I grew up in Baptist churches...I didn't come to faith until I was thirty-seven years old..but in my growing up years, the only eschatological view I remember being taught (though at the time I didn't know what it was called), was dispensationalism. After becoming a believer, the church where I was a member had a Bible reading program which led us through the entire Bible, in the chronology, in a year. It was during that time that I began to question the validity of the premill/pretrib view. As redemptive history began opening up to me...there was a unity and continuity that I saw in it that just didn't seem to fit into that scheme. Of late I've been studying covenant theology from a Baptist perspective..my views are still in formation on that...though I think I can say I'm definitely NOT dispensational. There's been an increasing interest in last things in the past few years with the release of the Jenkins/LaHaye Left Behind series. I hope a few folks will weigh in with their views on this subject, as I think we'd all agree that it's important for us to know what the Bible teaches on these important subjects.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
My views on this are in flux. I will point out you can be both reformed and dispensational. John MacArthur is probably the most high profile in this category. Also, you don't have to believe in either covenant theology or dispensationalism.
I'm not sure about Darby/Scofield dispensationalism, but I don't believe in replacement theology. I believe God made promises to Israel that will literally be fulfilled. I don't believe God is through with the Jewish people. I see a flow to history that makes sense when viewed in this light.
WTB,
Yes I'm aware of McArthur's views, but I wouldn't classify him as a Darby/Scofield dispensationalist either. I don't believe in replacement either...I believe in expansion..at this point anyhow..that's how I'm seeing it..for me, I believe God has one people...the New Covenant broke down the wall between Jew and Gentile. I have great difficulty in seeing 2 peoples of God, with 2 separate covenants...I also can't see the temple worship and sacrifice being reinstituted in Jerusalem, when the whole sacerdotal system was abolished by the cross. The unbelieving Jews, as I understand it , are the branch broken off, and gentile believers grafted in..thus expansion not replacement. The Israel of God is true Israel..or spiritual Israel...the spiritual seed of Abraham...both Jew and Gentile. I just can't see the New Testament church as a parenthesis/plan B. I see one plan of redemption. But I agree...you can be a Calvinist and be dispensational...but imho..the unity of redemptive history and scripture itself only makes sense in terms of the covenants..since it is clear from scripture that that is the manner in which God relates to man and carries out His plan of redemption. Thanks for your input...you always have a well thought out statement to make..and a very informed one. Blessings brother.
You are right about MacArthur, he is not a Darby/Scofield dispensationalist.
Like so many I grew up in the dispensationalist tradition, but the string holding me to that view is rapidly slipping through my fingers. I haven't figured out all the implications of fully accepting covenant theology. Your view makes perfect sense. I can see it in Scripture, but I still have questions I haven't reconciled.
What reformed teachers, besides Piper, do you enjoy? Also,
what eschatological view do you adhere to?
Blessing to you too.
I understand where you're at WTB, these things have to be studied over a period of time to come to some solid conclusions. Besides Piper...McArthur of course, RC Sproul, AW Pink, Spurgeon...another "of course", Ligon Duncan (another presby...pastors 1st Pres in Jackson, Miss.)...and I'm still exploring some more preacher/theologian's. I'm leaning toward an amillennial view..though my feet have not landed solidly on it yet.
Allofgrace,
I am glad you decided to continue our discussion from the other thread. Like yourself and WTB, I grew up only knowing the dispensational approach. Of course, I did not know the name for it, but I assumed that is what everyone believed. In church and in my Christian school growing up, I knew no different. It was only when I arrived at seminary (I guess I am showing my hand a little here) that I was exposed to different views. After 6 1/2 years of seminary study (while I am confessing, I might as well admit it all--I hold an MDiv in Advanced Biblical Studies and am a dissertation away from completing my PhD in ethics) and reading Scripture, I too have found myself parting ways with dispensationalism. There are a multitude of reasons for this, but I will only list a few.
