Is Dispensationalism more Theocentric than Covenant Theology? [updated]

Daniel Phillips has a post on his blog dealing with what he considers to be a fairly faulty (though good in parts) definition of dispensationalism. We took issue with one of his points:

Probably Ryrie's third distinctive is a better one: seeing the glory of God as the center of history, rather than man's redemption.

We take it that he refers to the following paragraph:

"The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalists' consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in dealing with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."
(Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [ Moody, 1965], P.44 , cited in Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995] P.5)

Note that for something to be a 'distinctive' of a theological system, it must be unique to that system. Thus a belief in the Trinity cannot be said to be a distinctive of Calvinism, since non-Calvinistic systems also hold to it. On the other hand we can say that reading all of Scripture in the light of Justification by Faith alone and a hard-and-fast Law-Gospel distinction is a distinctive of Lutheranism.

This paragraph defines what is meant by Mr. Phillips' phrase 'centre of history'. It means "God's basic purpose", His goal or, to use the old-fashioned word, His end. Note that Mr. Phillips also defines what he thinks Covenant Theologians think God's chief purpose is, "Man's redemption." It seems, then, that the accusation is that everyone other than the Dispensationalist is more or less anthropocentric, they view man's redemption as God's chief purpose. Now we are of the opinion that this is a fantastic claim. It is in effect saying that everybody until the early nineteenth century held a theology that was man-centred, and that the centre of Calvin's theology was man. Really? What did the Westminster Divines say? We pick the Westminster Confession because, as the basis for the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration, it is the most representative of the Reformed confessions, and its date means that it was drawn up at the height of the Puritan age. If any document can speak for the Calvinistic world, it is this one, the basis of the Scottish and American Presbyterian Churches.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Chapter 3: of God's Eternal Decree, section 3)

"It pleased God the Father, son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, widsom and goodness, in the beginning to create, or make of nothing, the world and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good" (Chapter 4. Of Creation, section 1.)

" God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (Chapter 5: of Providence, section 1)

Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. (Chapter 6: of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof)

And lest we forget:

"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever." (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1)

Now, we may be incredibly dense, but it sounds to us as though the Westminster Divines intended to say that the "basic purpose" of all God's actions is His own glory, not just in His dealings with men, but in all things.
Or let us examine some of the more influential Reformed theologians:

"The final aim is the glory of God. Even the salvation of man is subordinate to this." (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Banner of Truth 1958) P. 115. Emphasis ours)

"It is explicitly taught that the glory of God, the manifestation of His perfections, is the last end of all His works... God, as infinitely wise and good, seeks the highest end; and as all creatures are as the dust of the balance compared to Him, it follows that His glory is an infinitely higher end than anything that concerns them exclusively." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology [Thomas Nelson, 1871] Vol. 1 P. 567, emphasis ours again)

Here are two great Reformed and non-Dispensational theologians from the last two centuries, two systematic theologies that are standards in the studies of Reformed theologians, and both say that God's chief end, his ultimate goal, is His own glory. Yet Mr. Phillips insists that only Dispensationalists teach that God's ultimate purpose is His own glory! We had thought that such a silly and counter-factual idea would be dismissed by Mr. Phillips, but no, he actually thinks that this is true! Keith Mathison has written:

"Until recently , dispensationalists maintained that they alone understood God's ultimate purpose to be His own glory. Other theological systems, especially Reformed theology, were accused of teaching that God's ultimate purpose is the redemption of man." (Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, P. 5)

On the strength of Mathison's declaration, we actually thought that this old canard had been given a decent funeral, and here we find it alive and kicking on the blog of such an intelligent man as Mr. Phillips!

We have given quotations from the Westminster Confession, Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof, not because we could not find the same sentiments expressed elsewhere but because these three sources may be regarded as representative. Although we have followed the Biblical requirement for two or three witnesses, we could easily give quotations from dozens of Reformed writers expressing the same sentiments. Can Mr. Phillips give two quotations from representative Reformed writers to substantiate the claim that teaching that all of God's dealings with man are for His own glory is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. We want two representative Reformed writers who expressly state that God's end in all His dealings with man goes no higher than the redemption of the elect. Not the agreement of other internet dispensationalists, but real quotations from our side. If the accusation is true, let it be sustantiated by two or three witnesses.

It will not do to provide quotations saying that the intent of the covenant of redemption is the redemption of the elect. That is the way we often speak, but recall that this is really a rather loose way of talking. What we mean is that the covenant of redemption glorifies God by redeeming the elect. The redemption of the elect is a proximate goal, not a final one. That's why it's called the covenant of redemption. No, what we ask for is two or three quotations that expressly state that there is no higher purpose than the redemption of the elect in God's dealings with men.

