lunes, 26 de febrero de 2007
Superstar! - Einstein the Bird
A friend sent this to me today. I'm not a big pet fan, but this is pretty funny. What a superstar!
domingo, 25 de febrero de 2007
Teachable
I listened to my pastor preach this morning about humility. One characteristic he listed was, of course, teachable. I think I'm teachable. I do. But then again, I think I'm humble sometimes too...and then realize I must not be if I ever think I am. So why is it so hard?
Last week I turned 33, and I really thought (when I was younger) that by this point in my life, things would look a certain way. For example, I thought I'd be done with school...and I'm not. I thought I'd be pastoring a church...and I'm not. I thought I'd be finished struggling with lust...and I'm not. I thought I'd have a consistent daily time of family worship...and I don't. I thought I'd be back "in shape"...and I'm not. I thought I'd be financially free...and I'm not. So why is this? I think a big part of it is because I'm really not very teachable.
It may sound crazy but I really thought I'd have mastered many of these issues by this point in my life. Really! But I often feel like I'm more of a mess now that I ever was. Have I become less teachable? I'm not sure, but one thing I do know is that the things that prevent one from being teachable are more evident in my life now than ever. For example, I'm more aware of my pride. I'm constantly self-evaluating, usually in an unhealthy manner such as comparing. I think I should be one thing, or should have accomplished another (as compared to others). It's really just my pride. I think I'm so great that I should be further along in life. I wouldn't openly say that (for some reason it's easier to write it), but fundamentally that is where I am. And the deeper issue with my pride, I think, is my lack of faith. When I say that I am not somewhere that I think I should be or that I haven't accomplished something that I think I should have, I'm really doubting God's sovereign work in my life.
This past week I had a kind of pressure cooker event, spawned by a series of news I recieved and possibly by my pending birthday. I passed a coworker at work who asked, "How are you doing?" A simple question, or so he thought. I was in the pressure cooker, and so I unloaded on him. He graciously encouraged me and reminded me that either I'd royally screwed up or I doubted God's sovereignty. Maybe both. But the real issue, he exhorted, was that even if I had screwed up, I was really saying that God could not redeem my mistakes. He told me there were numerous missionaries on the field (I work for a mission sending agency) who constantly struggled with these thoughts. Their children were straying, there was little fruit in their work, there was strife on their team, etc... and they struggled with the same issues. It made my troubles seem so small. Finally, he reminded me that God wasn't finished with me. I know this, and maybe if I were more teachable I'd rest in this. But my will bucks because I'm not content. It really is an issue of my lack of faith.
And so I move on, trying to remind myself that even though I've wanted many things, either I'm not ready for these or God is protecting me from things I can't see. This isn't to make light of my inadequacies. Certainly those have to be a factor. But I long for God to move me beyond where I am so that I can be more useful to Him (or at least feel more useful). Maybe the desire to feel useful is sinful in itself (more pride). But that's where I am.
Last week I turned 33, and I really thought (when I was younger) that by this point in my life, things would look a certain way. For example, I thought I'd be done with school...and I'm not. I thought I'd be pastoring a church...and I'm not. I thought I'd be finished struggling with lust...and I'm not. I thought I'd have a consistent daily time of family worship...and I don't. I thought I'd be back "in shape"...and I'm not. I thought I'd be financially free...and I'm not. So why is this? I think a big part of it is because I'm really not very teachable.
It may sound crazy but I really thought I'd have mastered many of these issues by this point in my life. Really! But I often feel like I'm more of a mess now that I ever was. Have I become less teachable? I'm not sure, but one thing I do know is that the things that prevent one from being teachable are more evident in my life now than ever. For example, I'm more aware of my pride. I'm constantly self-evaluating, usually in an unhealthy manner such as comparing. I think I should be one thing, or should have accomplished another (as compared to others). It's really just my pride. I think I'm so great that I should be further along in life. I wouldn't openly say that (for some reason it's easier to write it), but fundamentally that is where I am. And the deeper issue with my pride, I think, is my lack of faith. When I say that I am not somewhere that I think I should be or that I haven't accomplished something that I think I should have, I'm really doubting God's sovereign work in my life.
This past week I had a kind of pressure cooker event, spawned by a series of news I recieved and possibly by my pending birthday. I passed a coworker at work who asked, "How are you doing?" A simple question, or so he thought. I was in the pressure cooker, and so I unloaded on him. He graciously encouraged me and reminded me that either I'd royally screwed up or I doubted God's sovereignty. Maybe both. But the real issue, he exhorted, was that even if I had screwed up, I was really saying that God could not redeem my mistakes. He told me there were numerous missionaries on the field (I work for a mission sending agency) who constantly struggled with these thoughts. Their children were straying, there was little fruit in their work, there was strife on their team, etc... and they struggled with the same issues. It made my troubles seem so small. Finally, he reminded me that God wasn't finished with me. I know this, and maybe if I were more teachable I'd rest in this. But my will bucks because I'm not content. It really is an issue of my lack of faith.
And so I move on, trying to remind myself that even though I've wanted many things, either I'm not ready for these or God is protecting me from things I can't see. This isn't to make light of my inadequacies. Certainly those have to be a factor. But I long for God to move me beyond where I am so that I can be more useful to Him (or at least feel more useful). Maybe the desire to feel useful is sinful in itself (more pride). But that's where I am.
viernes, 23 de febrero de 2007
Birthday Card
This is what my dad sent me on my birthday:
Happy birthday to you,
happy birthday to you.
Pray for your commander-in-cheif you served under in the NAVY,
And grin like him too.
Washington D.C. seven years after Clinton left town...
Happy birthday to you,
happy birthday to you.
Pray for your commander-in-cheif you served under in the NAVY,
And grin like him too.
Washington D.C. seven years after Clinton left town...
jueves, 22 de febrero de 2007
Perspective
As I wrote previously, I believe that a major part of our problem with materialism has to do with perspective. It seems as if we base our own view of materialism on our situation. "I don't have this," or "I haven't spent as much on that," seems to be our line of thinking. I know this is the case in my own life.
As Christians I believe we ought to be more objective. We must first start with our worldview. How do we see the world around us? How do we define materialism in our own head? How do we define 'poor'? Needs are subjective in our own life, but I'm not sure they need be when it comes to materialism. I don't mean this in an absolute kind of way (as much as that seems contradictory). For example, a car may be a luxury in certain parts of the world, but for most Americans a vehicle is a necessity. However, when it comes to how much we spend on a vehicle, I believe we can be more objective. What does a vehicle provide? Transportation. Does it need to have leather interior, or a 6-speaker sound system? That is where the lines begin to blur. Instead of picking on one issue however, let us look more at the idea of how we make decisions.
The way we decide on a car or clothing or a house seems to have more to do with making a statement or making our lives more comfortable. We don't think through the basic thought of transportating, clothing or shelter. We justify amenities based on our wants and give little thought to what we actually need.
It is simply a matter of the heart. Yet, more profoundly, there are infinite nuances of our hearts' desires that we never run through the factory of our brains. A lack of contentment will often drive us to make decisions that are materialistic. If we need to justify something, we do this with ease. Lust can make us justify almost anything. And quite possibly, it is the lust factory of the heart that is the greatest enemy.
Lust is the antithesis of contentment. As Christians, we should be the most content of all people. When we create an idol of the heart (such as a materialistic want) we have lusted for something and ignored the kingship of Christ. A car, or clothing, or a house gives us our identity rather than Christ. Or, we seek our identity from these things rather than find it in Christ. In reality our identity is in Christ, but lust leads us away from this. Our own hearts lie to us and say, "You're not as worthwhile if you don't have this," rather than, "As a steward of Christ's kingdom and His resources, what do I need?" I think this is true, not matter what I try to justify in my own life. I look among my own possessions and my own checkbook and see how this is true. Rather than thinking through each and every purchase as an opportunity to glorify God, I see purchases that are made on a daily basis, often in haste, as simply living the American way.
I'll admit that this is hard. It's hard because we are surrounded by stuff. And stuff on sale. And stuff with low financing. It's readily available and then less than a year later there is a new, much-improved version of what we have, demanding that we upgrade and update. One of the greatest places of struggle is at church each week. People dress to the hilt, they drive fantastic cars, and there is always someone with something new and shiny. Keeping up with the Christian Joneses is as much a challenge as keeping up with the Secular Joneses.
We must start within our own lives, our own homes, our own hearts. I must begin to think through the ideas behind my own desires and needs. It is a battle of thoughts before it is a battle of our checkbooks. And yet, as I have said, little thought is given to these ideas.
And so the struggle continues. Yet if we are ever going to make a difference for Christ's sake, we must through our thought-life, shut down the idol factory of our hearts, by the power of the Spirit, so that we find our contentment in Christ, and in Christ alone. We must take captive the thoughts that would justify our materialism based on our perspective, and seek to gain the perspective that honors God. This perspective takes into account His wants, not ours, and maintains the reality that our identity is in Him, not in what we have.
As Christians I believe we ought to be more objective. We must first start with our worldview. How do we see the world around us? How do we define materialism in our own head? How do we define 'poor'? Needs are subjective in our own life, but I'm not sure they need be when it comes to materialism. I don't mean this in an absolute kind of way (as much as that seems contradictory). For example, a car may be a luxury in certain parts of the world, but for most Americans a vehicle is a necessity. However, when it comes to how much we spend on a vehicle, I believe we can be more objective. What does a vehicle provide? Transportation. Does it need to have leather interior, or a 6-speaker sound system? That is where the lines begin to blur. Instead of picking on one issue however, let us look more at the idea of how we make decisions.
The way we decide on a car or clothing or a house seems to have more to do with making a statement or making our lives more comfortable. We don't think through the basic thought of transportating, clothing or shelter. We justify amenities based on our wants and give little thought to what we actually need.
It is simply a matter of the heart. Yet, more profoundly, there are infinite nuances of our hearts' desires that we never run through the factory of our brains. A lack of contentment will often drive us to make decisions that are materialistic. If we need to justify something, we do this with ease. Lust can make us justify almost anything. And quite possibly, it is the lust factory of the heart that is the greatest enemy.
Lust is the antithesis of contentment. As Christians, we should be the most content of all people. When we create an idol of the heart (such as a materialistic want) we have lusted for something and ignored the kingship of Christ. A car, or clothing, or a house gives us our identity rather than Christ. Or, we seek our identity from these things rather than find it in Christ. In reality our identity is in Christ, but lust leads us away from this. Our own hearts lie to us and say, "You're not as worthwhile if you don't have this," rather than, "As a steward of Christ's kingdom and His resources, what do I need?" I think this is true, not matter what I try to justify in my own life. I look among my own possessions and my own checkbook and see how this is true. Rather than thinking through each and every purchase as an opportunity to glorify God, I see purchases that are made on a daily basis, often in haste, as simply living the American way.
I'll admit that this is hard. It's hard because we are surrounded by stuff. And stuff on sale. And stuff with low financing. It's readily available and then less than a year later there is a new, much-improved version of what we have, demanding that we upgrade and update. One of the greatest places of struggle is at church each week. People dress to the hilt, they drive fantastic cars, and there is always someone with something new and shiny. Keeping up with the Christian Joneses is as much a challenge as keeping up with the Secular Joneses.
We must start within our own lives, our own homes, our own hearts. I must begin to think through the ideas behind my own desires and needs. It is a battle of thoughts before it is a battle of our checkbooks. And yet, as I have said, little thought is given to these ideas.
