Dispensational View of Theological Order: Why It Offends Covenant Theologians

Mr. Charles Clough

Ina previous article[1] I noted thatdispensationalism grew out of a nineteenth century situation. From the late 1800s until the presentday, it has been a major point of contention inside Reformed circles withcovenant theologians. Why do thesetwo theologies that otherwise agree on the great body of orthodox christologyand soteriology, disagree so vigorously in ecclesiology and eschatology?[2]

Inmy previous article I noted a pattern in previous great theological debatesduring past Church history. "Both specific Scriptural texts and basicorganizing 'models' (or 'presuppositions' or 'preunderstandings')"[3]played vital roles. This latest debate appears to be no different.

Bothcovenant and dispensational theologians after many decades of trying to debateprimarily over specific texts, increasingly are probing for the source ofconflict at the presuppositional level also.

Eventhe polemical book by John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: ACritique of Dispensationalism (Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991) insists that there is afundamental logical structure in dispensationalism that, he thinks, necessarily leads to multiple ways ofsalvation regardless of whether or not individual teachers actually teach thatview (pp. 149-169). An earlierbook by a more gracious covenant theologian Vern S. Poythress, UnderstandingDispensationalists(Zondervan, 1987) also pointed out the dominating role of presuppositions. His fifth chapter entitled "TheNear Impossibility of Simple Refutations" noted: "A system that is carefully and thoroughly elaborated,whether right or wrong, will almost certainly include answers to standardobjections; and different parts of the system 'come to the aid' of any partthat is challenged" (p 52). (Poythress was not thereby denying that hiscovenant theology had its own presuppositions.)

Advocatesof dispensationalism agree that presuppositions play a vital role butincreasingly disagree over what those presuppositions are. Dallas Seminary professor CraigBlaising found fault with Charles Ryrie's triadic sina qua non (doxological purpose of God,literal hermeneutics, the Israel-Church distinction) but didn't offer areplacement.[4]

GrandRapids Baptist Seminary prof David Turner discussed the literal hermeneuticissue that traditionally is seen as a defining difference between covenanttheology and dispensationalism. Henoted, however, that its actual use in specific textual situations wasdetermined by the presuppositions of the exegete, not by an arbitrarily chosenhermeneutical system.[5]

Sowe see an emerging awareness that dispensational and covenant theologies differbecause of deep rooted presuppositions. The trick is to define where they are and what they are. In the following sections I willattempt to contrast the "classical" forms of each system to discovertheir different senses of theological order.[6]

Let'slook how a Bible student might set the "data" of special revelationin some systematic order. First,imagine the history of the created universe as a series of states denoted by"Si" where "i"goes from "0" (origin in Gen. 1:1) to "T" (terminal statein Rev. 21-22). S0, S1, . . . . , ST

Then the following five propositions can be defended:

1. A predetermined terminal state, ST, will one day come into existence and beexperienced.

2. God's sovereignty moves history from S0 to ST"after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11).

3. Therefore, ST expresses the most complete revelation of the ultimate will ofGod for mortal existence.

4. Therefore, all preceding states, S0, . . . , ST-1, express less complete revelation of God's will.

5. Therefore, ST is the vantage point from which to interpret the historicalmeaning of any single one or group of the antecedent states, S0, . . . , ST-1.

This set of propositions provides the rationale for doxologyat the end of mortal history. I'llrefer to this sort of thinking at history's end as "retrospectiveinterpretation." By ithistorical revelation may be fully interpreted (within the finite limits of thecreature).

Asecond set of propositions may be added to the first set. Because of theCreator-creature distinction, we have:

6. God is eternal and immutable.

7. Therefore, the plan of God for ST existed in the mind of God "beforethe foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), viz., S0.

Propositions 1-7 outline a way of setting in order Scripturalrevelation. I will use them as afield on which to compare classical covenant theology with classicaldispensationalism.

