I first caught a slight hint of differences within Dispensationalism many years ago when I discovered that there was a preference for the "Old Scofield Reference Bible"(1917), over the "New Scofield Reference Bible"(1967). In those days I didn't care that much to pursue the matter. I only knew there were two camps on the Scofield Bible.
After I "became Reformed" (or, on my way at any rate) Jerry DeHaven and I ran across a book which we found to be devastating to dispensationalism (or, so I thought at the time). And, that book was a first edition (early 90s) of "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism", by John H. Gerstner (R.C. Sproul's theological mentor).
I thought Gerstner's book was devastating, until I read a critique/rebuttal by the then Vice-President of "The Master's Seminary", Dr. Richard L. Mayhue entitled: "WHO IS WRONG? A REVIEW OF JOHN GERSTNER'S WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH".
Later, it turns out that it was admitted that Gerstner's book contained a number of research errors, and the publisher allowed it to go out of print --and that publisher went bankrupt anyway. [After Gerstner's death, "Soli Deo Gloria Ministries" obtained the rights to the book and came out with a 2nd edition which was supposed be a correction of the earlier problems -- edited, I think, by Sproul.] And, now I see at Amazon there is a 3rd edition. Beyond the research errors, the furor seemed to suggest to me that the Reformed writers could engage in "straw men" just like anyone else.
I came away sensing that dispensationalism was flawed, but I had doubts about just how flawed. If "Reformed" writers were going to engage in fallacious reasoning, straw men, and sloppy research then was there no other way to discover accurate differences than to do original research oneself? I thought this might be an isolated example, but further along in the process I ran into Curtis I Crenshaw's diatribe " Lordship salvation: The only kind there is : an evaluation of Jody Dillow's The reign of servant kings and other antinomian arguments", which mixes a critique of dispensationalism and a critique of "easy believeism" in one long hyperbolic harangue.
Then, as a refreshing relief I ran across Westminster Seminary professor Vern Sheridan Poythress'"Understanding Dispensationalists". In it he notes a couple of different problems. (1) The absence of a genuine effort to understand the other side when producing polemics. And, (2) the dated-ness of critiques produced by some Covenant theologians due to the fact that oft' times in their research (as in the case of Gerstner) anti_dispensationalists use older material which doesn't reflect the current thought in dispensational scholarship.
In the case of the former, a dialogue group was established whereby periodically professional theologians from both sides could get together to discuss differences. And, Poythress in the case of the latter [loosely paraphrasing] admonishes his fellow Reformed theologians to keep current with the latest in dispensational theological work.
Dispensationalism is kind of a moving target. The descriptors for the different phases of its evolution (which I am familiar with) are thus:
1) "Classic Dispensationalism" approx. 1830 'til about 1960, represented in the writings of Darby, Scofield, H.A. Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and a number of others -- basically all dispensationalists 'til the mid 20th century .
2) "Modified Dispensationalism", approx. 1960 'til the 1980s represented in the writings of Charles Ryrie and the younger theologians of the period, including the editors of the "NEW Scofield Reference Bible ". The Modifieds (as I understand it) tried to clean up some of the more speculative and difficult to defend aspects of early dispensationalism.
3) "Progressive Dispensationalism", approx. 1980s 'til the present. Progressive Dispensationalism (as I understand the development) grew (or, is growing still) out of two impulses:
(A) the continued modifying work of the systematic theology of dispensationalism by insights from exegetical scholarship, and from biblical theology. And, (B) it is being modified because of apologetical concerns raised in discussions/debates with non_dispensational theologies (principally Covenant Theology).
Besides Poythress' book, some modern dispensational works which, in various ways, will help the reader understand where dispensationalism has gone (or, has come to) in the last twenty years are: "Five Views on Law and Gospel, various authors, "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, by Robert L. Saucy,"Progressive Dispensationalism, Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising.
Some would argue that "Progressive Dispensationalism" isn't Dispensational.
ReplyDelete"Progressive Dispensationalism is perhaps a misnomer, since it probably has much more in common with Covenant Theology than Classic Dispensationalism, with a few notable differences.
"Progressive dispensationalism has departed from one of the historical distinctives of normative dispensationalism, that of the offer, rejection, postponement, and exclusively future fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom. It has also failed to include a related distinctive, the church's separateness from the Davidic kingdom. Dispensationalists from the successive periods of history have repeatedly emphasized these distinctives, an emphasis that nondispensational critics have also noted. Progressive dispensationalism, on the other hand, has not advocated these distinctives, raising the question of whether that movement deserves the label "dispensational" or whether it belongs more in the category of nondispensational historical premillennialism." -Stephen J. Nichols
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Dispensationalism/Progressive-Dispensationalism/
(In addition, and as a side note: I suspect dispys are quite likely to be put off by the term "progressive.")
"Modified Dispensationalists" (such as Dwight Pentecost, author of "Things To Come"--which was my "bible" in Eschatology 101)retain most--if not all?--of what is most objectionable in the "Classic" camp. Certain language/terms may be "cleaned up," to an extent, but the conclusions are essentially the same.
Also, it's difficult to see (at least in my limited experience) how the "run of the mill" dispy is influenced by, or even aware of Bock or any "professional theologian." They are much more influenced by the "Left Behind" book series/movie, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, and Hal Lindsey. If the influence of these typse folks is waning--within the general populace of church goers--I've yet to see it.
Your points are well-taken. "Progressive Dispensationalism" (PD) might be a misnomer by defining itself out of what is truly means to be "dispensational", I dunno. One would have to closely inspect why it is they retain the term. I suspect it has to do with the maintenance of a future for the land/nation of ethnic Israel. How this would differ, specifically, from self-consciously non_dispensational historic premillenialism I'm not sure. And, also it does so, I suspect, because of its critique of Covenant Theology.
ReplyDeleteAs to its practical effect, there is always a lag in these things -- and particularly here since no one is popularizing PD. But, as to how it might enter (or, is entering) the institutional Church, I think that is obviously when these scholars teach the pastors in Bible school and seminary. My impression is PD has become --or, is becoming-- the preferred position (or, is as acceptable as other variations) in a number of institutions, including BIOLA/Talbot Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Moody Bible Institute.
