This page last updated:
10/15/2006 03:58 PM
INTRODUCTION
Dispensational Theology
| Covenant Theology
Biblical Theology
| Promise Theology
Systematic Theology
Before you peruse the information on
this page, it would probably be helpful to go over the material
presented on the
Interpretation page, unless you are already familiar with
interpretation methods (otherwise known as hermeneutics).
Everyone uses a Theology. On this page we discuss a number of
different theological approaches to the Word of God. This subject
is important because the teaching you hear from the pulpit on Saturday
or Sunday, and the other preaching or teaching you get from books, web
sites or emails is all influenced by some sort of theological system
(theology). The
preacher or teacher has had training either in a formal school or
is self-taught, and this training without a doubt has been delivered by
people who were themselves trained or exposed to systems of theology.
Even if it could somehow be proved that a student had not been trained
according to some system of theology, the nature of man would indicate
that he would try to systemize the teaching he received anyway.
You have a theology (or a theological
system) of your own. It is a part of your thinking processes
already. The package of thoughts and beliefs inside your brain
sets up your theology and acts as a 'filter,' affecting every other
thing you have learned. What you accept as 'truth' will be used to
measure other 'truth.' Your understanding of the Bible is affected
by all the other things you learn, including formal education in a
school and life experiences.
Systems of theology are full of 'preconceived notions'
and are hard to
escape. Even if a person hasn't been to school it can be proved
that he still has some sort of ideas concerning the Bible before he
even picks one up. For instance, evolutionary theory has affected
many people's view of the Scriptures by causing them to assume if it is
'old' it must be 'less developed,' or that people 'back then' were
dumber than we are now (because we have 'evolved'). See? You
might have even caught yourself thinking this way without realizing it.
At WMITM we think that the further back we look the smarter the people
probably were, just the opposite of evolutionary thinking.
It's not so bad to have preconceived ideas.
We just have to search ourselves and bring them out in the open, and take
them into consideration as we study the Bible. We should
continually question our own conclusions and the reasoning process we
are using to jump to them (yuk, yuk, just kidding). We also have to be
open to changing them if they are not in line with Scripture.
Theology is not a big scary word. We
heard one pastor at a local Vineyard church one time say that he wanted to "throw
theology out" of the Church. Or maybe it was just his church he
wanted to throw it out of, we don't know. But theology is nothing
to be afraid of. Theology is just
made up of two Greek words, the first of which is theos meaning
'god,' and the second of which is logos meaning the spoken or written
'word.' Theos, logos, God's Word.
It's not the word or what
it represents that is the problem, it's what you do with it that can be
either good or bad. Some people use a particular theology to
excuse what they wanted to do even before they started studying the
Bible. Others get caught up in theology for theology's sake.
We can easily get into intense fights over obscure details that have no
practical value, but we need to resist the urge to follow the rabbit trails and
get involved in useless
conflicts. Theology can be used to clarify understanding and
help us deepen our intimacy with our God and Messiah. The pastor
mentioned above may have had some of the negative tendencies of
theological studies in mind when he expressed a desire to remove
theology from his church. But there is no need to throw the baby
out with the bath water, although I fear we may be too late. God's
Word has already been thrown out of the Church (attaboy Mr. Dan Cox).
Five schools of thought. There are
five main schools of thought (an organized group of ideas, also called a
system) that are current among those who claim to follow God and His
Word right now. There are also two main interpretation methods which affect how
these schools of thought develop. I am going to try and be
'systematically basic' here as I try to describe them. They five schools are:
The two main interpretation methods are:
There are other interpretation methods, but
they are usually just combinations or refinements of these two.
The exception might be the interpretation methods of Jewish rabbis, who
over the centuries have developed and used some pretty worthwhile
principles (discussed on the Interpretation page). We also might
get an argument from theologians who think the grammitico-historical
method deserves a heading by itself, but we feel this is just a
variation on the literal, at least as far as trying to teach the basics.
If you disagree with us we understand. We will stand in the corner
if you like.
The first two
of the schools of thought are what I will refer to as the 'basic' systems, and
the other three are developed using one of the basic systems.
A theologian, is, of course, one who
studies theology. In a way we are all theologians of some kind.
Why is this important, you ask?
Really, it's just a short-hand way of referring to a belief or study
system. It helps condense explanations of what we believe, that
may involve hundreds or even thousands of hours of study and background,
to a few sentences. It also helps us identify where the teachings
we may be hearing from others are coming from. For instance, if
someone were to tell me that 'grace' is not found in the 'age of law' I
would know that person was probably looking at the Bible from the
Dispensational angle (which would also tell me he or she was in error).
This would help me formulate responses to the person's arguments in a
way they could understand. If used properly the study of theology
assists us in helping one another understand.
The reason we have different systems is
that people have different ways of
interpreting the Bible.
Some see a hidden meaning behind every word. This is called the
allegorical
interpretation method, because these people think of the Bible as an
allegory (or a story on different levels like Aesop's Fables).