Covenanttheologians lovethe covenant form of structure. Inthe Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) God is said to have made two covenants withmankind. The first covenant was"of works" and promised life if Adam obeyed (VII, 2). The second was the "covenant ofgrace" which "offered unto sinners life and salvation by JesusChrist", promised to the elect "his Holy Spirit to make them willingand able to believe", and "was differently administered" in pastages by various means "which were for that time sufficient andefficacious" (VII, 3-5).

AfterWestminster, Reformed theologians developed the covenant form further. Charles Hodge, for example, in his 1872systematic theology wrote of the "eternal covenant of grace."[7] This enlargement of Westminster'ssecond covenant virtually equated theological order with the structure of thecovenant of grace. Followers ofthis tradition take offense at dispensationalism because they view it asdestructive of the unity of the Bible, which for them has essentially becomethe unity of the eternal covenant of grace.

Let'smap their position onto the seven propositions listed above for analysis. Since the terminal stage, ST, hasn't come into existence yet,everyone is limited to the prophetic data in Scripture as the only means ofknowing about it. Covenanttheologians are assured, however, that the covenant of grace reveals theessence of this terminal state. The covenant of grace, they believe, has been so thoroughly revealed inthe New Testament exposition of the New Covenant that we can rest assured wenow have the essential form of the end state of God's plan. So, in place of ST we may substitute the covenantcharacterization of it that we denote by cT. The lower case "c" reminds usthat the covenant form depicts only part of ST.

Thecovenant form now completely dominates all five propositions of retrospectiveinterpretation:

1. The predetermined terminal state isessentially characterized by the covenant of grace, cT.

2. God's sovereignty moves historyfrom S0 to the fulfillment of thecovenant of grace "after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 2:11).

3. Therefore, cT expresses the most complete revelation of the ultimate will ofGod for mortal existence.

4. Therefore, all preceding states, S0, . . . ,ST-1 express less complete revelation of God's will.

5. Therefore, cT is the vantage point from which to interpret the historicalmeaning of any single one or group of antecedent states, S0, . . . , ST-1.

Let'slook further at logical implications of making cT a stand-in for ST. We recall that it arose, not from ST, but from an antecedent state ofcreation history-from the New Testament stage. It is the covenant "behind" the New Covenantrevealed by Jesus and the apostles. If we denote the New Testament stage by SNT, then we have: S0, . . . ,SNT, . . . ,ST. By Proposition 4, SNT expresses revelation less complete thanST. How can something arising out ofthe NT stage of revelation, like cT, be used as a stand-in for the supremevantage point of retrospection at the end of mortal history? In my terms, how does it warrant thepremature start of retrospective interpretation?

Andmake no mistake about it. Thecovenant of grace does come out of reflection upon the New Testament and thereforeis limited by the boundaries of New Testament revelation. Here's an example of one such limitation. Social and political policy revelationis nearly all located in the Old Testament and almost completely intertwinedwith the nation Israel. What,then, is God's will for His covenant Gentile people regarding their earthlycitizenship, especially in a participatory democracy? Trying to answer this question has led to the theonomydebate of recent years.[8] Proposed solutions range from extendingMosaic policies as covenantally binding in all national situations toextracting from the Old Testament general "equity" or"wisdom" principles for creative, contemporary application.

Regardlessof the attempted solution, the very debate shows the widespread agreement thatNew Testament revelation lacks social and political policy revelation directlyfrom our risen Lord and His apostles. One must, therefore, think of the possibility that for some reason theNew Covenant may not yet be fully revealed in SNT.

Ofcourse, we have come to what others have concluded about covenant theology: it suffers from a reductionism. It tries to look at all history,including Old Testament history, from the fleeting moment of New Testamenthistory. It has to ignore the possibility thatthere could be Old Testament themes prior to SNTthat have their fulfillment in the future-fulfillments lying within the horizonof ST but not even within the scopeof the SNT. Let's picture matters in this fashion:

Allrevelatory themes (solid lines) must pass through SNT. No themes can"skip" SNT (dashed line). These restrictions on history, Ibelieve, are implicit in theology that centers on the eternal covenant of graceconcept.