Yes, the more pastors they churn out the more influence they will have. However, I don't know if these new pastors will continue to refer to themselves as "Dispensational." (If they are going to dispy churches--which the vast majority will be--they will have to keep the moniker. Which may result in a few problems, once they are in the position and begin teaching on the subject of eschatology.)
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, one reason for retaining the term may be that some of these guys are in institutions which are Dispensational and their audience is Dispensational. (I don't mean to suggest that they're being disengenuous...but perhaps they are simply trying to make their system palatable to the majority of their peers and readership; change from within, so to speak.)
That being said...PD most closely resembles Historic Premillennialism. (In my estimation.)
I have a number of the books I've mentioned in this piece. And so, If I get some time next week I may dig up some more of the fine distinctions, If I can.
ReplyDeleteBut, I suspect I shall find a significant remaining distinction (at least one) between PD and Covenant Theology(CT): a future role for national Israel, albeit not as fully bifurcated from the Church as in Classic Dispensationalism(CD).
And, a significant distinction from Historical Premillenialism which is always (so far as I know) at least post-tribulational, and maybe often non_tribulational in the formal sense. Whereas, PD surely must maintain a tribulational rapturism theology, maybe sometimes post-tribulational, or mid-tribulational, but I suspect very often still pre-tribulational.
Certainly, I don't think PD is identical to Historic Premillennialism. But it is closer to Hist. Prem. than to Classic/Modified Disp. Instead of "Progressive Dispensationalism," perhaps it should be identified as a form of Premillennialism?
ReplyDelete"Progressive Premillennialism," anyone?
Poythress is not Reformed. He's a revisionist who adheres to Van Tillian theology, the charismatic movement, and a confusion of law with Gospel. He also uses John Frame's triperspectivalism. R. Scott Clark has been critical of these men for years.
ReplyDeleteCharlie, thanks for your comment. Reading between the lines, it seems you have a verrry narrow definition of what it means to be "Reformed". Since Poythress almost surely affirms both the five solas and TULIP -- and must affirm the WCF since he is ordained in the PCA-- its hard to see how that doesn't qualify him as "Reformed". I hope you're not one of those folks who say even Calvin wasn't Reformed. But, welcome to my blog.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, Poythress' "reformedness" is not pertinent to the point of this post. Poythress is being invoked as a scholar. So, he could be Seventh Day Adventist for that matter, so long as he is a competent scholar with access to all the relevant data he comments upon. In the case of the book cited, he is commenting primarily upon developments in dispensational theology.
Charles, thank you for your invitation to comment.
ReplyDeleteI am not very familiar with the writings of theologians; I can't afford to buy their books, and I doubt they would be very valuable to me. The problem with all academics is that they have to produce something new as research to justify their existence, but the scripture speaks for itself to those who have the Holy Spirit. While God used one or two people with brilliant minds (such as Paul) the majority of Jesus' disciples were unlearned men, whom the theologian-equivalents of their age despised, and so were the people that God called to salvation (1 Cor 1:26-31). The history of theology over the last 200 years does not encourage me to trust theologians as a class.
My interest is not in what various theologians have said but in what the scripture says, and my principle of operation is that every detail in the scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore significant and important. If two accounts in the scripture have different details about what is at first sight the same event (for example, Matthew 24 and Luke 19) there is a reason for that; it must not be ignored. No doubt there is much in the scriptures that men have not yet understood; if a theologian reveals some of it, I will be pleased to learn it, but I would need to be convinced that the scripture does indeed support it.
My feeling about Reformed teaching is that it is really stuck in the sixteenth century. The Reformers learned and taught some things from the scripture that had previously been lost to the knowledge of most believers, but they did not learn and teach everything that is in the scriptures, which are nearly as inexhaustible as the One who inspired them and the One whose word they are. It appears to me that those who emphasise being Reformed are too often unwilling to allow that there could be any new insight or that the teachings of their particular Reformer could be found wanting in any way.
I don't classify myself as "dispensationalist" at all. That would be to attach myself to a party in the way that 1 Corinthians 1 condemns. I consider that the bible supports a very large part of what dispensationalists say (so far as I understand them). I have read some books by people whom I suppose are thus described. If I accept what they say, it is because and to the extent that I think the scripture agrees with them. People like Beresford Job, Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Chuck Missler show a love and respect for the scriptures that lead me to have considerable confidence in their teaching. The teaching of some other writers, who may call themselves preterists, postmillennialists, amillennialists or post-tribulationists, I reject, because the bible, taken as a whole, evidently does not support what they say.
It follows, then, that I do not think that the novelty of a teaching is in itself a reason to condemn it. There are those who claim that pre-tribulational, pre-millennial teaching is a new thing. Even if that were so (which I do not believe is the case), that would not make this teaching false. It is false if it contradicts the whole of the scripture (not just a single proof text). In fact, the scripture itself suggests that we should expect new understanding of it to come out as the time approaches. (Dan 12:4) Seeing that the church as a whole has enthusiastically embraced a whole load of false teaching ever since the death of the apostles, it is a bit rich for people to criticise those of us who accept valid new insights into the scripture!
Given all that, I expect you will see that I stand very far away from the views that you (I believe) and Jerry Dehaven and Steve Griffin accept. Whether you think I am able to contribute to your discussion I leave to you.
Oliver, thank you for reply. I'll comment more later on as to the bulk of your post. But, until then, as to the point about the value of theologians vs. the Bible alone, I have wriiten another post along that line, here: A Cult of One.
ReplyDeleteOliver, I finally caught eye to this blog and its comments, then I had to step back for a moment to ponder it a little. You bring up an interesting issue which takes us into the heart of your individuality. This subject of ‘private interpretations’ has occupied my mind a lot lately. Since I am still thinking this subject through somewhat - and with today’s many multifaceted beliefs in the world - I have not put it all together yet, and will just make some random remark off the top of my head.