And so the struggle continues. Yet if we are ever going to make a difference for Christ's sake, we must through our thought-life, shut down the idol factory of our hearts, by the power of the Spirit, so that we find our contentment in Christ, and in Christ alone. We must take captive the thoughts that would justify our materialism based on our perspective, and seek to gain the perspective that honors God. This perspective takes into account His wants, not ours, and maintains the reality that our identity is in Him, not in what we have.
lunes, 19 de febrero de 2007
The Doctrine of the Kingdom - Part 3
The Reformed View
The Reformed view of the doctrine of the Kingdom is defined by Vos as, “the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” The Covenantal perspective understands a unity to exist between the Old and New Testaments. God’s Kingdom has always ruled all things. On earth, God revealed His kingdom first through the nation of Israel. However, this was not to be the end as if God’s highest aspirations were merely political. The Jewish monarchy was to point to something greater, namely, the messianic kingship that would one day come to save not the ethnic nation of Israel, but the True Israel, the people of God. The Messiah’s coming brought with it the ushering in of the Kingdom.
Jesus was the founder of no new religion; instead, he was to bring about the realization of what had previously been presented in ideal form. His (Vos’s) point is that there is a historic unity between Jesus’ teaching and the revelation of the Old Testament regarding the Kingdom. The essence of the Kingdom of God consists in the supremacy of God, in the sphere of saving power and in the state of human blessedness. There could be, for Jesus, no state of happiness for man without the prior reigning of God.
Yet the Reformed view does not claim that the Kingdom of God is fully manifested. The present time is in the progression of the Kingdom’s manifestation. In other words, today can be seen the very making of history, the history of the Kingdom. The Church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom work here on earth. The Church is the New Israel that is prophesied in the Old Testament. In the book of Ezekiel we see that, “Eventually Ezekiel saw a new Israel with Messiah as its prince (34:23f.; 37:24). That new Israel would walk in the law of the Lord (11:20; 16:61; 20:43; 36:27) and dwell in the land of Canaan (36:33; 37:25). God would enter into a new covenant with that people (37:26–28), and he would walk in close fellowship with them (39:29; 46:9). Upon them the Lord would pour out his Holy Spirit (36:27; 39:27).” Unless one insists on a literal occupying of the land of Canaan, all of these things have been fulfilled in the Church. The only thing that would keep Israel and the Church separate is a system of interpretation that insisted on such. The Reformed view, particularly the Amillennial view, asserts that the Church is the New Israel completely and that the Kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to a new people, the Church (Matt. 21:43). Of interest is that the term “Kingdom of God” is used in Matthew 21:43, not “Kingdom of Heaven.” Is this not specifically speaking of the Messiah’s particular kingdom and not of God’s general rule over all? This supports the view of the Reformed who hold that both terms, “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven,” are synonymous (see also Matt. 19:23-24 where both terms are used synonymously).
And so it is that the Kingdom has not only come but it also is to come. As in much prophecy of the Old Testament, there was a present or near fulfillment, and a future fulfillment (e.g. the Messianic Psalms). J.I. Packer writes, “The kingdom is present in its beginnings though future in its fullness; in one sense it is here already, but in the richest sense it is still to come (Luke 11:20; 16:16; 17:21; 22:16, 18, 29-30).” After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he claimed to His disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” The word “all” is exclusive. Jesus is King now.
The Reformed view of the doctrine of the Kingdom is defined by Vos as, “the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” The Covenantal perspective understands a unity to exist between the Old and New Testaments. God’s Kingdom has always ruled all things. On earth, God revealed His kingdom first through the nation of Israel. However, this was not to be the end as if God’s highest aspirations were merely political. The Jewish monarchy was to point to something greater, namely, the messianic kingship that would one day come to save not the ethnic nation of Israel, but the True Israel, the people of God. The Messiah’s coming brought with it the ushering in of the Kingdom.
Jesus was the founder of no new religion; instead, he was to bring about the realization of what had previously been presented in ideal form. His (Vos’s) point is that there is a historic unity between Jesus’ teaching and the revelation of the Old Testament regarding the Kingdom. The essence of the Kingdom of God consists in the supremacy of God, in the sphere of saving power and in the state of human blessedness. There could be, for Jesus, no state of happiness for man without the prior reigning of God.
Yet the Reformed view does not claim that the Kingdom of God is fully manifested. The present time is in the progression of the Kingdom’s manifestation. In other words, today can be seen the very making of history, the history of the Kingdom. The Church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom work here on earth. The Church is the New Israel that is prophesied in the Old Testament. In the book of Ezekiel we see that, “Eventually Ezekiel saw a new Israel with Messiah as its prince (34:23f.; 37:24). That new Israel would walk in the law of the Lord (11:20; 16:61; 20:43; 36:27) and dwell in the land of Canaan (36:33; 37:25). God would enter into a new covenant with that people (37:26–28), and he would walk in close fellowship with them (39:29; 46:9). Upon them the Lord would pour out his Holy Spirit (36:27; 39:27).” Unless one insists on a literal occupying of the land of Canaan, all of these things have been fulfilled in the Church. The only thing that would keep Israel and the Church separate is a system of interpretation that insisted on such. The Reformed view, particularly the Amillennial view, asserts that the Church is the New Israel completely and that the Kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to a new people, the Church (Matt. 21:43). Of interest is that the term “Kingdom of God” is used in Matthew 21:43, not “Kingdom of Heaven.” Is this not specifically speaking of the Messiah’s particular kingdom and not of God’s general rule over all? This supports the view of the Reformed who hold that both terms, “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven,” are synonymous (see also Matt. 19:23-24 where both terms are used synonymously).
And so it is that the Kingdom has not only come but it also is to come. As in much prophecy of the Old Testament, there was a present or near fulfillment, and a future fulfillment (e.g. the Messianic Psalms). J.I. Packer writes, “The kingdom is present in its beginnings though future in its fullness; in one sense it is here already, but in the richest sense it is still to come (Luke 11:20; 16:16; 17:21; 22:16, 18, 29-30).” After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he claimed to His disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” The word “all” is exclusive. Jesus is King now.
sábado, 17 de febrero de 2007
The Doctrine of the Kingdom - Part 2
The Dispensational View
The growth of Dispensationalism can probably be attributed most greatly to Liberalism as to anything else. Dispensationalism grew not because of its minor doctrines, many of which have been rejected by present-day Dispensationalists, but because of its major doctrine of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. People of the early Twentieth Century embraced Dispensationalism in reaction against Liberalism. And for that reason it is quite possible that other doctrines were not investigated as closely as needed, as has been evidenced by the abandoning of some doctrines in recent years (e.g. Modern Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, etc.).
Traditional Dispensationalism taught that Christ came to establish an earthly kingdom. He came offering this kingdom to the nation of Israel, but they rejected it and therefore God’s plan was postponed. Dispensationalists assert that not only did God not yet establish His Kingdom among men; he has two people of His own. They assert that the Church is God’s people in the New Testament and the nation of Israel is God’s people in the Old Testament. The lines are kept distinct. Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel. Furthermore, they draw a distinction between the term “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven.” Ladd points out that this begins “from the premise that all Old Testament prophecies to Israel must be fulfilled literally.” Therefore, the “Kingdom of God”, according to Dispensationalists, is the rule of God over all, while the “Kingdom of Heaven” is the earthly rule that Jesus offered but was rejected. It is this kingdom that He will establish on earth, as a literal, earthly monarchy when He returns the time after the next, seven and a half years after the Rapture. Furthermore, the Sermon on the Mount is not prescribed for the present dispensation, but will be the Law for the Kingdom of Heaven in the later dispensation.
Therefore, according to Dispensationalists, the Kingdom is yet to come. The Kingdom will be a literal, earthly Kingdom. Christ will rule in an earthly manner. Yet there are problems that arise when this view is examined. First, in Matthew 25:31-46 is written the establishment of the Kingdom. In verse 34 he gives the Kingdom that is the inheritance to the sheep on the right. He separates the sheep on the left and sends them to eternal judgment (v. 41). Yet, according to the Dispensational view, there shall be unbelievers in the Kingdom (see also Rev. 20:7-10 where it speaks of Satan’s deception at the end of the Thousand Year Reign.) Their literal method of interpretation cannot render a solution to this. Furthermore, Luke 11:20 and 17:21 state that the Kingdom itself is in the midst. Of course, the response would be that this is the Kingdom of God not the Kingdom of Heaven (which is mentioned only in Matthew and is arguably a synonym of the term “Kingdom of God”). Additionally, Dispensationalists claim that the pearl of great price in Matthew 13:45 is the Church and the field is Israel. However, literal interpretation could not render this result. Additional examples could be provided, but suffice to say that Dispensationalists interpret Scripture literally when it fits their theological framework and they do not when it is not fitting. The only exceptions to this observation are those theological positions of traditional Dispensationalism that have been abandoned by modern-day Dispensationalists recognizing the truth of Scripture. It should also be stated that Dispensationalists make the same accusation against Covenant Theologians regarding the system of theology governing their hermeneutic.
Finally, it was noted that Dispensationlists claim Jesus came to earth to offer His kingdom to the nation of Israel, but that Israel rejected it. But has God ever worked that way? Did He give the Law “hoping” that the nation of Israel would abide by it perfectly and be saved? Did He establish the Jewish monarchy to save the nation politically? Did He send the prophets to give the nation of Israel a “chance” to repent? The answer is most clearly “NO!” God foreshadowed the salvation he was to bring, that only He could bring, to mankind in greater and greater detail through history. What man could not accomplish through the Law to save himself, Christ could accomplish for all God’s people by perfectly fulfilling it. That which David could never have done, no matter how perfectly he ruled or how willing his subjects were to him, Christ sovereignly and mightily does through His Kingly office. What no prophet could do in the hearts of a stubborn people, Jesus Christ accomplished and the Holy Spirit works to regenerate people’s hearts of stone and turn them into hearts of flesh. Christ’s entrance into the world was to die and thereby establish the Kingdom, not simply offer it as some impotent religious figure. In fact, he did not offer His kingdom; He established His kingdom, as the sovereign of all!
The growth of Dispensationalism can probably be attributed most greatly to Liberalism as to anything else. Dispensationalism grew not because of its minor doctrines, many of which have been rejected by present-day Dispensationalists, but because of its major doctrine of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. People of the early Twentieth Century embraced Dispensationalism in reaction against Liberalism. And for that reason it is quite possible that other doctrines were not investigated as closely as needed, as has been evidenced by the abandoning of some doctrines in recent years (e.g. Modern Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, etc.).
Traditional Dispensationalism taught that Christ came to establish an earthly kingdom. He came offering this kingdom to the nation of Israel, but they rejected it and therefore God’s plan was postponed. Dispensationalists assert that not only did God not yet establish His Kingdom among men; he has two people of His own. They assert that the Church is God’s people in the New Testament and the nation of Israel is God’s people in the Old Testament. The lines are kept distinct. Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel. Furthermore, they draw a distinction between the term “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven.” Ladd points out that this begins “from the premise that all Old Testament prophecies to Israel must be fulfilled literally.” Therefore, the “Kingdom of God”, according to Dispensationalists, is the rule of God over all, while the “Kingdom of Heaven” is the earthly rule that Jesus offered but was rejected. It is this kingdom that He will establish on earth, as a literal, earthly monarchy when He returns the time after the next, seven and a half years after the Rapture. Furthermore, the Sermon on the Mount is not prescribed for the present dispensation, but will be the Law for the Kingdom of Heaven in the later dispensation.