1) I agree with you that I cannot see a complete separation between the old and new covenants. Christ clearly said that he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. A thorough study of Hebrews also lends itself toward a view that the new covenant completes the old--it doesn't abrogate it. At the same time, I am not sold on a covenantal system. So, in that respect, I am still a little in flux.
2) As for dispensational eschatology, I cannot hold to a pretrib rapture view of the Darby/Scofield/LaHaye type. I hold to a historical premillennial view. There will be one return of Christ to gather his saints at the end of the tribulation period. Then Christ will establish a millennial reign on earth prior to the final judgment of Satan. Then we will experience a new heaven and a new earth. An honest look at Matt 24 lends itself to a poist-trib/premil return of Christ.
3) Two peoples of God. This goes with #1, but I separate it on purpose. Again, I agree with you that there is one people of God. We as Gentiles have been grafted in. Andreas Kostenberger, a NT scholar, wrote a journal article entitled, "The Identity of the Israel of God in Gal. 6:16" (Faith & Mission, vol. 19, no. 1, fall 2001, pp. 3-24). Interpreting Gal. 6 with reference to Rom. 9-11, Kostenberger notes, "Paul's point in Galatians--that the 'Israel of God' proper are all those who follow his 'new rule' (that is, faith in Christ)--is not violated by his projection of a future time when 'all Israel' will turn to Christ in faith [Rom. 9-11]. Then a more substantial portion of 'ethnic Israel' will again become part of the 'Israel of God'" (p. 18). I agree with Kostenberger on this point; thus, denying dispensationalism.
Recent work in dispensationalism has been done by some scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary and Southwestern Seminary (Darell Bock and Craig Blaising, respectively). The book is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" (Baker, 2000). It mediates the dispen. view somewhat. It should be an interesting read for someone who wants to see where dispen. will probably go in the decades ahead.
In respnse to WTB's question:
Although I would not consider myself reformed, you don't want to leave out the good Baptist reformed theologians of Al Mohler (Southern Seminary) and Mark Dever (Capitol Hill Baptist, Washington, DC). For a slightly mediating view, Bruce Ware (Southern Seminary) is on the forefront of compatiblism (similar to Francis Schaeffer--yes, Schaeffer was Presby, but his writings and talks lean toward compatiblism). His book "God's Greater Glory" is a must read. It is a follow-up to "God's Lesser Glory," which is an expose of open theism. However, in the second book, he spends most of his time laying out his theological position. Both books are excellent, but "God's Greater Glory" is a must-read.
Josh,
If that is the case, you really ought to pick up Bruce Ware's "God's Greater Glory." You would also find reading Augustine's "City of God" interesting. Here is a quote from City of God: "The conclusion is that we are by no means under compulsion to abandon free choice in favor of divine foreknowledge, nor need we deny—God forbid!—that God knows the future, as a condition for holding free choice. We accept both." (Book V.10)
Josh,
I'm not sure what you and evan mean by compatablism..perhaps one or both of you can enlighten me on that sometime..however the brief definition you gave prompts me to point out something that I think is misconstrued concerning Calvinism. Calvinistic belief does not seek, nor does it in actuality deny man's free choices...free in the sense he is free to choose according to his nature..the will is subservient to the ruling principle of the possesser of the will..back on point...we hold that both these are true..we hold them together...where we may part I think, is perhaps that we don't try to "reconcile" those two..we simply accept them as true. While our greater emphasis may be on divine sovereignty..we don't see that it negates human responsibility by necessity..unless you've crossed the line into the heresy of hyper-calvinism..which let me clarify further on that...5 pt calvinism is not hyper-calvinism...the hyper-calvinist denies the free offer of the gospel, common grace, and duty/faith. In fact the hper-calvinist operates on the same erroneous presupposition that the classical arminian does...only with different resulting theology. The calvinist believes that it is BECAUSE God is absolute sovereign, that man is 100% responsible. I'm enjoying our conversations. Blessings guys.