Outfrom this presupposition come forces that shape hermeneutics. A covenant theologian doing exegesiswill select a literal or metaphorical approach so as to assert the "vantagepoint" of cT. For example, he takes as a"given" that the pattern of New Testament uses of the Old Testamentis exhaustive-no other usage schemes are possible. He also believes that the New Testament emphases in OldTestament theme selection are normative for all history.

Mattersare a bit more complex, therefore, than simply distinguishing covenanthermeneutics from dispensational hermeneutics as being less"literal". They may beso, or may not,but one thing will always be true: the covenant hermeneutic is a literary expression of a distinctpresuppositional concept of theological order in history. Any revelatory theme found in aspecific text, in this view, will be interpreted to fit into the state of affairsin SNT whether a literal,typological, or allegorical meaning is assigned. A fundamental reductionism thus shapes covenanthermeneutics.

THE HISTORICALSIGNIFICANCE PROBLEM AND PROGRESSIVE REVELATION

Besidesreductionist-caused hermeneutic effects, the covenant view of theological orderleads into another problem area--the significance of history. Let's consider the span of history fromNew Testament times until the end of mortal history: SNT+1, . . . , ST

Since ST is already characterized by cT as known from SNT,it follows that this post-New Testament historic period cannot be expected toadd significant content to ST (e.g., new themes or climaxes to asyet unresolved Old Testament themes). If it could, then the all-encompassing nature of cT would be undermined. Post-New Testament history is an erathat in this view has lost any fundamental significance.

Butthe matter goes further. Because cT has been substituted for ST, our supreme vantage point-which was tohave been an experienced state at the termination of mortal history-has beenturned into an intellectual abstraction. Premature retrospective interpretation of present history has alreadybegun in terms of this abstraction. Propositions 6 and 7 above have become, under the covenant concept:

6. God is eternal and immutable which isrevealed in His administration of cT.

7. Therefore the plan of God, cT, existed in the mind of God "beforethe foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4).

ThecT-for-ST substitution has made substantial alterations in thesepropositions. Proposition 6 hasbecome much narrower. God's eternal immutability has become so identified withthe finalfeatures contained in cT that Hishistoric interaction with man leading up to that point seems peripheral. Actions like His "negativerepentance" over creating man in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:7); His"positive repentance" after Moses' intercessory prayer (Exod. 32:14);and His readiness to send twelve legions of angels to rescue Jesus fromGethsemene (Matt. 26:53-54), even the preaching of the gospel to those who willnever believe (the non-elect) seem, in this view, beside the point.

Interestingly,this consequence was clearly seen at Westminster Seminary by Cornelius VanTil. He warned some of his fellowReformed thinkers about their abstract logic in treating historical progress inGod's works. Concerning theexample of His gradual differentiation of the elect and non-elect, he wrote:

We may, like the impatientdisciples, anticipate the course of history and deal with men as though theyalready were that which by God's eternal decree they one day will be. Yet God bids us bide our time. . . . Weare to think of non-believers as members of the mass of humankind in which theprocess of differentiation has not yet been completed. It is not to the righteous and to theunrighteous as fully differentiated that God gives His rain and sunshine. . . .[9]

VanTil recognized that there was significance to the progressive unfolding ofGod's plan in history ("the process of differentiation"). Negation of this significance, hepoints out, comes not from the high Reformed view of God's sovereignty but fromabstract, non-Christian logic.

Iwould add the proposal that the gateway through which much of such corruptlogic enters is the single, abstract covenant model of theological order.

Proposition7 is now made to assert that God's infinite plan is virtually identical withman's statement of cT. The intellectual abstractionconstitutes a "higher" system of theological order than the Scriptureitself. From here it is but ashort step into thorough-going idealistic, anti-historical rationalism likethat of Reformed philosopher Gordon Clark.

