If you’re a Covenant Theologian reading this, I am asking you to stop for a moment and consider what I am about to say. I am not doing this to cause division but to challenge you in love. The article title is a play on what most Dispensationalists are mocked for (i.e. the Left Behind series). I want to throw this back in your court, if you are a Covenantalist, consider if perhaps you are being left behind in the theological discourse.
In this series of questions, I want you to consider whether you believe your position has genuinely honored the counter-arguments that have been made against it, or whether there is resistance to change because we have a tradition that we love, which cannot be challenged.
1.) Have you ever stopped to consider that your position might be outdated, that it fails to keep up with the growing amount of literature that counters it?
2.) Have you ever stopped to consider that the creeds and confessions might be putting you at an extreme disadvantage in not being able to see beyond them and being anathematized if you were to consider changing or altering them in any way, based upon external feedback?
3.) Have you stopped to consider that you might be using outdated arguments, ones that have been addressed for decades by opponents of your position?
4.) Have you stopped to consider that what you believe to be “newer” positions (i.e. Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, etc.) are not monolithic and take external input seriously and that when you address outdated arguments it shows an unwillingness to read literature, an unwillingness to adapt to change, and an unwillingness to keep up and outpace your opponents?
5.) Have you stopped to consider that reformation is ongoing? That we can’t claim that reformation is over when we say it is and that we can’t stop the church from returning to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority! Is it at all possible that Dispensational Theology is a by-product of reformation, an entity that results from moving back towards the Scriptures and away from tradition? Is this possible, or is there a monopoly on the word reformed, that disallows progress within Protestantism? If, so, why? Why is reformation stuck at one period?
6.) Have you stopped to consider that appealing to individuals like Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, and Hal Lindsey shows an ignorance for the amount of literature that has been written at an academic level? Do you realize that these men aren’t even quoted as sources in academic literature? Is it possible to set these men aside for even a moment to consider that there are better scholars, better representatives within Dispensational Theology?
7.) Have you stopped to consider that saying “I grew up as a Dispensationalist” is not the same as saying “I have thoroughly studied Dispensationalism (all variants) and found it to not align with Scripture?” It is one thing to say you grew up surrounded by teaching, but never actually studied it yourself in depth. It is another to sit down read through the literature, comb the responses, the rebuttals, the internal dialogues, to make a well-informed conclusion.
8.) Have you stopped to consider that there are unnecessary presuppositions that your side brings to the table (i.e. a New Testament Priority)? Have you considered that these presuppositions may not be valid and should be challenged? How about a Covenant of Grace, Works, Redemption, nowhere found in scripture, not derived from exegesis, ought we stick with these, or is there a better way to understand God’s eternal decree without confusing covenantal language?
9.) Have you stopped to consider why the majority of your commentators on the Scriptures restrict their study to the New Testament? Have you considered why there are so few volumes of academic exegetical analysis on the Old Testament from your perspective?
10.) Have you stopped to consider that using the same arguments: “Dispensationalism is a recent invention, Dispensationalism is new, Dispensationalism was created by Darby, Dispensationalism was only popular because of Scofield, Dispensationalists believe in multiple means of salvation, Dispensationalists believe in a secret rapture that was invented by Margaret McDonald, etc.” only shows that you haven’t really done research on the topic?
These questions (as I hope you will see) will get you to consider where you stand on all these topics. It might be true that you have considered all of these and still found Dispensationalism to be incorrect, but I hope you will at least hear me out until the end.
A friend of mine once told me that he would rather see a basketball game between Shaq and Michael Jordan than between Shaq and a midget. This, I totally agree with. I don’t want to see the best take on the worst. I don’t want to see a fight between a heavy-weight champ and a rookie. I want to see the best that both sides have to offer at an academic level. Covenant Theologians continue to try and take on the weakest proponents of positions while acting victorious from attacks on Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and fictional series like ‘Left Behind‘ as if that’s the best the other side has to offer. I want to see academic scholars from both sides duke it out, but yet this seems to be completely neglected in the Covenant Theology circles. Covenant Theologians in my eyes want the easy victory, they don’t want the work. They know there are variations in Dispensational Theology, but who cares, it’s easier to keep bringing up Darby and Scofield over-and-over and the newness of the position than to address the abundance of literature that exists today. Dispensationalism (if I am to be completely honest) is a difficult position to attack. You must have a solid understanding of all its variants, the variations of all its adherents, and the internal ongoing discussions to really make an informed argument. Yet, Covenant Theologians still act like we all just believe the same thing. They haven’t progressed in their dialogue to even begin to unpack information that has happened essentially since the 1980s. Go look at a bibliography and you will see quickly what level of argumentation is happening by the sources they have selected.