Therefore, according to Dispensationalists, the Kingdom is yet to come. The Kingdom will be a literal, earthly Kingdom. Christ will rule in an earthly manner. Yet there are problems that arise when this view is examined. First, in Matthew 25:31-46 is written the establishment of the Kingdom. In verse 34 he gives the Kingdom that is the inheritance to the sheep on the right. He separates the sheep on the left and sends them to eternal judgment (v. 41). Yet, according to the Dispensational view, there shall be unbelievers in the Kingdom (see also Rev. 20:7-10 where it speaks of Satan’s deception at the end of the Thousand Year Reign.) Their literal method of interpretation cannot render a solution to this. Furthermore, Luke 11:20 and 17:21 state that the Kingdom itself is in the midst. Of course, the response would be that this is the Kingdom of God not the Kingdom of Heaven (which is mentioned only in Matthew and is arguably a synonym of the term “Kingdom of God”). Additionally, Dispensationalists claim that the pearl of great price in Matthew 13:45 is the Church and the field is Israel. However, literal interpretation could not render this result. Additional examples could be provided, but suffice to say that Dispensationalists interpret Scripture literally when it fits their theological framework and they do not when it is not fitting. The only exceptions to this observation are those theological positions of traditional Dispensationalism that have been abandoned by modern-day Dispensationalists recognizing the truth of Scripture. It should also be stated that Dispensationalists make the same accusation against Covenant Theologians regarding the system of theology governing their hermeneutic.
Finally, it was noted that Dispensationlists claim Jesus came to earth to offer His kingdom to the nation of Israel, but that Israel rejected it. But has God ever worked that way? Did He give the Law “hoping” that the nation of Israel would abide by it perfectly and be saved? Did He establish the Jewish monarchy to save the nation politically? Did He send the prophets to give the nation of Israel a “chance” to repent? The answer is most clearly “NO!” God foreshadowed the salvation he was to bring, that only He could bring, to mankind in greater and greater detail through history. What man could not accomplish through the Law to save himself, Christ could accomplish for all God’s people by perfectly fulfilling it. That which David could never have done, no matter how perfectly he ruled or how willing his subjects were to him, Christ sovereignly and mightily does through His Kingly office. What no prophet could do in the hearts of a stubborn people, Jesus Christ accomplished and the Holy Spirit works to regenerate people’s hearts of stone and turn them into hearts of flesh. Christ’s entrance into the world was to die and thereby establish the Kingdom, not simply offer it as some impotent religious figure. In fact, he did not offer His kingdom; He established His kingdom, as the sovereign of all!
viernes, 16 de febrero de 2007
The Doctrine of the Kingdom - Part 1
Introduction
It is enjoyable to think back to one’s Sunday School days and the Bible stories of the kings of Israel when one hears the term “the Kingdom of God.” After all, isn’t that what God had in mind when He made the promise of an everlasting kingdom? Is not the nation of Israel due a reinstituted kingdom according to the promises of the Old Testament prophets? Although no evangelical Christian would deny Christ’s kingly office or the sovereignty of God, the meaning of the term “Kingdom of God” is certainly varied across Christianity.
There are three basic views of the Kingdom of God. The first shall be called the “liberal hope” view of the Kingdom. In this view, the Kingdom is yet to come but is providing social, economic, and political salvation throughout the world. Proponents of this view often reduce Christ to simply a teacher or a prophet and turn the eschatological teachings of the New Testament into imagery of a present social evolution and a coming social bliss. The second view, and certainly the most common, is the dispensational premillennial view. Dispensationalists hold that the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” (the latter used only in Matthew) describe a present kingdom and a future kingdom, respectively. The focus, however, is on a future, literal, earthly kingdom in which Jesus will reign as an earthly king. The third view is the Reformed view which sees the Kingdom of God as both present and future. At present, “it designates the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” In the future, it will be a whole-hearted recognition of all creation to that sovereignty. These three views will be surveyed with attention being given to the light that Scripture sheds on each position.
The Liberal Hope View
The liberal hope view can certainly not be accepted by any serious student of the Bible, let alone anyone who would call themselves an evangelical. Its very premise denies the deity and perfection of Christ. Christ did not possess “Messianic consciousness,” because the order of events was not according to the “outlined plan,” say these proponents. Vos writes of this view, “it shifts the emphasis in His teaching from the present-spiritual to the external-eschatological, making the former no more than a mans to the latter…seeing that a man so absorbed by these radical other-worldly, fantastic speculations, could not have possessed a well-balanced psychical temper; He becomes a subject for psychiatric investigation.” Jesus is not only ludicrous, but He is quite an impotent king, if even considered a king by this view at all.
The kingdom, according to the liberal hope view, is not yet arrived. Some liberal theologians, like Albert Schweitzer, held that Jesus expected the Kingdom to arrive in the near future. Therefore, when it didn’t, Jesus died “a deluded first century apocalyptist.” This view also sees the Church, not as the Kingdom, since the Kingdom has yet to arrive. Therefore, everything is building, moving toward a future point (the consummation of the Kingdom). That point, however, is not realized now. In the early twentieth century this view was a tool of the Social Gospel in America. In order to accommodate the pressures of Academia, specifically the notion of evolution, liberals saw the movement toward the coming Kingdom as a bettering of mankind. This view of the Kingdom had all the answers to the social, political and economic woes of the day. Furthermore, this progression showed how man was getting better; he was evolving. The final fulfillment of all of this would be the consummation of the Kingdom.
It seems simple enough to identify the problems with this view. The rejection of Christ’s deity and perfection of His mission to earth seem reason enough to reject the notion. However, it is important that one understands why this view came into existence. The rationalism of the Enlightenment had grown tantamount in America, and theologians were not going to be left behind. Therefore, rationalism became the standard of liberalism. The supernatural teachings of Jesus had to be explained away or eliminated. Any notion of a spiritual kingdom was not rational and therefore eliminated. The Kingdom could be seen in the future, where it fit rather nicely. Only pragmatic elements of Christ’s teaching that could support the social and political agenda of the liberals were taught. The result was that Jesus became only an icon and that God’s work in this world was reduced to the occasional good phenomenon.
It is enjoyable to think back to one’s Sunday School days and the Bible stories of the kings of Israel when one hears the term “the Kingdom of God.” After all, isn’t that what God had in mind when He made the promise of an everlasting kingdom? Is not the nation of Israel due a reinstituted kingdom according to the promises of the Old Testament prophets? Although no evangelical Christian would deny Christ’s kingly office or the sovereignty of God, the meaning of the term “Kingdom of God” is certainly varied across Christianity.
There are three basic views of the Kingdom of God. The first shall be called the “liberal hope” view of the Kingdom. In this view, the Kingdom is yet to come but is providing social, economic, and political salvation throughout the world. Proponents of this view often reduce Christ to simply a teacher or a prophet and turn the eschatological teachings of the New Testament into imagery of a present social evolution and a coming social bliss. The second view, and certainly the most common, is the dispensational premillennial view. Dispensationalists hold that the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” (the latter used only in Matthew) describe a present kingdom and a future kingdom, respectively. The focus, however, is on a future, literal, earthly kingdom in which Jesus will reign as an earthly king. The third view is the Reformed view which sees the Kingdom of God as both present and future. At present, “it designates the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” In the future, it will be a whole-hearted recognition of all creation to that sovereignty. These three views will be surveyed with attention being given to the light that Scripture sheds on each position.
The Liberal Hope View
The liberal hope view can certainly not be accepted by any serious student of the Bible, let alone anyone who would call themselves an evangelical. Its very premise denies the deity and perfection of Christ. Christ did not possess “Messianic consciousness,” because the order of events was not according to the “outlined plan,” say these proponents. Vos writes of this view, “it shifts the emphasis in His teaching from the present-spiritual to the external-eschatological, making the former no more than a mans to the latter…seeing that a man so absorbed by these radical other-worldly, fantastic speculations, could not have possessed a well-balanced psychical temper; He becomes a subject for psychiatric investigation.” Jesus is not only ludicrous, but He is quite an impotent king, if even considered a king by this view at all.
The kingdom, according to the liberal hope view, is not yet arrived. Some liberal theologians, like Albert Schweitzer, held that Jesus expected the Kingdom to arrive in the near future. Therefore, when it didn’t, Jesus died “a deluded first century apocalyptist.” This view also sees the Church, not as the Kingdom, since the Kingdom has yet to arrive. Therefore, everything is building, moving toward a future point (the consummation of the Kingdom). That point, however, is not realized now. In the early twentieth century this view was a tool of the Social Gospel in America. In order to accommodate the pressures of Academia, specifically the notion of evolution, liberals saw the movement toward the coming Kingdom as a bettering of mankind. This view of the Kingdom had all the answers to the social, political and economic woes of the day. Furthermore, this progression showed how man was getting better; he was evolving. The final fulfillment of all of this would be the consummation of the Kingdom.
It seems simple enough to identify the problems with this view. The rejection of Christ’s deity and perfection of His mission to earth seem reason enough to reject the notion. However, it is important that one understands why this view came into existence. The rationalism of the Enlightenment had grown tantamount in America, and theologians were not going to be left behind. Therefore, rationalism became the standard of liberalism. The supernatural teachings of Jesus had to be explained away or eliminated. Any notion of a spiritual kingdom was not rational and therefore eliminated. The Kingdom could be seen in the future, where it fit rather nicely. Only pragmatic elements of Christ’s teaching that could support the social and political agenda of the liberals were taught. The result was that Jesus became only an icon and that God’s work in this world was reduced to the occasional good phenomenon.
martes, 13 de febrero de 2007
Sin and Grace
I'm blown away at how easily sin can creep into our lives, even when our guard is up. I've struggled over the past few years with the effects of some prominent mens' sins in my own life. Not just the horrific sins of pastors in my life who slid down the slope into horrific sin that destroyed their ministries and disappointed me, but sin against me. I've wallowed in the self-pity that festered as a result of those sins. But their sin isn't so much what frustrates me now. I'm frustrated by my own self-righteousness in how I view their sin. That little legalist within me likes to sit high on his perch and look down on these men that I once respected. I sense a sick gratification in that I didn't commit that sin, only to realize the sin of self-righteousness in my own heart.
In the midst of this I ponder what grace should look like. I not only don't want to forgive these men, but I want them to suffer. But that's not very gracious. Yet while I want to live out grace I find my heart runs to justice. Not true justice, mind you, but the kind of false justice that reduces my own wretchedness and elevates their wrongdoing.
The sins of others can so easily grind on us. Bitterness develops like a wound that festers. Depression and self-pity grow in that cesspool. My own sin gives way to acting like a pharisee. I zero in on the speck in my brother's eye and miss the log in my own. I forget that God is the judge and not me.
I long to be the person who can grieve over another's sin without becoming sinful myself. Grace demands that I not only forgive, but that I refuse to wallow in and spread the defamation of another's sin. Love should cover it. Love should guide me to bite my tongue, and not just my physical tongue but my inner tongue which I often let talk to myself. I so easily allow these inward conversations to go on where I set straight what that other person did to me. I tell them off in my head, and in so doing play the hypocrite. I allow their open sin to mask the hidden sins in my own life.
When I ponder the death of my Savior, I remember that he went quietly to the cross. Oh, that I would shut my mouth when I want to yell out from my "cross" all the sins that have been committed against me. I'm not advocating passivism when it comes to sin. But God as Judge, set forth in the Church the means to deal with sin in the flock. It's not my job individually. Yet why do I feel so strongly the desire to want to do that?
Grace is where I want to dwell. Not that I overlook sin, but that I grieve more over my own than I do that of others.
In the midst of this I ponder what grace should look like. I not only don't want to forgive these men, but I want them to suffer. But that's not very gracious. Yet while I want to live out grace I find my heart runs to justice. Not true justice, mind you, but the kind of false justice that reduces my own wretchedness and elevates their wrongdoing.