Note what we are NOT saying. We are not saying that Dispensationalism does not see God's end in all His works as his own glory, but just saying that it is not, properly speaking, a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Whilst it may distinguish Disepnsationalism from certain forms of Arminian theology, it does not distinguish it from historic Calvinism. Any attempts to say that it does betray a fundamental misunderstanding of historic Calvinism. Indeed, one of the consistent accusations against the historic Calvinist position is that it makes God's glory, not the salvation of men, His final end in His dealings with men. That's why Calvinists are always accused of being mean horrible people who say that God condemned people to hell to glorify Himself.

So we have really TWO distinctives in the Ryrie quote: 1. A distinction between Israel and the Church; 2. The use of a single 'consistently literal' or 'normal' hermeneutic for the whole Bible. According to Mr. Phillips, all attempts to add a distinctive involving different economies or dispensations (though you would think that would have to be in a list of distinctives) are doomed to failure, and we hope that we have blown the old canard about teaching that all God's actions are to His glory being a distinctive out of the water.

Mr. Phillips, we know that you dislike your theology being misrepresented. SO DO WE. It is time for this old canard to be given the decent burial that it deserves.

Inclusivism!!!

Ingrid Schlueter at Slice of Laodicea has posted an article entitled "TIME: More Evangelicals Believe All Paths Lead to God". Of course, TIME here has got it wrong. Very few evangelicals (self-described, I mean) believe that. What they DO believe, however, is that people can be saved by Christ without knowing the first thing about Him, and all the time living in their paganism.

This idea has a long and dishonourable history. It is directly linked with Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. For if it is true that all men are born good and able by their own free-will to respond to God, does it not follow that there are, or might be, those in other cultures who do in fact do good? Despite its being explicitly declared to be heresy in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England No less a man that W.H. Griffith-Thomas, once of Dallas Seminary, in his 'Principles of Theology', at least allowed for the idea, and C.S. Lewis teaches it in 'The Last Battle', the last of the Narnia books chronologically. Dr. Hywel Jones of Westminster Seminary California has written an excellent work against it entitled 'Only One Way'.

"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." (Aticle XVIII of the Church of England)

This error is increasing among evangelicals, no doubt, because it sounds nice and loving, but has only one problem - it kills mission. Because if the hypothetical ;'good pagan' HEARS and REJECTS the Gospel, then he would otherwise have been saved will be damned for ever. Far kinder to leave him in his error. But the Bible holds out no 'wider hope', for:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10.14

Let others go with philosophical speculations. We shall remain standing on the all-sufficient Word of God.

The Pitfalls of the Jerusalem Meeting

Anglican Traditionalists are meeting in Jerusalem to try to deal with the problem of discipline in the Anglican Communion, specifically the liberal antinomianism that has practically taken over the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the USA. They intend to build an alliance to force the leadership, especially in England, to listen to them.

Now we agree that the liberal elite leading not only the Church of England but all of the so-called mainline denominations are fatally out-of-touch with the rest of the world and mired in heresy. What is worse, they seem entirely spineless, unwilling to offend anybody, and therefore unable to please anybody. Rowan Williams is seen by traditionalists as too liberal, and by liberals as too traditionalist. The Church of England has become, as a body, too intent on pleasing people to be a credible voice in the moral wilderness of Britain.

But we are not hopeful for this alliance of traditionalists. Why is this? Because it is an alliance that is built on a purely pragmatic, human basis. When Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals band together, their alliance will be fragile and ready to break. On the one hand the evangelicals would hold that the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and other non-episcopal churches are true churches, and hold the Church of England to be a protestant church of the Reformation. On the other hand the Anglo-Catholic holds those same churches to be schismatics and heretics, and the Church of England to be at best a via media (middle way) between the Church of Rome and the Reformation.

J.I. Packer, for all his knowledge of the Reformation, has long been an advocate of this alliance to dish the liberals. We, however, think that such an idea is mere worldly wisdom and politics. True unity is unity in Truth, and if the Anglo-Catholics are right, the Evangelicals are wrong - indeed, as they do not teach baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, and the sacrifice of the Mass, they are heretics. On the other hand if, as we think, the Evangelicals are right, those teachings are heresy. So which is it? Or are we to adopt the one principle of sexual morality as our guide? An alliance founded on nothing more than a mutual agreement on morality, even when that agreement is based on the Bible, is still a rope of sand. It CANNOT form a real alternative to the Church of England, for if it ever splits from the Anglican Communion, it will instantly fracture into pieces.

Let others trust in such alliances. We will trust in the Lord our God, for if we are faithful, He will be faithful to His Word that He has spoken.

