THIS
MONTH’S TOTT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. While it certainly deals with a text (several
actually), the “tough part” concerns the
application of the text. The
purpose is to share a deep burden that I have had for
some time and hopefully encourage all of us to Christian
love in a specific area.
Two
Theological Perspectives
To lay the foundation, I would first
share the barest essentials of the two main theological
perspectives.
First, there is
Covenant Theology, a system of
biblical interpretation that develops the Bible’s
philosophy of history on the basis of two (or three)
covenants. Most see two, the first of which is the
“Covenant of Works,” an agreement between God and Adam
promising life for perfect obedience and death for
disobedience. Adam sinned, however, and therefore
mankind failed to meet the requirements of the Covenant
of Works. This covenant covers the time from Genesis
1:27–3:6.
Because of man’s
failure, God instituted the “Covenant of Grace,” an
agreement between God and man in which God promises
salvation through Jesus Christ for those who will
receive Him by faith. This covenant covers the time from
Genesis 3:7—Rev. 20:7, that is, through the rest of
biblical history, Old and New Testaments. The other
covenants of Scripture—Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic,
Palestinian, Davidic, and New—are administered under the
one overarching, all-encompassing Covenant of Grace.
Some
covenant theologians see a third covenant prior to those
two, the “Covenant of Redemption,” which was made
between God the Father and God the Son in eternity past
in which the Son voluntarily agreed to die for the elect
in exchange for His headship of the elect. This, then,
became the basis for the Covenant of
Grace.
Second, there is Dispensational
Theology. Based upon the word “dispensation”
(oikonomia: oikos, “house, dwelling
place,” and nomos, a law; 1
Cor. 9:17; Eph. 110; 3:2; Col. 1:25), the idea is “the
law of a house.” The word speaks of the oversight,
management, or stewardship one has over the affairs of a
household. Applied to Scripture, it simply means that as
the owner of His “household-world” God is overseeing,
managing, and administering everything according to His
will and purpose and is doing so in various stages
called “dispensations” (or “economies”). This view
recognizes that there have been (and will be) seven
specific ways in which God has (and will) deal with man.
Each dispensation is marked in Scripture by a different
way of dealing with classes or individuals in regard to
man’s responsibility and sin.
Further,
there are four characteristics of a dispensation: 1)
man’s condition, that is, his state and standing
at the beginning of that era; 2) man’s
responsibility, that is, the test God gives man
for that age; 3) man’s disobedience, his failure
of the test that God gave; and 4) God’s judgment
on man for his disobedience to God’s test. Each
dispensation also has a steward, that is, the chief representative of that age,
the one to whom the responsibility of carrying out the
commands of the dispensation is
given.
The
Distinctions
With that basic
background understood, these two systems—which, if we
may honestly interject, were both developed and
systemized by men and both have their problems—are often
at great odds with each other. We mention this briefly
because it is essential to the point of this article
that we make later.
For example, in
its practical outworking, Covenant Theology says there’s
only one people of God and no distinctions between them.
Dispensationalism sees two distinct people, Israel and
the Church, which are mentioned together in 1
Corinthians 10:32, along with a third group
(“Gentiles”), which is comprised of the
lost.
Another great
divide involves the Church. Covenant Theology views the
church (the Body of Christ) as existing in the Old
Testament and consisting of all the redeemed from Adam
on. Pentecost
was not the beginning of the Church, rather the
empowering of the New Testament manifestation of
the church that has existed since Adam.
Dispensationalism views the church as nonexistent in the
Old Testament, beginning rather at
Pentecost.
Still another gulf
is formed by a difference in the purpose of history.
A
“philosophy of history” seeks to interpret and apply
history in a meaningful way by: 1) recounting
what and why something happened; 2)
interpreting it according to a particular unifying
principle that ties all events together; 3)
demonstrating how this fulfills the ultimate purpose and
goal of history. While the philosophy of history
in Covenant Theology views the ultimate goal as the
eternal state, Dispensationalism views the ultimate goal
to be the earthly Millennial Kingdom, demonstrating the
sovereignty of God over human history.
Also, while
Covenant Theology views the unifying principle of
history as the “Covenant of Grace” (or the Covenant of
Redemption, as some covenanters prefer), that is, God’s
plan of salvation for men, Dispensationalism views the
unifying principle of history as being God’s glory, as
His glory is exhibited in the differing ways that He
manifests Himself in the various
dispensations.
