How Does Your Church Arrive at its Theological Conclusions?
Today’s article is a very small part of the largest theological project I have worked on to-date. Those who read my articles are aware that I frequently challenge long-standing beliefs and traditions within western Christianity. My goal today is to begin to articulate some of the heart of the matter. The reason I challenge is because my aim is to call my fellow Christ followers to a deeper sincerity of faith, and to reconsider whether or not our deeply held traditions are truly biblical.
Some might ask, “Who are you to challenge hundreds or thousands of years of church teaching?” It seems arrogant to some. Others think I’m just here to bash the church. And the reality is that I’m nobody. I am simply one voice amidst the insanity of the internet where anyone at any time can make a ridiculous claim. At the same time, I have a fierce resolve to pursue truth and to tell (or write) it to anyone who will listen.
Before I continue writing about reformation and making “radical changes” in the church, I want to articulate our areas of common ground and express that I have thoroughly researched, and at times fully participated in many of the various streams of Christianity available to us in the west.
With this in mind, today I am presenting a breakdown of the various theological frameworks within western Christianity. The breakdown is not exhaustive, and it does not include extreme or non-Trinitarian theological groups. I included theological traditions that have consistently maintained that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, who believe that He is fully God and fully man, and who believe in the Holy Spirit. I have excluded some theological traditions, such as Mormon Restoration Theology, because their views on the Trinity fall outside of historical Christian views regarding the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ.
How does your church or denomination arrive at its theological conclusions? You will find some surprising similarities between groups you may have perceived as being very different. You may discover that your personal approach to God’s word is very different from how your minister was taught to approach and understand the Bible. These are the types of things I aim to look at today.
After examining these frameworks analytically, I’ll share my own convictions about how we might engage these differences constructively.
Historical Powerhouses
Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Theology
Approximate Date of Origin
Catholicism: 325-430
Lutheranism: 1517
Reformed/Covenant: 1530’s
| Category | Catholic Theology | Lutheran Theology | Reformed/ Covenant Theology |
| View of History (Redemptive History) | History guided by divine providence; salvation history through covenants and Church | History as God’s redemptive work; Law and Gospel dialectic | Structured around two or three overarching covenants |
| Israel and the Church | Church fulfills Israel’s role; universal mission | Church as true Israel; spiritual fulfillment of promises | Church is the “new Israel” |
| Biblical Interpretation | Multilayered (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical) | Christocentric; Law and Gospel lens, historical-grammatical | Typological, Christ-centered (Biblical interpretation subject to a framework of the theological covenants of redemption, works, & grace) |
| Eschatology (End Times) | Amillennial; focus on Christ’s return, final judgment | Amillennial; emphasis on Christ’s return, no detailed timeline | Amillennial or Postmillennial |
| Covenant Emphasis | Covenants fulfilled in Christ; Church as new covenant community | Covenant of grace through Christ; Law/Gospel distinction | Strong covenantal framework, often understood as the theological covenants of redemption, works, & grace |
| Law of Moses | Moral law binding; ceremonial law fulfilled in Christ | Moral law guides Christian life; ceremonial law fulfilled | Moral law still applies |
| Sacraments / Ordinances | Seven sacraments as channels of grace | Two sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist) as means of grace | Sacraments as means of grace |
| Main Proponents | Augustine, Aquinas, Roman Catholicism | Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Concordia theologians | John Calvin, Westminster divines, R.C. Sproul |
| Common Denominations / Movements | Roman Catholic Church, some Anglicans (Anglo-Catholic) | Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, ELCA, WELS, other Lutheran bodies | Reformed churches (PCA, OPC, URC, CRC), some Anglicans |
Historical Recap
Catholicism was formalized in the 4th Century AD, approximately 300 years after the writing of the New Testament. To be fair, Catholics would strongly disagree with that statement, as they believe their theology and traditions began in the 1st Century during the apostolic era.
The 1500’s brought us the reformation, and with it, two of the most enduring theological traditions, Lutheranism and Reformed Theology.