Lakeland 'Revival' healings

This Post Confirms what we had suspected all along: that the 'healings' at the so-called Florida Healing Revival are highly suspect. This is nothing more than mass-hypnosis and the power of suggestion. Those who are seeking to be miraculously healed in these events and by these men are tragically deluded. It is simply not God's will that all Christians should be healthy and wealthy - just look at the Apostle Paul! Those who say that it is always God's will to heal are, in our opinion, cruel in the extreme.

On Wednesday evening we heard a minister who had to sit down to preach because he recently had part of one lung removed. Does this mean that he is a bad Christian? Quite the reverse! God has promised to go with His people through the fire and the water, but He has also said that we shall pass through the fire and the water.

Now let us all go and read Dr. Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles.

Update: See also here and here.

Waldron Reply to MacArthur out

Samuel Waldron's MacArthur's Millenial Manifesto is now out from Solid Ground Christian Books. We have ordered a copy and will be very interested to see Dr. Waldron's conclusions. As readers of this blog know, we differ from MacArthur in our views of eschatology, though of course we consider him a brother in Christ. We probably dissent from Waldron on several points too, as we are aware of only three other Christians with whom we are in total agreement on the matter of Eschatology. One of them taught us Hebrew, another Greek.

So watch this space. Hopefully the book will arrive in a week or so.

Church names

What's in a church name? Various denominations ahve different traditions for naming churches, and Britain and America have their differences too. Indeed, England and Wales have theirs. In the Church of England a church building will be dedicated to a saint or, if it's an Evangelical foundation, will have a name like Christchurch or Holy Trinity. Nonconformists sometimes call their buildings after famous people, such as Matthew Henry Evangelical Church in Chester or Wesley's Chapel in London. Most often in English small towns and villages a chapel will just have the denominational name and the town or village, such as Hethersett Reformed Baptist Church or North Walsham Congregational Church. Where there are multiple churches of the same denomination in a town, they are often named for where they are located (or not, Sealand Road United Reformed Church, Chester, is not on Sealand Road at all). Strict baptist Chapels often have Biblical names, from the obvious (Bethel) to the obscure (Galeed). 'Tabernacle' is often a popular name, although there have been a few 'Temples' over the years. The first Primitive Methodist chapel in Great Yarmouth was called the Tabernacle, but when it was rebuilt a member suggested they might call the new building 'Great Yarmouth Primitive Methodist Church'. "Why not go the whole way and call it a Temple?" another member replied sarcastically. So they did, and it remained 'The Temple' until its demolition.

The United Reformed Church (URC, and it's neither, leading to questions about the third letter as well) has a congregation that is moving towards truth in advertising. Yes, in the attractive market town of Diss, on the Norfolk/Suffolk border, when the former congregational church entered the URC it boldly adopted a new name. No longer would it be called the Diss Congregational Church, but now the board outside the attractive brick building in Mere Street would have the radical new name of...

The Diss United Reformed Church

(Note: The Baptist Church (pictured) in the same town recently decided not to enter the Grace Baptist Association in order to avoid the title 'Diss Grace Baptist church')

Call it what it is!

we have become concerned lately over the abuse of the term 'Heresy'. It has a meaning, namely theological error so serious that it overthrows the faith. Unfortunately some people, even Reformed people, have been guilty of using the term in a sloppy way: for example, a man whom we look up as one of the greatest Bible expositors in England today has been described as a 'heretic' in our hearing simply for holding that remarriage after divorce is unbiblical. Granted, he may be WRONG, but that is not a heresy. Again, we know a dear Christian brother who believes that Christains ought to worship on the seventh, not the first, day. We think he is wrong, but could not condem him as a heretic for his opinion.
We do not hold Dispensationalism, which we hold to be attended with all sorts of difficulties, as a heresy in and of itself. True, some forms of Dispensationalism, such as that which holds that the types and shadows of the ceremonial law were in fact saving realities, ARE heretical, but it would be a brave man who called John MacArthur heretical for his eschatalogical views!

Eschatology is the area in which we have the most freedom according to the historic Reformed confessions. No one millennial scheme is taught, for example. There ARE eschatalogical heresies, the visible, bodily return of Christ 'in like manner' as He went into heaven for example, or the denial of, the denial of the resurrection of the dead, and universal salvation. Most heresies are found in the areas of Theology proper (doctrine of God), Christology, Soteriology and Anthropology (Pelagianism, for example, is an Anthropological heresy).

So let us be very careful with this word, unless we want to debase it. Let it be reserved for TRUE heresies, things that destroy the Gospel, not for mere differnces of opinion.