Another chasm,
this one the size of the Grand Canyon, opens between the
two views when it comes to prophecy. Covenant
theologians are usually either “Amillennial” (believing
the kingdom to be present and spiritual) or
“Postmillennial” (believing the Kingdom is in the
process of being established on earth with Christ’s
return being the climax). Dispensationalists believe
that there will be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ
on the earth based upon the promise of David’s perpetual
throne.
For lack of a
better term, there is also some tragic “in-fighting”
between the two groups. For example, on the one hand
Covenant theologians accuse the dispensationalist’s
emphasis on literalness as “wrongly dividing the people
of God” (a play on words of 2 Tim. 2:15). On the other
hand, dispensationalists make much of the fact that
Covenant theologians spiritualize certain portions of
Scripture, such as spiritualizing Old Testament
circumcision into baptizing infants now, which
immediately begs the question, “Why baptize baby girls?”
This leads us to
the central purpose of this article.
The
Division
In the
above, I have not defended either view of theological
thought. While in a recent TOTT I admitted to being a Classic
Dispensationalist—I do see a distinction between Israel
and the church—I am not defending that here. In fact, I
disagree with some of the more extreme strains of
Dispensationalism. That, however, is not the purpose of
this article. Rather my purpose is to challenge some of
the unchristian statements that are leveled by advocates
of one camp at their brothers in the other,
because we need to be reminded that we
are brothers.
As mentioned
earlier, my burden started quite some time ago. While at
a pastor’s conference, where the preaching was good and
the fellowship sweet, the latter was marred for me by a
statement one Covenant brother made. Since the views on
eschatology in that group are mixed, and because that
subject is avoided as a result, he made what I viewed as
an inappropriate comment. After sharing an anecdote
about a particularly tough week he had had, he said, “I
found myself rethinking the Rapture,” which brought a
round of laughter. Now, I most certainly do not wear my
feelings on my shoulder, and I am the first to join in
good-natured banter, but I did not view that as an
appropriate venue.
Sadly, others
nowadays are not as subtle. There are those who laugh
and scoff at dispensationalists and look on them
condescendingly, considering them little more than
unscholarly simpletons. I’ve read several jabs by one
author whose sarcasm drips off the page in his monthly
publication. I ultimately stopped my subscription to
that otherwise wonderful periodical just because of such
uncalled for remarks.
Still others
are just downright mean spirited and unchristian. One
writer—and for unity’s sake, I will not document his
statements with a footnote—calls Dispensationalism “a
cult and not a branch of the Christian church” and calls
dispensationalists “false teachers” and “heretics.” Do
such comments reflect Christian love? Frankly, I found
those comments so discrediting that I had a hard time
finishing the book.
I was also
deeply distressed by a DVD released in March that was at
one point titled, The Late Great Planet Church: The
Rise of Dispensationalism and the Decline of the
Church. While I admit that I am
going by the title, description, and previews alone, I
find those painful enough. The description calls
Dispensationalism a “fraudulent system.” Now, according
to Webster, “fraud” and “fraudulent” speak of deliberate
deceit, dishonesty, and trickery, so the accusation
seems pretty clear. Added to that is the indictment that
Dispensationalism is a “stumbling block to the Church
and a distraction from the Great Commission.” Are such
accusations indicative of Christian love and a desire
for unity with fellow
believers?
The DVD
description also, like every critic, mentions that
Dispensationalism is of “relatively recent development.”
While that is true—Dispensationalism was not fully systemized
until the early 19th Century—it is also a
fact that Covenant Theology as a system is not much
older. It is seldom mentioned in the writings of the
Early Church Fathers, it does not appear at all in the
writings of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and
Melanchthon), and it was not actually systemized until
the 16th
Century.[i] It would seem,
then, that this point hinges on one’s definition of
“recent.”
The DVD’s
title is equally distressing in its accusation that
Dispensationalism is part of the decline of the Church.
I find such a charge shocking in light of the many
movements today that truly are destroying the Church, such as,
seeker-sensitivity, psychology, the Emerging Church, and
many others.
I’m not implying
that Dispensationalists are not guilty of attacks of
their own. On the contrary, I have read such ridiculous
statements that Covenant Theology is a “doctrinal, and
therefore personal, menace” and that it is “a gospel of
works.” Some have also called it “heresy.” One speaker I
know of went so unimaginably far that he lumped Covenant
theologians in with “agnostics, Mormons, and cults.” My
comments later about Christian love are, therefore,
aimed at all of us.