Clarkso identified God's and man's reasoning that he virtually denied that sensory(and therefore historical) experience belonged to "truth." Recognizing his basic error of erasingthe Creator-creature distinction in epistemology, Van Til fought a bitterdebate within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church against Gordon Clark during the1940s.[10]

Covenanttheology, therefore, has a second structural problem. Its abstract one-covenant system of theological order,eternalized, relegates history with its progressive revelation to the peripheryof serious theological vision. Theological order is thus treated separately from historical order. In so doing, we shall shortly discover,it has retarded efforts to solve a very serious post-Reformation crisis overthe relation of the Bible to history. Covenant theology as a result has been very slow to offer acomprehensive answer to unbelief of the modern type.

Tosum up: covenant theology'spresupposition of theological order requires a certain kind of hermeneutic (dueto its reductionism) and isolates theological order from historical development(due to its rationalistic tendencies). Dispensationalism, we shall see, differsfundamentally on both issues.

Bothsides in the present covenant-dispensational debate seem to be avoiding theCalvinistic origins of dispensational theology. For example, Dispensationalist Blaising questions thelegitimacy of its Reformed heritage.[11] The Reformed sponsor of a recent"social concerns" conference attended by the Biblical Perspectives editor and myself had to beasked to change his seating labels which distinguished the covenant speakers as"Reformed" from our group as "Dispensational".

Thatdispensationalism came out of the womb of Calvinism has been shown in a recentstudy of fundamentalism by George Marsden. Its first thorough-going systematizer, John Nelson Darby,according to Marsden, was "an unrelenting Calvinist". In America the growing movement "hadstrong Calvinist ties" and followed the Puritan tradition of striving forprecision in Bible interpretation.[12] Thus the question is: what new presupposition arose insideCalvinist thoughtthat led to the formulation of dispensationalism?

Marsden'sstudy proved that dispensationalism was a major presuppositional orparadigmatic shift because it provided "a new historical scheme","anti-humanist and anti-developmental", that was "a negativeparallel to secular concepts of progress" and "opposed the liberaltrends at almost every point."[13] It reversed liberal attempts to explainbiblical faith in terms of historical development by explaining historicaldevelopment in terms of biblical faith.

Suchparadigmatic shifts usually occur only after a long series of failures withusing a previous presupposition (or paradigm or model). Therefore, I would like to go beyondMarsden and identify a few examples of the "long series of failures"that frustrated predispensational Calvinist thought. Before identifying them, however, I need to point out whythis post-Reformation crisis differs from similar crises in earlier Churchhistory.

Thetwo major, earlier Church crises were the christological debates (leading toChalcedon) and the soteriological debates (leading to the Reformation). Being debates about "heavenlythings", these earlier crises necessarily occurred almost exclusivelywithin the area of special revelation and involved primarily onlytheologians. This is not to saythere weren't historical or "earthly" (political and ecclesiastical)after-effects, but the debates themselves centered on "heavenlythings"-matters such as the very Throne of God and the awful workaccomplished within the darkness of Golgotha. The panorama of history from creation to judgment was not amajor player.

Animportant result of the Reformation, however, would forever change the scope ofall subsequent such debates. Withthe personof Christ more clearly understood (via the Trinity model) and his saving work (via the Atonement andLegal/Justification models), redeemed mankind now had a clear grasp ofreconciliation with the Creator of the all things. Freed from preoccupation with alleviating His wrath,redeemed Adam could return to the matter of "earthly things"--seekingdominion over the works of His hands. This Reformation "open door" revolutionized Christianattitudes toward the sciences and arts.

Itshould not be surprising, therefore, that the next crisis in Church historywould involve the Church's relationship to earthly things as well as toheavenly things. This time aroundnot only would theologians be involved but specialists from other fields aswell. The scope would necessarilyexpand to encompass the sciences and arts. It follows, then, that the "long series offailures" in predispensational Calvinist thought occurred in the matterswhere redeemed Adam was trying to "name" correctly the earthly thingsof God's creation.

