Very often, I've seen pastors and experienced laymen comment about how various arguments in theology are really just not their concern--that ministry will occur whether they understand and appreciate these things or not.
In a way, this is true. I don't understand the intricacies of Calvin by any means, and yet I've had the privilege of seeing three of my children come to Christ, and of leading them in evening devotions. So far, so good.
But that said, a basic appreciation of systematic theology ought to impact ministry, and I'd like to bring forth an example. On the one hand, dispensationalism is said to use the "normal" or "literal" meaning of the Scriptures, and covenant theology is said to use a more "metaphorical" or "allegorical" approach.
Now here's the rub; if your hermeneutic is in effect "WYSIWIG", then you'll tend to just read the text and apply it. If you view it as allegorical, then you need someone to help you with the allegories. In other words, you need the pastor to help you understand.
In other words, systematic theology affects the very basic acts of the layman and his view of his pastor. It's not just an academic matter.
Ripple Effect
-
I say this fully aware it might be deeply insensitive. By the way, “Deeply
Insensitive” was the caption in the high school annual my senior year, so
that t...
5 hours ago
8 comments:
Wow! I was looking for comments regarding systematic theology and Calvanism vs Armenianism.
But now, I can make extra money!! Cool!!!
Aaa. I have a roof over my head and food in the panty, fridge, and freezer - enough money.
So: Calvinism in a nut - GOD is sovereign. Armenianism - GOD less so, man more so.
Dispensationalism is the opposite side of the coin from Covenantalism -- and not as well delineated/mentioned in the Bible. And I don't consider it normal or literal.
IMO.
Mark--what I'm getting at here is that when the covenant theologian gets to Revelation 20 and other prophetic passages, he's more likely to view them as metaphorical--hence many covenant theologians like Presbyterians are described as "amillenial."
Whereas the dispensationalist will say "well, that's a literal 1000 year period."
Learned something very interesting about Arminius (THX Phil Peterson); his inspiration #2 was John Calvin. Most of today's debate "between" Calvin and Arminius has no resemblance to the work of either.
Personally, I haven't yet read the Institutes, either, so I'll keep quiet. :^)
Not all Covenantalists.
Look harder -- this is odd! Covenants are explicit and literal. Dispensations are implicit.
The follower of which school would take 1000 years literally? It's obvious: the Covenantal type.
:^/
I tend towards Covenantalism and Millenialism - but yes, I've met the types that you're talking about.
;^)
Mark, I believe you're using the terms quite differently from most theologians.....
That's quite possible...
Would you enlighten me? :^)
Might be a little bit beyond my ability and the capacity of a forum such as this. Long & short of it is that the distinctions between covenant theology and dispensationalism aren't explained merely by the use of the names in Scripture or etamology.
A good start, though, is that the overall hermeneutic of dispensationalism tends to be more "literal" than that used by covenant theologians.
Actually, most of the difference lies in that where Covenant Theology sees God "building" one covenant upon the other towards the "New" Covenant, Dispensationlist see each new covenant as a "starting over" point in God's dealing with man with little or no relation between them. So Cov. Theology emphazises continuity with Scripture through the Covenants God made with man, Disp. Theology sees many stops and starts.
Post a Comment