At the heart
of all this finger pointing, in my view, is the
incredibly loose usage of the word “heresy.” But what
exactly is heresy and what teachings are dubbed with
that label in Scripture? “Heresy” is
actually transliterated right from the Greek
hairesis and is an
interesting word. In Classical Greek, it means “seizure,
taking, acquisition, choice, desire for something, and
purposeful decision.” Later in Hellenistic Greek, it
“denotes the teaching or the school of a particular
philosopher with which a person identifies himself by
his choice.”[ii] In the
Septuagint, it speaks of choice, as it translates the
Hebrew nedabah in Leviticus
22:18 and 21 (“freewill
offering”).
The
New Testament usage of hairesis follows
that of Hellenism and the Septuagint. Heresy is a
choice, a deliberate decision to “seize” upon a
particular teaching that is not orthodox. Acts 5:17, for
example, mentions “the sect [hairesis] of the Sadducees,” a Jewish faction that denied
the doctrine of resurrection. Acts 15:5 refers to
another sect, the Judaizers, who taught salvation by
works, such as adding circumcision as a requirement.
That issue prompted the Jerusalem Council, as the
following verses describe, which definitively stated the
principle of salvation by grace alone through faith
alone.
There has always
been the plague of false teaching and teachers. That is
why discernment is so crucial. The main thrust of
Peter’s second epistle is a warning against false
teachers who will infiltrate the church. That is best
summarized in 2:1: “There shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction.” We see here at least
three principles.
First, false teaching is deceitful.
“Privily” is pareisago,
to bring in by the side of, to bring something in by
smuggling it. False teaching has to be “brought in the
side door” lest someone see it for what it really is.
Second, false teaching is degrading. False
teachers deny the Lord and His work in one way or
another and in so doing degrade and blaspheme Him.
Third, false teaching is destructive.
“Damnable” is apoleia,
to destroy fully. False teaching not only destroys right
doctrine and the lives of its victims but also
the propagators (“swift destruction”). (Note also
the other “works of the flesh” listed with “heresies” in
Galatians 5:19–21 and the command Paul gives concerning
heretics [hairetikos] in
Titus 3:10.)
If we may
now ask, In view of what we have just outlined, is it
honest to call either Dispensationalism or Covenant
Theology “heresy”? No one is denying the resurrection,
the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ, inspiration,
salvation by grace alone, or any one of another dozen or
so cardinal doctrines of Christianity. To put it another
way, I am ready at a moment’s notice to “lock and load”
when it comes to defending the Doctrines of Grace and
passionately guarding the Five Solas of the Reformation
as Christianity’s very foundation, but such things
are not at issue here.
Let us be
honest. The two theological systems outlined earlier are
not cardinal doctrines of Christianity,
regardless of how fervently we might defend one or the
other. For example, while the Doctrines of Grace are
most certainly cardinal doctrines, one’s view of the
Millennium is not. While one’s view might put him in a
different denomination, it doesn’t place him into
a different faith or body. We are all members of Christ’s Body, and we
need to start acting like it. After all, has your arm
ever called your leg a heretic, or has your right big
toe ever called your left little toe a cultist? This
leads us to our final
encouragement.
Christian
Love
Please do
not misunderstand my next three statements, because I do
not wish to appear self-righteous or that I am the more
spiritual thinker who is taking “the high ground.” If I
may say, however, while I do not agree with their
position, I have never called an Amillennial or
Postmillennial brother in Christ a heretic. Not once
have I ever said of a brother who believes in infant
baptism that he is a false teacher. And I have certainly
never accused any Covenant theologian of propagating
a cult
that is not a branch of the Christian
church.
If I may
lovingly ask, Where has our love of the brethren gone?
Now, please understand, I’m not talking about today’s
syrupy sentimentality. I’m not implying that we should
all hold hands around the campfire and sway to the music
as we sing Kumbaya. What I am saying, however, is that our unkind words and
snide remarks to, and about, one another need to
stop.
To illustrate,
it’s often noted about many in the King James Only camp
(and rightly so) that they say some pretty nasty things
about anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. They
label Christian brethren as heretics, liars, Roman
Catholics, and a plethora of other epithets just because
they don’t agree with their view of the textual issue.
But what is the difference in that behavior and what we
have noted on the present issue? Is it appalling in them
but justified for us?