Tograsp what was happening, we need to visualize the two different categories ofrevelation: special and general. Specialrevelationsince the last apostle died consists of the Bible. General revelation consists of man and nature. These two "books of God"confront believing man with major questions. First, how do they relate one tothe other? (Let's call this question, "Q#1") On one hand, to understand the Bible weneed to know things from general revelation such as sheep, water, trees, andour history. On the other hand, tounderstand ourselves and our world correctly we need to know things fromspecial revelation such as God's imperatives and crucial historical specificssuch as origins, destiny, and His "mighty works" in earthly history.[14]

FigureOne shows the possible relationships of these two books to each other in termsof a Venn diagram. The Bible isdivided into two parts--the "religious" imperatives ("r")and the historical specifics ("h"). Relationship "A" pictures total"intersection" (total identity, inerrancy) between biblical facts andhistory. Relationship"B" pictures partial intersection where the imperatives are validtruth to be obeyed but the historical specifics are not considered tocorrespond to "real" history (a neo-orthodox type of situation). "C" pictures total separationwherein the Bible becomes a quaint religious story book whose imperatives, aswell as historical details, are ignored. "A", "B", and "C" constitute the threepossible answers to Q#1.

FIGURE1.--Three possible relationships between the Bible (consisting of religiousimperatives, "r", and historical specifics, "h") and the"book" of nature (general revelation).

Closelyrelated to Q#1 is a second one: how are these books properly read and interpreted? (Call this question"Q#2") Are they reallyopen to any reader with an "objective" mind or does total depravityaffect the interpretative process in both books?

Becausepost-Reformation man sought dominion in the sciences and arts, he had to giveanswers to Q#1 and Q#2; he couldn't interpret his Bible or his experiments orobservations without doing so. Inparticular, the kind of earthly things that most seriously demanded theseanswers were in the area of historical studies. During the three centuries between the Reformation andDarby, he had to learn "the hard way" about how crucial these answerswere. I will now give two examplesof "failure series", both in historical areas that had direct impacton the Bible's authority.

Itis now well known that for 150 years prior to Darby post-Reformation teacherswere constructing comprehensive schemes of biblical history based upon asequence of distinct eras or ages. Several of these schemes were remarkably similar to that of laterclassic dispensationalism. Threesuch "proto­dispensational" systems are described by Ryrie--thoseby Jonathan Edwards (1639-1716), Pierre Poiret (1646-1719), and Isaac Watts(1674-1748).[15] It is also now known that theChurch-Israel distinction was already being talked about at Trinity College,Dublin where Darby attended as a student.[16] These were all products of theologicalinterests.

Lessknown is the struggle going on during these same 150 years in the new scienceof historical geology. Table Oneshows what happened.[17] The left column lists the "FloodGeologists" who founded the science. To Q#1 these men gave answer "A" of Fig. 1. Specific biblical reports of past and future geological events establishedthe framework for "reading" the strata of nature (generalrevelation). Fossils, they showed,were not "in situ" productions as medieval Aristotelians believed;they were evidence of the Noahic Flood.

Themiddle column of Table One lists the "Catastrophists". Their positioncan be illustrated by the intellectual shift of the English clergyman andnaturalist Thomas Burnet (1635?-1715) from Flood Geology to Catastrophism.

On the surface his work, SacredHistory of the Earth (1681),seemed orthodox. He divided earthhistory into three stages based upon II Peter 3:5-7: Creation to Deluge (Antediluvian Age); Deluge toConflagration (Present Age); and Conflagration to Eternity (Millennium). Below the surface, however, he made amistake that was to cost him his victory--a mistake which has been repeatedhundreds of times since. Headopted the idea of the absolute uniformity of processes inside nature, and heclaimed that what appeared miraculous in the biblical account could beexplained by science as products of naturalistic processes.