The sins of others can so easily grind on us. Bitterness develops like a wound that festers. Depression and self-pity grow in that cesspool. My own sin gives way to acting like a pharisee. I zero in on the speck in my brother's eye and miss the log in my own. I forget that God is the judge and not me.
I long to be the person who can grieve over another's sin without becoming sinful myself. Grace demands that I not only forgive, but that I refuse to wallow in and spread the defamation of another's sin. Love should cover it. Love should guide me to bite my tongue, and not just my physical tongue but my inner tongue which I often let talk to myself. I so easily allow these inward conversations to go on where I set straight what that other person did to me. I tell them off in my head, and in so doing play the hypocrite. I allow their open sin to mask the hidden sins in my own life.
When I ponder the death of my Savior, I remember that he went quietly to the cross. Oh, that I would shut my mouth when I want to yell out from my "cross" all the sins that have been committed against me. I'm not advocating passivism when it comes to sin. But God as Judge, set forth in the Church the means to deal with sin in the flock. It's not my job individually. Yet why do I feel so strongly the desire to want to do that?
Grace is where I want to dwell. Not that I overlook sin, but that I grieve more over my own than I do that of others.
sábado, 10 de febrero de 2007
Grace
Grace, she takes the blame
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
Grace, she's got the walk
Not on a ramp or on chalk
She's got the time to talk
She carries a pearl in perfect condition
What once was hurt, what once was friction
What left a mark no longer stains
Because Grace makes beauty out of ugly things
These lyrics (courtesy of U2) have been ringing in my ears lately. The concept of grace has, actually. It seems mysteriously absent among Christians, myself included. I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it. Not the absence of grace, but the concept of grace itself. It seems contrary to everything in me. It seems to go against my American-ness. Grace isn't what one deserves, but, as some define it, unmerited favor. So why is it that I have such a hard time showing others unmerited favor?
I think I like vengence better. Whether it's toward one who has outrightly wronged me or toward one who has unpurposefully inconvenienced me, I prefer getting back. It's a shame, really. I of all people live and move and breath as a result of Grace. Why can't I seem to show it to others?
What I've been thinking most about lately is why Christians, including myself, don't do a very good job at this. I think legalism is at the root of it in many ways. I can feel better about my own righteousness if I despise the unrighteousness of others. It's easier to point out how terrible others are at parenting when I can bolster in my own mind all the right things I'm doing, or belittle others' mistakes. Parenting is of course only one example. I think too of church attendance, or financial choices, depresesion, or even driving. It's so easy to feel self-righteous when I've attended church a record number of weeks, to then call out a brother or sister because they missed a week.
Truth has this way of taking us in this direction. We know something to be true, and so we lambast anyone who doesn't measure up. But grace is meaningless apart from truth. The world has it's form of grace. It calls it tolerance. And in this relative age, we Christians have turned any tolerant act into sin. But I don't think all tolerance is sinful. Some is, for sure. But many times I think we Christians feel self-righteous in our judgmentalism, rather than seeking first the Kingdom and Christ's righteousness. Remember, His righteousness is imputed, not earned. As Kingdom citizens we really ought to be the most gracious of people. Christ Himself had this uncanny way of calling sin "sin" in a most gracious way (except to the self-righteous religious leaders).
And so when it comes to my own feebleness, I'm trying to avoid self-pity, while at the same time trying to avoid climbing out of the hole with my own self-righteous shoes. I ought to live and move and breath in the knowledge that I am the chief of sinners. It's not that I should be slack about others' sin. But I should certainly show the same grace that I so love and appreciate my Heavenly Father shows me as I daily stumble through this life.
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
Grace, she's got the walk
Not on a ramp or on chalk
She's got the time to talk
She carries a pearl in perfect condition
What once was hurt, what once was friction
What left a mark no longer stains
Because Grace makes beauty out of ugly things
These lyrics (courtesy of U2) have been ringing in my ears lately. The concept of grace has, actually. It seems mysteriously absent among Christians, myself included. I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it. Not the absence of grace, but the concept of grace itself. It seems contrary to everything in me. It seems to go against my American-ness. Grace isn't what one deserves, but, as some define it, unmerited favor. So why is it that I have such a hard time showing others unmerited favor?
I think I like vengence better. Whether it's toward one who has outrightly wronged me or toward one who has unpurposefully inconvenienced me, I prefer getting back. It's a shame, really. I of all people live and move and breath as a result of Grace. Why can't I seem to show it to others?
What I've been thinking most about lately is why Christians, including myself, don't do a very good job at this. I think legalism is at the root of it in many ways. I can feel better about my own righteousness if I despise the unrighteousness of others. It's easier to point out how terrible others are at parenting when I can bolster in my own mind all the right things I'm doing, or belittle others' mistakes. Parenting is of course only one example. I think too of church attendance, or financial choices, depresesion, or even driving. It's so easy to feel self-righteous when I've attended church a record number of weeks, to then call out a brother or sister because they missed a week.
Truth has this way of taking us in this direction. We know something to be true, and so we lambast anyone who doesn't measure up. But grace is meaningless apart from truth. The world has it's form of grace. It calls it tolerance. And in this relative age, we Christians have turned any tolerant act into sin. But I don't think all tolerance is sinful. Some is, for sure. But many times I think we Christians feel self-righteous in our judgmentalism, rather than seeking first the Kingdom and Christ's righteousness. Remember, His righteousness is imputed, not earned. As Kingdom citizens we really ought to be the most gracious of people. Christ Himself had this uncanny way of calling sin "sin" in a most gracious way (except to the self-righteous religious leaders).
And so when it comes to my own feebleness, I'm trying to avoid self-pity, while at the same time trying to avoid climbing out of the hole with my own self-righteous shoes. I ought to live and move and breath in the knowledge that I am the chief of sinners. It's not that I should be slack about others' sin. But I should certainly show the same grace that I so love and appreciate my Heavenly Father shows me as I daily stumble through this life.
martes, 6 de febrero de 2007
Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - Part 3
Critique
The author, although raised in a Dispensational Bible church, is convinced today that the system of Dispensationalism is faulty. This is not to say that the contributions Dispensationalists have made should be discounted. Many Dispensationalists have made profound impacts in the work of the Kingdom and will continue. Nonetheless, all personal feelings and ties must be put aside, as much as possible, to objectively as possible, evaluate both systems, and in this case defend the pre-eminence of Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism.
It is interesting to note the historical development of Dispensationalism and particularly its rise in popularity against the backdrop of Revivalism in America. There is little doubt that the two are closely intermingled. Furthermore, the most fundamental characteristic of Revivalism is man-centeredness. This anthropocentric disposition flourished during the late 1800s and early 1900s mainly because of the following elements: 1) the individualistic tendencies of Dispensationalism; 2) democracy in America; 3) Arminianism’s misnomer of free will. Although this facet cannot be further expanded at this point, it is at least worthwhile to mention as a basis for understanding the domination of Dispensationalism today. Additionally, it is important to see the connection of Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and Democracy as systems (all growing significantly during the same historical period), each being dominantly man-centered.
In “Dispensationalism Today”, Charles Ryrie accuses Covenant Theologians as having God’s redemption of the Elect as his chief goal. Furthermore, he claims that the Dispensationalist’s view of God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. But his further explanation is what is most disturbing. He writes:
Covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle. This is undoubtedly partly due to the spiritualizing of the text of Scripture so that there is little or no future for Israel, thus obliterating the distinctive purpose God has for that people. If that were not obliterated, then the covenant theologian would see that the glory of God is to be realized fully not only in salvation but also in the Jewish people and also in His purpose concerning angels. (emphasis added)
If Ryrie’s accusation that Covenant Theologians do not hold God’s glory in the highest regard, as his ultimate goal, then concession would have to be made. But as shall be made clear, this is not true. The accusation is false. However, before moving on, it must be questioned concerning his comment regarding a distinction between “salvation” and “in the Jewish people.” Are the Jewish people to be compared to angels? Is there a difference between God saving a Jew and God saving a Gentile? Does Revelation, or any other prophecy, describe a distinction between Jews and the Church in heaven? The answers are of course all “NO.”
In defense of the accusation against Covenant theologians by Ryrie, Mathison shows how God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. He cites the Westminster Confession of Faith along with numerous Reformed theologians who have written in support of the notion that God’s glory is his ultimate goal, including A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof. He summarizes with the following conclusion, “Reformed theology clearly recognizes that God’s ultimate purpose is His own glory.” At best, both systems agree on this point. However, there still seems to be an underlying current in Dispensationalism that anthropocentric. This current will be further explained in the following critique of the distinctives of Dispensationalism: the literal hermeneutic, the secret rapture of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Although the distinction between the Church and Israel is arguably the most formidable distinction between the two systems, Dispensationalists certainly seem to cling most loyally to their “literal, normal, plain” hermeneutic. Although numerous texts could be pointed out wherein the Dispensationalist uses an inconsistent hermeneutic (Matt. 24:34 to name only one), the most fundamental issue is that of “presuppositional hermeneutics.” In other words, every theologian comes to his desk, just like every scientist comes to his lab, with presuppositions. It is impossible for anyone to be purely objective, both the Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian alike. So when Ryrie claims that Dispensationalists (or literalist as he also uses) do not deny figurative language, symbols or spiritual truths but simply interprets the Bible “normally,” we must then ask, “Who is it that interprets any other way?” Does the Covenant Theologian interpret abnormally? Would most Dispensationalists claim that of Covenant Theologians? It is doubtful. Regardless of Ryrie’s wording, the bottom line between the two is not really normalcy, but a mere difference of opinion in meaning. The Dispensationalist says that the “horse” is literally a horse while the Covenant Theologian says that it represents a powerful nation. This is a difference, and this difference comes from a presupposition. The presupposition determines what is figurative and what is not. To use Matthew 24:34 again, the Dispensationalist claims that this is figurative (Jesus is referring to the entire Jewish race when he uses the word “generation”) while most Covenant Theologians see it as literal (the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70). Go to another text and the reverse is true. Accusations could fly back and forth on any given text. But the hermeneutic is not at issue (or at least at issue alone). The presupposition is. One comes to the Scriptures with the presupposition that God is immutable and sovereign and he relates to man through covenant. This shapes the “normalcy” of interpretation of every passage. The other comes to the Bible with the presupposition that God has a plan to test man, man will fail, and then God will judge him which in turn shapes his “normalcy”. Furthermore, the former requires a greater understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture. Covenant theology does not make sense in a piecemeal manner. Dispensationalism can easily be fragmented, as has been the case over the past 150 years, into numerous factions.
To deny the secret rapture of the church and the ensuing seven years of horror on earth before Christ’s second (third?) return is nearly an abomination (at least in the Bible belt). Yearly “Prophecy Conferences” at countless churches and books and movies like the “Left Behind” series fuel thoughts that the secret rapture is certainly biblical. So when one is confronted with the notion that this entire train of thought might not be biblical after all, it is certainly difficult to accept. To say the least, the doctrine is not overtly biblical. John Walvoord concedes that is completely circumstantial. To say that God’s people will be spared wrath, in the form of persecution, would simply be unbiblical (1 Peter is full of the contrary as one example). The main texts that Dispensationalists use, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, neither necessarily refer to the removal of the Church from the world. Only a presuppositional hermeneutic can lead one to that conclusion. The meaning, clearly enough, is that those saved will not face wrath but are appointed “to receive salvation.” Why reclassify the meaning of the word “salvation” to mean something different than eternal salvation? Is that an inconsistent hermeneutic? Furthermore, those who appeal to the promise to the church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10, to be spared of the testing to come, must allegorize that church to represent the Church in the future. Why shouldn’t it be the literal church at Philadelphia? Another passage that Dispensationalists refer to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. The reference to the “last trumpet” establishes a problem if another trumpet is to be sounded at the visible coming of Christ (Matt. 24:31). Either the “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15 is not the last one, or the two events are not two events. Without accounting for the attempts that Dispensationalists make to explain these texts, it is sufficient to say that a literal, plain hermeneutic will not lead one to a doctrine of a secret rapture. Only with a presuppositional hermeneutic will one arrive at such a destination.
