COLLEEN TINKER | Editor, Life Assurance Ministries
Since the earliest days of the now-inactive Former Adventist Fellowship Forum which provided perhaps the first online forum with a Bible-based focus for questioning and former Adventists, we have seen debates between “dispensationalism” and “covenantalism” erupt into polarizing arguments. Certain attitudes unique to each camp seem always consistent: covenantalists tend to exude a confidence based on the borrowed authority of the Reformers, while dispensationalists seem more “grass roots” without a library of tradition shielding them from criticism.
These competing schools of thought affect how people understand many secondary subjects within Christianity, but the defensive tone that almost always dominates such discussions makes many people wary of ever asking for help in figuring out how to understand questions involving end times, baptism, the sacraments, and Sabbath.
I have struggled in such discussions for years because I do not believe either of these schools of thought captures all of the Bible’s revelations about covenants, prophecy, or church practice. As Christians we are to place ourselves under the authority of God’s word, not over it. This submission to God’s word means that we believe everything it says, even if certain passages seem not to harmonize with others as we understand them. Yet God does not contradict Himself nor teach us confusion. He is able to show us how to believe and trust everything He has told us without dismissing or rationalizing what we do not understand.
In reality, we do not embrace either label; we have points of agreement as well as disagreement with each.
To be fair, over the years I have seen that many people who take God’s word seriously are able to let go of these systems of theology and use the Bible alone. They may embrace beliefs held by both systems and thus find themselves standing somewhere without a label, criticized by each end of the spectrum.
Ironically, over the years Richard and I have been accused as “Calvinists” (covenantalists) by some while others scornfully dismiss us as “dispensationalists”. In reality, we do not embrace either label; we have points of agreement as well as disagreement with each.
Richard and I do, however, use the grammatical/historical/literary hermeneutic used by most contemporary dispensationalists, so our understandings often sound “dispensational”. We use this hermeneutic because it is the most normal way to read a book, using normal rules of grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, and context.
Importantly, however, not everyone associated with Life Assurance Ministries and Proclamation! uses the same hermeneutic we use. We are united around the finished work of the Lord Jesus and the gospel of His completed atonement! These differences, in fact, are part of the beauty of knowing Jesus; He, not eschatology or a health message or holy days, is the heart of our salvation.
Former Adventists and the End Times
Inevitably, and especially lately, former Adventists are driven to resolve their end-times confusion. Here is my understanding of how to approach the issue of “last things”.
The whole question of understanding how the end will play out hangs primarily on hermeneutics and also on tradition. The covenant theology tradition was formalized during the 16–17th centuries. The dispensational model was formalized in the early nineteenth century. But the systems of covenantalism and dispensationalism are both far removed from the apostles and the writings of the New Testament, and we are instructed to build our doctrines on the apostles’ teaching.
Each of these systems, however, depends on a distinct hermeneutic, and each is committed to taking God’s word seriously.
Each of these systems, however, depends on a distinct hermeneutic, and each is committed to taking God’s word seriously. Christians differ about these things essentially at the level of their approach to understanding the Bible.
Covenant theology tends to understand the Old Testament—especially the prophetic passages—by using the New Testament as a lens for interpreting the Old. Thus, it tends to see God’s promises to Israel as fulfilled in Christ without a future literal fulfillment for Israel.
Dispensationalism tends to see the Bible as written to different audiences from beginning to end, with God revealing increasingly more details as time progresses. Thus, this system tends to see the Old Testament prophecies given with specific detail to Israel as not yet literally realized because they see Romans 11:29 assuring that God’s promises are irrevocable.
Both systems get the gospel of Jesus’s finished work right. The differences lie mainly in how one reads Scripture: covenantalism uses a different lens for understanding the Old Testament, looking back at it and redefining the prophecies to Israel as being fulfilled in Christ in the church.
Dispensationalism tends to see the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as still meaning what they meant to their first audiences, with the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament prophets as being still valid while the New Testament reveals God’s inclusion of the gentiles into His people without “replacing” Israel.