Predictably his critics showed thatknown present processes could not explain events like a global flood recordedin the Bible. Faced with the choicebetween biblical [historical] evidence and naturalistic type evidence, Burnetsurrendered biblical authority, making visible his previously hidden humanisticpresuppositions. By 1691, in his ArcheologiaPhilosophicae, he explicitlyabandoned biblical authority by 'reinterpreting' Genesis allegorically.[18]

Catastrophists following Burnet kept reducing the scale ofcatastrophes and increasing the age of the earth. They were having serious problems with Q#1. If they were to move in the directionof answer "B", they would explicitly falsify the Bible's historicaltruth that was something few in their generation were prepared to do. If they held to answer "A",they had to confront Q#2: howcould the Biblical record of a short Adamic genealogy and a world-wide flood be"reinterpreted" in an opposite sense?

Theright column lists the "Uniformitarians". Even more than the catastrophists they were in trouble withboth Q#1 and Q#2. In their zeal toanchor themselves to a clearly naturalistic footing, not only did they have toposit the uniformity of natural law (such as heat transfer, energyconservation) but also the uniformity of systems or arrangements of those lawsthat operate within what are called "boundary conditions" (such asthe current atmospheric circulation operates between its boundaries of outerspace and the planetary surface). To get firm intellectual dominion, theycommitted themselves to a uniformitarian "hermeneutic" with which toread the book of nature.

Thedevelopment of historical geology, therefore, shows a series of failures intrying to "name" nature and at the same time trying to retain answer"A" to Q#1. Thetheologians working only with the Bible might have made up their biblical"histories", but their scientific brethren had the responsibility oflinking the Bible and nature. Classical Calvinism attempted to solve the frustration by extendingaccommodation trends found in Calvin's writings.[19] The idea here was to retreat fromhistorical details of the text to avoid what was considered"unnecessary" conflict with historical science. This accommodation, however, onlypromoted the drift to answer "B" and eventually set the stage fornineteenth century higher criticism with its answer "C".

FLOOD GEOLOGISTS CATASTROPHISTS UNIFORMITARIANS

1650

1669-Steno

1681-Burnet (early)

1689-Ray

1691-Burnet (later)

1695-Woodward 1695-Whiston

1700

1748-deMaillet

1749-de Buffon

1750

1785-Hutton

1789-Deluc

1800

1812-Cuvier

1820-Rodd

1826-Bugg 1823-Buckland(early)

1830-Lyell

1837-Fairholm 1836-Buckland

(later)

1839-Smith

1845-Murchison 1840-Agassiz

1850

CHARTONE. Some representative nameswith dates of their most relevant work for each of the three schools of geologicalinterpretation.

Asecond example of a series of failures in post-Reformation thought, this one inthe arts, was the "euhemerist" movement. Euhemerism is the belief ofcertain Christian historiographers between 1650 and 1800 that pagan gods werereally mythological memories of post-Noahic patriarchs. Euhemerist scholars include bothFrenchmen (Samuel Bochart and Paul Pezron) and Englishmen (Andrew Tooke andJacob Bryant). (Many of us arefamiliar with a later writer in this tradition, Alexander Hislop.)

Whereasthe Flood Geologists had begun to assemble a coherent history of the earth, theeuhemerists were trying to compose a coherent history of the origin ofcivilization. Like the FloodGeologists, they also believed in the total intersection of special and generalrevelation (answer "A"). Genesis 9-11, they believed, provided keysto interpret folklore and mute relics of ancient history.