Here are some examples to make my point:
Samuel E. Waldron in his book “The End Times Made Simple” (2003) thinks that an appropriate way to start his book is by attacking the ‘Left Behind‘ series. He uses two mythical people (one is Fascinated Fred) – Basically, a Dispensationalist, to argue against our position. Rather than Waldron attacking leading scholarship at the beginning of the book, delineating between variations in our position, he takes a cheap shot at a fictional series. Is this really pursuing a deeper level of discussion?
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., in his book “He Shall Have Dominion” (Third Edition – 2009) thinks that it is appropriate to continually attack Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey. Tim LaHaye is referenced 13 times and Hal Lindsey 32 times in his book. He divides Dispensationalists into two groups (dispensational novelties – Ryrie, Walvoord, and Pentecost, and sensationalistic prognostications – LaHaye, Hagee, and Lindsey). In 2009, is this the best that Gentry can do? Could he not find anything more recent than the 1960/’70s? He has a bibliography of works at least to the ’90s (i.e. Blaising, Bock, Saucy, Feinberg) but doesn’t really reference them or argue in full against them. How is this a revised edition, if he is not adequately dealing with revisions in the opposing camp? Take a look at his words on page 73, “In that the more recent progressive dispensationalism is not widely held, and is very similar to historic premillennialism, I will focus on the more classical form.” So, he admits that despite there being revisions and tweaks to our position, he won’t bother addressing them, he will argue against an older position. This is not how one attempts to rebut a position. Dispensationalism (as Gentry knows) isn’t monolithic, so it shouldn’t be argued against like it is. Mark Hitchcock put out a dissertation in 2002 refuting Gentry’s dating of Revelation, yet he never mentions it once in 2009? He knows of a separate work by Hitchcock in 2003 because he quotes it in the footnotes of pg. 374. Yet, he never once reacts or deals with a 200-pg scholarly response to his position. Why?
Gary DeMar, in his book “Is Jesus coming Soon?” (2006) starts by attacking Hal Lindsey on the first page. DeMar thinks that after his introduction to eschatology in the 1970’s that clearly Dispensationalism has stood still. Read what he says on page 1, “My first introuction to Bible prophecy was through Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth, the publishing event of the 1970’s. Lindsey presented an end-time scenario that was both fascinating and disturbing, especially to someone who knew almost nothing about the Bible. While Lindsey’s prophetic novel introduced me to the Bible I was immediately confused when I actually read God’s Word and found that a number of passages he chose as the center of his system did not seem to fit the Bible’s view of the end times.” After ignoring all the academic work since the 70’s he figures he can now establish his position because it is either crazy Lindsey or the Bible. DeMar does the same thing in his book “Last Days Madness” (1999), where he figures he should attack Lindsey repeatedly there as well, with over 21 references. Does DeMar not realize that there are other advocates of our position that have been in print and that are actually academic? Or are we stuck in the 1970’s unwilling to read anything further and respond accordingly?
Jeff Durbin, in his Apologia sermon on Matthew 24 titled ‘Who Will Be Left Behind?’ (2019) starts by attacking the ‘Left Behind’ within 5 minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bveSBOi-rSk&list=PLp_q3Yx7CBrI6fjU29Xfz8saCQOxpBRdW&index=19. Again, no academic response (realizing this is a sermon and not an article), yet giving this impression that Dispensationalists are still stuck in the 1970s with a fictional series. Is this the best a pastor can do, take quick jabs at a fictional series?
James White (following in the footsteps of Jeff Durbin) in his sermon titled “My Journey to Hope for the Future” (2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlS4vmHgtWA doesn’t take long to attack Hal Lindsey (3-minute mark) and the Left Behind series (5:50 minute mark). James White, as a biblical exegete and reformed baptist, must do better. He claims that these books (left-behind) are just “newspaper eschatology.” As someone who used to be a “panmillennialist” suddenly he can teach eschatology. As someone who really hasn’t stayed fresh with academic literature now he is caught up and ready to defend Postmillennialism. Is this really fair, does it show growth or ignorance? Recently, James White declared that he had embraced Postmillennialism. I was quite surprised. Not because an alleged Amillennialist/Panmillennialist became Postmill, but it was the way he did it. How could such an exegetical giant jump from uncertainty to certainty in what seemed like a month? How could White have studied the vast amount of literature published during this time from Amills addressing Postmills? How could White have combed through an extensive subject that he himself admitted he hadn’t studied to conclude the validity of Postmill so quickly? To me, this has not been answered. Is it sufficient to say that a couple proof texts (i.e. Psalm 110, 1 Cor. 15, etc.) warrant jumping ship? I don’t think so. However, this trend won’t be unknown to Covenant Theologians. How many of them first became Calvinists and then jumped ship if they had believed tenants of Dispensational Theology, thinking they were incompatible? How many just seemed to embrace Amill overnight without studying Dispensational Premillennialism or Historic Premillennialism? I have asked many times over the years what Dispensational Premillennialism or Historic Premillennialism books they had read or studied and about 90% of the time they hadn’t read anything by them. They had read lots from the opposing side, but never stopped to see the implications. How many read Gentry and jumped ship ignoring large amounts of literature responding to him, how many read Riddlebarger or Storms, and jumped ship ignoring large amounts of literature responding to them? Now, don’t get me wrong, we are all growing and changes of theological positions aren’t a bad thing and are bound to happen, but they can be bad when you don’t fairly study the opposing positions. They are bad when you refuse to keep up with the growing literature and keep attacking outdated arguments. They are bad when you are bound by tradition and won’t be conformed to the Bible. That is where there is trouble.
Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung title their Historic Premill book “A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology.” Is this really again the best that the Covenantal Premillennialists can do? They lump all of us in with LaHaye and Lindsey again like there are no variations. It’s either ‘fictional books’ or the Bible, you choose. Obviously, when portrayed in this light, the conclusion is simple, the Bible, but what if it isn’t a fictional book series at all, what if it is just the Bible?
As you can see, it is my contention that Covenant Theologians are the ones that are being ‘left behind‘ in their unwillingness to move from their misconceptions, strawmen, and ignorance of academic literature. They are being ‘left behind‘ by other academic theologians who want to address the best the other sides have to offer.
Take for instance the book by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum called, “Kingdom through Covenant.” Their general index at the end of the book is filled with academic authors, great sources, and plenty of fair references from all sides that make it hard to argue against. They aren’t focusing their efforts attacking a fictional novel series in the 1970s but taking great works from great men and attempting to refine points of discussion and disagreement. As a Dispensationalist, that is one thing I appreciate about the New Covenantalist and Progressive Covenantalists, they get it! They see the issues with Covenant Theology and its failure to progress and reform from within. They see the errors and expose them, but do so to move the dialogue forward. They revise, they adapt, they try to balance good and bad from both spectrums adding to the discussion. Covenant Theologians in general aren’t doing this. We are still stuck dealing with Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and clarifying misconceptions that are repeated ad nauseum for decades even when some Covenant Theologians tell other Covenant Theologians to stop. When will this end? I am afraid unless better proponents of Covenant Theology step up and start reading academic literature, then it won’t change. Covenant Theologians will continue to attack the ‘Left Behind’ series showing an unwillingness to move forward as the dialogue progresses. NCT’s/DT’s/PC’s will continue to press forward refining areas of their theology leaving Covenant Theology behind with its creeds and confessions.
To summarize a few things here. There are a few reasons I think Covenant Theology has been Left Behind:
1.) It fails to take into account the best the opponents of their position have to offer.
2.) It fails to adapt and make alterations to feedback provided (out of concern for preserving confessions and creeds).
3.) It fails to exegetically rebut arguments and literature that has been written by scholars.
4.) It fails to properly represent the other side and all its variants.
5.) It fails to keep up with the literature in print.
6.) It fails to incorporate and honestly hear what others are saying.
Now, I want to be gracious here. I am not speaking of all Covenant Theologians, as there are certainly some who do in fact work through things at an academic level and respond accordingly, and to them, I am grateful and have no contention. I am mostly speaking to those who band-wagon with others, who jump to Covenant Theology merely because they want to escape Dispensationalism or Pentecostalism. To those who haven’t studied Dispensational Theology to its maximum and make consistent misrepresentations of the system. To those who continue to act like the best, we have to offer is a fictional book series. These men (and women) are being left behind.
A few words of recommendation for Covenant Theologians.
I love you brothers and sisters and I am grateful for your love for the Lord. I am grateful for your desire to stand against error, to stand with the Word, to stand in opposition to others for the truth. I genuinely admire this about all of you. I pray that you will hear me with open ears and take a moment to reflect. If what I am saying is true, then something has to change. It must start from your side as much as I must be consistent in my call for change. To further the dialogue we must hear what others are saying, we must take the best the other side has to say and read it with an openness to learn. We must set aside these petty and cheap shot attacks and work through the Scriptures together. We must stop with the strawmen. We must deal with each other against the Word of God. It is in exegesis of totascriptura that the different positions will come to light. If we continue down this path we will rip each other apart until we are so divided that we can’t have any form of unity with each other. My plea to you is to begin to familiarize yourself with our material, good works from our perspective. Get acquainted with the academic side of things, learn where the dialogue has been heading, learn what responses we have to your position. Learn to take that and refine your own understanding with input from your brothers and sisters. If you need to adapt do so because of the Bible. If we have more of you doing this, more will see the implications and we can begin to move forward and progress together. My hope is that we can stay connected in love and pursue the truth together, united in Christ.
SDG