As has been stated more than once, the distinction between Israel and the Church is the most significant distinctive of Dispensationalism. As opposed, the unity of the two for Covenant Theologians is also important. However, the importance for the Covenantal Theologian is not based on the same reasoning as that of the Dispensationalist. The unity, for the Covenant Theologian, comes from a covenantal view of God’s relating to man. God always relates to man through covenant. The unity isn’t necessary to fit the system. The unity necessarily comes from the system. Moreover, the system is based not on anything to do with man, but completely on God’s character. Man is merely the recipient of the covenant. He may break it, but God will not. He may be unfaithful, but God will not be. The system is not man-centered. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, sees the distinction between the two groups as necessary to fit the system. Their system is man-centered instead of God-centered. God is testing man to see what man will do. When man fails, then God judges man and starts all over again. Man is on the center stage. History becomes man’s story rather than God’s story, even though most Dispensationalists will claim a sovereign God. Their claim falls apart, as Mathison explains: “because of their weak view of depravity and their belief in unlimited atonement, dispensationalists have a confused doctrine of election – an unstable mixture of conditional and unconditional election. As a result, the biblical doctrine is corrupted.” Additionally, who God is characterizes how he relates to man. Although there is no overt biblical support for this facet of the argument, it at least seems logical to note that a sovereign, faithful, immutable and omniscient God is necessary to Covenant Theology. On the contrary, Dispensationalism could exist within Arminianism, open-theism, and other views that need not a sovereign, faithful, immutable or omniscient God. Although the latter does not deny that God could be any or all of those attributes, it certainly does not seem to be a system derived from the character of God who possesses those attributes. Therefore, based on God’s character alone, it would seem logical, if not necessary, that God would relate in a consistent manner to man. It is Covenant theology that is described by this consistency, in particular with how it views Israel and the Church. Furthermore, to reiterate a previously stated point, it is Christ who has fulfilled all that Israel lacked. This makes the Church a further developed people of God, not a separate people of God. It should be noted as important to ask of the Dispensationalist how the “two path” and “parenthesis” notions fit together, as well as how the object of faith for Old Testament saints, New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles can be unified (it must be Christ according to Acts 4:12) and yet not unify. The Church stands on the shoulders of Israel and the Jewish faith. Therefore, there is no need to shun Israel today or the Jewish people. Rather, Christians should recognize the great heritage that exists in Israel and among the Jewish people and ought to have a great burden in their heart for the evangelism of the Jews. On the contrary, Dispensationalists make unfair claims when they state Covenant Theologians have no place for Israel in their hearts. The command given was to go to ALL the world. Evangelism is to all people. And because there is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved than that of Jesus Christ, the Jews of all people need to hear this. Their pump has been primed if they know the Old Testament. However, if the Old Testament is divided, and the unity is broken, the Messianic Jew could certainly suffer from a minimized view of Christ and His work.
And so it must be said that there is no perfect system. One day all will be sorted out, but for now it is imperative that all test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The Dispensationalist should be encouraged to search his Bible not only with a zoom lens, but also with a wide-angle lens. He must “back up” and see the whole picture. He must understand that “context is king”, not his literal hermeneutic. He must see who God is, and understand that He works according to His character. He must appreciate prophecy, but not be consumed by it, understanding its purpose is not to have a detailed map of the future but to live a hope-filled life in these tumultuous times. He must see how Israel was chosen not because of her worth but because of God’s good will and mercy. He chose Israel. And thus, He chooses each one, who are known as the Elect. And finally, he must see that our God is a God of faithfulness, a covenantal God who relates to man by means of covenant. And by understanding this about God, he can then know so much about more His work, His world, and His story.
The author, although raised in a Dispensational Bible church, is convinced today that the system of Dispensationalism is faulty. This is not to say that the contributions Dispensationalists have made should be discounted. Many Dispensationalists have made profound impacts in the work of the Kingdom and will continue. Nonetheless, all personal feelings and ties must be put aside, as much as possible, to objectively as possible, evaluate both systems, and in this case defend the pre-eminence of Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism.
It is interesting to note the historical development of Dispensationalism and particularly its rise in popularity against the backdrop of Revivalism in America. There is little doubt that the two are closely intermingled. Furthermore, the most fundamental characteristic of Revivalism is man-centeredness. This anthropocentric disposition flourished during the late 1800s and early 1900s mainly because of the following elements: 1) the individualistic tendencies of Dispensationalism; 2) democracy in America; 3) Arminianism’s misnomer of free will. Although this facet cannot be further expanded at this point, it is at least worthwhile to mention as a basis for understanding the domination of Dispensationalism today. Additionally, it is important to see the connection of Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and Democracy as systems (all growing significantly during the same historical period), each being dominantly man-centered.
In “Dispensationalism Today”, Charles Ryrie accuses Covenant Theologians as having God’s redemption of the Elect as his chief goal. Furthermore, he claims that the Dispensationalist’s view of God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. But his further explanation is what is most disturbing. He writes:
Covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle. This is undoubtedly partly due to the spiritualizing of the text of Scripture so that there is little or no future for Israel, thus obliterating the distinctive purpose God has for that people. If that were not obliterated, then the covenant theologian would see that the glory of God is to be realized fully not only in salvation but also in the Jewish people and also in His purpose concerning angels. (emphasis added)
If Ryrie’s accusation that Covenant Theologians do not hold God’s glory in the highest regard, as his ultimate goal, then concession would have to be made. But as shall be made clear, this is not true. The accusation is false. However, before moving on, it must be questioned concerning his comment regarding a distinction between “salvation” and “in the Jewish people.” Are the Jewish people to be compared to angels? Is there a difference between God saving a Jew and God saving a Gentile? Does Revelation, or any other prophecy, describe a distinction between Jews and the Church in heaven? The answers are of course all “NO.”
In defense of the accusation against Covenant theologians by Ryrie, Mathison shows how God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. He cites the Westminster Confession of Faith along with numerous Reformed theologians who have written in support of the notion that God’s glory is his ultimate goal, including A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof. He summarizes with the following conclusion, “Reformed theology clearly recognizes that God’s ultimate purpose is His own glory.” At best, both systems agree on this point. However, there still seems to be an underlying current in Dispensationalism that anthropocentric. This current will be further explained in the following critique of the distinctives of Dispensationalism: the literal hermeneutic, the secret rapture of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Although the distinction between the Church and Israel is arguably the most formidable distinction between the two systems, Dispensationalists certainly seem to cling most loyally to their “literal, normal, plain” hermeneutic. Although numerous texts could be pointed out wherein the Dispensationalist uses an inconsistent hermeneutic (Matt. 24:34 to name only one), the most fundamental issue is that of “presuppositional hermeneutics.” In other words, every theologian comes to his desk, just like every scientist comes to his lab, with presuppositions. It is impossible for anyone to be purely objective, both the Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian alike. So when Ryrie claims that Dispensationalists (or literalist as he also uses) do not deny figurative language, symbols or spiritual truths but simply interprets the Bible “normally,” we must then ask, “Who is it that interprets any other way?” Does the Covenant Theologian interpret abnormally? Would most Dispensationalists claim that of Covenant Theologians? It is doubtful. Regardless of Ryrie’s wording, the bottom line between the two is not really normalcy, but a mere difference of opinion in meaning. The Dispensationalist says that the “horse” is literally a horse while the Covenant Theologian says that it represents a powerful nation. This is a difference, and this difference comes from a presupposition. The presupposition determines what is figurative and what is not. To use Matthew 24:34 again, the Dispensationalist claims that this is figurative (Jesus is referring to the entire Jewish race when he uses the word “generation”) while most Covenant Theologians see it as literal (the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70). Go to another text and the reverse is true. Accusations could fly back and forth on any given text. But the hermeneutic is not at issue (or at least at issue alone). The presupposition is. One comes to the Scriptures with the presupposition that God is immutable and sovereign and he relates to man through covenant. This shapes the “normalcy” of interpretation of every passage. The other comes to the Bible with the presupposition that God has a plan to test man, man will fail, and then God will judge him which in turn shapes his “normalcy”. Furthermore, the former requires a greater understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture. Covenant theology does not make sense in a piecemeal manner. Dispensationalism can easily be fragmented, as has been the case over the past 150 years, into numerous factions.
To deny the secret rapture of the church and the ensuing seven years of horror on earth before Christ’s second (third?) return is nearly an abomination (at least in the Bible belt). Yearly “Prophecy Conferences” at countless churches and books and movies like the “Left Behind” series fuel thoughts that the secret rapture is certainly biblical. So when one is confronted with the notion that this entire train of thought might not be biblical after all, it is certainly difficult to accept. To say the least, the doctrine is not overtly biblical. John Walvoord concedes that is completely circumstantial. To say that God’s people will be spared wrath, in the form of persecution, would simply be unbiblical (1 Peter is full of the contrary as one example). The main texts that Dispensationalists use, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, neither necessarily refer to the removal of the Church from the world. Only a presuppositional hermeneutic can lead one to that conclusion. The meaning, clearly enough, is that those saved will not face wrath but are appointed “to receive salvation.” Why reclassify the meaning of the word “salvation” to mean something different than eternal salvation? Is that an inconsistent hermeneutic? Furthermore, those who appeal to the promise to the church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10, to be spared of the testing to come, must allegorize that church to represent the Church in the future. Why shouldn’t it be the literal church at Philadelphia? Another passage that Dispensationalists refer to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. The reference to the “last trumpet” establishes a problem if another trumpet is to be sounded at the visible coming of Christ (Matt. 24:31). Either the “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15 is not the last one, or the two events are not two events. Without accounting for the attempts that Dispensationalists make to explain these texts, it is sufficient to say that a literal, plain hermeneutic will not lead one to a doctrine of a secret rapture. Only with a presuppositional hermeneutic will one arrive at such a destination.