Unfortunatelythey, too, met with eventual defeat. Their "monogenetic" concept of civilization's origin out ofthe single family of Noah was overwhelmed by early anthropological schemes thatrefused to accept the relevancy of biblical data (answer "B" toQ#1). Pilkey, who has studiedintensively this movement for over twenty-five years, writes:

The failure of Bryant,Faber, and others to develop a satisfactory Noahic science around 1800 was oneof the greatest disappointments of Protestant history and one of the firsthints that Protestantism, like Catholicism, had 'come short of the glory ofGod'. . . .The collapse of many Protestant leaders into Liberal infidelity wasinexcusable but followed logically from one of the greatest scientific failuresof modern times.[20]

Bythe nineteenth century, therefore, a major new Church crisis had begun. Redeemed Adam had obediently started toseek dominion through the sciences and arts only to find that God's two booksapparently were irreconcilable in their depictions of history. Theologically, he was bound to answer"A" because the faithfulness of God can only be shown where generaland special revelation intersect in historical detail. Without trust in God's faithfulness,post-Reformation man could not walk by faith and do all to the glory of God.

Scientificallyand historicallyhe observed seemingly irresistible trends toward answers "B" and"C" within his own Calvinist circles. It was as though the past 300 years of Protestant culturalgrowth had taken a wrong turn somewhere. The very fruit of Christian effort had strangely boomeranged backagainst the Bible.

Theonly option now was to go back to Reformation basics and begin anew, benefitingthis time from the three centuries of botched reading of the book ofnature. This new approach couldno longer avoid the linkage between theological order and historical order asolder "accommodating" theology had done and as covenant theologystill tends to do. "A" was the only allowableanswer to Q#1. So the crisisfocused attention on Q#2, how to interpret both books so that "A" wassecure. For "A" to besecure, general revelation had to be "controlled" by a comprehensiveuniversal history built from special revelation.

Intheologythat meant going back through the Bible in a different way. Instead of looking only for answers toheavenly doctrines, the Church now had to look also for any and all historicaldetails that might intersect general revelation. (The more clues, the easier the puzzle is to solve.) Isuggest this need caused the so-called "literal" hermeneutic socharacteristic of dispensationalism. It simply is the way historical records are to be read by anyonebelieving that theological and historical order coincide after the manner of"A"! The terms"literal" and "spiritual" are used by Scofield, forexample, in just this sense.[21] By the twentieth century this phase hasbeen largely completed with dispensational pretribulational premillennialismand its discontinuous progress through a series of distinct stages.

Inthe historicalstudies things would be more difficult. Redeemed man would have to devote greatcreativity and effort in linking details of the book of nature to thisuniversal history. Mistakes like Burnet made would have to be avoided. The matter of total depravity's effecton the "hermeneutics" of nature and theory construction (Q#2) wouldhave to be thoroughly investigated (Van Til's presuppositionalism is a majorcontribution toward this end.). This revision in historical studies is only just beginning 150 yearsafter Darby in a sort of academic underground that is initiating creationstudies in many disciplines. Prominent in the "new hermeneutics" of the book of nature arepunctuated power explanations that replace the older uniformitarian rules.

Dispensationalism,then, differs from covenant theology in that it works from this side of the post-Reformation crisis.Its new model ties theological order inseparably to historical order andrequires a universal history encompassing both. In terms of our seven propositions we have:

1. The terminal state, ST, is characterized only insofar asspecific prophecies are projected forward. Its "unity" will be thatof the universe itself, a network involving redeemed and non-redeemedcreatures.

2. God sovereignly moves historyfrom S0 to the fulfillment of allHis specific prophecies and any as yet unrevealed counsels in a discontinuousfashion.

3. Therefore, ST, expresses the most complete revelation of the ultimate willof God for mortal existence.

4, Therefore, all preceding states, S0, . . . , ST-1 express less complete revelation of God's will, including SNT.

5. Therefore, ST is the vantage point from which to interpret the historicalmeaning of any single or group of antecedent states, S0, . . . ,ST-1. No retrospective interpretation isattempted from earlier states.

6. God is eternal and immutable in such away that He can genuinely reveal Himself through changing historic situations.

7. Therefore, the plan of God for ST existed in the mind of God "beforethe foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), viz., S0. Actual creature existence of His plan,however, unfolds through historical pathways at the boundary of"present" time, not before.

