The Paper

For any who might have been anxiously awaiting the actual paper... here it is!


John Bolthouse
Senior Seminar
CPO 181
4/12/2009

Criteria of Philosophy of History: A Critique of Showers

Systematic Theology’s formation in large part rests on the ability of an interpreter of the text of scripture to approach the Bible in some logical manner. An inductive approach is preferred, where one attempts to draw the meaning from the text, using the context of the rest of the revealed word of God as a framework. However, in-between the stages of exegesis and doctrinal formation, a step has been included where the interpreter, whether intentionally or passively holds the drawn text against a general understanding of the rest of its pericope. This must take into consideration what has been termed a biblical philosophy of history. Where one lands with regards to a biblical philosophy of history will help determine the direction of interpretation for texts which speak to ecclesiology, eschatology, and in general, theology.
Numerous theologians have agreed that while the Bible itself is not a philosophy of history, it does contain one. “It is true that the Bible deals with ideas,” says Charles Ryrie, “but with ideas that are interpretations of historical events.” He goes on to say, “This interpretation of the meaning of historical events is the task of theology”[1]. Renald Showers has built upon this idea to a degree in his winsome defense of dispensationalism, There Really is a Difference. Here he sets forth six criteria for the evaluation of a biblical philosophy of history, which he states are, “necessary elements… for an exposition to be valid”[2].
However, in so doing, Showers attempts to evaluate another philosophy of history using his criteria, namely covenant theology. He aims to show from a standpoint of adequacy, that the philosophy of history contained in covenant theology is not a valid exposition, and thus should be rejected, with dispensationalism left the victor. This antithetical approach is insufficient and does not leave the thoughtful theologian in so certain of a position as Showers would intend. I will argue that his use of largely unsupported and arbitrary criteria in his critical analysis, an insufficient case against covenant theology as a viable and cogent philosophy of history, and a misrepresentation of dispensationalism as philosophy of history, all contribute to a general lack of solidity. Further, apart from the lack of solidity (or perhaps validity), conservative dialogue is cut short by this kind of constructed proofing in philosophy, and I argue that it should be avoided.
Biblical Philosophy of History Defined
It is important at this point to further clarify what is meant by philosophy of history. This concept is more than just a grouping of events. Multiple scholars[3] have looked to the definition put forward by Karl Lowith, who writes that a philosophy of history is, “a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning”[4]. Thus, at least from Lowith’s perspective, the point of a philosophy of history is to speak to the interpretation of history in a manner that gives an ultimate meaning or purpose. However, this definition is found to be the basis of philosophy of history for mainly dispensationalist authors.[5]
In fact, one of the inherent difficulties in treating this subject in terms of Showers’ analysis, is that the phrase “biblical philosophy of history” is a bit of a misnomer. Classical study in this field refers to more of a historian’s task than that of the theologian. Thus, the reader must excuse the misnomer and humor the idea as it pertains to a Sine Qua Non (without it there would be none) put forward by Charles Ryrie. Dispensationalism helps the Christian community by formulating answers to questions that Covenant theology may have not formulated yet. Ryrie seems to be the starting point in this line of thinking among dispensationalism. In fact one of his points is that dispensationalism answers the need for a philosophy of history.[6]
With regards to a more classical study of philosophy of history, Jochen Eber helps separate the treatment into two realms: speculative and critical. Says Eber, “[Critical philosophy of history] is close to philosophy of science and reflects critically on the status and structure of historical thinking and the possibility of objectivity.” Further, Eber states that, “such speculative accounts have generally claimed that in historical events there is ‘significance’ or ‘deeper’ meaning which goes beyond the understanding of the ordinary observer”[7]. And so, beyond Lowith’s initial observation, philosophy of history can be broken into speculative or critical study, with the critical study seeking an ultimate purpose or goal. It is within this critical vein of study that Shower’s critique may be placed.
However, not all of history is to be examined. While Showers’ criteria are focused on a holistic view of philosophy of history, his informant is the text of scripture and thus his task is within the realms of a biblical philosophy of history. This means that, in line with a critical philosophy of history, Showers attempts to focus on the text of scripture and history contained in its literature, solely utilizing a literal hermeneutic. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to delve into the task of critical analysis of Shower’s hermeneutics, but it is important to note that the validity of a critical biblical philosophy of history does rest largely on the presupposition of which hermeneutic holds most faithful to scripture.[8]
Finally, an adequate philosophy of history is important for consistency in interpretation. A philosophy of history is both instructive and instructed in the process of interpretation. It starts to delve into the issues of presuppositionalism. For example, historically, dispensationalist theology’s concern was to use a rationalist and scientific method to approach the text of scripture in a way that conserves Christian truth. It would attempt to control one set of principles, evaluate a hypothesis, and provide repeatability. The net result is a claim to represent a literal hermeneutic throughout the text of scripture. Covenant theology has been mainly concerned with preserving the direction of reformed theology’s main emphases: Grace and Christ. Thus, the predominant factors in study and in philosophy of history will be thecovenant of Grace and the centrality/finality of the glory of God in Christ. Covenant theology is not as concerned with scientific agenda, and thus allows spiritualized hermeneutics, which allow for allegory. But, the two systems both use and adjust their philosophy of history while interacting with scripture to be as faithful as possible in doing theology.
Showers’ Criteria
Now the task at hand is to analyze the presentation of at minimum a cogent system of criteria put forth by Showers for evaluating a given philosophy of history. There are largely two problems with the criteria presented. First, they are arbitrarily derived. Showers leans on research and development of only two sources: Karl Lowith and himself. Indeed, he references his own work on the subject as a presentation of a particular philosophy of history. Typically, one would expect a firmer and broader substantiation for making such bold claims about the correct way to validate a cogent philosophy of history. Second, even if Showers’ position as sole arbiter of the criteria is accepted, his criteria are overtly specific. It would seem that if the criteria for the validity of a system’s cogency are based solely on one system that can stand up to it, then it is a circular argument. Or to put it more bluntly, anyone can construct a test that only they can pass. Simply ask questions that only the examiner has answered.
Complicating the analysis is the very nature of the argument. Lowith’s definition may be clear and valid. However, its form is one that promotes the analysis of a single system, not the comparison between two. Showers’ extrapolated criteria are thus used, and so in order to engage the discussion, the assumption must be made that Lowith’s definition stands. Further, the assumption must be made that a comparison of the two systems is indeed necessary for validity to be tested. Showers uses covenant theology to juxtapose dispensationalism. This paper tries to enter on that level and show how, if covenant theology needed to form a response, how one might be formed.
To deal with the problem of arbitration, we can look to various other formations of philosophy of history. Insofar as the criteria have been developed, none stands up to Showers’ in their quantity. For example, Ryrie in his similar dealings with covenant theology and dispensationalist theology, admits that in terms of philosophy of history both systems answer the basic criteria. However, using the same basis (Lowith) for criterion formulation, Ryrie only enumerates three criteria.
Notice that the definition centers on three things: (1) the recognition of “historical events and successions,” or a proper concept of the progress of revelation in history; (2) the unifying principle; and (3) the ultimate goal of history.[9]
W. W. Barndollar presents another exposition of Lowith’s definition. He is even more simplistic, willing to hone the definition down to a single point. Regarding Lowith’s definition, he warns, “Now, it is true that one needs to sit down with this definition and think his way very carefully.” He goes on to suggest, “the focal point in this definition is that the historical events are directed toward ultimate meaning”[10]. He goes on to analyze the difference in the views of the millennium presented by each system, again with dispensationalist theology emerging the victor. Thus, although all draw from the same source, which is an extra-biblical definition of the meaning of philosophy of history, all offer differing levels of complexity for analysis.
To further complicate the viability of an analysis of the philosophy of history of covenant theology, is the simple fact that few or none have come forward in a direct manner to challenge Showers’ claims. Most reviews and books lean more into hermeneutic differences and leave alone the whole idea of philosophy of history. This leaves arguments to be construed from other writings. Finally, beyond all of the agendas, are underlying complications. A plain fact of life is that once you have dedicated yourself to an ideal, agenda or method, and have staked your education, your theology, and your life’s work on its defense, the last thing that you want to or be able to do is offer any compromises. There are “hardliners” in both covenant theology and dispensationalist theology camps that will struggle to see each others’ sides. It is a situdatedness that we are all apt to struggle with and will be a thorn in the theologian’s flesh until we are all changed at the appearance of Christ.
1st Criterion
The first criterion is that a philosophy of history should have an “ultimate purpose or goal for history toward the fulfillment of which all history moves”[11]. He says that covenant theology sees the ultimate goal of history as “the glory of God through the redemption of the elect”[12]. His criticism of covenant theology is that its scope is too narrow and limited. Earlier, he quotes Louis Berkhof’s exposition of the Covenant of Grace to justify his claim: “Covenant theology”, says Berkhof, “emphasizes the Covenant of Grace as God’s means of working His purpose throughout history and because it defines the covenant as ‘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’”[13]. While Showers agrees that the scope of history is broad, and that the final goal is the glory of God, he disagrees with covenant theology on the point of quantity. He posits, coming from the very classical dispensationalist theology perspective, that there are multiple programs (the program for the elect, the program for the accursed, Israel, etc.).
His point in doing so is to keep in-line with a logical flow which is one of the constructs of classical dispensationalist theology. Ryrie sums dispensationalists Lewis S. Chafer and C. I. Scofield by saying that, “the essentials of plain interpretation, which leads to the premillenial picture of the future and the teaching that the church ‘is completely distinct from Israel’ can be seen throughout their writings’”[14]. Thus the belief is that one must completely separate Israel from the Church and hold to premillenial eschatology if one is interpreting plainly. But. It is not entirely necessary to hold that one must interpret in such a way in order to maintain a plain and literal hermeneutic.
In a recent article written for the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, James Laning explains that the normative and plain reading can indeed be a reading other than what he critiques dispensationalists as using: a carnal or physical reading. To illustrate, he expounds on the prophecy Christ gave of his return during the lifetime of some of the apostles.
This passage referred to speaks of … a promise that was fulfilled when Christ poured out His Spirit upon the church at Pentecost…Christ did literally come to his disciples when he came to them in His Spirit… [Christ] was speaking of something that spiritually and literally was soon going to take place.[15]
Thus it is apparent that the philosophy of history that covenant would take would not emphasize epochs or stages in temporal history so much as a spiritual understanding of an eternal perspective. To put it more plainly, a reverse critique of dispensationalism would be that it focuses too much on temporal history in its eschatology, rather than the eternal and spiritual. Dispensationalist theology answers Shower’s question better, but that is also because, from a covenant theology perspective, Showers is focusing primarily on temporal history. As Michael Horton puts it, “Most biblical covenants are historical pacts God has made with creatures. The covenant of redemption, however, is an eternal pact between the persons of the Trinity”[16]. Thus one should ask the question: Does a philosophy of history take into consideration simply temporal arrangements in history or eternal? Until this is answered, Shower’s first criterion needs redefinition because although not explicitly stated, covenant theology can claim to represent considerations in history, but those that are extended into eternity.
2nd Criterion
His second criterion is that a valid philosophy of history must “recognize distinctions or things that differ in history”[17]. Assuming that first criteria is including just temporal history, dispensationalist theology again emerges victorious for Showers, as it recognizes, mainly along covenantal lines, the different economies of God’s administration. Within each, there are differences that illustrate God’s changing interaction with his creation. Showers and other dispensationalists are careful to show that the things that differ in history are not illustrative of a dependent but independent creator.
To illustrate, Showers points to the method in which Christ sent out the disciples. Earlier in his ministry, he sent them out to evangelize the nations and proclaim the gospel of the nearness of the kingdom of God to the Jews. Later, he sends them out after his resurrection and tells them to make disciples of all nations. He says that this illustrates that there were actually two gospels[18].
If Showers’ criterion is the sole measure, it would appear that this effectively relegates covenant theology to purely continuitous position. However, what is necessary in the definition is that distinctions are recognized. Louis Berkhof, speaking in an Aristotelian sense said that the “The covenant of Sinai was essentially the same as that established with Abraham, though the form differed somewhat”[19]. Showers responds to this line of thinking saying that the covenants must be recognized as distinct, citing Paul in Galatians as refutation.[20]
Something that must be inserted at this point, is that developments have moved forward in both the dispensationalist camp and the covenant camp. In such developments, there are some staggering changes to the approach to theology. Particularly in the covenant theology realm, some massive contributions to biblical theology have come about due to the questions raised by dispensationalists. Geerhardus Vos produced an entire framework within which we might work as biblical scholars, analyzing the covenants and seeing how things do indeed differ in history. Vern Poythress, a covenant theology scholar, points out, “Vos began a program of examining the progressive character of God’s redemptive action in history.” He continues saying that this program, “[emphasized] much more the discontinuities and advances not only between the Old Testament and New Testament, but between successive epochs within the Old Testament”[21]. He goes on to say that this work has only strengthened the view of the overriding covenant of grace.
With regard to a criterion that only asks of philosophy of history to produce differences in history, it is being done. Perhaps dispensationalist theology arrived at a formula first, but there have been revisions in its study as well. Progressive dispensationalists like Craig Blaising and Darrel Bock promote a modified dispensationalism which takes another look at which lines have been drawn where. Covenant theology has continued to produce material toward discontinuity as well, and the only prevailing difference is that they unify all themes in both testaments as a covenant of grace. This cannot be discounted simply because it moves beyond discontinuity.
3rd Criterion
The next criterion that Shower’s introduced was the issue of progress of revelation, in a given philosophy of history. He says that it must have a “proper concept of the progress of revelation”[22]. To illustrate and define the principle, he traces the way that God has revealed himself through history and shows that it has followed a definite direction or progress. Using mainly arguments from silence (and doing so appropriately), he establishes the manner in which God held back information from his people and established mysteries and discoveries. Finally, he issues a warning, stating that, “in order for an exposition of the biblical philosophy of history to be valid, it dare not read the content of later revelation back into earlier revelation. It must not make the earlier revelation say what the later revelation said”[23].
His critique is thus launched against the progress of revelation laid out in covenant theology. He states that covenant theology errs by viewing all covenants as contributing forward to the Covenant of Grace. Unfortunately, this is not exactly true of covenant theology. To refine Showers’ statement, one should say that each covenant forwards the overarching concept of the eternal covenant. The various biblically revealed covenants reveal the over-arching implied and conceptual covenants. For example, the Mosaic and Davidic covenants both contribute to the concept of God’s gracious dealings with mankind, and thus contribute to the covenant God has made with his people, the Covenant of Grace.[24] Assuming this distinction can be made, we can evaluate the system on an accurate basis.
Without delving too deeply into the hermeneutics, Showers attempts to show that the grouping of covenants under larger, broader covenants violates the principle of covenant ratification revealed in Galatians 3:15. Further, he says that the word for “new” in the new covenant has been interpreted wrong by covenant theology. His basis is New Testament evidence found mainly in Hebrews. One must look carefully at whether or not he is violating his own principle of not reading the New Testament back into the Old. But, again, wrangling with hermeneutics is not the main aim of this paper. Let is suffice to say that Showers needs to be more accurate in his representation of the progress of revelation that covenant theology espouses.
Focusing on the issue of covenant ratification taught by Paul, Showers correctly recognizes that the continuation of the covenants must be without further ratification. However, it is not necessary to conclude that covenant theology constructs such a problematic view. Rather, it focuses on other elements in the biblical covenants that contribute to the eternal covenant, which doesn’t carry the same conditions. As A.W. Pink beautifully explains, “Under the Sinaitic Covenant, a yet fuller revelation was made by God to His people of the contents of the everlasting covenant: The tabernacle, and all its holy vessels; the high priest, his vestments, and service; and the whole system sacrifices and absolutions, setting before then its blessed realities in typical forms, they being the pattern of heavenly things”[25]. In fact, arguably, a more contextual reading of Galatians 3 will show that the establishment of another covenant with man did not annul the previous one (Gal 3:17). Paul’s basis for explaining the conundrum of the law is based upon the fact that the Abrahamic inheritance is intact, which poses the problem of a new conditional covenant. The very fact that Sinai does not annul God’s covenant with Abraham, makes the covenant theology interpretation possible and valid.
With regards to the interpretation of the New Covenant, Steven Mackenzie is helpful when he says, “The covenant that Jeremiah envisions is not a brand new covenant. It is better understood, like those in the Deuteronomistic History as a renewed covenant”[26]. Covenant theology will see this new covenant as having the same players, same elements and same goal in mind when God re-establishes himself with his people. MacKenzie traces the marriage language that pervades the new covenant through Hosea, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. These promises to the people of Israel, about restoration, and made by God, are foretelling a relationship to be consummated in the marriage supper of the Lamb. “The prophets did not, therefore, foretell the future in any specific, realistic sense,” says MacKenzie, “However, it is easy to see how this utopian vision could be interpreted in a spiritual sense by Christianity”[27]. Thus, it is not problem to recognize this as a continuation of God’s grace towards his people, especially if covenant theology sees continuity between the people of Israel and the Church. It would be shaky at best to suggest that such a robust interpretation be deconstructed by our current level of scholarship on a particular translation of the word, “new” as it is found in the more technical Greek of the book of Hebrews.
4th Criterion
Showers further adds that a valid exposition of a philosophy of history, must have a unifying principle which ties the distinctions and progressive stages of revelation together and directs them toward fulfillment of the purpose of history. He sees covenant theology as too narrow when it comes to this criterion. And it is perhaps on this point alone, that Showers has a definite case. This point is also an important one, as it speaks to the collection of exegesis in all stages and literature within the Bible. What unifies it all? What is the grand and master plan?
However, we must be careful to recognize the difference between the two systems. Dispensationalist theology is more focused on temporal history in this tying of stages in history. We have already seen that in terms of ecclesiology and eschatology, it is mostly concerned with positing statements about the order of things and the stages in which they have or will happen. Covenant theology on the other hand opens up to a more eternal perspective, perhaps with a measure of indifference towards temporal history, seeking to unify the activities in temporal history under eternal principles.
Covenant theology will see this unifying theme in a tri-partite form under the covenanting of works, grace, and redemption. Each of these does not just correlate to man temporally, but have eternal bearing. Dispensationalist theology will, at least from Shower’s perspective, see a tri-partite view as well, seeking to unite history under the program of the elect, the accursed, and the nation of Israel. However, both will seek to unite all stages under the glory of God.[28]
Thus, while true that dispensationalist theology does well to identify that there multiple temporal stages in history that must be taken into consideration when identifying how God is glorifying himself through us, it is not entirely necessary to draw the conclusion that all these threads do not find their unifying theme in Christ. This needs to be explored further. Again, suffice it to say that Showers finds a strong critique within the realms of critical philosophy of history in covenant theology’s lack of a fully unifying theme in temporal history.
5th and 6th Criterion
Showers doesn’t evaluate covenant theology directly on his final two criteria. These are more worldview driven. In fact, in his book, he doesn’t analyze dispensationalist theology on them either. He finishes his analysis of the fourth criterion. This doesn’t mean that neither system answers those basic questions. However, it is peculiar at the least that Showers doesn’t take the time to evaluate either criteria.
The fifth criterion is that a valid exposition of a philosophy of history must “give a valid explanation of why things have happened the way they have, why things are the way they are today, and where things are going in the future”[29]. The sixth criterion is similar, speaking more to a worldview, requiring “appropriate answers to man’s three basic questions: Where have we come from, why are we here, and where are we going”[30].
Dispensationalism
Another area that complicates Showers’ critique is that he juxtaposes dispensationalist theology against covenant theology in broad strokes. One of the more challenging problems in the dispensationalist theology landscape is the fact it is so diverse. As Poythress notes, “Today, the theological picture is still more complex. Many contemporary dispensationalist scholars have now modified considerably the classic form of [dispensationalist theology]”[31]. To simply say that dispensationalists believe something in particular is a rather moot statement.
At the very minimum, dispensationalists make distinctions on their use of a literal hermeneutic and their position on Israel. To remain a dispensationalist, means that one must recognize the distinct and differing eras in history. But how dispensational theologians go about defining the distinctions differs greatly. There are many different forms that have responded to critique from all sides.
Classical dispensationalists claim to adhere to a strict literal reading of Scripture all the way through. They claim that the church and the Israel are totally distinct. This leads to premillenial and pretribulational view of the rapture, a rejection of the current heavenly reign of Christ, and an understanding that prophecy must literally and physically be fulfilled. The church is a parenthesis in history. This is the vein of dispensationalism that would most likely fit into the genre used by Showers. The main contributors are John Darby, C.I. Scofield, L. S. Chafer and more recently, Charles Ryrie.[32]
Modified or progressive dispensationalists have loosened on the both the hermeneutics and the view of the millennial reign. They see the possibility of the reign of Christ in heaven being represented in the church. They also see the potential for church as parenthesis, but are willing to allow that during the parenthesis there is some form of reign in believers. They are also willing to distinguish between the church and Israel, but are unwilling to specify strongly how that relationship unfolds. Rather, they see themselves in a mediating position.[33]
Other forms exist as well. Ultradispensationalism holds to three dispensations in the New Testament, hinging on the exegesis of Acts 2. One-people-of-God dispensationalism is very similar to amillennialism in its form. The only difference is a literal fulfillment of the millennium. Poythress dedicates an entire chapter in his book about dispensationalism to these variants.[34]
Conclusion
The problem at hand is not whether or not dispensationalist theology or covenant theology is correct. The issue is one of the nature of the conversation. This paper does not do well enough to represent the various perspectives within conservative Christianity on philosophy of history. Such a study would be enormous. However, the thorn in the study would be fact that so many writers have taken it upon themselves to do so much more than contribute to the conversation. In some cases, an abrasive tone and seemingly conclusive arguments are used to convince people that, “There Really is a Difference,” or that the opponent is, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth”[35].
I have not found Showers’ arguments in favor of dispensationalism to be entirely convincing or accurate on the basis of a philosophy of history. I know this is bold considering statements like Roy B. Zuck’s, saying “Showers… demonstrates with clear, cogent, arguments from Scripture that these two theological systems differ profoundly”[36]. Rather, I have shown they continue to attempt a championing within evangelical circles, which seeks to show from human intellect and logic, that one’s side is the correct interpretation. Such in-fighting has led to both confusion within the realms of those who consider themselves to be evangelicals, and embarrassment in the interpretive community. Defending the validity of one’s system is one thing, standing it up against another system to prove its superiority demeans the work of theologians who have attempted to be just as faithful to the Word of God. Yes, there are areas that we need to learn from one another, and I hope that both covenantal and dispensational thinkers will try very hard to glean from each others’ systems.
Further, many have attempted philosophy of history in other veins than this polarized debate. Hendrikus Berkhof would like to see more work done with apocalyptic interpretations. George Henry writes, “Berkhof contends that apocalyptic, or rather Jesus’ reinterpretation of his apocalyptic role as Son of Man, can not only resolve the conflicts between consequent, realized, and futurist eschatologies, but can as provide a sort of ‘Christian’ philosophy of history”[37]. Poythress, in his book, God Centered Biblical Interpretation, suggests examining history from the perspective of a transmissional hermeneutic. Rather than focusing particularly on a given criteria, he posits an option: “If history matches God’s verbal decrees, we would expect that the events of history show a structure similar to what we have already found with respect to God’s speech.” He goes on to suggest that we should look at history from transmission, as that matches God’s revelation strategy and our likeness of his image.[38]
Much more needs to be done within Evangelical circles to promote a strong philosophy of history. It is the work of theologians that will not be complete until we are all able to see clearly. My hope is that more dialogue on this subject will proceed in a way that seeks to unify those entrenched in opposing positions. Hopefully, this paper has clearly shown that both dispensationalism in all its variety, and covenant theology in its variety both offer helpful perspective in our attempts to understand the Word of God.

[1] Charles Ryrie. “The Necessity of Dispensationalism.” Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1957): 246.
[2] Renald E. Showers. There Really is a Difference. (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990) 2.
[3] Ryrie, Showers, and Barndollar all directly quote this book: Karl Lowith. Meaning in History. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957) 2.
[4] Lowith, 209.
[5] Refer to footnote 3.
[6] Charles Ryrie. Dispensationalism. (Chicago: Moody Press) 17.
[7] Jochen Eber. “Hope Does Not Disappoint: Studies in Eschatology” Essays from Different Contexts. (Wheaton, IL: World Evangelical Fellowship, 2001) 281-287.
[8] For an response to dispensationalist hermeneutics, see Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1987).
[9] Charles Ryrie. Dispensationalism. (Chicago: Moody Press) 17.
[10] W. W. Barndollar. The Validity of Dispensationalism. (Johnson City: Baptist Bible Seminary, 1964) 14.
[11] Renald E. Showers. There Really is a Difference. (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990) 2.
[12] Showers, 30.
[13] Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996) 18.
[14] Wesley R. Willis et.al. Issues in Dispensationalism. (Chicago: Moody Pr, 1994) 20.
[15] James A. Laning. “The Hermenuetics of Dispensationalism.” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. 42:1 21.
[16] Michael Horton. God of Promise. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006.) 78.
[17] Showers 18.
[18] Showers 3-4.
[19] Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996) 269-271.
[20] A major problem with Shower’s using the NT to categorize the OT, is that one of dispensationalist theology’s adversus arguments is that in hermeneutics, one must not use the NT to read meaning into the OT and vice versa. In fact, Showers refutes this in his presentation of a valid progress of revelation.
[21] Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1987) 40.
[22] Showers 3.
[23] Showers 5.
[24] For a current and thorough explanation of the current stance in covenant theology with regards to the extra-biblical covenants, see Michael Horton. God of Promise. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006
[25] A.W. Pink. The Divine Covenants. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973) 18.
[26] Steven L. MacKenzie, Covenant. (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000) 58.
[27] MacKenzie 63.
[28] Showers 23.
[29] Showers 6.
[30] Showers 6.
[31] Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1987) 13.
[32] “Dispensationalism” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter Elwell. (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1984) 323.
[33] Robert L. Saucy. The Case of Progressive Dispensationalism. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1993)
27.
[34] Vern Poythress. God Centered Biblical Interpretation. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999) 30-38.
[35] John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000)
[36] Zuck, Roy B. "There Really is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra. (October –December, 1992): 298.
[37] George S. Hendry, "Christ the Meaning Of History." Theology Today. 24:1.
[38] Poythress, 147.




Works Cited Barndollar, W. W. The Validity of Dispensationalism. Johnson City: Baptist Bible Seminary, 1964. Continuity and Discontinuity. Ed. John S. Feinberg. Westchester: Good News Publishers, 1988. Eber, Jochen. “Hope Does Not Disappoint: Studies in Eschatology” Essays from Different Contexts. Wheaton, IL: World Evangelical Fellowship, 2001. Gerstner, John H., Ph.D. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000. Hendry, George S. "Christ the Meaning Of History." Theology Today. 24:1 (April 1967):115. PTSEM. 10 Mar, 2009. . Henzel, Ronald M. Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism. Tucson: Fenestra Books, 2003. Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Horton, Michael. God of Promise. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006. Issues in Dispensationalism. Eds. Wesley R. Willis., John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994. Laning, James A. “The Hermenuetics of Dispensationalism.” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. 42:1 (November 2008): 21. Lightner, Robert. Covenantism and Dispensationalism. Dallas Theological Seminary. MacKenzie, Steven L. Covenant. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000 Pink, A.W. The Divine Covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973. Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1987. ______. God Centered Biblical Interpretation. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999. Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996. ______. Dispensationalism; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter Elwell. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1984. ______. The Necessity of Dispensationalism; Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1957, Dallas Theological Seminary. Saucy, Robert L. The Case of Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1993. Showers, Renald E. There Really is a Difference. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990 Zuck, Roy B. "There Really is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra. (October –December, 1992): 298. Academic Search Complete ATLA. The Illinois State Library Catalogs., Chicago, IL, 20 Feb, 2009 . Willis, Wesley R., et.al. Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

POH - Iron sharpens Iron

Dude,Thanks for your candid response. And thanks for stating that my comments regarding the non-dispensational label creates too broad a distinction. I had to check my preconceived notions on this one, and I now recognize that my understanding of covenant theology up to this point has been a bit naive! My assumption has been that non-dispensational theology = covenant theology. So, I dug a bit and scanned through several articulations of CT from those who call themselves covenant theologians, and now I see more clearly the problem you (and other dispensational writers) are addressing. I also found a critique of CT from a non-dispensational author (his critique is specifically dealing with CT's presumption of over-arching, extra-biblical covenants that tend to govern the way they structure and understand the biblical covenants.)And your example from Daniel 9 was helpful in illustrating how the POH can affect one's hermeneutics. However, is this a necessary connection? I guess I'm not sure that I see that one's POH must necessarily affect one's hermeneutics. In an earlier correspondence, you had said that you are trying to determine whether you should accept the POH presented by Showers (which is decidedly dispensational), and then by proxy the hermeneutics that go along with that. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't our hermeneutic enable us to approach the text of Scripture in such a way that we are able to draw out the authors' intentions, with one result being that we develop a biblical POH? Iron sharpening iron,Justin Langley

CT and non-dispensationalism

Justin,

While I agree that it would be helpful to be able to look at a non-dispensational POH, I am wondering if that distinction is too broad. For example, when we talk about Christological doctrinal malformations, we refer to it as heresy. But there is arianism, docetism, modalism… etc. Thus, I have found it to be helpful to use a non-dispensational category like CT (in the classic sense) to form a sounding point. (Not to call it heresy.. it was just an arbitrary example.) If there is another that I could compare to, I would like to, but aside from some more awry examples of POH that do not pass even the most basic of criteria, I haven’t run across anything in a complete form during my limited stint in theology, except CT.

Also, CT sees the end of all history (telos) as the glory of God in Christ. This allows the CT a preterist view of passages that DT would extend to perhaps the millennium. For example the 70th week prophecies in Daniel 9. Perhaps the Messiah getting cutoff at the 69th week and then restored at the end of the 70th happened in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and not in the literal sense of the Second Coming in the end. No doubt, Christ will return, but will that be the end of the weeks in Daniel? Or was that already teleologically fulfilled in passion?

I will write more in a bit but programming is a callin..

And... his reply

John,You are certainly welcome to post any correspondence of mine on your blog.So, your starting point for investigation is Showers' presentation of POH. Very good. If you would welcome my own critique of Showers on this, I will offer it. As a summary statement, I would say that Showers (and other Dispensational critics of CT) has not well understood non-dispensational hermeneutics. I use the term "non-dispensational" rather than CT because I think CT has become an unhelpful label for this discussion, for even dispensationalists have a "theology of the covenants" or "covenant theology" within their understanding of the Scriptures (or at least they ought to). From my reading of non-dispensational exegetes and works on hermeneutics in general, those who may fit under the CT category as oft-described by dispensationalists would completely agree with the dispensational definition of hermeneutics. Perhaps some of the older covenant theologians (e.g., Berkhof) used different terminology which has created much confusion. The application of those hermeneutics differs by degrees and, as you pointed out, consistency. At any rate, if you'd like a more detailed, specific critique of Showers I will be more than happy to offer it. But, for now, I'll leave you with those thoughts to chew on.Also, your statement that God's glory is not Christocentric is possibly more profound than you realize. I recently was introduced to the idea that God's glory, and by extension his program(s) in history, could perhaps be better described as Christotelic. I will see if I can find where this concept was introduced to me; I know Dr. Dan Block mentioned it in my OT Theology class toward the beginning of the semester, but he pointed to others who have proposed and expanded on this idea. This language comes partially from Rom. 10:4, where the Greek word telos is often translated end. The idea seems to be that Christ should be seen as the goal/fulfillment/climax of God's program in history, of which the law is part.Well, this is all I have time for right now, but I hope to be of help to you as you progress along in your studies on this particular matter and others.In Christ,Justin Langley

Response to Justin

Justin,

First, I cannot thank you enough for what you have done so far. The material you gave me is great. And the fact that you are willing to look deeper into this with me is very encouraging.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around what exactly I want to do. I want to examine dispensationalism, but not from the literal hermeneutics side of things. Granted, that is part of the overall picture. But I want to focus on a different part. I want to look at how that system directs its study and understanding of history, and whether or not the Showers version of dispensationalism is one that is beneficial to the teaching of the community of Christ. If we adopt Showers’ POH, will we find ourselves biblically oriented in our outlook or not? Even if one derives a POH from scripture and simple reason, it does not mean that this POH is infallible. The spiritualist notion of the covenant theologian, the literalist (or as the CT would call the carnalist) notion of the dispensationalist are not exactly polar opposites. They both offer the same critique, that the other system applies its hermeneutics in an inconsistent, and thus, fallible human way. So the herms are fallible and the POH is fallible, and on both sides.

Ultimately, the question is.. if I am to take the POH presented by dispensationalism seriously (and by proxy, the herms), then I am to see the fulfillment of history in a plurality of senses. All things do not find their unity in Christ, but in the glory of God, ie. The glory of God rests on the work of Christ for the elect, the program of the nation of Israel, and the program of the non-elect. The glory of God is not ultimately Christocentric.

An encouraging email from Justin

John,I just wanted to drop a note and let you know that I've been praying for you, particularly with regard to your philosophy of history paper/project/thesis. If you have a moment, help me understand a little more clearly what your goal is. Specifically, could you define what you mean by "philosophy of history"? I read your entries on your blog site and have been thinking about your introductory thoughts posted there, and, frankly, I'm not certain as to what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to delineate the purpose and/or goal of the progression of events we call history? I'm going off, right now in fact, to take a look at Showers' book you referred to in your posting to see if I can follow what perspective you're coming from. Help me see the significance of what you're trying to figure out, and, as you are able, let me know what specific questions you are trying to answer. I have other resources that might be helpful for you, but I don't want to inundate you with material that will just waste your time because it is answering questions you're not asking.If you ever need a dialogue partner or someone to bounce ideas off of, I'd love to listen and offer any feedback/questions/direction I can. And, like I've said before, what resources I have you are most welcome to take advantage of. Moreover, and most importantly, know that I'm praying for your academic endeavors; I know full well how challenging, draining, testing, and rewarding rigorous study is.In Christ,Justin Langley

Thesis again

Well, I have chosen my thesis and it is not exactly where I had started. I had wanted to wrap up my entire Moody Bible career with a strong argument. Instead, I find myself in a spiral of disillusionment. The point of no-return was passed long ago, and now I am in the final stretch. I cannot help but feel that I should be here for 7 more years to soak up what I missed in my impertinence.

This is the part where I get to thank my mom. A few weeks back she asked me what I thought of a particular study that she potentially would be joining. One of the points of coverage in this study was the core of Covenant Theology. Naturally, having schooled at a Dispensationalist school, my curiosity was piqued. I began to do some research into what I thought would be a simple discussion. It turns out that I was quite wrong.

During my first semester of school at Moody, my grandfather gave me a copy of There Really is a Difference, by Renald Showers. In it, Showers critiques the philosophy of history that Covenant Theology (CT) utilizes to inform their interpretation of scripture. He does this by comparing it to Premillenial Dispensationalism (PD). In this work, PD is the victor, holding the strongest to the 6-part criteria Showers uses to analyze a good philosophy of history (POH).

However, certain questions began to circulate in my head:

1. Where did Showers get his 6 part criteria from?
2. Is the critique he offers of CT a faithful and helpful critique?
3. Does dispensationalism give the most helpful POH in understanding the overall metanarrative of God's glory?
4. Am I really a dispensationalist?

That fourth question is easy. Yes. I am a dispensationalist. I am not ashamed of it. I think if one must reduce things to categories, which one must do from time to time, this is a good place to be. However, it is only a necessary evil. I meet many who tell me that they would, "prefer to not have to say." Yes, if you are to stay away from the particular discussion, not having to to say is fine. But, inevitably, you will study scripture from some sort of POH, whether defined or assumed.

That said, I will post my proposal and thesis for my senior seminar thesis paper. Have a look, leave me a comment or two. And if you have a source that you think would be helpful, give me a title or author. And if you have a critique of my thought thus far, please offer it. Don't hold back. Remember Luther said, "Let he who sins, sin boldly."