ReplyDeleteYour sincerity is very noble indeed, as to be biblically accurate above anything else; however, we all wish to do this. You are not to be applauded though for your apparent novelty with this, since you said it in the context of insinuating us as having broken Paul’s inspired words on this matter in 1 Cor. 1:12, 13, and you of having not. On the contrary though, you are the one who has broken this very thing, for you have fallen into the category of those who follow only “Christ” (vs. 12). You see, the people who followed only Christ in this context, were people who followed only their understanding of what Christ said – same with Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. You are a party onto yourself, or onto those for whom you follow, since you have mentioned a few other people. Need I really say more?
It is really hard to get out of our little box of seeing things. When I made the switch from dispensationalism to covenant theology (actually “new covenant theology,” which is a modified form of it), it came gradual and without ease (2 Thes. 2 was a real battle ground for me). This is so, because it is hard to look past a preconceived way of looking at things, and to think we could be wrong about something. I guess this is only human nature though. You made the switch from Anglican to what you are today, so you should know what I am talking about. But let me ask you this: did you know theologically what you believed prior to your change? And was it a good theological vein of Anglicanism that you were involved in, such as that of J. I. Packer or John Stott’s, or something more liberal? I do commend you for debating your views of the Bible, as most who refuse to look at what others have learned, will not debate.
Anglicanism is a theological mess. Its primary tenet is not rocking the boat and keeping its very disparate elements all under the same umbrella. Since it actually includes people who are not believers at all, this is a BAD THING!
ReplyDeleteI was converted into a very low (evangelical) Anglican church, influenced by the charismatic movement. We had some good teaching early on, but later it degenerated into childishness, with sermons apparently targeted at dim ten-year-olds -- even after the children had gone out. I read Packer and Stott and found them useful (though I believe both have now gone towards compromise) and various other stuff. We had some training at Wycliffe College I remember (we lived in Oxford then) and I distinctly remember that the rapture was taught, though whether it was pre-tribulational I do not now recall. Most of my theological understanding is down to reading, rather than the teaching of that church.
From early on (30 years ago) I felt unhappy with Anglican practice, but did not have the Lord's permission to leave until 2003. The reason for leaving was that the Anglican church was disobedient to God and there was no prospect of its changing. (See this page) for an analysis of the disobedience of institutional churches.)
I think your analysis of the meaning of 1 Cor 1 is incorrect. It is talking about party spirit. I think that is displayed by those who talk pejoratively about "dispies" but it cannot be intended to apply to those who separate themselves from false teachers, which we are commanded to do. You recognise false teachers by whether what they say corresponds to the scripture. But you appear to be saying that it is party spirit to denounce and reject false teaching, or possibly you only mean if that teaching is held by a majority. (Of course, in your mind it is not false teaching.) But in that case you are displaying the same spirit by attaching yourself to those who promote that teaching, and of the course the Reformers were also doing wrong in separating themselves from the Roman church. So that interpretation makes no sense and is in fact unusable.
We are indeed told that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). But looking at the context, we see that the point of this saying is to counter those who are treating the teaching about Jesus as "cleverly devised myths" (1:16), by asserting Peter's eye-witnessing of the transfiguration along with prophecy, which is not from the personal thinking of the prophets but from the Spirit of God. Incidentally, the content of that prophecy is clearly eschatological, since it is to give us light "until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts" (1:19).
I get the impression that you were brought up in dispensationalism and were gradually persuaded to leave it. I was gradually convinced to adopt it, over a number of years. If someone presented me with good biblical reasons for changing my mind, I would, but no one has. You have made the attempt and I found it quite unconvincing, as I have said before.
Somehow the link in the previous posting got corrupted. Here it is again.
ReplyDeleteDispensationalism, Dualism, and Pietism, are Crippling the American Church today. The only real ammunition that I see as being the most effective, is to teach what the Bible says. These false views seem to have their roots in the Aristotelian and the Plato worldview. Both views split reality into two realms, the heavenly realm and the realm that we live in. The heavenly is pure and beautiful, the natural realm is fallen and dirty. To be pure we have to escape the worldly realm and ascend into heaven, were we are already seated in Christ. Dispensationalism has its followers sitting around waiting on the "Rapture Bus" for Jesus to rescue us out of God's creation, so why polish brass on a sinking ship? My point being that all of these false world views are intertwined on the basis of needing to escape.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible teaches that both the reality that we live in, the world, and the unseen heavenly are fused together because the reality that we live in is driven by the unseen. We live in God's threshing floor, the Creation that has been Redeemed in Christ, that He called "Very Good," where He sits on His Throne, Reigning and Ruling over the Creation that was Created by Him and for Him. When Jesus became Incarnate, He became part of His Creation, and as the second and last Adam, He overcame the world and Redeemed it.
Kelly, you seem to have a false view both of dispensationalism and of creation.
ReplyDeleteThis world is under a curse and is going to be destroyed and replaced by a new creation. It is no longer very good; that was before Adam sinned. The creation waits in eager longing for its release from bondage, but that has not yet been completed. Jesus has paid the price of sin but has not yet destroyed it. He has sat down on his Father's throne (Ps 110:1, Rev 3:21) but God has not yet made his enemies a footstool for his feet. First the full number of the Gentiles must be brought in and then Jesus will return, destroy his enemies and sit down on David's throne in his Messianic kingdom.
If there are people who, as you put it, "sit around waiting for the Rapture Bus", they have a false view of what the rapture is and what our task now is. Because the church is going to be removed from the world suddenly and without warning, we need to be working now to preach the gospel to everyone, so that they may repent while it is still possible for them to escape the wrath to come. Our time is short and must not be wasted, nor should we put off the work thinking it can be done later. The fact of the imminent rapture means that there may not be a later. Anyone who is sitting around is disobeying the scripture.
By Oliver's reaction it appears that (in keeping with the premise of this thread) that Kelly's understanding of dispensationalism is apparently a misunderstanding. Or, at least Oliver doesn't recognize Kelly's characterization.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by "the premise of this thread" is that (while on the surface this thread is about the differences between the varieties of dispensationalism) the subtext is really about the human tendency to misunderstand the ideology of the views of those we disagree with. When this "failure to understand" (the other side) underlies our polemics it produces distortions in our writing presentations.
