Richard P. Belcher

INTRODUCTION

Whether it is realized or not, every person has a system of theology. It may be a highly-developed one, or it may be a very simplistic one. It may be well-formulated with a careful and purposeful consistency, or it may be just a few convictions about several individual doctrines with no overall relationship to one another or concern for a harmony of the whole. It may be in agreement in its basic ideas with some historical system of theology, or it may be original for the most part with that individual. The person may be capable of articulating his system with some precision, or he may stumble all over the place if asked to do so. He may be capable of naming his system, or he may not have the foggiest idea what to call it. Still, the point is -- everyone has a system of theology.

We are not speaking here of the differences between liberals and conservatives. Rather we are speaking of differences between conservative Christians ~ differences between those who hold the same view of the inerrancy or verbal inspiration of Scripture. This is to say, that even among conservative, Bible-believing Christians, there are differences of convictions concerning systems of theology. It would be a false assumption to think that systems of theology differ only in accordance with differing views of the nature of the Bible.

Two prevalent systems of theology

Two of the most prevalent systems of theology among conservative Christians are dispensationalism and covenant theology. The latter is several centuries old finding its roots with Reformed theology of the seventeenth century. The former finds its beginnings with J. N. Darby in the last half of the nineteenth century in England. Of course, both viewpoints would contend that their systems are faithful to Scripture, even though their formulations may not have been evident in the earlier history of the church.

Some have argued that dispensationalism could not be a Biblical system because of its recent appearance on the scene of church history. C. C. Ryrie, a modern spokesman for dispensationalism, speaks correctly when he says, "The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong unless, of course, it is unscriptural. . . After all, the ultimate question is not, Is dispensationalism -- or any other teaching -- historic? but, is it Scriptural."¹

The purpose of this work

Admitting the above, the author hastens to add that the purpose of this work is not to decide which of the viewpoints (dispensationalism or covenant theology) is Scriptural. By reading between the lines (and sometimes maybe he won't even have to do that), the sharp reader will be able to see the author's convictions concerning his system of theology. But because this work will be used as a text in a pluralistic setting for a course he teaches, the author's desire is to acquaint the reader with the main tenets of each system, and the contrast between them. Only then will the reader be able to decide which system is Scriptural. The student may conclude, after understanding both systems, that neither one is Scriptural. However, if that is the case, it must be remembered that non-agreement with either of these systems does not make one more spiritual than others, nor does it excuse one from the fact that he does have a system of theology (sophisticated or unsophisticated as it may be) of one kind or another.

Thus this work is not a polemic against one of these two major systems nor a polemic for the other of the two. Therefore, do not expect the author to state the glowing beauty of one system, while building a straw man to represent the other, so that he may more readily tear it down. Objectivity in presenting the two systems is the author's hope.

The difficulties of the task

The difficulty of the task is not unrecognized by the writer. For one thing, an objective approach often lands an author in a no-man's-land where both sides of a theological tension are dissatisfied with his work. Many times, instead of wanting an objective discussion, people want brickbats to be thrown at the other side. One who seeks to discuss a matter objectively often gets hit by those brickbats from both sides of the issue, even from those with whom he is in agreement.

This is not to say that there is not a time and a place for one to speak with convictions on these and other theological matters. It is to say that in the pluralistic setting in which the writer teaches, it is best for the student as well as necessary for the setting, to take the above approach.

A second difficulty must be mentioned also. A system of theology can and does often vary from one proponent to the other, even in the same year of the same decade of the same century of history. The problem is, which proponent is to be taken as the spokesman for the group? Even further, a system of theology can change over a period of several decades. As theological debate points out weaknesses or problems, the system may reformulate or polish a doctrine to negate or answer the objections. So the question again is, which age of its history should represent a system's theology?

The answer must be that as much as it is possible, our presentation of each system will deal with the main-stream thinking of the viewpoint as held by the majority of each system, rather than viewpoints held by a hyper-radical fringe or an extreme few within the camp. At some places, where there is a difference of opinion even between the main stream proponents, it will be admitted and delineated for the reader's understanding.

Final words

It is hoped when we have finished, the reader will have learned, to refrain himself from the harsh rhetoric which so often surrounds discussions between these two groups.

It is rather common for dispensationalists to say that the hermeneutics of covenant theology is the first step to modernism. Or there often comes the accusation that covenant theology states its system first, and then formulates its principles of hermeneutics.

On the other hand, covenant theologians have not always been kind or fair to dispensationalists either. Dispensationalism has been accused of being a modern heresy, as dangerous as some of the other modern cults; divisive; and sometimes even non-intellectual. Dispensationalists have been called mutilators of the Word of God, would-be super expositors, ignorant, and those who cast to the winds all sound principles of exegesis.

It seems that both sides of the issue question the others' principles of hermeneutics. However, it seems that this, plus other points of disagreement between the groups can and should be stated objectively and honestly, but without the explosive rhetoric.

When we are finished, hopefully we will have added light to the reader's mind rather than heat to his heart and venom to his lips concerning the debate which at times has raged between these two views of theology.

Covenant & Dispensational Index Page

Back to Index

Copyright ? 2008 [www.seeking4truth.com]. All rights reserved .Revised: 05/17/2009