In verse
after verse, Scripture commands believers to love each
other. Why? Obviously because we need constant
reminding. As our Lord Himself
declared in Matthew 22:35–40, second only to a love for
God is a love for our fellow believers. In John
13:34–35, He adds that while love itself is not a new
command, to love as sacrificially as Christ did is the
new standard. He goes on to say that it is “by this
shall all men know that ye are my disciples.” Is it not
a little odd to think that we love each other and can be
a witness to the world while we are calling each other
heretics? John Gill comments
here:
Love one another:
as brethren in the same family, children of the same
Father, and fellow disciples with each other; by keeping
and agreeing together, praying one for another, bearing
one another’s burdens, forbearing and forgiving one
another, admonishing each other, and building up one
another in faith and holiness.
As one of my
professors used to say early in my training, “We can a
agree to disagree agreeably.” If we are sincerely
burdened for what we think is a brother’s error, what
happened to “speaking the truth in love” to him and praying for him
instead of maligning him in print?
So crucial, so
fundamental is this principle, that our Lord declares
again, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:12–13, 17). Is that not
a pretty tough order to carry out with brothers whom we
are calling cultists?
Being profoundly
impacted by Jesus’ teaching, the Apostle John repeatedly
emphasizes this in his first Epistle. In this crucial
letter, John presents several tests for knowing whether
we are truly saved and have “passed from death unto
life” (3:14; 5:25). One, for example, is obedience: “we
do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments”
and “whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love
of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him”
(2:3, 5). Well, in 2:8–10, we see another. A crucial
test for whether or not we are true believers is whether
we love other believers. As the always wonderful Lehman
Strauss puts it: “Love for the brethren is an infallible
test of one’s salvation, a distinguishing mark of true
conversion.”
Now, we are
judging no one here, but what is John saying? Is he
saying that any hatred, despising, disgust, loathing,
scorning, contempt, ridicule, mockery, or other such
attitude for another Christian is simply wicked and
ungodly and might even be coming from an unregenerate
heart? It would certainly seem so. As Strauss adds, “So
long as brotherly love is wanting, that is proof
conclusive that the one with hatred in his heart
‘abideth in death.’”
We will leave the
reader to examine John’s many other encouragements on
this point: 3:10–11, 14–19, 23; 4:7–8, 20–21. As one
reads each of those, it’s hard to imagine being able to
carry them out while writing scathing attacks on the
character and teaching of sound, godly men. If we may
add, who do we think is pleased by such name calling,
Christ or Satan?
Although I
know some readers will think this ridiculous, I would
still lovingly ask, What if either the Covenanter or
dispensationalist gets to Heaven and finds out he was
wrong? Then again, what if both arrive and discover they were wrong? Again,
let’s be honest. To dogmatically declare that either
system is 100 percent correct is ridiculous. If either
is wrong in only a single tiny point, then it is not
perfect and, therefore, does not deserve to be elevated
to infallibility and absolute authority. This alone
should end all condescending attitudes and unchristian
comments.
I would close with an illustration and challenge.
A Claymore antipersonnel mine is a lens-shaped block of
C-4 explosive with 700 steel balls embedded in it.
Embossed on the front surface of the mine are the words
“Front Toward Enemy” to remind the soldier of the
“business end” of the weapon. Dear brethren, we need a
reminder as well, a reminder that our real
enemies are secularism, humanism, pragmatism,
relativism, mysticism, materialism, postmodernism,
historical (higher) criticism, rationalistic textual
(lower) criticism, and the list goes on. We need to
start unifying against those enemies and, indeed, attack
with all guns blazing and all our “Claymores” pointed in
the right direction. Yes, we can certainly debate the
issues and passionately defend our views, but the
unloving attitudes and unchristian speech must
cease.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
NOTES
[i] Significantly,
renowned Covenant theologian Louis Berkhof admits, “In
the Early Church Fathers the covenant idea is seldom
found at all.” In the system’s defense, he adds, “Though
the elements which it includes, namely the probationary
command, the freedom of choice, and the possibility of
sin and death, are all mentioned.” But he then goes on
to report that the system was not yet developed in the
time of the Reformers and that Kasper Olevianus
(1536-1587) “was the real founder of a well developed
federal theology, in which the concept of the covenant
became for the first time the constitutive and
determinative principle of the entire system.”
(Systematic Theology; [Eerdmans, 1939, 1941], pp.
211-212.)
[ii] Colin Brown,
The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology (Zondervan, 1971), Vol. 1, p.
533.