But (on the other hand) it is also logically possible that the real misunderstanding is actually on the side of the one who thinks they have been misunderstood. That is, sometimes we who hold a particular view are blind to its flaws. And that, our critics can at times better see these flaws, thus the critic may sometimes present a more accurate view of that which he critiques because he has taken the view he is criticizing to its logical conclusion. Whereas the one who holds the view may have a myopic and romantic view of his own belief -- failing to consider its weaknesses.
There always seems to be an effort to defend our theological position by mis-characterizing the other one. I guess it shows our vulnerability to a predisposition and an unwillingness to work at understanding the truth. Change is hard and requires us to look "both ways" before we cross the street.
ReplyDeleteGod was in Christ Reconciling the Kosmos unto Himself. For God so loved the Kosmos.... All through the Bible God says I'll heal your land. All of Creation fell in the fall, Jesus came to redeem all that was lost in the fall. He wore the thorns to signify that the ground is no longer cursed for His people, it now bears fruit. Jesus came to undo all the effects of the curse.
ReplyDeleteFor centuries before Dispensationalism, the Church always believed that the rapture was on the last day. Our clue is that, the tares get taken, not the righteous. Also it says as in the days of Noah, yes there is definitely a reference to apathy, no doubt. There is also the fact that God sanctified His creation by taking away the wicked by the flood. In Christ, the creation is being sanctified by the ongoing growth of the Gospel. God never changes how He does things. Adam was told to replenish the earth and take dominion, Noah was told the same thing. Jesus said go therefore and make disciples, the Great Commission is about establishing the Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteA dispensationalist, would have you believe that via the rapture bus, we need to escape God's Very Good, no longer under the curse, Creation.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Kelly Crabb wrote:
ReplyDelete'These false views seem to have their roots in the Aristotelian and the Plato worldview.'
CEH: Its interesting that you should note this. Augustine was a neo_platonist. Aquinas adapted Aristotelian thought to orthodox theology. And, Martin Luther is said to have been influenced by the medieval philosopher William of Ockham (of "Occam's Razor" fame). Calvin started his academic career as philosophy student, and later strongly influenced in French law schools by lawyers of the "humanist perspective" in vogue in that day. One wonders if there are ANY theologians at anytime & anywhere (including in this thread) not influenced by non_biblical (not necessarily unbiblical) human philosophies. It is said by some, 'in the west we are all Augustinians'. And thus derivatively also platonists.
Dualism is a pagan concept, it is the Churches attempt to Baptize Plato and Aristotelian teachings. The Bible does not teach any other realities than the seen and the unseen, secular is a made up word, by the Church to describe a third category. If a man is a pastor or missionary that makes his job Holy. If he is a plumber, working the calling and talent that God gave him, he has a secular job.
ReplyDeletehttp://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/FridaySymposiumFa04/Christian_Enemy_1.pdf
Firstly, let me define very generally what Christian Dualism is. Moreover, Dualism is the idea that all of life can be separated into two main categories: the sacred and the secular. This fragmented vision of reality puts “spiritual” things in the “sacred” category and “worldly” things in the “secular” category. This view creates a hierarchy where the only meaningful things in existence are those things that are in the “sacred” category. In his brief survey of the history of Western thinking, Francis Schaeffer outlines how the non-spiritual side of the dichotomy always
“ate-up” the spiritual side.6 Cutting up reality and life, will eventually lead to one side ruling over the other side, and it may or may not be the side that you, yourself, are prizing.
Dualism also leads to a hierarchy of callings. After all, doesn’t it seem obvious that some
jobs are more holy than others? If you were to ask the average Christian, “What would be the
highest calling in life?”, he or she would invariably answer, “to be a missionary.” This prizing of
the “spiritual” callings over the other allegedly “non-spiritual” callings is the result of Dualism.
The bottom line with Dualism is this: Dualism falsely believes that some subjects are
inconsequential and are not a part of the Christian life. Dualism says there are some realms of
life where faith is off-limits. This fragmented vision of reality is not Biblical and makes “being salt and light” to the rest of the world totally impossible. This paper seeks to understand and critique Christian Dualism, especially Christian.
Religious Dualism.
What Is Meant By “Christian Dualism” As mentioned above, people generally use the phrase “Christian Dualism” to refer to a
number of different “split-vision” dichotomies. In order to better understand each of these specific dichotomies and their interrelatedness, we should first examine three basic meanings of
the phrase. Sometimes the phrase “Christian Dualism” can lump all of these dichotomies
together, but sometimes there are important differences and distinctions that need to be made.
These are the three main dichotomies.
Christian Anthropological Dualism
This dichotomy is more than a mere duality, which in its own right would be acknowledged. It is the view that man is composed of two separate substances, one being a temporal/bad part and one being an eternal/good part. These substances are usually called “body” and “soul/spirit” respectively.
Saint Thomas split nature and Grace.
@Charles, sorry I missed your response. I didn't subscribe to your comments. But to be blunt, Poythress is not Reformed for several reasons. He confuses law with Gospel for thing. Like John Frame he thinks Arminians are genuine Christians despite the fact that the Synod of Dort officially condemned Arminianism as a heresy. The short answer is you cannot claim to be Reformed while endorsing Arminianism as legitimately representative of the true Gospel. Arminianism has more in common with Rome than with the Protestant Reformation.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Calvin was indeed Reformed. But the majority of modern "Calvinists" are in fact semi-Arminians who preach and teach the three points of common grace, the free offer of the Gospel, and that God favors and desires the salvation of the reprobate.
I do not consider neo-Calvinists as proper representatives of classical Reformation theology since the majority of them have long ago departed from classical Calvinism.
Neo-Calvinism is no more Reformed than Dispensationalism is Reformed.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Hi Charlie, how have you been?
ReplyDeleteCharlie J. Ray said...
ReplyDelete'...to be blunt, Poythress is not Reformed for several reasons. He confuses law with Gospel for thing.'
CEH: Some people say the same about the Westminster divines, and the puritans. But to the point, do you have an example of this assertion about Poythress? An exact quote won't be necessary; a summary couple sentences would suffice.(Not that I'm a Poythress disciple; I'm citing him here as a scholar, not as a mentor.)