Thenew model has a self-limiting chronology with time scales on the order ofthousands of years based upon genealogies, the millennial reign length, and itsuniversal history claim. Innatural history this feature forces historical change explanations to includepunctuated power intervals that show more general forms of presently-observablelaws and systems. In anthropologyit compels serious attention to the high longevity, low-chronology data ofGenesis 11.

Covenantand dispensational theology compete for allegiance within Reformedcircles. Surface differences overspecific texts conceal the deeper differences at the presuppositional level. Infact the two theologies belong to two different eras of Church history. Covenant theology is a modern survivalof Reformation style thinking about heavenly matters (soteriology) which kepttheological order separate from historical details. In its classical form, it fundamentally ignores thepost-Reformation crisis over reconciling general and special revelation. As a result it finds itselfreductionist in hermeneutics, vulnerable to abstract logic, and weak in readingthe Bible and the book of nature together.

Dispensationalismis the completed theological portion of a universal history still being writtenthat ties together theological and historical order in response topost-Reformation problems. Itshermeneutic searches for historical order to validate the faithfulness of Godas well as to feed on the more heavenly traditional doctrines. It establishes the Church in relationto the rest of creation and therefore involves ecclesiology andeschatology. It awaits completionof the non theological portion of its universal history by godly work in thearts and sciences.

Dispensationalism'soffense to covenant theology is that of a supplanter. As a new paradigm it calls believers to give up an old modelthat didn't work and come help confront unbelief with a new total answer. Today is not the time for its friendsto look backward as Lot's wife did.

[1] Charles A. Clough, "A Dispensational View of Christand Culture," Biblical Perspectives,IV:6 (Nov-Dec 91).

[2] For those not familiar with these terms: christology means the study or doctrine of Christ; soteriology means doctrine of salvation; ecclesiology means doctrine of the church; eschatology means doctrine of the "last things."

[3] Clough, "A Dispensational View of Christ andCulture":2.

[4] Craig A. Blaising, "Development of Dispensationalismby Contemporary Dispensationalists," Bibliotheca Sacra, CXLIX, 579 (July-Sept 1988):266-279.

[5] David L. Turner, "The Continuity of Scripture andEschatology: Key HermeneuticalIssues," Grace Theological Journal,VI:2 (1985):276.

[6] I will not attempt to discuss the varyingmodifications introduced into both positions by the Dispensational Study Groupand its covenant theologian participants because these are part of ongoingdialogue and remain in a state of flux.

[7] Charles A. Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1872), II:354-373.

[8] Two good discussions are: (from the dispensational perspective) H. Wayne House &Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, OR.: Multnomah Press, 1988); and (from thecovenant perspective) Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed.,William S. Barker & W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1990).

[9] Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. C., 1972):83-84.

[10] For an insightful summary of this debate, see John M.Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1987):21-40.

[11] Blaising:267.

[12] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and AmericanCulture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980):46, 60.

[13] Ibid.,54, 63.

[14] It's instructive to notice that God "initializes"Adam's vocabulary and hence his presuppositions about naming things by doingthe first naming Himself in Genesis 1:5, 8; the rest is left to Adam.

[15] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965):71-74.

[16] This research was done by Floyd S. Elmore at DallasTheological Seminary and is discussed by the Biblical Perspectives editor in Dispensational Distinctives, Vol I, No. 2 (Mar-Apr, 1991).

[17] Material taken from Charles A. Clough, "A CalmAppraisal of The Genesis Flood",Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968. The part of this work crucial to my point here wassubsequently republished as "Biblical Presuppositions and Historical Geology: A Case Study" in The Journal ofChristian Reconstruction, Vol. I, No.1 (Summer 1974):35-48.

[18] Clough, "Biblical Presuppositions. . . ,":38f.

[19] See the approving discussion of R. Hooykaas, Religionand the Rise of Modern Science (GrandRapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,1972):114-124.

[20] John Pilkey, Origin of the Nations (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984):268f.

[21] See the way he opposes "spiritual" (non-historical)views of Christ's Second Advent in Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1896):14.