The Theological Ruminator
Hi Dr. Kreider,
Thanks for your comments! I appreciate the wise words in your thougts. I also have two questions:
1. Is not any communication with man a concession to unbelief? Is not Christ the ultimate concession to unbelief?
2. In stating that covenant is not the "organizing motif" or the "primary" way God relates, you seem to imply that there is an organizing motif or primary way. In dispensationalism would that not be testing? If testing is not primary, what is? If testing is, what makes testing superior to covenent?
Roy,
1. Yes and yes. My claim that covenants are a concession is not to say anything negative about them. It is rather to say that although God is a covenant making and covenant keeping God, he makes redemptive covenants with his creatures because that is the way the culture of the time related to one another and to their gods. Simplifying to the extreme, covenant theology is based (partly) on the conviction that God always relates to his creatures and mediates blessings through covenants. I don't believe that is accurate.
2. I do not think testing is the organizing motif nor a sine qua non of dispensationalism (Walvoord did, Ryrie does not). I do not find organizing motifs very helpful.
I believe that the story is the thing. God the Creator has chosen to exercise grace as the means of redemption/recreation in this world. As the story unfolds, we see a repetition of rebellion conquered by grace . . . In every case, God enters into the fallen culture and acts redemptively. One example of that is the use of covenants, another is circumcision, another is the incarnation of the Son, another is the definition of church as ecclesia, and the ultimate is the recreated heaven and earth, particularly the city where the streets have no name.
If pushed, my organizing motif would be grace, "blessings not just for the ones who kneel . . . luckily, luckily, luckily"
i left my comments on the old post.
Dr. Kreider,
I completely follow where you are going but I'm still not sure why the dispensational train is the best way there. The covenant narrative is surely shrouded in grace, as a covenant-making God in grace initiates such. It seems to me like I could insert "covenant" into your example above and still see your other items as expressions of covenant and thereby expressions of grace.
Also, Paul makes use of the idea of covenant and he's often addressing a Greco-Roman audience that would not understand the concept of covenant in a religious sense(or at least in an ANE sense; I may be wrong here, I've just not come across it--also, all of this is off the top of my head). Thus, could I not conclude that there is more to "covenant" than a religious relic (if that's the right word) of the ANE? I will note that a work to a decidedly Jewish audience--Hebrews--makes much more of covenant than anything else in the NT.
I'm not wanting to paint you into an either/or corner--I like to allow ambiguity and tension to have its way if it's there--but I'm still left wondering why you say that dispensationalism makes for a better narrative.
Nice U2 quote! I appreciate the time you are taking here as well. This has been very helpful to me.
Roy, I agree with you.
I am not arguing that covenant and grace are mutually exclusive. They are clearly not. I am also not arguing that there is only one way to read the story. I think dispensationalism fits better than covenantalism, but it doesn't bother me at all if others see it differently.
Another reason I am a dispensationalist is the way I read Paul's argument in Eph 2 and 3 about the newness of the church, based upon the Christ event, where Jews as Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles are together part of the people of God. I cannot find any revelation of that in the OT. That Paul uses the word "dispensation" to describe this change seems to support the dispensational position. But, in any event, this text seems to fit better with the dispenational scheme than others.
Dr. Kreider,
I again see your point and I don't want to nickle and dime you on details because I think that would waste your time. I think, if I could, I'd appreciate seeing your take on what seems to be the hold-up for most non-dispensationalists in regards to the system (these are my primary ones). I'll only tackle the main one here, as I was surprised to find the other is not in DTS' doctrinal statement. This one, however, is.
I'm thinking here of the centrality of a pre-trib rapture (I'll bet you guessed that!). I think it's almost a syllogism that pre-trib=dispensational. At the same time, this particular issue is made a calling card for, in some cases, orthodoxy, or, in others (which affects me!), employment. I think you'd agree that the evidence for the pre-trib position is vague, at best (I'd certainly never get there from the verst listings on the DTS statement, which is well-endowed with verses on every other issue). Why is this point so central that it becomes a major focus of doctrine? To wit, when I look at DTS' doctrinal statement, I could sign the whole thing (even the section on dispensations, the way it is worded), but because of the section on the Tribulation, I best not waste a stamp or paper on a CV?
I am interested in what the other might be.
I think I understand what you mean by the centrality of the pretrib rapture, although I am tempted to quibble over the language of "centrality." The reason I will not waste your time thusly is that I think you mean that historically the pretrib rapture has been treated as central to the system. That is true. Historically, dispensationalists (like almost all modernists) argued systemically. In short, they had an "all or nothing" mentality, widely expressed as a "domino theory" or "slippery slope."
I would prefer to save language like "central" for things that are deeply imbedded in the belief system, and it seems to me that trinity, substitutionary atonement, full deity and full humanity of Christ, resurrection, and a whole bunch of things are central. Even premillennialism is a whole bunch more imbedded in the system than pretribulationism. That said, and I know I have now done what I said I wasn't going to do, dispensationalists (of whatever form) are almost all pretribulationists. And teaching at DTS requires one to be. SO, save the stamp.
WHy am I a tribulationists? That would take longer to defend than this venue allows and, quite frankly, I get tired head when I think about the kinds of responses even this comment will likely bring.
OK. In the end, it's not different than a Wesleyan school or church expecting Armenianism, so I think "central" was too strong. I didn't want to move to Dallas anyway. Less traffic in Waco.
The other usual quibble is over the strict seperation of the Church and Israel.
Thanks so much for taking the time to engage us here. I know you are very busy and this is no small thing. I appreciate the insight you've given.
I suspect that most Wesleyan institutions would be looking for Arminians and would not be too concerned about Armenians! (Reminds me of a funny story - several years ago, an Armenian student came up to me after class and wondered why so many DTS students were so negative toward Armenians. When I pointed out it was Arminians they hated, she felt much better.)
Dispensationalists do distinguish between Israel and the church. In my view, this is much more "central" than the pretrib rapture. However, there has not been a great deal of clarity on what the distinction is. Classic dispensationalists held that they were two peoples of God, which has such significant problems that almost NO ONE holds that view today. My view is that the difference is a covenantal one. "Israel" designates the people of faith under the Mosaic Covenant. Church designates the people of faith under the New Covenant. In Christ, the New Covenant has replaced the Old as the means by which the Abrahamic Covenant blessings are mediated to the seed of Abraham (Christ and all those who are in him).
BTW, I have been listening to the sounds of silence emanating from the keyboard of JM.
You guys are doing just fine without me muddying the waters!
Of course, I'm spending most of my time right now writing my thesis...
Yea, I insist on making Arminians Armenians almost every chance I get!
Oops! Anonymous is me! I'm away from my usual computers this week.
Commenting by HaloScan