Charlie J. Ray said...
'Like John Frame he thinks Arminians are genuine Christians despite the fact that the Synod of Dort officially condemned Arminianism as a heresy.'
CEH: Are Arminians the same thing as Arminianism? Arminianism is something very specific if by that term we mean the five remonstrances. But, when we call someone by the epithet "Ariminian" we don't strictly limit the term to people who self-consciously hold or affirm the "five points of Arminianism." People often mean anyone who doesn't consciously affirm TULIP. Which is most people.
And that is Frame and Poythress' point. We were all Arminians at one time in our Christian lives, and so it follows that if all Reformed people were at one point in their Christian life Arminian & regenerate, thus current Arminians are Christians (if they are regenerate.) And logically, this is incontrovertible unless one believes in "doctrinal regeneration". <<<Is that your position?
We are grafted into one body, one faith, one baptism, and one Spirit. The middle wall of partition is broken down. One man in Christ. Believers in the Old Covenant were saved because they believed God that the Messiah would come. They looked forward to the cross, we look back to the cross and forward to His return. There is a national Israel, but the promise is to the children of Promise, not the physical children of Abraham. Read Galations, Paul tells you that not all who are descendants of Abraham are Israel, but the Children of promise. He uses Isac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau as examples. We are grafted into one body. Christ is Israel, that is why, like Jacob, He says, henceforth you shall see angels ascending and descending upon the son of man. Not a replacement theology, a being grafted into theology. All believers across time and His Story/History are one in Christ.
ReplyDeleteAll through the OT, God made promises to His people. Starting with Adam. When He got to Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, Jacob, and David, each time He poured the promises of the last covenant into the next and added better promises to it. Finally culminating all the promises into the New Covenant. Paul said now we have exceedingly better promises. In the fulness of time, in other words, at the right time, Christ came into the world.
Well Charlie, you have a good thread going on here. I have been busy with other things lately, so I haven’t been able to devote myself to this like I should. Oliver, I believe, has misinterpreted me; so I will begin with a short clarification.
ReplyDeleteOliver said: “I think your analysis of the meaning of 1 Cor 1 is incorrect. It is talking about party spirit.” But a ‘party spirit’ is what I was talking about. When someone restricts themselves to the understanding of scripture only through a particular group of people, or even to themselves; they make themselves a party spirit, or that particular group of people. I believe Paul was teaching us to learn from all believers in Christ, and benefit from what the Holy Spirit has shown them. This is why I read Anglican’s, Presbyterian’s, Dutch Reformed, dispensationalist’s, such as John MacArthur and Lutzer, etc, and all the brethren I debate with online, and whatever a believer in Christ has to teach me. But you seem to be a party onto your own understanding of scripture, or to those few men you have mentioned (thus down-playing the idea of benefiting from others what the Holy Spirit has shown them). It’s good to read a variety of good Christian men, so long as it is balanced with a good reading of the Word of God, and compared to their arguments. As for Oliver’s concern for name calling to end, and the scriptures and the issues themselves to be addressed rather, I AM WITH HIM ON THIS! Now for some other things going on in this thread.
Can a man who is a HIGH Calvinist (perhaps a ‘pure’ Calvinist is a better way of saying it) benefit from a non-pure Calvinist? I think so, but I’m sure the pure Calvinist would object to my assessment. In any case, this has nothing to do with dispensationalism’s distinctions in Harris’ blog. So I will leave this matter for someone else to deal with. Such condescension though is rather hard to gain an audience, wouldn’t you say?
I would disagree with Steve Griffin’s remark concerning dispensationalism as well. Progressive dispensationalism is still, nevertheless, very strongly dispensational. They might not hold to the seven dispensations of the past, and might interpret many formerly understood passages in a more preteristic way; but they still hold to the necessary distinctions between Israel and the church which sets their prophetical views. MacArthur and Lutzer are very much dispensational .
Kelly was never a dispensationalist, so he would be less sensitive to this subject, and more academic in his approach.
Well, actually I was a Dispensationalist, I grew up Baptist, then I went Full Gospel, and now I am Anglican.
ReplyDeleteMost of y'all in this group, have heard my testimony about how I tried to renounce being a Christian, and He would not let me speak, verbally or internally. The funny part about it is that at the time, I was an Arminian on some levels, although I believed in Calvinism. My point, is that some may really believe in Jesus and yet not be very learned in doctrine. Looking back, I am sure that we can all agree about this, we all at one time have believed in some really goofy stuff until in His Grace, He opened our eyes to the truth. As we continue to abide in His Word and His Word abides in us, and we follow Him, His truth sets us Free. Look for common ground to meet people on, grow in compassion and kindness, love people, for without His Grace, we would all be on our way to hell.
ReplyDeleteThank you Kelly, I didn't know that about you. I obviously must have misinterpreted something you said in a previous post. I wasn't meaning to take a stab at you, but to have us all rather look away from our own biases, to looking at the issues involved, and trying to make sense of it all, by coming up with a possible solution to the OT/NT continuity problem.
ReplyDeleteJerry, your cool. Oliver, what I said, is the logical conclusion of Dispensationalism. If you carry out the view of Dispensationalism, to it's logical conclusion, that is where you arrive.
ReplyDeleteNo, Kelly, it's where you arrive if you are unbalanced and do not obey all of the scripture. We are commanded to occupy until the Lord comes. Anyone who is sitting around is being disobedient.
ReplyDeleteJerry, yes it's good to read a variety of writers. However, if you find someone ignoring parts of scripture which don't fit with his view, or grossly distorting them, or ignoring historical facts that contradict his view, it's time to give up on that writer.
ReplyDeleteThe bible is not intended to be obscure and difficult to interpret; interpretations that make it so are therefore very likely to be false. That was a characteristic of the gnostic heresies.
Let's look at a few examples of such obscure interpretation.
Preterists put all the weight of interpretation on a handful of time texts - this generation and the word "quickly" in Revelation. Therefore they insist that almost all of prophecy was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. They even insist that Jesus made a sort of spiritual return in that event. Thus they ignore the fact that Jesus spoke of his return as being like lightning that is seen across the whole sky. "Every eye shall see him." Did anyone see him in 70? Not so you would notice. No Christian church realised that this had happened. No one reading the bible as a whole would think that Jesus could possibly be referring to an invisible spiritual coming. So, preterists aren't worth wasting time on.