As has been stated more than once, the distinction between Israel and the Church is the most significant distinctive of Dispensationalism. As opposed, the unity of the two for Covenant Theologians is also important. However, the importance for the Covenantal Theologian is not based on the same reasoning as that of the Dispensationalist. The unity, for the Covenant Theologian, comes from a covenantal view of God’s relating to man. God always relates to man through covenant. The unity isn’t necessary to fit the system. The unity necessarily comes from the system. Moreover, the system is based not on anything to do with man, but completely on God’s character. Man is merely the recipient of the covenant. He may break it, but God will not. He may be unfaithful, but God will not be. The system is not man-centered. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, sees the distinction between the two groups as necessary to fit the system. Their system is man-centered instead of God-centered. God is testing man to see what man will do. When man fails, then God judges man and starts all over again. Man is on the center stage. History becomes man’s story rather than God’s story, even though most Dispensationalists will claim a sovereign God. Their claim falls apart, as Mathison explains: “because of their weak view of depravity and their belief in unlimited atonement, dispensationalists have a confused doctrine of election – an unstable mixture of conditional and unconditional election. As a result, the biblical doctrine is corrupted.” Additionally, who God is characterizes how he relates to man. Although there is no overt biblical support for this facet of the argument, it at least seems logical to note that a sovereign, faithful, immutable and omniscient God is necessary to Covenant Theology. On the contrary, Dispensationalism could exist within Arminianism, open-theism, and other views that need not a sovereign, faithful, immutable or omniscient God. Although the latter does not deny that God could be any or all of those attributes, it certainly does not seem to be a system derived from the character of God who possesses those attributes. Therefore, based on God’s character alone, it would seem logical, if not necessary, that God would relate in a consistent manner to man. It is Covenant theology that is described by this consistency, in particular with how it views Israel and the Church. Furthermore, to reiterate a previously stated point, it is Christ who has fulfilled all that Israel lacked. This makes the Church a further developed people of God, not a separate people of God. It should be noted as important to ask of the Dispensationalist how the “two path” and “parenthesis” notions fit together, as well as how the object of faith for Old Testament saints, New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles can be unified (it must be Christ according to Acts 4:12) and yet not unify. The Church stands on the shoulders of Israel and the Jewish faith. Therefore, there is no need to shun Israel today or the Jewish people. Rather, Christians should recognize the great heritage that exists in Israel and among the Jewish people and ought to have a great burden in their heart for the evangelism of the Jews. On the contrary, Dispensationalists make unfair claims when they state Covenant Theologians have no place for Israel in their hearts. The command given was to go to ALL the world. Evangelism is to all people. And because there is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved than that of Jesus Christ, the Jews of all people need to hear this. Their pump has been primed if they know the Old Testament. However, if the Old Testament is divided, and the unity is broken, the Messianic Jew could certainly suffer from a minimized view of Christ and His work.
And so it must be said that there is no perfect system. One day all will be sorted out, but for now it is imperative that all test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The Dispensationalist should be encouraged to search his Bible not only with a zoom lens, but also with a wide-angle lens. He must “back up” and see the whole picture. He must understand that “context is king”, not his literal hermeneutic. He must see who God is, and understand that He works according to His character. He must appreciate prophecy, but not be consumed by it, understanding its purpose is not to have a detailed map of the future but to live a hope-filled life in these tumultuous times. He must see how Israel was chosen not because of her worth but because of God’s good will and mercy. He chose Israel. And thus, He chooses each one, who are known as the Elect. And finally, he must see that our God is a God of faithfulness, a covenantal God who relates to man by means of covenant. And by understanding this about God, he can then know so much about more His work, His world, and His story.
domingo, 4 de febrero de 2007
Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - Part 2
Covenant Theology
Covenant Theology “stresses the unity and continuity of redemptive history,” holding that God relates to man through covenant. Covenant theology sees no distinction, spiritually, between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. The Old Testament believers looked in faith to the coming Messiah (their object of faith being Christ) as do the New Testament believers look in faith to the already come Messiah, Jesus Christ. God’s sovereignty is supreme in that He has always been the initiator of the covenant relationship, and because He is unchanging, so are His ways. O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as a “bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Throughout history, hold Covenant Theologians, God has worked by initiating the bond, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, through the mode of shed blood, under the complete context of his sovereignty. Geerhardus Vos explains further that “the outstanding characteristic of a berith (the Hebrew word for covenant, tyr]B=) is its unalterableness, its certainty, its eternal validity, and not its voluntary, changeable nature.” In other words, Covenant Theologians see God as the author of history, sovereign over the course of every wind. He did not write history as an ad lib script to be completed by man. The covenant’s “certainty” and “eternal validity” is not based on anything to do with man. This comes from God’s character. It is His faithfulness that makes the covenant a certainty. Therefore, Covenant Theology makes its argument to be a God-centered theology, basing its understanding of all things according to who God is, not what man has done.
While Dispensationalists claim an adherence to a literal hermeneutic, they accuse Covenant Theologians of using a double hermeneutic. However, Covenant Theologians claim a consistent hermeneutic, interpreting literal as literal and figurative as figurative. Poythress provides some help here when he writes, "To define literal interpretation is not so easy as it might appear. Ryrie invokes other, related terms like “normal” and “plain” to explicate what he means by literalness. But by itself this explanation is not enough. Our sense of normality depends radically on our sense of context, including a whole world view. One major aspect of the problem of defining “literal” is that in many instances words, but not sentences, have a literal normal meaning. Moreover, for both words and sentences context is all-important in determining meaning at any given point in an act of communication. What contexts areas to be looked at, and how they are to be looked at, in determination of meaning is very important."
What Poythress clarifies in this explanation is that the Covenant Theologian’s aim is the right meaning, not just the literal meaning. The author may not have intended the literal meaning, but rather used a term figuratively. Arguably, those in the Dispensational camp would claim that this end is their goal as well. Yet many Dispensationalists make the accusation that Covenant Theology allegorizes or spiritualizes the normal meanings of words, and therefore interprets them incorrectly. As has already been stated, the fair question to both sides would be, “Who determines which words are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively?” Covenant Theology does not accept the accusation by Dispensationalists that it allegorizes at will, but rather holds to the notion that context determines meaning and sometimes that meaning is figurative.
Within Covenant Theology, individuals may maintain any of the following eschatological views: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, as opposed to the Dispensational system which allows for Dispensational Premillennialism only. Within the three systems linked to Covenant Theology, the secret rapture of the church is not an element. There is only one Second Coming, not two. The two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 refer to the resurrection of the individual soul from death and secondly, the resurrection of the body to eternal life, according to Covenant Theologians. Note that Revelation 20:6 states “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ.” This description is descriptive of all believers, not simply a certain group within a specific period of time. “The rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years has ended. But then the general resurrection occurs, which involves all people and includes both body and soul (Rev. 20:11-15).” Not only will there not be a secret rapture according to Covenant Theologians, but present-day believers need not fear of going through the Tribulation either. Particularly thought provoking is the consideration of Matthew 24:34, where Christ states that the present generation would not pass away until all that he had promised in the Olivet Discourse regarding the Tribulation had occurred. Many with the Covenantal perspective believe that this much of this prophecy was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.
As was stated previously, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of the relationship between Israel and the Church. As opposed to this view, Covenant Theologians view a unity between them. Although Dispensationalists claim that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament, many passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel are used of the Church in the New Testament, including Exodus 19:5-6 in 1 Peter 2:9, Jeremiah 24:7 in 2 Corinthians 6:16, Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Luke 22:20, and Leviticus 19:2 in 1 Peter 1:15 to name a few. Mathison provides further clarification by explaining that one must distinguish between the nation of Israel (all Israeli nationals) and the True Israel, or Old Testament saints. The nation of Israel included believers and unbelievers, as does the visible church today. The latter was the spiritual body, the people of God, the Elect. It is that group, when Covenant Theologians refer to Israel, which maintains a unity with the Church (the True Church). In other words, God’s people are his people now and always. He does not have two groups of people, on two different tracks, or in two different spiritual spheres. Whereby the New Testament believer looks back (historically speaking) to Christ in faith, the Old Testament believer looked forward in faith to the promise of the Messiah to come. If one can understand the biblical doctrine of Election, then one can understand this unity that Covenant Theologians claim exists between Israel and the Church. Just as God will reject Gentiles who have refused Christ, so He will also reject Jews who have refused Christ. Romans 11 paints a clear portrait of unity which Covenant theologians hold exists between Israel and the Church. “God does not plant a brand new tree. He does not break off believing Jews and believing Gentiles from their respective trees and graft them into a third, new tree, all the while maintaining the unbelieving Jewish tree.” This grafting idea in Romans 11 is made clearer when one does not see the Church as simply a “straight-line continuation of Israel,” but rather sees the Church in light of Christ’s fulfillment of all that the Old Testament held in promise. Inasmuch as Israel had fallen short of God’s standard, Christ fully met the standard (2 Cor. 1:20). If this notion of unity is true, and if it exists only and completely because of Christ’s fulfillment, then the New Testament believer should, upon discovery of this truth, have an expanding worship of God because of who he is and what he has done in Christ to make us “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).
Covenant Theology “stresses the unity and continuity of redemptive history,” holding that God relates to man through covenant. Covenant theology sees no distinction, spiritually, between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. The Old Testament believers looked in faith to the coming Messiah (their object of faith being Christ) as do the New Testament believers look in faith to the already come Messiah, Jesus Christ. God’s sovereignty is supreme in that He has always been the initiator of the covenant relationship, and because He is unchanging, so are His ways. O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as a “bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Throughout history, hold Covenant Theologians, God has worked by initiating the bond, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, through the mode of shed blood, under the complete context of his sovereignty. Geerhardus Vos explains further that “the outstanding characteristic of a berith (the Hebrew word for covenant, tyr]B=) is its unalterableness, its certainty, its eternal validity, and not its voluntary, changeable nature.” In other words, Covenant Theologians see God as the author of history, sovereign over the course of every wind. He did not write history as an ad lib script to be completed by man. The covenant’s “certainty” and “eternal validity” is not based on anything to do with man. This comes from God’s character. It is His faithfulness that makes the covenant a certainty. Therefore, Covenant Theology makes its argument to be a God-centered theology, basing its understanding of all things according to who God is, not what man has done.
While Dispensationalists claim an adherence to a literal hermeneutic, they accuse Covenant Theologians of using a double hermeneutic. However, Covenant Theologians claim a consistent hermeneutic, interpreting literal as literal and figurative as figurative. Poythress provides some help here when he writes, "To define literal interpretation is not so easy as it might appear. Ryrie invokes other, related terms like “normal” and “plain” to explicate what he means by literalness. But by itself this explanation is not enough. Our sense of normality depends radically on our sense of context, including a whole world view. One major aspect of the problem of defining “literal” is that in many instances words, but not sentences, have a literal normal meaning. Moreover, for both words and sentences context is all-important in determining meaning at any given point in an act of communication. What contexts areas to be looked at, and how they are to be looked at, in determination of meaning is very important."
What Poythress clarifies in this explanation is that the Covenant Theologian’s aim is the right meaning, not just the literal meaning. The author may not have intended the literal meaning, but rather used a term figuratively. Arguably, those in the Dispensational camp would claim that this end is their goal as well. Yet many Dispensationalists make the accusation that Covenant Theology allegorizes or spiritualizes the normal meanings of words, and therefore interprets them incorrectly. As has already been stated, the fair question to both sides would be, “Who determines which words are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively?” Covenant Theology does not accept the accusation by Dispensationalists that it allegorizes at will, but rather holds to the notion that context determines meaning and sometimes that meaning is figurative.
Within Covenant Theology, individuals may maintain any of the following eschatological views: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, as opposed to the Dispensational system which allows for Dispensational Premillennialism only. Within the three systems linked to Covenant Theology, the secret rapture of the church is not an element. There is only one Second Coming, not two. The two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 refer to the resurrection of the individual soul from death and secondly, the resurrection of the body to eternal life, according to Covenant Theologians. Note that Revelation 20:6 states “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ.” This description is descriptive of all believers, not simply a certain group within a specific period of time. “The rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years has ended. But then the general resurrection occurs, which involves all people and includes both body and soul (Rev. 20:11-15).” Not only will there not be a secret rapture according to Covenant Theologians, but present-day believers need not fear of going through the Tribulation either. Particularly thought provoking is the consideration of Matthew 24:34, where Christ states that the present generation would not pass away until all that he had promised in the Olivet Discourse regarding the Tribulation had occurred. Many with the Covenantal perspective believe that this much of this prophecy was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.