Revivalists & Evangelicals
Arminian/Wesleyan, Dispensationalism, & Pentecostal/Charismatic
Approximate Date of Origin
Arminian: Early 1600’s (Wesleyan development came later, in the 1700’s)
Dispensationalism: 1830’s
Pentecostal/Charismatic: 1901
| Category | Arminian/ Wesleyan Theology | Dispensationalism | Pentecostal/ Charismatic Theology |
| View of History (Redemptive History) | God’s redemptive work through grace, emphasizing human response and sanctification | Divided into distinct dispensations (usually 7) | God’s redemptive work through Spirit outpouring and revivals |
| Israel and the Church | Church as the new Israel, fulfilling covenant promises | Sharp distinction; two separate plans | Varies; often Church fulfills Israel or distinct plans |
| Biblical Interpretation | Christ-centered, practical, emphasizing moral application | Literal, especially with prophecy; some historical-grammatical approach | Literal or practical, Spirit-led application |
| Eschatology (End Times) | Typically amillennial or postmillennial; some premillennial | Premillennial, pre-tribulation rapture | Often premillennial, some amillennial/ postmillennial |
| Covenant Emphasis | Focus on grace and New Covenant; less on theological covenants | Focus on dispensations, not covenants | Minimal; prioritizes Spirit empowerment over covenants |
| Law of Moses | Not binding for Christians | Not binding; New Testament ethics prioritized | Not binding; New Testament ethics prioritized |
| Sacraments / Ordinances | Two sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist) as means of grace | Symbolic ordinances | Baptism and communion as symbolic ordinances; some emphasize Spirit baptism |
| Main Proponents | Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, modern Methodist theologians | John Nelson Darby, Scofield, Dallas Seminary | William Seymour, Aimee Semple McPherson, some modern Neo-Charismatics |
| Common Denominations / Movements | United Methodist Church, Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, some Anglicans | Independent Bible churches, some Baptists, Calvary Chapel | Assemblies of God, Foursquare Church, Vineyard, charismatic non-denominational churches |
Clarifications & Historical Recap
Arminianism developed in the early 1600’s, beginning with the ministry of Jacobus Arminius. It would be a divisive theological perspective, especially for reformed Calvinists. Later, John Wesley’s theology developed from the foundation of Arminianism into a theological system that would provide the foundation for Methodism and other denominations.
While John Nelson Darby is often credited as the originator of dispensationalism, it would be the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 that helped bring dispensationalism to the masses.
Pentecostal/Charismatic theology could really be absorbed into many of the other lists. Much of Pentecostal theology is rooted in fundamentalist dispensationalism, whereas some Pentecostal and a considerable amount of Charismatic theology is rooted in the Wesleyan-holiness movement. More recently, modern neo-Charismatics, who once held to an open form of Wesleyanism, have been drifting more and more towards a triumphalist (kingdom now) form of reformed theology. I included Pentecostal/Charismatic theology as a separate category here because of their emphasis on a Spirit-led biblical application, which makes them unique among the traditions.