Then we have amillennialists, who claim (along with preterists, I think) that Satan is already bound. This is so obviously contrary to fact that I am amazed that anyone could say it with a straight face. When did this happen? It certainly wasn't at the cross, because 1 Peter 5:8 warns us that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Did Satan's binding also happen at the destruction of Jerusalem? In fact, the world proceeds just as it ever did, with Satan still operating as the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air. And as we know, amillennialists have to deny plain statements of scripture, asserting that they are allegorical or symbolic; but all fulfilled prophecy was fulfilled literally, not symbolically. So, out with amillennialists!
Then we have postmillennialists, or dominionists, who think that the world is getting better and better and that the church will take over the government of the world; even that they must take over the world in order that Jesus might come back! (Such arrogance!) But the scripture says the opposite: that there will be a great falling away and that there will be few people who find life. Indeed there are many deceivers and dominionists are prominent among them. Out with them too!
Now it may be that some of these people have valid insights in other areas; but how can I trust them, knowing that they have distorted scripture in these areas? Why not rather read people who have proved that they rightly divide the word of truth in this important area? If someone gets wrong something as fundamental as our blessed hope, how likely is it that he will have other insights worth hearing? There is only so much time available. Don't waste time on false teachers.
Kelly claims that the creation is no longer under a curse. This is nonsense. All the elements of the curse are still in place:
ReplyDeleteGen 3:17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
None of these things have yet been changed. The whole universe is still under the curse, for Paul says in Romans 8, years after the cross
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
It is quite plain that the release from the bondage of decay has not yet happened ("For who hopes for what he sees?")
The whole universe will be redeemed; the payment has been made but the transaction has not yet been completed. When it is, there will be no longer any opportunity for repentance; at the moment, God waits so that as many as possible may be saved.
Oliver, I marvel at your ability to ‘know’ who misinterprets scripture. Anyone writing contrary to the way you understand scripture must be wrong and not lead of the Holy Spirit at this point. You come across this way all the time! You say, “it's good to read a variety of writers;” but you mean only if they agree with you, otherwise, “it's time to give up on that writer,” “aren't worth wasting time on,” “Out with them…” Then why waste your time with me? Is it because I say some things correctly? But you have already answered this: “Now it may be that some of these people have valid insights in other areas; but how can I trust them, knowing that they have distorted scripture in these areas?” Therefore you must not trust me either in these “other areas,” and should not “waste” your time with me (following your own line of reasoning).
ReplyDeleteA correct understanding of scripture is not as cut and dry in all places as you might make it sound to be, especially in the area of Bible prophecy. Of course, with your guidance on this, no one would ever have to worry about going astray. But putting this innuendo aside, I would like to admit my own vulnerability here. Every eschatological scheme has its weaknesses; most sensible students of the Word of God know this to be true. I would be the first to admit that I could be wrong about some things about Bible prophecy, and that some things seem forced, but you will not admit this - and who is accusing who of being “arrogant?”
Oliver, I would now like to address some of the things you brought up. Concerning Rev 1:7, even dispensationalist’s have trouble understanding the “every” in this verse. Is it to be understood quite literally, or somewhat generally? Many have often wondered how Christ could be seen by every person in all parts of the world, in basements, or even in a submarine. Then with the invention of satellite TV, many see a fulfillment of this prophecy, but still find it hard to believe that everyone in the world will have access to a TV monitor. So, for a preterist to say that “every eye shall see Him” upon the destruction of Jerusalem when hundreds of thousands of Jews met their maker then, who’s to say that their “every” is not as perfect as the premillennialist’s?
ReplyDeleteI have pondered the preterist interpretation of this passage and wondered if there could be something to it, but not convinced yet as to the meaning they give to this passage. Partial preterist’s (as I am) do believe in a literal physical coming of our Lord Jesus Christ someday; and to interpret this passage as describing this rather, does not alter our beliefs in the 70 AD fulfillment of other passages of scripture. I happen to favor the idea that this particular verse of scripture is describing the second coming of our Lord, and that upon this event “every eye” will see Him, as EVERY person who ever lived will stand before Him on that day and be judged. Yet in your scheme of things, everyone won’t be there to “see” Him, because you have judgment day occurring one thousand years later, and so you have more of a problem with this verse than I do (trying to explain how ALL people could see Him from every corner of the earth). I have no problem with this verse.
As far as the binding of Satan goes, once again, you strain at a gnat about something that requires a greater theme to be settled first. Thus, talking about this right now will only sound foolish until that more important theme is first settled. Surely you believe Christ dealt some kind of a blow towards Satan upon Calvary and His resurrection? And that the deception that was once upon the gentiles was being lifted through the gospel? We understand this binding in the sense of how Satan will no longer be able to keep the nations (gentiles) from believing (see vs. 3). But like I said, this is based upon a broader truth, which I’ll leave to you to bring up (if you wish).
Then I noticed that you did not answer the time text mentioning. This is so, because it would require you to use non-literal interpretations. By the way, we do not “allegorize.” We believe the Bible uses figurative language, but we do not allegorize, there’s a difference.
Oliver, just a little note to let you know that when I said: "met their maker" - that was just a pun. I actually believe that when someone dies not knowing the Lord, hell is where they will lift-up their eyes.
ReplyDeleteJerry, first of all, let us deal with the question of scripture. That really seems to be the problem area. 'Anyone writing contrary to the way you understand scripture must be wrong and not lead of the Holy Spirit at this point. You come across this way all the time! You say, “it's good to read a variety of writers;” but you mean only if they agree with you, otherwise, “it's time to give up on that writer,” “aren't worth wasting time on,” “Out with them…”' But you omitted my reason for saying those things: 'if you find someone ignoring parts of scripture which don't fit with his view, or grossly distorting them, or ignoring historical facts that contradict his view'. My complaint against the other views I mentioned is that they all do this. The reason for rejecting them is that their proponents ignore parts of scripture that do not support their view. Do you not do the same with Jehovah's Witnesses (for example)? Do you read The Watchtower, looking for insight, even though you know that its writers deny the deity of Jesus? (That is a more extreme example, of course, since they are not even saved.) Which dispensational writers do you read? and what benefits do you derive from their writings? (Let me recommend Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum.)