Other people think that God means what He says, and take the Bible
literally (known as the
literal
interpretation method). Sometimes people aren't very consistent
and alternate back and forth between two interpretation systems, and
this causes much of the teaching to be confusing and inconsistent.
Covenant Theology got its start during the
Reformation
and was the dominant thinking in the Church until the 1800's, when
Dispensational Theology came on the scene. Chances are, the church
leaders at the church you go to (if you go) are based on one of these two frames of
reference (Covenant or Dispensational) when they preach a sermon or publish a book.
These two theologies come out of a 'systematic' approach to the study of
the Word. A third type of theology beginning to take
hold with some people is something called Promise Theology.
This type of theology comes out of the basic approach to study called 'Biblical
Theology.' After we
get done discussing the basic outlines of these you should be
able to tell which system is used by the person you are reading or
talking with.
If we had to characterize the theology of
Won't Make It To Mainstream Ministries in a compact statement, that
statement would be Promise Theology developed from Biblical Theology.
[back to top]
The person who uses this
'system' of theology
starts with a series of subject headings and then goes through the Bible
'systematically' and tries to divide all the teachings under the headings.
Typically, this person might have headings starting with Angelology,
going on to something along the lines of Eschatology (future events),
and ending with something like Soteriology (the study of salvation
issues). As we said, it is very systematic. The better
systematic theologians try to develop headings from the Word, even if
they do come up with some funny names for them.
Two types of theology come
out of this approach to Bible study, but each one has a different
interpretation approach. One is called
Covenant Theology, which uses the
allegorical interpretation method, and the other is
Dispensational Theology, which
claims to use the literal interpretation method (although they also use
allegorical if the Bible doesn't match their theology).
Covenant Theology is
centered around an imaginary 'covenant of works' and a 'covenant of
grace.' These are imaginary because they are not directly taught
in the Word. Covenant theologians think that the covenant of works is
the relationship we have with God through 'doing'
something (which they define as 'works'), and also of the responsibility
of everyone to 'be holy.' The covenant of grace is seen as an
agreement between the members of the god-head (Father, Son and Spirit)
to provide a way (the death of the Messiah) around or through our
inability to adequately perform the 'works.' (Like we said before,
a whole lot of making stuff up.) This system was
developed during the Reformation (about 1200 through 1700 A.D.)
primarily as a reaction against the teachings of the Catholic Church
mixed with a desire to avoid 'Jewish' things such as the Law while at
the same time trying to stick with the plain teachings of the Word.
Quite a tall order, if you ask us. The reformers could have saved
a lot of trouble if they had just stuck with the plain teachings of the
Word and realized that none of the Word is 'Jewish' but all of it is
'God's.'
The Dispensationalist sees
the Bible divided up into ages of time or dispensations which don't
relate to each other where God changed His ways of dealing with man.
There are usually about seven 'dispensations' in this system of theology.
Many teachers of this system think that each of these dispensations are
completely separate from each other and do not overlap, so that the way
God dealt with people in one age is not how He deals with them in the
other. This gives the Dispensationalist convenient cubby holes in
which to place various doctrines that they would rather not deal with,
such as the perceived problems between Law and Grace. For instance, the time
of the giving of the Instructions from God on Mt. Sinai is referred to
as the beginning of the 'age of law,' while the advent of our Messiah is
seen as the beginning of some supposed 'age of grace.' The
dispensationalist doesn't see the grace in the Law and doesn't see the
Law in grace. He (or she) ends up putting God in a box and
sectioning off His teachings in unrelated chunks that hinder
understanding and intimacy with the Father.
Many of the adherents of
these two different schools of thought are sincere, righteous people who
have worked very hard to get to their understandings. We do not
disparage these persons; there is much we can learn from them.
However, any system that leads a student towards the teacher and away
from God should be resisted at all costs.
Continuity and
discontinuity. There are two other subjects it would be good
to define as you are attempting to work your way through these things.
For lack of better names they are referred to as 'continuity' and
'discontinuity.' Continuity is the word used to describe how well
things continue from one part of the Word to the next, and how well one
doctrine relates to another. Discontinuity describes how
disconnected doctrines are from each other (say that ten times fast).
For instance, some people see a continuity between what are referred to
as the Old Testament and the New Testament (they are very well connected
and related), while other see that they are disconnected (a large
discontinuity). The Covenant Theologian tends to view both as
intimately connected while the dispensationalist sees them as two
different ages that are not related (except in very roundabout ways).
At first blush it doesn't
sound so bad to be systematic about going through biblical teachings.
But there are several problems associated with this way of looking at
the Bible. First, the movement of time is either ignored (for
Covenant) or chopped into pieces (for Dispensational). Second,
it does not allow for progressive revelation. Third, frequently when
a teaching is studied using subject headings, the text (of the Bible) is
taken out of context. Fourth, the systematic approach strives to
eliminate all apparent contradictions, a feat which is virtually
impossible given the limited extent of man's knowledge.