Modern Developments
Progressive Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, & Jewish Cruciform Apocalypticism
Approximate Date of Origin
Progressive Dispensationalism: 1980’s-1990’s
New Covenant Theology: 1980’s
Jewish Cruciform Apocalypticism: 2010’s
| Category | Progressive Dispensationalism | New Covenant Theology | Jewish Cruciform Apocalypticism |
| View of History (Redemptive History) | Similar to traditional dispensationalism but sees more continuity | Emphasizes the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old | History is linear and climactic; shaped by Jewish apocalyptic narrative |
| Israel and the Church | Partial overlap; Israel still significant | Church fulfills Israel’s promises | Israel and the Church are unified in God’s redemptive plan |
| Biblical Interpretation | Literal-grammatical with typology | Christocentric fulfillment | Historical-grammatical; rooted in 1st-century Jewish context |
| Eschatology (End Times) | Premillennial, not necessarily pre-trib | Generally Amillennial, some Premillennial | Futurist Premillennialism; post-trib or pre-wrath rapture; emphasis on Israel, Day of the Lord |
| Covenant Emphasis | Recognizes both covenants and dispensations | New Covenant replaces Mosaic Covenant | Abrahamic and Davidic covenants still active and future-fulfilling in Christ |
| Law of Moses | Some continuity via typology | Old Covenant abolished | Torah remains eschatologically relevant; being fulfilled & not discarded |
| Sacraments / Ordinances | Mixed views | Symbolic ordinances | Believer’s baptism and communion; not ritualistic but covenantal; newer theological system with potetially mixed views |
| Main Proponents | Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock | John Reisinger, Tom Wells | John P. Harrigan, Joel Richardson |
| Common Denominations / Movements | Evangelical Free Church, some SBC, large evangelical churches | Some Reformed Baptist and Evangelical churches | First Fruits of Zion, Emmaus Table, select house churches, missions-focused movements |
Historical Recap
Progressive Dispensationalism emerged in the 1980s as a response to critiques of traditional dispensationalism, especially its sharp separation between Israel and the Church. It introduced more continuity in God’s redemptive plan, emphasizing inaugurated eschatology and the unity of the New Covenant across both groups.
New Covenant Theology developed in the late 20th century as a middle path between covenant theology and dispensationalism. It rejects the traditional covenant framework of works and grace, seeing God’s redemptive plan as centered solely on the New Covenant inaugurated by Christ.
Jewish Cruciform Apocalypticism is a newer and lesser-known theological movement, largely developing outside traditional denominational structures. It emphasizes cruciform discipleship—enduring suffering in anticipation of Christ’s return—and a unified, non-replacement view of Israel and the Church within a Jewish apocalyptic framework.
When to Unify and When to Divide?
As I mentioned at the beginning of my article, the theological systems present (and the churches/denominations they represent), each maintain some of the most vital aspects that make someone a follower of Jesus. Each requires faith in Jesus as the Son of God, our Lord and Savior. While there are certainly detractors and exceptions, each theological tradition maintains a biblical view of the Trinity, the attributes of God, and rely on Jesus as their cornerstone.
By endeavoring to highlight and review the differences between many of the theological traditions (there are many differences), we can also see the many similarities. In many instances the differences are smaller than we realize. For this reason, even when we find ourselves in disagreement with brothers and sisters of a different theological perspective, I believe we need to unify around the person of Jesus. My encouragement is that we find ways to welcome one another to the table of discussion and seek ways to honor one another within the midst of disagreement.
Even so, I also believe it is okay (and beneficial) to take strong stands for what we believe to be crucial and beneficial to the Gospel. This is what usually divides us. For instance, I will never subscribe to Reformed/Covenant theology or Dispensationalism because I believe that these theological systems place too rigid of a theological lens upon the scriptures through which we must then read everything. I can’t get behind the biblical interpretation or eschatology of Reformed/Covenant theology, and I can’t get behind the sharp distinction between Israel and the church that is described in the Dispensationalist’s compartmentalization of redemptive history.
The reality is, no matter what we do, we are going to form our own “camps”. In the near future, I am going to be arguing for some ideas that will be unfamiliar to many of the theological positions that I charted today. My aim is to get people to think outside of their traditions and get back to a sincere devotion to the word of God. While I greatly disagree with the theological systems that later developed from their teachings, some of my favorite historical figures in church history are John Wesley and John Darby. In their day and time, they were able to get people to think outside of their traditions and once again honor the Scriptures. I have learned much from the teachings of these two men.
And this is the conclusion of the matter: Can we be firm and confident in our own position while also honoring and learning from those who have different or opposing views? While you may not find me in a Catholic church, shame on me if I cannot have fellowship with a Catholic about our shared faith in Jesus. I am guessing that if you’ve made it this far in this article, you probably love Jesus and are seeking the truth. So then, let’s come and reason together around the Holy Scriptures.
Regardless, may God bless you and keep you. Amen.
J. S. Marek
J.S. Marek 