As was stated previously, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of the relationship between Israel and the Church. As opposed to this view, Covenant Theologians view a unity between them. Although Dispensationalists claim that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament, many passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel are used of the Church in the New Testament, including Exodus 19:5-6 in 1 Peter 2:9, Jeremiah 24:7 in 2 Corinthians 6:16, Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Luke 22:20, and Leviticus 19:2 in 1 Peter 1:15 to name a few. Mathison provides further clarification by explaining that one must distinguish between the nation of Israel (all Israeli nationals) and the True Israel, or Old Testament saints. The nation of Israel included believers and unbelievers, as does the visible church today. The latter was the spiritual body, the people of God, the Elect. It is that group, when Covenant Theologians refer to Israel, which maintains a unity with the Church (the True Church). In other words, God’s people are his people now and always. He does not have two groups of people, on two different tracks, or in two different spiritual spheres. Whereby the New Testament believer looks back (historically speaking) to Christ in faith, the Old Testament believer looked forward in faith to the promise of the Messiah to come. If one can understand the biblical doctrine of Election, then one can understand this unity that Covenant Theologians claim exists between Israel and the Church. Just as God will reject Gentiles who have refused Christ, so He will also reject Jews who have refused Christ. Romans 11 paints a clear portrait of unity which Covenant theologians hold exists between Israel and the Church. “God does not plant a brand new tree. He does not break off believing Jews and believing Gentiles from their respective trees and graft them into a third, new tree, all the while maintaining the unbelieving Jewish tree.” This grafting idea in Romans 11 is made clearer when one does not see the Church as simply a “straight-line continuation of Israel,” but rather sees the Church in light of Christ’s fulfillment of all that the Old Testament held in promise. Inasmuch as Israel had fallen short of God’s standard, Christ fully met the standard (2 Cor. 1:20). If this notion of unity is true, and if it exists only and completely because of Christ’s fulfillment, then the New Testament believer should, upon discovery of this truth, have an expanding worship of God because of who he is and what he has done in Christ to make us “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).
sábado, 3 de febrero de 2007
Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - Part 1
Introduction
It could be argued that a majority of evangelicals today could not define for themselves the method in which they use to interpret Scripture. To be more exact, most evangelicals could only claim that they either see the Bible through the lens of Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, but could not clearly explain what either means. It is the purpose of this paper to set forth a concise definition and explanation of both systems, followed by a critique.
It is important to comprehend that the exercise of understanding the system through which one interprets the Bible is not merely an academic exercise. The means by which one understands the Holy Revelation of God will determine how he understands who God is, how He works, and what His plans are for history. Because of this, the believer needs to understand that the faults of a system will lead to a faulty understanding of Scripture. Furthermore, it must be understood that the Scripture itself is the ultimate authority and test of truth; and therefore, no fallible system ought to be elevated above the Bible. The test is not to find a perfect system (for man is fallible and cannot create a perfect system), but to test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The goal of this paper then, is to identify the better of the two systems of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and to the best ability, try and identify faults with either so that the understanding of God can grow and be perfected.
Dispensationalism
In a study guide to the Scofield Reference Bible, one dispensationalist writer provides the following definition of dispensationalism:
A dispensation is a period of time in which God is dealing with human beings according to certain divine goals and human responsibilities. Such segments, which may have overlapping features, are designed to show His grace and human failure apart from Him. A dispensationalist is one who believes that the Bible sets forth such distinctives and also sees a particular role and time for the Church as the body of Christ, as well as a unique future for Israel.
There are three essential factors to which a dispensation must adhere. First, it must possess a “particular way of God’s administering His rule.” This means that God has chosen to rule in different ways throughout history and that history can be divided up into times, or dispensations, that are defined by these particulars. It must be noted that dispensations, although they may cover a period of history, are not limited to such a period but are rather characterizations of the means by which God rules during that period. Second, “it must involve a particular responsibility for man.” Dispensationalists hold that man relates to God differently in each dispensation and that man is tested (and fails) each test. Third, each dispensation “must be characterized by divine revelation which has not been given before.” This means that the people of each dispensation are held to the revelation that they have been given, and not that which would come afterward.
Dispensationalists claim that their method of interpreting Scripture is that of a literal hermeneutic and claim that this is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Specifically, in contrast to Covenant Theology, dispensationalists hold that the Covenantal system is not “forced to a grinding literalism in its Biblical interpretation.” The difference, they claim, is that Covenantal theologians do not take the normal meaning of words in Scripture, but on the contrary choose to allegorize some. This is inconsistent interpretation, they hold, compared to their own consistent literal approach. Elliott Johnson states three reasons why consistent literal interpretation is necessary: “1) because the Bible claims to be God’s communication to men through human writers; 2) because it provides a normative definition of verbal meanings; 3) because only a principle that forces the interpreter to consistently consider the text as the basis of the meaning can satisfy the priority of the Bible in formulating doctrine.” The literalness of dispensationalists’ methodology is carried into their treatment of not just the historical and narrative passages of Scripture, but all passages including prophecy related to Israel and the Kingdom of God. They assert that Covenant Theologians allegorize many of these prophetic passages. However, the question must be asked, “How does one determine which words are to be taken “literally-literally” and which are to be taken as a form of allegory?” Proponents of both systems hold that their method accurately answers this question. Additionally, it will be seen that Covenant theologians do not accept this distinction made by dispensationalists. One dispensationalist writer, although progressive, also agrees, stating, an analysis of non-dispensational systems, however, reveals that their less-than-literal approach to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies does not really arise from an a priori spiritualistic or metaphorical hermeneutic. Rather, it is the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.
This conclusion seems true of both systems, specifically, that both can be, and have been, accused of the end determining the means. Furthermore, it can be fairly said that all systems of interpretation employ a theological method to some degree or another. Ryrie, a leading dispensational proponent, accuses Covenant theologians of using a theological method as well as admits that dispensationalists are also accused of the same methodology. Therefore, it can be concluded that the issue of interpretation is significantly important to the debate, if not tantamount. Yet, semantics must be clarified if this issue is going to be fairly addressed by either side.
Another distinctive of Dispensationalism is the belief in a secret Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. The secret Rapture is generally believed to occur before the Tribulation. Dispensational premillennialism bases this belief on promises that Paul made to the Thessalonians in his first letter to them (1:10, 5:9), that they (the Church) would avoid the wrath of God. Combined with these any other isolated texts is the doctrine of a Tribulation that is yet to come and then a literal 1000 year earthly millennial kingdom, which leads them to conclude that Jesus will return twice. The first time will be a secret rapture where he removes the Church (but not necessarily all the Elect, which will be explained later). There will be seven years of Tribulation and then Christ’s Second Coming with the Church followed by the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in his earthly kingdom. This first return, the Rapture, is known as Christ’s imminent return. By imminent, it is meant that the Rapture could occur at any time, without any necessary preceding event. The Second Coming, on the other hand, is not imminent according to Dispensationalists, because certain events do need to occur first. Of the three Greek words used for Second Coming in the New Testament (parousia, apocalupsis, and epiphaneia), Dispensationalists hold that those written in the context of imminence refer to the Rapture, and those written demanding a preceding sign refer to the Second Coming. Rather than seeing all three Greek words referring to one event, they hold that the three describe two. They argue that a “Failure to recognize this distinction and trying to see the Rapture and the Second Coming as a single event has forced certain writers into the dilemma of having a Second Coming that is imminent in some passages and not imminent in other passages.” Furthermore, those who hold this position also use Revelation 3:10 to support their argument. The promise is made to the church at Philadelphia, “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.” In order to use this verse, however, Dispensationalists must provide some explanation as to the imminence of the coming wrath for this literal church. This will be questioned in the final section. Although arguably not as significant as other issues pertaining to the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, the “Secret” Rapture is something that is unique to Dispensationalism and therefore must be given fair consideration and examination.
Arguably, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists hold that Israel and the Church are two separate spiritual bodies. The Church did not exist before the time recorded in Acts, and after its birth, Israel still exists as a separate spiritual body. By Israel, it is not meant simply a literal, physical nation, but the Israeli people of God. This distinction is made unique partly because of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the saints who lived between the Day of Pentecost and the Rapture of the Church (this is the secret rapture, not the resurrection of the dead). According to this, one can understand such a statement by Renald Showers: “Saints who died before the day of Pentecost and people who become saved after the Rapture of the Church are never part of the Church.” The Church, according to Dispensationalists, is “a distinctive group of saints who live during one particular period of history.” This distinction between the Church and Israel is tied particularly to the terminology, “Body of Christ.” It was completely a mystery to Old Testament Saints, according to Dispensationalists, and was not revealed in any way until Christ came. Ryrie, criticizing the notion that the Church includes Old Testament saints, refers to Ephesians 2:15-16, where Paul wrote, “he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Ryrie states, “That was not done before the cross; therefore, it is clear that the new man, the one body, was not in existence in the Old Testament times.” This new equality that exists between Jews and Gentiles is what makes the Church unique from the body of Old Testament saints in addition to the indwelling of Christ in the life of the believer. According to Dispensational theology, both bodies are on different paths, headed in the same direction, but are not created or destined for the same purpose. The Church Age, say Dispensationalists, is a parenthesis, as they call it, in God’s redemptive history. Throughout the changes in Dispensationalism over the past 100+ years, this distinction remains as the most significant. However, not all present day Dispensationalists maintain this distinction.
It could be argued that a majority of evangelicals today could not define for themselves the method in which they use to interpret Scripture. To be more exact, most evangelicals could only claim that they either see the Bible through the lens of Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, but could not clearly explain what either means. It is the purpose of this paper to set forth a concise definition and explanation of both systems, followed by a critique.
It is important to comprehend that the exercise of understanding the system through which one interprets the Bible is not merely an academic exercise. The means by which one understands the Holy Revelation of God will determine how he understands who God is, how He works, and what His plans are for history. Because of this, the believer needs to understand that the faults of a system will lead to a faulty understanding of Scripture. Furthermore, it must be understood that the Scripture itself is the ultimate authority and test of truth; and therefore, no fallible system ought to be elevated above the Bible. The test is not to find a perfect system (for man is fallible and cannot create a perfect system), but to test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The goal of this paper then, is to identify the better of the two systems of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and to the best ability, try and identify faults with either so that the understanding of God can grow and be perfected.
Dispensationalism
In a study guide to the Scofield Reference Bible, one dispensationalist writer provides the following definition of dispensationalism:
A dispensation is a period of time in which God is dealing with human beings according to certain divine goals and human responsibilities. Such segments, which may have overlapping features, are designed to show His grace and human failure apart from Him. A dispensationalist is one who believes that the Bible sets forth such distinctives and also sees a particular role and time for the Church as the body of Christ, as well as a unique future for Israel.
There are three essential factors to which a dispensation must adhere. First, it must possess a “particular way of God’s administering His rule.” This means that God has chosen to rule in different ways throughout history and that history can be divided up into times, or dispensations, that are defined by these particulars. It must be noted that dispensations, although they may cover a period of history, are not limited to such a period but are rather characterizations of the means by which God rules during that period. Second, “it must involve a particular responsibility for man.” Dispensationalists hold that man relates to God differently in each dispensation and that man is tested (and fails) each test. Third, each dispensation “must be characterized by divine revelation which has not been given before.” This means that the people of each dispensation are held to the revelation that they have been given, and not that which would come afterward.