ReplyDeleteThe principle which must be applied in exegesis is that every part of the scripture which bears upon a subject must be taken into account. Everyone knows that one should not take parts of the bible out of context -- "the bible says there is no God" (from Psalm 14:1) -- but the context is not just a particular passage but the whole scripture. Eschatalogical passages are scattered through many parts of the bible and all must be integrated. This is something that the amillennial, preterist and postmillennial views fail to do. All of them leave out important parts of the prophecies, most notably the future millennial kingdom, with Israel as chief of the nations. I have not seen anyone deal effectively or even credibly with those (e.g. Micah 4, 5:7ff, Rev 20). Such attempts as there are either claim that God has abandoned his promise to Israel, by replacing Israel with the church, or say that these passages are merely symbolic. You claim that you do not allegorise but treat pasages as figurative. I don't see any practical difference: you end up claiming that a passge means something other than what it says. The bible contains many figures of speech; they are obvious. Apocalyptic language is different. It is not figurative; it is in code, but the codes are explained, either directly or elsewhere in the scripture. The beasts of Daniel and Revelation are explained; the "woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" is identified as Israel by Joseph's dream. But when Revelation says the millennial kingdom will last 1000 years, this is a statement of fact. It is not even in code; it is a plain prediction, and it is repeated six times. A basic principle of exegesis is, "when the passage gives a plain sense, seek no other sense". The millennial kingdom is plainly and clearly predicted and there is no basis for seeking any oither sense for it.
Revelation gives a 7 year countdown to the second coming. The exact length of this period is specified three times over, as years, months and days. Any idea that it is not meant to be a literal period is just incredible. But that means that there is no way the second coming can be a surprise, once those events have begun. Yet "you know not the day nor the hour" and "I am coming like a thief". There is to be an event which certainly will take us by surprise; considering all the prophecies together, this can only be the sudden removal of the church. There is no other prophesied event that can correspond to it.
You asked about the time-texts. In Revelation these are the phrases "ο καιρος εγγυς - the time is near", "ταχυ - soon/quickly" and "εν ταχει - in haste/with speed/shortly". These may speak of the rapidity of the succession of events rather than their distance in time from the writing of Revelation. Since the whole theme of Revelation is the bringing to an end of this age and since nearly 2000 years have gone by without the prophesied events' happening, we might reasonably conclude that we should use translations suggesting rapidity rather than nearness in time. However, 2 Peter 3:8-10 answers the very point of the delay in the fulfilment of the end-time prophecies by saying that God does not see time as we do:
ReplyDeleteBut do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
So I conclude that in God's eyes the events are very soon, no matter how long it seems to us, and he puts things this way because he wants all generations of Christians to be constantly ready, which would be a psychological impossibility if we knew when the actual date would be.
The other major time text is "this generation will not pass away" in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32. Preterists insist that this must mean the people alive when Jesus was speaking. However the same phrase is used elsewhere in contexts where it might better be translated "this people" (Matt 11:16; 12:41-45; Mark 8:12,38; Luke 7:31, 11:29-32, 16:8, 17:25; Acts 2:40). It would make sense to regard it as referring to the nation of Israel, and this is a view borne out by history, since the nation of Israel has survived against all odds and is now re-established in the land. If it does refer to a particular set of people alive at one time, it may equally well refer to those alive when the prophesied events begin to take place. One must point out that Jesus disclaimed knowledge of the timing of the end-time events (Mark 8:32) and so one really must not insist that he was referring to a set of people then alive, since that would make him contradict himself.
In contrast, I suggest that Matthew 23:36 does refer to the generation then alive and that it was that generation that suffered the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, as the penalty for rejecting Jesus and not recognising the time of their visitation.
Oliver wrote:
ReplyDelete'Preterists put all the weight of interpretation on a handful of time texts - this generation and the word "quickly" in Revelation. Therefore they insist that almost all of prophecy was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. They even insist that Jesus made a sort of spiritual return in that event. Thus they ignore the fact that Jesus spoke of his return as being like lightning that is seen across the whole sky. "Every eye shall see him." Did anyone see him in 70?'
CEH: Of course the vexing problem is what could be meant by Rev 1:7? Futurists, it seems, gloss over the "time texts" (which are more than a few). And, this is evident in your too abbreviated quote from Rev 1:7. The clause immediately following 'every eye shall see him', is: 'even those who pierced him'. So, if one takes that literally then this must refer to people of the generation who knew the human Jesus of Nazareth. And thus, this is another time sensitive clause. Contextually this point is amplified by the fact that this message is written to: 'the seven churches in the province of Asia' (that is, seven 1st century churches).
And verse one of the book tells us this "revelation" from Jesus Christ was given by God so that Jesus could show these churches what must soon take place. Now, if this didn't happen in the 1st century (as futurists insist), then this looking upon the pierced Jesus must be in the metaphorical sense (or trans-dimensional if they look from beyond the grave). And, the accusation of guilt for the piercing must be an enduring racial blood libel, since the actual/real guilty individuals have long ago passed from the living.
I don't dispute that there are problems in any interpretation. But if you are going to be so literal about the time texts that you treat them as the one thing above all that must be taken literally, at the cost of treating all the rest as symbolic, you should also consider that "those who pierced him" are actually only three or four Roman soldiers. We know that that is not a reasonable interpretation; no more is it reasonable to insist on a first century fulfilment when nearly all the details of the prophecies do not fit what actually happened. Those who pierced him are primarily the Jewish leaders who handed Jesus over to be crucified, but also everyone, living, dead and yet to live, both Jew and Gentile, because it is our sins that made Jesus' death necessary.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to understand Revelation if you do not appreciate that it has around 800 quotations from or references to the Old Testament. This particular one is to Zechariah 12:10-14, which prophesies a national repentance by Israel. That certainly did not happen in the first century, and it has not yet happened at all. Jesus, in Matthew 24 and here, addresses the future nation in its ancestors (a very biblical principle -- cf Heb 7:9-10). "Every eye shall see him" picks up Matt 24:27 and Luke 21:25-28, which make it clear that Jesus' return to the earth will be seen by everyone. That is the main theme of Revelation and is what "soon/quickly" refers to. "Even" translates "kai" whose primary meaning is "and". It might better be translated "including". I am quite happy to regard this as including the dead in Hades, who do seem to have awareness of some things outside their own immediate surroundings (Luke 16:23).