This will have to be a multiple part post due to the nature of the material and the time required to put it out there.
First, let me just introduce the five main views of sovereignty out there as related to man's free will/choice.
1) Libertarian free will (Arminian)--Man has complete and total freedom to make the choices he desires. His desires are not influenced by outside entities. Some of his circumstances may be beyond his control, but he has great amounts of control. Man is comlpetely responsible for all actions. This view can lead to open theism (God does not know the future and has no sovereignty), but it can be held without going down that road.
2)Middle Knowledge (no specific group)--Man is completely free in all choices. God is sovereign and knows the future. God does not influence man's choices. How is this reconciled? God possesses a form of knowledge called middle knowledge. This is the knowledge of all possible worlds and all possible decisions that could be made in each of those worlds. Thus, each decision sends us down a path of one of those possible worlds. God is by no means surprised because he is fully aware of all possibilities.
3) Compatibilism (some Calvinists, mostly "middle-of-the-roaders")--God has exhaustive and meticulous sovereignty. Man has freedom of inclination. Ware states, "Our freedom consists in our choosing and doing according to what we are inclined most, or what we desire most, to do" (God's Greater Glory, 25). God may choose to influence those inclinations, but ultimately, it is man who act and is morally responsible. This does involve a form of middle knowledge, but it is not as extensive as the previous view.
4) Soft determinism (most Calvinists)--Human behavior arises from antecedent conditions (including God's influence. Voluntary behavior is free to the degree that it is not performed under external compulsion. Causes of voluntary actions may be traced to states, events, conditions, etc. (Geisler & Feinberg, Intro to Philosophy, Baker, 1980, p. 199).
5) Hard determinism (some Calvinists, hyper-Calvinists, behaviorists)--Everything that exists has antecedent conditions, known or unknown, whhich determine that that thing could not be other than it is. (Geisler & Feinberg, 195). Man is not responsible for his actions. Free will does not exist. Period. No questions asked.
My plan is to note examples of these and critiques next. Hopefully, I will have time for that today.
You guys have moved on to Calvinism, but let me add this to the prior discussion.
The Roman soldiers who gambled for Christ’s clothing were not attempting to fulfill the prophecy of Psalms 22:18. Likewise, Theodor Herzl and the other leaders of the Zionist movement were not dispensational disciples of John Darby attempting to force the Second Coming.
I see no explanation for the existence of the Jews as a distinct group of people and the rebirth of modern Jewish state absent Divine ordination. This belief informs my view of Scripture just as my view of Scripture informs this view.
WTB,
God gave no reason for his choice of Israel from among the nations to be the nation through which, the law, prophets, patriarchs, and Messiah would come, other than He set His affections on them. God also has prophesies concerning other nations, which will also infallibly come to pass.
Allofgrace...I agree.
Josh,
I'm assuming you mean blessed, as in a sense blessed greater than the gentiles? I don't think so Josh..are they blessed...yes...as are all the nations..God chose Abraham and promised him in covenant, that through him all the nations would be blessed...the promise that the Messiah would come through his physical seed. But there is a duality in that promise...the Messiah would come through his physical descendants,as well as a land promised to them, but he would also have a spiritual seed...true Israel..the Israel of God, made up of every tribe, tongue and nation...that was God's plan from the beginning..why He chose Israel, as I commented to WTB, He doesn't say..other than He set His affections on them..."Israel, mine elect." In my view this is the same for you and me..and all the saints of God...he elected us unto salvation in the same unconditional way...according to His own good pleasure..He set His affections on us for reasons known only to himself. So both Jews and gentiles are blessed together in Christ. Now, definitely, God kept his promise to Abraham that his physical seed would have a land..which they do..and will. As evan mentioned earlier in this thread, there will be a large number of believing Jews who will enter the Kingdom of God..whether that will happen as a large scale, all at once thing...I'm not sure of that...perhaps it will take place over the remainder of human history..that's a matter I'm not solid on yet. I hope I answered your question adequately..and not TOO long winded..lol..Blessings, Josh.
allofgrace,
Well said.
In fact, I would go one step further and note that the Gentiles, who were more accepting of the message of Christ, actually replaced the Jews as the "People of God".
Note I Peter 2:9-10: 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
These people who "were not a people" is a clear reference to the Gentiles who welcomed the message of the truth.
Paul also pointed out in Romans (2:28-29) that a true Jew is one who is Jew inwardly (that is, spiritually) in contrast with one who fulfilled the law through circumcision.
Even Jesus, after the miracle of healing the centurion's servant, commented on the failure of the Jews to inherit the kingdom of God (see Matt. 8:10-12). Regarding this, I find this excerpt from Barnes commentary on the Bible fascinating: "The children of the kingdom - That is, the children, or the people, who “expected the kingdom,” or to whom it properly belonged; or, in other words, the Jews. they supposed themselves to be the special favorites of heaven. They thought that the Messiah would enlarge their nation and spread the triumphs of their kingdom. They called themselves, therefore, the children or the members of the kingdom of God, to the exclusion of the Gentiles. Our Saviour used the manner of speech to which they were accustomed, and said that “many of the pagans would be saved, and many Jews lost."
Truly fascinating stuff, IMO. :)
In response to many points asked or mentioned above regarding Israel... it is indeed a pertinent question to consider:
Who or what exactly is "Israel"?
I confess I don't know the answer, but I'm working through it. At this point, I think I would tend to agree with allofgrace's point of view.
This is all highly interesting. Very much enjoying the conversation, gentlemen.
I have been witnessing to a JW friend at work for almost a year. Today I handed him my five page paper explaining my belief in rightly dividing the Word. He says to me he believes that the Bible is his sole determiner of what he believes. I respond that he believes what the WT governing body tells him to believe! Anyway I try to explain to him that much of Christianity is a 'mega bar' of beliefs that you can pick and choose from. I believe that part of the problem of theology today is dispensationalism's evasion theories. Some of Jesus' teachings are not relevant for us today and are postponed to another age. (Liberal theology calls it interim ethic) We all love our brothers and it is an indication of our love for God. But how we love our enemies, how we relate to unbelievers, how we pray is different. This theory affects every important doctrine, God: Christ and Holy Spirit, attonement, Church and etc. Sadly Christ's death is an after thought. We have tremendous variations of beleifs to choose from. Many in American Churches have rejected orthodox theology for what they feel is the truth for themselves. In the 1880's Charles T. Russell rejected orthodox Christian beliefs and in gross error elected to alter the Word. I'm trying to tell my friend that we cannot pick and choose what we believe but have to take the whole Word of God, rightly divided. This is not just a delima for JW's but a problem for all of us. Give me your insight so I can be a 'bold evangelistic Calvinist'
My top three favorite Reformed writers are Dr. Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr., and Dr. John Frame. Dr. Pratt runs sites you would be quite interested in - http://thirdmill.org/ specifically, which is the parent site of http://reformedsermons.org/ and http://reformedanswers.org/. Reformed Sermons is an invaluable resources, hosting hundreds of sermons from Reformed speakers across the nation.
As for the topic at hand, I hold to covenant theology, though I'm still flirting with the various eschalatogical views. I hope to pick up and read this book soon: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Views-Millennium-Beyond-Darrell/dp/0310201438/sr=8-7/qid=1166924110/ref=sr_1_7/103-9332691-3503804?ie=UTF8&s=books
Greetings brothers and sisters.
I'm very familiar with the beliefs of DTS, which is the hotseat of dispensational thought. Even so, dispensational beliefs are not required to graduate from the school (although they are to teach there). It's simply a means of interpretation.
Dispensationalism is biblicly based. So is covenant theology.
I highly recommend the book graceupongrace mentioned, "3 Views On The Millenium" by Bock. Getting a good handle on the millenium is much more important than whether God's grace is continuous or not.
Best.
zeke,
Here's a big dispensational word for you, anthropological dualism. In this belief, God had an earthly people (Israel) and a heavenly people (the church). These two were eternally distinct.
NO ONE believes this anymore, at least not progressive dispensationalists. Why not? Simply because Jesus was Jewish and is head of the church. Can he be separated from himself?
Keep up the good work!
wow folks...this is the most action this blog has seen in a while...thanks for stopping by. btw...if anyone has a topic they'd like to see posted and discussed..drop me an email. thanks for sharing what you've studied/are studying. ez...i echo faithnhope's encouragement to keep up the good work!...I love your posts.
faithnhope,
I'm anxious to see how progessive dispensationalism develops. I would disagree about the importance of the continuance of grace though..personally I find that more important than the millenium. The faithfulness of God in the covenant of grace I believe is essential to our perseverance. I used to say I was panmillenial...it'll all pan out in the end.
zeke,
As long as you're seeking God with all your heart, soul, and MIND, you're NEVER in the wrong turnip patch!
aog,
I'll have to disagree with the importance of our belief about the millenium. It really does make a difference how we focus our energy.
I've heard so much about 'warrenism', but what's the real controversy? RW is an unconventional postmillenialist, and he's trying to hasten Christ's return by his global 'peace' plan.
As a premillenialist, I don't believe that anything we do will influence the return of the Lord.
Although I believe Christ will return before the millenium, I won't be terribly unhappy if He doesn't. In that respect I'm a "panmillenialist" too!
Thanks for your blog site, btw. Wish I'd found it sooner...
faithnhope,
I haven't seen anywhere that RW is a postmillenialist... that's surprising. Where did you see that?
faithnhope, graceupongrace,
I kinda see Warren as a dominionist...like he's trying to bring back eden rather than the millenium. Post millenialists generally believe that things will get better and better and usher in the millenium...except for the reconstructionist/theonomist variety...i don't think Warren's views square with post mil's...of either stripe.
I hold to Calvinist views because of what I see as the Biblical view of depravity (Eph 2:1-3) The other statements of 'ULIP' seem to be a logical order from Total Depravity. It is difficult to determine what people believe about depravity from their statements of faith. Tell me what you think about this: 'Thus the image of God in man has been desperately marred. It has not been effaced, however, and that is what renders him redeemable.' One of the footnotes for this is Westminister Shorter Catechism #18,19.
watchinghistory,
Actually I couldn't agree more. What one believes about the fall determines their doctrine on election, atonement, effectual grace, and perseverance.
Also, most people misunderstand what total depravity means...not that man is as bad as he could be..rather that in his whole being, sin has affected all his faculties..mind, will, and emotions..in other words, he is spiritually dead. Until and unless the Spirit quickens us, and infuses spiritual life, an unregenerate person remains in darkness and spiritual death.
gug & aog,
I believed RW is post-mil because of a 'sermon' of his I heard once. I've never heard him state his belief, though. He talked some about Charles Finney, and how he believed the church could bring Jesus back in a few years.
Now that I think about it, that is more of a dominionist view than post-mil. Post-millers believe that God's power (the gospel) will make the world better, not human effort.
Thanks for the food for thought!
faithnhope,
Finneyism has been the bane of evangelical Christianity..I consider him the father of the seeker sensitve movement, open theism and a host of other unhealthy doctrines that are a result of his unorthodox, heretical theology.
I read that Finney was the first preacher to give an 'invitation'.
John MacArthur has a chapter about him in 'Ashamed of the Gospel', if you didn't know.
faithnhope,
Yes I'm aware of Finney's "new methods", the "anxious bench" (precursor to the altar call), and some other unorthodox practices and beliefs...check out his systematic theology and his views of atonement and God's knowledge. What amazes me is the number of so called orthodox Christians who consider him a hero of the faith.
Isn't it interesting that the #7 article of faith for Campus Crusade for Christ website states: 'Man's nature is corrupted, and he is thus totally unable to please God. Every man is in need of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.'
watchinghistory,
That's what makes the gospel an offense to the natural man..it strikes a death blow to his pride...man is so dead in sin, that until he is regenerated, he cannot even see his sin (acts of sin and original sin), or apprehend Christ's sufficiency as the remedy for it. Praise God for His conquering grace.
faithnhope,
Your mention of McArthur reminded of something he said about all the seeker-sensitivity...that if the church would get back to a right belief in the sovereignty of God in salvation it would eliminate all the foolishness of that philosophy.
I've been thru much of the 'finneyism new methods' and know the feeling of succesful witnessing and then the emptiness of leading someone to Christ knowing that it was my method that influenced them rather than the real work of the Holy Spirit. I don't want to be a Calvinist scholar (i am not that smart) but I want to be a Spirit-filled (sensitive) evangelistic Calvinist. It seems to me that I have to grasp what total depravity and thus grace really means.
watchinghistory,
I'm no scholar by any stretch. I just believe that our mandate is to preach the Biblical gospel of sovereign grace to all men...it is God who saves..not our methods..."I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation..." That's the simplicity and the beauty of it. It's God's work, not ours.
I hope that I am not too far off topic but I just got home from work and have been discussing with my Jehovah Witness friend about his beliefs in God's universal sovereignty. Somewhat like some dispensational interpretations they believe in an interruption in God's rule to be later resolved after the battle of Armagadden when sovereignty will be reinstated. I used the example of God hardening Pharoah's heart to display God's power. He said to Moses, "..that you may know 'how' that I am the Lord."
His response to me was, "Jehovah God read Pharoah's heart and thus knew how he would act." While there are several scriptures that seem to support that, there are others that clearly say God hardened Pharoah's heart. In fact Romans says that God raised up Pharoah for the express purpose to show his power. And then says, "whom he will he hardeneth." He does this to reveal his mercy. Of coarse this is my feeble attempt to convince him that our salvation is the result of a decree from God in eternity past and not the result of an after thought in the garden of Eden.
I have been discussing with him for the whole year and plan on continuing on for however many years it will take to see him won to Christ.
Anyway, tomorrow I will return to show him that the New World Translation (I call it an alteration) has again mistranslated the Word of God. They have "let become obstinate" when it says God "hardened" The hebrew word "chazaq" means "but I will harden" Ex.4:21,7:3,14:4,17 and Ex. 7:3 "qashah" - "make him dense, stiffnecked, cruel"
Why would they want to alter the meaning? I tell my friend that the watchtower alters scripture to conform to doctrine. Doctrine should conform to scripture. Hopefully all this will point to the fact that God's has a plan for our salvation in Christ's death on the cross and is the focus of God's "universal sovereignty" and not Armaggaden. What do you think?
watchinghistory,
I'm no expert at witnessing to JW's, but I do know their view of who Christ is doesn't square with scripture...I would think that would be the starting point..debating sovereignty or dispensational thinking with them is really fruitless until that groundwork is laid. JMHO.
They are so brainwashed and I have spent so much time focusing on who Christ is that I am trying the backdoor approach, trying to approach his beliefs in Christ from a different perspective. Basically they have taken John 1:1 completely out of context and made Christ a god instead of The God. Like I say I have been talking to him for a year and intend to continue doing so.
watchinghistory,
Just keep talking about Christ...giving them the Word...God will be the one to drop the scales from their eyes...ours is to proclaim...He gives the increase.
Good morning!
My JW friend said, "Jehovah God read Pharoah's heart and thus knew how he would act." A little booklet I have before me written by a popular preacher states: "God did not harden Pharoah until Pharoah first hardened himself. God did not destroy that vessel until that vessel made itself fit for destruction." Both statements are similar. Both imply that God is weak and impotent to save everyone. Both probally agree that God would like to rescue everyone.
