Theological Systems, Fellowship & Cordiality

This evening I finished reading chapter three, "Two Evangelical Systems of Biblical Theology," in Larry Helyer's The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology (courtesy of IVP Academic). I recommend this chapter to those interested in an up-to-date, well-documented introduction, comparison, critique and evaluation of the two primary, Evangelical theological systems: Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. For me, reading this chapter in a book on Biblical Theology rather than Eschatology makes the consideration of this subject far more interesting. I say this because every book on eschatology that I have read has been necessarily rooted in a particular theological system. Helyer has the advantage here of attempting to be as objective as possible. (Obviously, pure objectivity is an impossibility. However, Helyer does a fine job of weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each system.)

In this chapter, Helyer presents the history of the development of each system (beginning with Covenant Theology, the older of the two), compares and contrasts the two systems showing how debate and dialogue has benefited both, and concludes by critiquing the two systems suggesting a mediating approach.

Here is an outline of the chapter:

• History of Covenant Theology
• Distinctives of Covenant Theology
• Contemporary Covenant Theology
• Classical (Traditional) Dispensationalism: Its History
• Distinctives of Classical (Traditional) Dispensationalism
• Revised Dispensationalism
• Progressive Dispensationalism (1970s-Present)
• A Comparison of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism
• An Evaluation and Critique of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

The chapter concludes with questions for further discussion and an excellent bibliography for further reading.

Here are a few statements that caught my attention:

Calvin's theology...is fundamentally structured not around the concept of covenant, but rather the Trinity. Covenant theology, or "federal theology," as it is sometimes called, is really a post-Calvin development. (Helyer's footnote here acknowledges that "some covenant theologians would take strong exception to this statement.") (p. 85)

This is a reminder that theology is never done in a vacuum. Ideas 'in the air' often find their way into theological discussion and systems. Consequently, biblical theologians must be vigilant lest alien ideas force biblical teaching into a straitjacket. (p. 88)

Within covenant theology there are at least three different eschatological stances, each of which is compatible with the overarching framework of covenant theology. (p. 91)

Dispensationalism is exclusively premillennial as dictated by its mode of biblical interpretation for prophecy and the dictum that Israel and the church are utterly distinct. (p. 108)

Robert Saucy correctly notes that one of the major factors in the modification of both systems has been the discipline of biblical theology. The way forward entails a better job of hearing the original authors and seeking to explicate their theological understandings, not imposing our own theological categories and schemes. Both systems have been guilty to some degree of doing precisely that. Surely this highlights the importance of becoming proficient in biblical theology and the prospect of more agreement among evangelicals in the future. There is, of course, no guarantee of unanimity--that remains for the new Jerusalem! (p. 113)

My misgivings about both classical systems arise from the conviction that neither produces a completely satisfactory biblical theology. (p. 113)

I love the sentiment of this last statement, but it seems to imply that systematic theology could ever produce a biblical theology. Isn't this anachronistic? Rather, and this is Helyer's point, a sound biblical theology will produce a greater balance within or between the systems.

Finally, Helyer concludes that for all the progress made between the two systems,

The real sticking point centers on the future of ethnic Israel. How one answers that question, however, should neither be accorded the status of a cardinal doctrine nor determine fellowship and cordiality. Both sides need to be less dogmatic about what God's future for the Jewish people might be. Dialogue must continue on this important issue. We still 'see in a mirror, dimly' (1 Cor 13:12). (p. 117)

What a vision!

---

Author Bio - For twenty nine years Larry R. Helyer was professor of biblical studies at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana. Now retired, he continues to write on theological topics and serve as an adjunct professor in the United States and abroad. He is the author of Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period.

Theological Systems, Fellowship & Cordiality

Mediating Between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr's The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Zondervan, 2008) is a revision and expansion of his Toward an Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 1978). The introduction to this volume is brand new and replaces the introduction to TaOTT. Kaiser address the values and liabilities of both Dispensational and Covenantal systems of theology, especially "how each decides if there exists one or two 'people(s) of God' (i.e., Israel and the church) and one or two 'program(s) of God' (i.e., a single redemptive-historical program or an earthly and a heavenly program for Israel and the church)" (p. 26). His purpose in the present book is to argue for what he believes to be the unifying theme of the whole Bible. In doing so, it is necessary that he address these two major evangelical systems of Biblical interpretation.

As I first read through this section, I must admit that I feared that Kaiser presented each view in strokes that were far to broad. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and tried to assume that he had presented each system in general terms due to space constraints, but after a third round I am certain that this section is designed to suit Kaiser’s purposes more than it gives either system a fair shake.

His presentation of Covenant (Reformed) Theology is reductionistic and outdated. Some may hold to this position, but it, as Kaiser states, is “an older view” (p. 26). What benefit is there in setting up one’s view by presenting an old, and admittedly faulty view? A quick read through contemporary, Reformed scholarship will prove ably that the bilateral view of the Abrahamic covenant has been soundly refuted. At that, although the “older view” emphasized covenant as a unifying theme of Scripture, Reformed scholarship has found better unifying themes, such as Yahweh, Holiness, the sovereignty of God, the glory of God, the kingdom of God, Jesus Christ, and a combination of the kingdom of God and His glory (see Bruce Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology and Gerard Van Gronigen’s Biblical Theology: Audio Transcription of Lesson 2: Biblical Theology, II). Also, “the older view” necessarily saw God as being completely finished with Israel as a nation, but some contemporary, Reformed scholars have carefully rethought that position. Kaiser has simply framed his argument with broad enough strokes to make his case look even better. This is irksome for two reasons: 1) a textbook should present opposing views as adequately and fairly as the author is able and I can’t imagine that Kaiser is unaware of the most current theological views held in Reformed circles; and 2) Kaiser approaches the subject of Biblical Theology from a very strong, exegetical position and with a desire to not be enslaved to a theological system, and I think that his presentation of “promise-plan” is fantastic. I think that he could easily make his case in light of the contemporary, Reformed positions, but the reader is left to work this out on his/her own.

Next, Kaiser presents the Dispensational position but limits the discussion to the traditional/classical view. Granted, many still cling to this paradigm, but many advances have been made among Dispensationalists with respect to the “two peoples of God” and the “two programs of God” issues.

Kaiser frames his position in the way that he does to show how viable an alternative there is in tracing the theme of promise throughout the Bible. As Kaiser presents his mediating position he seeks to correct the former “solutions of the relationship of Israel and the Christian church” (p. 27). First, once you come to see that the covenant with Israel is, in fact, unilateral and unconditional the term promise best describes the situation. Second, the basis of promise is necessarily that of grace. Kaiser’s view holds that “there is only one ‘people of God’ (even though there may be numerous aspects of that same singular group) and there is only one ‘program of God’ (again, with several aspects all within that one umbrella term)” (p. 27).

Later in this Introduction (p. 30) Kaiser tips his hat to Progressive Dispensationalism, but he avoids interacting with this view. If time permits for this volume to be revised, I wish to see this Introduction expanded to deal with contemporary scholarship.

Mediating Between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies