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