All this being said, even within these two hermeneutical frameworks, people differ from the systems of dispensationalism and covenantalism. Many of the teachers I respect and from whom I’ve learned the Bible are not inside either of these two systems but share understandings with both. They tend to be biblicists rather than dispensationalists or covenantalists.
I believe that the normal reading of Scripture, using normal rules of grammar, vocabulary, and context, gives us the most clear understanding of God’s intentions.
God gave us His word as a living document to reveal Himself and to reveal who we are as well. His word has to work for all humanity in whatever culture one lives. It cannot depend upon a theological system to interpret it because the new convert in Zimbabwe has the same Word of God that a theologian at Oxford has. The Bible itself, with the aid of the Holy Spirit teaching the believer to apply it to one’s life, has to be able to reveal God’s truth wherever and whenever it is read. The words have to be reliable and sufficient on their own.
No Excuse for Novelty
Of course, if we declare a novel understanding that has no precedent in the church, we ought to consider that we have misunderstood what we read! The Holy Spirit will not trick believers, and His role is to reveal the Lord Jesus and the will of God to us through His word. Therefore, we can trust Him to keep us faithful and to check our understandings with others who have honored God’s word through the years. In fact, this warning ought to raise red flags as we consider the origin of Seventh-day Adventism. The founders created a new “church” with a novel central doctrine—no one else, before or since, has ever found an “investigative judgment” in Scripture nor a cocktail of seventh-day Sabbatarianism welded to a health message and annihilation—a framework that became the definition of Adventist identity.
I appeal to all my fellow Formers and my brothers and sisters in Christ: read the Bible contextually, starting at the beginning of the books and reading to the end, and know that the words mean what they say.
I personally believe that the “isms”—all of them—introduce interpretations that the words of Scripture themselves do not teach. I appeal to all my fellow Formers and my brothers and sisters in Christ: read the Bible contextually, starting at the beginning of the books and reading to the end, and know that the words mean what they say. The New Testament does not change or negate God’s word in the Old Testament unless the New Testament specifically explains the change—for example, the Law had a beginning (430 years after Abraham) and an end—the arrival of the Seed (Galatians 3:17–19), and circumcision as the entrance rite into the authority of the Law is not required for gentile believers. Thus gentile believers are not under the law and are not to take onto themselves the requirements of the Law (Acts 15:1–29).
The Old Testament and the New Testament reveal God’s work in the world through time; we read of God’s promises and personal revelation from Genesis to Revelation—and the Lord Jesus is the Father’s final word to us (Hebrews 1:1–3).
I am going to link a video below that I found to be extremely helpful in explaining the differences between these two major theological systems and their approaches to Scripture, and my prayer is that the Lord will plant each of us deeply in His word. It is only God’s word that contains the words of life, and Scripture is our one tangible source of learning Truth. †
- May 18–24, 2024 - May 16, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 16, 2024
- Should We Leave the “Isms”? - May 9, 2024
Ask Kaspars about Progressive Covenantalism!
One word of caution. I find that most of the time one of the “isms” indeed houses the truth; thus I advise abandonig all prevailing theories only with care. Once one does this, or adopts an “I’ll just read the Bible for myself” mindset, is not uncommon that what results is an inconsistent grab-bag of favored interpretations. I’m not saying it can’t be done, or that you guys are headed that way. I’m just saying that’s a legitimate danger.
Sorry, for another comment, but I should add that the other danger, of course, is thinking you need an infallible magisterium to tell you what the Bible means, or even following some trusted Bible teacher unquestioningly. The New Testament position strikes a balance. We must all emulate the Bereans in searching the Scriptures to see whether a certain proposition is true. While on the other hand, we acknowelge that “God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers” and that not all teach—the implication being that some are called with the serious responsibility of carefully interpreting Scripture and passing that knowledge to others who, to a certain extent, have to trust the teachers. Eavery “Ethiopian” needs a “Philip.”