Introduction

A study of the presuppositions of covenant and dispensational theology is a vast topic. This study, therefore, makes no claims of being exhaustive. But I have taken care to represent the two positions accurately in order that the Scriptural evaluation of them will not involve a shooting down of strawmen. What follows, then, is a distillation of my study of these two systems. I hope it is organized in such a way that we can come to grips with the truth claims made by each one.

1 . THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS.

No one approaches the Scriptures neutrally, as if he is absolutely objective and void of predispositions. Unconverted men, obviously, approach the Scriptures as prejudiced sinners. Converted men, having the Holy Spirit, come to Scripture with the ability to discern spiritual things. Among professing Christians, then, you discover different emphases, or interpretive schemes, which account for the various systems. For example. dispensationalists come to Scripture with the presupposition that God has an earthly purpose for Israel, and a heavenly purpose for the church. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, come to Scripture with the presupposition that there is one covenant of grace with various administrations. Since there is no neutrality in approaching Scripture, and since presuppositions are a given reality, the necessity of presuppositions being based on careful exegesis is underscored. Thus our understanding of the whole of Scripture affects our approach to the parts; and our examination of the parts. methodologically speaking, leads us to make generalizations about the whole (cf. Eddie Johnston, "Biblical Interpretation and the Church," BRR, Vol.9, #1, pp.21-23).

It is not wrong to have presuppositions. But in light of how influenced we are by them, I trust that we can see the importance of evaluating whether or not the presuppositions of any system are based on textual evidence. If they are not, then what is built on them rests on a shaky foundation. An evaluation of the presuppositions of dispensational and covenant theology, therefore, is both appropriate and of critical importance.

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA (SCRIPTURE ALONE).

Both dispensational and covenant theology claim to be based on Scripture. Yet their theological presuppositions have obviously driven them to divergent conclusions. Since both claim adherence to sola Scriptura, they should be open to what Scripture says to them. However, we immediately discover that what constitutes "Biblical evidence'' for both sides is determined by different methods. When a dispensationalist reads an argument by the covenant theologian, he replies that it is not "literal" enough. When a covenant theologian reads a dispensational argument, he replies that "explicit'' evidence is not necessary. Here, I simply wish to outline some of the problems which surface because of hermeneutical differences.

2.1 First. fidelity to the usage of words in their Scriptural contexts is critical. As Dr. Gordon Clark puts it, "a Christian theologian should use Biblical terms in their Biblical meaning" (First Principles of Theology, unpublished ms., p.402). Many mistakes in interpretation have occurred because a meaning, foreign to the analogy of Scripture, was packed into a Scriptural word or concept. "Scriptural exegesis is to be gained, 'not from a man's private feelings and already formed opinions, but from the actual context, from attention to and comparison of what precedes and follows with other passages of Scripture'" (H. Heppe, quoting Bucan, Reformed Dogmatics [1861; Baker, 1978], p. 35)

2.2 Thus, in principle, our beliefs and actions must be based on specific Scriptural evidence. "If we accept something as a point of doctrine, or as a religious practice, we must have some direct precept of revelation or some direct precedent in the Scriptures for it'' (Don Fortner, ''Who Should Be Baptized?,'' The 13th St. Baptist Church Bulletin, March, 1980).

2.3 However, as basic as this may sound, covenant theologians tend to reject what they call the ''untenable assumption'' that "only doctrines and practices explicitly stated in Scripture can be regarded as true or valid" (J.G. Vos, Baptism: Its Subjects and Modes, p.4). Gordon Clark believes that "it is not necessary to find explicit N.T. justification for every Christian doctrine .... The correct principle of interpretation is not the Baptist one of discarding everything in the O.T. not reasserted in the New; but rather the acceptance of everything in the Old not abrogated by the N.T. teaching'' (First Principles, pp.763-764).

Armed with this hermeneutical approach, covenant theology can then impose doctrines and practices which lack N.T. warrant. ''That the N.T. fails to give a specific injunction about tithing would no more do away with it than the New Testament's failure to mention children's relationship to the Covenant of Grace does away with that relationship" (Raymond Zorn, Westminster Theological Journal, XXXVII, #2, Winter, 1975. p.294; cf. Jon Zens, "Principles of New Covenant Giving, BRR, Vol.8, #2, pp.33-44). "Covenant Theology, therefore, has a particular hermeneutical stance, emphasizing the continuity of O.T. and N.T.... Covenant theologians understand the Mosaic covenant. for example, as an essentially gracious revelation of God'' (Douglas H. Shantz, ''Baptists and Covenant Theology," Fellowship For Reformation and Pastoral Studies. Vol . V . # 10 [12/12/77]. pp 4 -5). This broad hermeneutical stance opens the door for the sufficiency of "implicit" evidence instead of ''explicit" evidence from Scripture (cf. my reviews of G. Brimless Children of Promise, and J.G. Vos's Baptism: Its Subjects and Modes in BRR, Vol.9, #1, pp. 32-41).

2.4   It is the conclusion of this author that while there are elements of truth in dispensational and covenant theology, at critical points they both fail to do justice to Biblical data which challenges their undergirding presuppositions. It will be the purpose of this paper to interact with both systems in order to move toward a theology which will be more sensitive to the revealed counsel of God. Our goal should not even be to arrive at an ''airtight'' system which has all the answers. But our goal must be that we would see Christ exalted in the Scriptures, and that we would with humility receive what these sacred oracles say to us about Him, the One in Whom all the promises of God are ''Yes" and ''Amen.''