Yes, the letters are addressed to the seven churches of Asia. Seven is a very significant number in scripture, that signifies completeness, especially in John's writings. These are certainly not all the churches in the province of Asia. They form a clockwise pattern, starting at Ephesus, which is the closest to Patmos. The letters are actually addressed to the angel of each church and "you" is singular (as the KJV brings out with "thou" instead of "you"). An angel is immortal and therefore we can say that the actual addressees are still living. Besides the then living congregations, the seven churches in one sense represent the complete range of possible churches. In another sense they represent the broad span of church history in the West -- other churches like the Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian and Syriac seem to have got frozen as sidelines of history. In their particular order they represent very broadly seven ages of history, from the end of the first century until now. They would not do so in any other order. Even their names are relevant to that view.
Revelation has a message for every generation; indeed it is the one book that promises a special blessing to those who read it. But its central message is that Jesus is coming soon. The effective latest date for each individual in every generation is the date of his death, which might come at any minute, or of the removal of the church for some of us.
Oliver wrote:
ReplyDelete'...if you are going to be so literal about the time texts that you treat them as the one thing above all that must be taken literally, at the cost of treating all the rest as symbolic, you should also consider that "those who pierced him" are actually only three or four Roman soldiers.'
CEH: It seems common sensical to treat the time texts reasonably literally because otherwise they would have no useful meaning to the original audience. In that vein it seems just obvious that the primary guide for meaning of a given text would be (ordinarily) what it meant to the original audience who received it. This may not be an "absolute rule" -- but if it isn't ordinarily the case then the Scriptures would be close to useless for that original audience. Reading, or (more likely) hearing the original message from John (in this case, and Jesus in Matthew) of "what must soon take place" and that "the time is near", creates expectation of something impending.
In Rev. chap. two an additional time marker (of sorts) is dropped into the text in the form of the: "Nicolaitans". Now, we might try to say that this obscure word has some generic meaning which applies to the Church in all ages, but (even if that were so) it still has to have a more down-to-earth meaning to the 1st century church of Ephesus, because of its oblique insertion without direct explanation into the text. This suggests that it was very obvious to writer and reader alike who this group was. And thus this unusual word grounds the Revelation text in the 1st century as an epistle.
An epistle, while an opportunity to expound on universal truths, is also at the same time a personal occasional document intended to address matters of contemporary concern. We are somewhat flummoxed by this epistle because it is largely (though not totally) in apocalyptic language, and we are used to straightforward logical prose of the rest of the NT epistles.
It is my suspicion that John wrote in apocalyptic language for multiple reasons. One reason I suspect was to confound unbelievers as to its significance, because it probably refers to things that Roman and Jew alike would find offensive if it were said plainly.
The time texts were as useful to the original audience as they are to us: we are to be ready at all times, because no one knows the day or the hour. If Jesus had said that the end would be delayed for 2,000 years, how could anyone hold himself ready as he should? It would be psychologically impossible.
ReplyDelete"Nicolaitan" is obscure only because it is not translated. It means dominators of the people and for most of its history the church has been given over to them: the separate clergy. Naturally, all the letters are relevant to the particular churches that received them. They are also relevant to all churches and to all times. Finally, they are relevant to ages of the church. This was noted centuries ago, not just in our day. A human author would not be able to write in such a way, but these are letters from Jesus himself.
The bible contains many examples of prophets who paid no attention to what people would think of them. Jesus himself addressed the Jewish leaders as a brood of vipers. The apostles and Stephen were equally forthright. Those who modify their message for fear of men are called "man-pleasers"; this is not a compliment! Apocalyptic language is characteristic of end-times prophecy. Daniel and Zechariah used it. There is no valid reason to suppose it was a code designed to avoid persecution.
In the introduction, Charles wrote: "Dispensationalism is kind of a moving target. The descriptors for the different phases of its evolution (which I am familiar with) are thus..."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a Pauline dispensationalist* (42 years), you should also attempt to understand the broadly diverse and evolving history of the Covenant Theology tradition as well.
_____________
At the core of most all "dispensational" thought is the Pauline scriptural premise:
God the Father has one overarching purpose, to glorify Himself in Christ. This involves glory in two (2) spheres--the earthly and the heavenly (Eph.1:3-14).
The lumping together of John N. Darby and the early Plymouth Brethren with "all dispensationalists 'til the mid 20th century" is erroneous, anything but "scholarly," and is simply a continuation of the distorted, broad-bush approach applied by others yoked to the Covenant/Reformed perspective.
_____________
* Pauline Dispensationalism: 1) The Church is not an extension of Israel. 2) The Church was neither prophesied nor revealed in OT Scriptures. 3) The Church (born at Pentecost-Acts 2) was a complete "mystery" until revealed doctrinally by Paul. 4) Paul, in the Church Epistles, was the minister of Church truth.
It would seem at the outset that the fact of Dispensationalism's "evolving" and "progressing" nature is undeniable, shouldn't this immediately raise a red flag as to being likened unto Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses Cults insofar as they too change, morph, and evolve over time. This chameleon type movement and change should clue us all in that it is very different from the True God and Christianity of the Bible, i.e., It simply NEVER changes!
ReplyDeleteI've published a Reformed Christian Comic Book recently! I'm exploring ideas on how to tackle the Dispensational Cult with my work as well. Take a look! Go to this link:
http://bookstore.westbowpress.com/Products/SKU-000500411/Therapeutic-Insanity.aspx
Here's my blog site for more info about the book:
http://reformationcartoons.blogspot.com/
Lord bless!