⁴¹ See, for example, L. Boettner, "Postmillennialism" in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four View's, Robert G. Clouse, ed., pp. 117-141.
⁴² See Robert L. Saucy. The Church in God's Program: pp. 82-89 for a balanced discussion of the relationship between church and kingdom.
⁴³ "the church"
⁴⁴ cf. Heb. 11:39-40 where Old Testament believers are said 'to be perfected" together with us
⁴⁵ Dispensationalism, p. 30
⁴⁶ Dispensationalism Today, pp. 146-47
⁴⁷ Ibid.
⁴⁸ See for example J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 226-28
⁴⁹ See John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 246
⁵⁰ In contrast, the church is uniquely spoken of as "his body" (Eph. 1:22-23). It is the body figure which distinguishes the church from Israel.
⁵¹ See pp. 232-33 for further discussion
⁵² W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John, pp. 167-68
⁵³ Note that the Decalogue is prefaced by a reminder of their redemption, Exodus 20:2ff.
⁵⁴ John Charles Hutchison, The Relationship of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Palestinian Covenants in Deuteronomy 29-30, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary 1981, pp. 172-73
⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 173
⁵⁶ Cf. Deut. 6:6
⁵⁷ L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, VI, 73-74
⁵⁸ Ibid, p. 123
⁵⁹ J. D. Pentecost, The Divine Comforter, p. 64
⁶⁰ See e.g., J. F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, pp. '71-'73; C. C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, pp. 41-42: Lloyd Neve, The Spirit of God in the Old Testament, p. 22
⁶¹ Leon Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, pp. 64-72
⁶² Ibid, pp. 39-63
⁶³ Cook, The Theology of John, p. 124
⁶⁴ The Holy Spirit, p. 12
⁶⁵ Wood, op. cit., pp. 84-85
⁶⁶ Walvoord, op.cit, pp. 72-13
⁶⁷ K. Aland et al., eds. The Greek New Testament
⁶⁸ But see Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 206
⁶⁹ Cook, John, pp. 123-24
⁷⁰ See John 14:17
⁷¹ Cook, op.cit., pp. 123-25
⁷² See Wood, op. cit., pp. 66-60
⁷³ See 1 Cor. 3:16-17 where the ‘you’ is plural, referring to the collective church as the residence of the Holy Spirit
⁷⁴ Dwight Hunt, Jesus' Teaching Concerning the Paraclete in the Upper Room Discourse, (unpublished master's thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary 1981), pp. 64-65. See also Wood, op. cit., pp. 85-87
⁷⁵ See John 1:17
⁷⁶ However, cf. p. 1245 and p. 93; also, contrast with the note on the same verse in the New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1124, note 1
⁷⁷ However, cf. Grace p. 113 and Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1945, p. 2159 and January 1945, p.1
⁷⁸ See Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 123-4
⁷⁹ See 1 Cor. 10:32; Heb. 12:22-24

Return to Syllabus

AncientPath Network Dallas, TX 77523, USA

Copyright © 2007 by AncientPath Network and the authors. All rights reserved. From our web sites at AncientPath.net and AncientLight.org, you may download the information and print it for yourself and others as long as you give it away and do not charge for it. In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything. It is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other non-commercial study.

051707P