Time is a problem under
systematic thinking. Covenant Theology tends to 'flatten out' time
(doesn't pay attention to growth) which makes a tight continuity but tends to blur the effect of the
progression of time. Dispensational Theology 'slices and dices'
time, making nice little cubby holes in which to place doctrines but in
the process magnifying discontinuity.
The mis-handling of time
also causes difficulties with the progression or growth in revelation.
Whereas Covenant Theology assumes that progressive revelation is
non-existent, Dispensational Theology includes it but makes it to where
it doesn't relate together.
The third problem with a
systematic approach to biblical teaching is that studying by heading
causes a disconnection between different parts of the Bible that should
be kept together.
This school of thought is
different from Systematic Theology
in that it starts with the Bible and seeks to draw meaning from it
rather than starting with a heading and seeing what the Bible says about the
heading. For instance, in Systematic Theology you might start with
the subject of Angels, and would seek to find all of what the Bible
said about the angelic beings. You would disconnect many texts
from their context and you would also seek to eliminate any perceived
contradictions. Time would not be a factor for your system.
Biblical Theology on the
other hand would look at the Bible context by context and ask, "What
does the Bible teach us in this context?" For instance you might
look at the prophets and try to discern what they say about God.
Or you could have a Biblical Theology of Matthew. There is also an
expectation of growth or progression in Biblical Theology, and if
apparent contradictions exist it would not hinder the thinking as it
would hinder Systematic Theology. Biblical Theology also takes the
passing of time into account while Covenant Theology disregards time and
Dispensational Theology chops it up. The Promise of the Messiah is
the central theme of Biblical Theology. Promise Theology using
Biblical Theology is the school of thinking we use at our ministry.
[back to top]
A dispensation is referred
to in the Bible simply as an 'age.' So far so good. But dispensational theology divides
history as recorded in the Bible into self-perceived 'ages of time'
which unfortunately have nothing to do with each other.
It is further taught that God changed His ways of dealing with people in
different ages. In fact, one of the sayings of the
dispensationalist is that "God deals differently with different
people in different times."
To a certain extent this
concept of ages is biblical and is spoken of in terms of the 'previous
age,' the 'present age,' and the 'age to come.' But the
dispensationalist sees many more 'ages' than the Bible defines (as many
as seven) and
confines God to acting in a particular way in a particular age.
This is where the concept 'age of Law' and 'age of Grace' comes from,
which is decidedly not a biblical doctrine.
The good thing about
dispensational theology is that when it developed around about the
1800's it rejuvenated the study of the Bible for many people, mainly due
to it's literal (sort of) interpretation method. It also returned Israel to
it's rightful place as the center piece of God's activities on the
earth. The bad thing was it sliced and diced the Bible text and
consequently the plan of God into a whole bunch of unrelated pieces.
This ministry does not accept most of the teachings of dispensational theology.
[back to top]
This theological school of
thought is a little hard to explain because they depend heavily on the
allegorical method of interpreting the Bible (see the section elsewhere
on this site called Interpretation). Allegory is used in
the Word but not like it is used by the adherents of this school.
Works and Grace.
Essentially, people using this system of thought see two covenants in
the Bible (one of works and the other of grace) even though they are not
directly mentioned. The Covenant of Works was made with Adam and
basically states that 'if Adam behaves correctly, God will reward him.'
The Covenant of Grace is thought to have been between the members of the
God head where God the Father promises a people (the bride) to the Son in exchange
for His sacrificial death. Since the Covenant of Grace did not
include any need for action on the part of man, we are allowed to take
part in it by God's grace (because Yahshua paid the price of admission).
The Covenant of Works is supposed to show us that we cannot get into
heaven by working so we must take advantage of God's grace.
Covenant theologians do not
have a problem with the Law because they see it as a valid beginning to
a relationship with God, if only to show us we can't do it on our own.
However, they see the Church as the 'spiritual' realization of Israel,
and this is where the despicable anti-Semitic doctrine of replacement
theology comes from (the Church replaces Israel).
[back to top]
This school of thought uses
Biblical Theology and starts with a foundation using the Promise spoken of
frequently throughout the Scriptures, but most particularly in the
Apostolic Writings (Acts 7:17, 13:23,32, 26:6; Romans 4:13-21, 9:4,8,9,
15:8; 2 Corinthians 1:20, 7:1; Galatians 3:14-29, 4:23,28; Ephesians
2:12, 3:6; Hebrews 6:13-17, 7:6, 8:6, 9:15, 11:9-39; and 1 John 2:25).
Paul (and most of the other writers) uses the Greek word transliterated
'epangelia' (promise) to sum up the goal of the covenants.
The Promise is the Messiah, and we feel that all Theology should be
centered on Him. It is the promise of the Messiah that binds the
whole of Scripture and the divine plan of the ages together.
Promise Theology includes
the concept of progressive revelation and possesses true continuity
which allows the message from God to mature as revelation progresses.
An illustration can be seen using a seed and a tree. The seed
carries with it all the information to reproduce the tree, but there are
obvious differences. There is a connection between the seed and
the tree that may not be immediately apparent to the casual observer but
speaks of a clear progression.
[back to top]