Dispensationalists claim that their method of interpreting Scripture is that of a literal hermeneutic and claim that this is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Specifically, in contrast to Covenant Theology, dispensationalists hold that the Covenantal system is not “forced to a grinding literalism in its Biblical interpretation.” The difference, they claim, is that Covenantal theologians do not take the normal meaning of words in Scripture, but on the contrary choose to allegorize some. This is inconsistent interpretation, they hold, compared to their own consistent literal approach. Elliott Johnson states three reasons why consistent literal interpretation is necessary: “1) because the Bible claims to be God’s communication to men through human writers; 2) because it provides a normative definition of verbal meanings; 3) because only a principle that forces the interpreter to consistently consider the text as the basis of the meaning can satisfy the priority of the Bible in formulating doctrine.” The literalness of dispensationalists’ methodology is carried into their treatment of not just the historical and narrative passages of Scripture, but all passages including prophecy related to Israel and the Kingdom of God. They assert that Covenant Theologians allegorize many of these prophetic passages. However, the question must be asked, “How does one determine which words are to be taken “literally-literally” and which are to be taken as a form of allegory?” Proponents of both systems hold that their method accurately answers this question. Additionally, it will be seen that Covenant theologians do not accept this distinction made by dispensationalists. One dispensationalist writer, although progressive, also agrees, stating, an analysis of non-dispensational systems, however, reveals that their less-than-literal approach to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies does not really arise from an a priori spiritualistic or metaphorical hermeneutic. Rather, it is the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.
This conclusion seems true of both systems, specifically, that both can be, and have been, accused of the end determining the means. Furthermore, it can be fairly said that all systems of interpretation employ a theological method to some degree or another. Ryrie, a leading dispensational proponent, accuses Covenant theologians of using a theological method as well as admits that dispensationalists are also accused of the same methodology. Therefore, it can be concluded that the issue of interpretation is significantly important to the debate, if not tantamount. Yet, semantics must be clarified if this issue is going to be fairly addressed by either side.
Another distinctive of Dispensationalism is the belief in a secret Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. The secret Rapture is generally believed to occur before the Tribulation. Dispensational premillennialism bases this belief on promises that Paul made to the Thessalonians in his first letter to them (1:10, 5:9), that they (the Church) would avoid the wrath of God. Combined with these any other isolated texts is the doctrine of a Tribulation that is yet to come and then a literal 1000 year earthly millennial kingdom, which leads them to conclude that Jesus will return twice. The first time will be a secret rapture where he removes the Church (but not necessarily all the Elect, which will be explained later). There will be seven years of Tribulation and then Christ’s Second Coming with the Church followed by the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in his earthly kingdom. This first return, the Rapture, is known as Christ’s imminent return. By imminent, it is meant that the Rapture could occur at any time, without any necessary preceding event. The Second Coming, on the other hand, is not imminent according to Dispensationalists, because certain events do need to occur first. Of the three Greek words used for Second Coming in the New Testament (parousia, apocalupsis, and epiphaneia), Dispensationalists hold that those written in the context of imminence refer to the Rapture, and those written demanding a preceding sign refer to the Second Coming. Rather than seeing all three Greek words referring to one event, they hold that the three describe two. They argue that a “Failure to recognize this distinction and trying to see the Rapture and the Second Coming as a single event has forced certain writers into the dilemma of having a Second Coming that is imminent in some passages and not imminent in other passages.” Furthermore, those who hold this position also use Revelation 3:10 to support their argument. The promise is made to the church at Philadelphia, “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.” In order to use this verse, however, Dispensationalists must provide some explanation as to the imminence of the coming wrath for this literal church. This will be questioned in the final section. Although arguably not as significant as other issues pertaining to the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, the “Secret” Rapture is something that is unique to Dispensationalism and therefore must be given fair consideration and examination.
Arguably, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists hold that Israel and the Church are two separate spiritual bodies. The Church did not exist before the time recorded in Acts, and after its birth, Israel still exists as a separate spiritual body. By Israel, it is not meant simply a literal, physical nation, but the Israeli people of God. This distinction is made unique partly because of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the saints who lived between the Day of Pentecost and the Rapture of the Church (this is the secret rapture, not the resurrection of the dead). According to this, one can understand such a statement by Renald Showers: “Saints who died before the day of Pentecost and people who become saved after the Rapture of the Church are never part of the Church.” The Church, according to Dispensationalists, is “a distinctive group of saints who live during one particular period of history.” This distinction between the Church and Israel is tied particularly to the terminology, “Body of Christ.” It was completely a mystery to Old Testament Saints, according to Dispensationalists, and was not revealed in any way until Christ came. Ryrie, criticizing the notion that the Church includes Old Testament saints, refers to Ephesians 2:15-16, where Paul wrote, “he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Ryrie states, “That was not done before the cross; therefore, it is clear that the new man, the one body, was not in existence in the Old Testament times.” This new equality that exists between Jews and Gentiles is what makes the Church unique from the body of Old Testament saints in addition to the indwelling of Christ in the life of the believer. According to Dispensational theology, both bodies are on different paths, headed in the same direction, but are not created or destined for the same purpose. The Church Age, say Dispensationalists, is a parenthesis, as they call it, in God’s redemptive history. Throughout the changes in Dispensationalism over the past 100+ years, this distinction remains as the most significant. However, not all present day Dispensationalists maintain this distinction.
jueves, 1 de febrero de 2007
Trust
Faith is a tricky thing. It seems that no matter how firm and sure my theology is, the act of fully trusting God is sometimes so difficult. I find myself recently questioning much of what I believe. Do I simply believe that God is sovereign or do I believe (and act) like God is sovereign. It may seem like a minor distinction, but I find it a great struggle. For example, it seems that a certain situation in my life is very clear that it should change. No matter how I look at it, wisdom tells me it must change. But how do I change it, or how do I trust God to change it? In the midst of these thoughts I find my mind wondering toward questioning wisdom. If the way I think the change should happen doesn't happen that way, was I wrong to think that the change should happen?
I find myself running back to all my "Ebenezers." These are the little mental monuments that I've erected during my life where I've seen God work. I've known, in retrospect, that He indeed was working all things together for good. And I can see clearly. But my faith requires that I look forward with the same confidence as I look back. Why is that such a hard thing? God hasn't changed. His character is immutable. He is immutable. But I doubt.
One such Ebenezer occurred some 12 years ago. I found myself as a young man going through one of the toughest times in my life...boot camp. I spent 8 weeks in Navy boot camp, experiencing physical and emotional pain beyond my wildest imagination. It was during that time that my little New Testament was the kind of treasure to me that God's Word should always be. I also treasured photo copies of CD album covers with the lyrics to several Steven Curtis Chapman songs. Words like, "His strength is perfect when our strength is gone, He carries us when we can't carry on, raised in His power the weak become strong, His strength is perfect, His strength is perfect," played in my head as I carried through my days there in boot camp. I used the words to several of those songs, and the Scripture references to lead Bible studies at night. People were hungry for God. Maybe for the wrong reasons. But we were all desperate.
Upon completing boot camp I returned home for a few weeks of leave before heading off to my first duty station. It was during this time that I enjoyed my first few days of engagement to my first love. We began premarital counseling and parties. We made plans. But I knew this was not right. My family tried, lovingly, to help me see. But I was determined. On the night before I was to ship out, God worked to convict and show me in a powerful way that I must break off this engagement. I didn't want to. I didn't want to hurt my fiancée. I didn't want to face the embarrassment. I didn't want to be alone. But by God's grace, I did the right, the very hard, thing.
The next day as I headed to the airport I was numb. Boarding an airplane to fly some 5000 miles from home, where I would live and work the next three years, was a difficult thing. I flew to Chicago where I was to layover before boarding my next flight. Seeking comfort I headed to Starbucks for a cup of cappuccino and a piece of carrot cake. There was a loud group of long-haired men sitting in one corner. I purposefully sat as far away from them as I could. I was miserable. As I sat there, I noticed the group getting up to leave. I then realized that one of these faces looked familiar. Walking by me with his guitar was Steven Curtis Chapman. I hesitated, but then blurted out, "Mr. Chapman!" Walking over to me with a genuine smile, I introduced myself. I then began to recount how his music, and especially his words, had meant so much to me, especially in boot camp. I told him how his lyrics had been used to encourage me and others during this difficult time. I then found myself spilling my guts about my breakup the night before. He then asked if he could pray for me. Right there, in the world's busiest airport, Steven Curtis Chapman prayed a bold and heart-felt prayer for me. We said our goodbyes and parted ways.
As I continued the next 7 hours of flying to my destination I was in awe. Not at a man, but at a God who would send not just anyone, but just the one to encourage me. He could have sent Billy Graham or some other person that others might consider more well-known, but for me there was no person who could have ministered to me more that day. That is the God we serve, a God who orchestrates even the minutest details of life to work all things together for good.
So that Ebenezer is a reminder to me in this time that God is still on His throne. He is still in the business of shepherding His sheep in a loving manner. He is still working all things together for good, for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
I find myself running back to all my "Ebenezers." These are the little mental monuments that I've erected during my life where I've seen God work. I've known, in retrospect, that He indeed was working all things together for good. And I can see clearly. But my faith requires that I look forward with the same confidence as I look back. Why is that such a hard thing? God hasn't changed. His character is immutable. He is immutable. But I doubt.
One such Ebenezer occurred some 12 years ago. I found myself as a young man going through one of the toughest times in my life...boot camp. I spent 8 weeks in Navy boot camp, experiencing physical and emotional pain beyond my wildest imagination. It was during that time that my little New Testament was the kind of treasure to me that God's Word should always be. I also treasured photo copies of CD album covers with the lyrics to several Steven Curtis Chapman songs. Words like, "His strength is perfect when our strength is gone, He carries us when we can't carry on, raised in His power the weak become strong, His strength is perfect, His strength is perfect," played in my head as I carried through my days there in boot camp. I used the words to several of those songs, and the Scripture references to lead Bible studies at night. People were hungry for God. Maybe for the wrong reasons. But we were all desperate.
Upon completing boot camp I returned home for a few weeks of leave before heading off to my first duty station. It was during this time that I enjoyed my first few days of engagement to my first love. We began premarital counseling and parties. We made plans. But I knew this was not right. My family tried, lovingly, to help me see. But I was determined. On the night before I was to ship out, God worked to convict and show me in a powerful way that I must break off this engagement. I didn't want to. I didn't want to hurt my fiancée. I didn't want to face the embarrassment. I didn't want to be alone. But by God's grace, I did the right, the very hard, thing.
The next day as I headed to the airport I was numb. Boarding an airplane to fly some 5000 miles from home, where I would live and work the next three years, was a difficult thing. I flew to Chicago where I was to layover before boarding my next flight. Seeking comfort I headed to Starbucks for a cup of cappuccino and a piece of carrot cake. There was a loud group of long-haired men sitting in one corner. I purposefully sat as far away from them as I could. I was miserable. As I sat there, I noticed the group getting up to leave. I then realized that one of these faces looked familiar. Walking by me with his guitar was Steven Curtis Chapman. I hesitated, but then blurted out, "Mr. Chapman!" Walking over to me with a genuine smile, I introduced myself. I then began to recount how his music, and especially his words, had meant so much to me, especially in boot camp. I told him how his lyrics had been used to encourage me and others during this difficult time. I then found myself spilling my guts about my breakup the night before. He then asked if he could pray for me. Right there, in the world's busiest airport, Steven Curtis Chapman prayed a bold and heart-felt prayer for me. We said our goodbyes and parted ways.
As I continued the next 7 hours of flying to my destination I was in awe. Not at a man, but at a God who would send not just anyone, but just the one to encourage me. He could have sent Billy Graham or some other person that others might consider more well-known, but for me there was no person who could have ministered to me more that day. That is the God we serve, a God who orchestrates even the minutest details of life to work all things together for good.
So that Ebenezer is a reminder to me in this time that God is still on His throne. He is still in the business of shepherding His sheep in a loving manner. He is still working all things together for good, for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)