I am seeing an interesting comparison. On a scale of one to ten, ten is the JW theological position today and one is the orthodox position that C. T. Russell abandoned in 1880. He left Congregational 'strict calvinistic' views for Ellen White's adventist views. American Evangelical views are , as I see it, are in between if not fearfully closer to JW than to 1880 orthodoxy. As much as we like to point out the numerous alterations of the Watchtower's beliefs from C.T. Russell they do not compare to the changes in American Evangelical Christianity. Who opposes monergism today? A "high percentage of evangelicals from 20th century America." Read the list of preachers who have defended monergism in the past and ask yourself the question, "would they have an opportunity to stand in our mega-church pulpits?" They would 'divide' our churches! The God who hardened Pharoah's heart is dividing churches today! Why, to display his abundant grace and mercy!
I've got to go to work!
allofgrace,
I know this is off topic, but I just read wtb's 5:58 12/27 post on the NBBCOF about sufficiency of Scripture. Do you think that topic might be worthy of a discussion thread?
This is subject I've been struggling with lately. I believe that there are plenty of truths about God that are not found in the Bible. Psalm 19 testifies to this. There's also a lot of plain truth that's not there (Newton's laws, etc...)
I believe that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, but not for knowing the full revelation of God or everything that's true. I'd truly welcome the opinions of others.
In his post, wtb condemned the 'inner experience' method of revelation (mysticism), and seemed to affirm the doctrinal method. However, he seems to tend a little toward a Barthian view of God speaking through the Scripture. I'd like to hear more from him, too.
thx,
h
faithnhope,
I think WTB's post was intended to speak to the fact that many tend to depend on impressions, and other subjective experiences to determine truth. I would agree with him. God has given us general revelation of Himself through the created order..but it alone is insufficient to savingly know Him. His word is His revelation of Himself and His redemptive plan. While his revelation of Himself in scripture is not all that there is to know about Him...I believe it's all He wants us to know about Him in this state. Though I think no one would deny that there is a subjective element to our relationship to Him, we must be careful in seeking subjective experience of Him. The written revelation He has given us must be the yardstick by which all subjective experience is measured. Subjective experience can be unreliable..only the rock solid truth of His word is the infallible guide for us. Seeking subjective experiences opens us up to many dangers, seeing that there a deceiving spirits that seek to lead us astray. The Holy Spirit will not lead us, in my opinion, in any way that is contrary to written revelation, or to some new revelation. The mysticism that has become so prevalent of late is dangerous, because it leads us away from revealed truth into the subjective unknown.
Faithnhope,
I totally reject Barth's neo-orthodoxy. I am in line with the thinking of Barth critics Francis Schaeffer and Van Til. The Bible is inerrant and infallible and it reveals God's absolute truth for every area of reality. I believe there is a unity of truth and the Bible is inerrant in all respects. Unlike Barth I believe the Bible is just as correct when it deal with history and science as it is when it deals with theology. Barth rejected biblical inerrancy, which I see as foundational to the faith.
AOG summed up my viewpoint well. As he said there is general revaltion (Psalm 19), but our knowledge of His saving grace comes only from His revelation of himself in Scripture. Barth's thinking seems to undergird the emergent leaders like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. To steal a phrase, I believe those guys have their feet planted firmly in midair. Without biblical inerrancy as the foundation, what is their faith built on? Compromising the full authority and sufficiency of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.
I don't trust experience. What happens when my experiences and your experiences are different? Which experience becomes our guide? I believe the Lord leads us through the Holy Spirit, but I believe that is very different than ongoing special saving revelation. I believe the Bible clearly teaches it is a closed system of truth, with no new revelation being added. It entails a fixed and absolute standard of truth. As such the teachings of Scripture may be ascertained and dogmatically asserted. If God is still granting new revelation, then His truth is being progressively revealed. I reject that notion. I believe Revelation 22:18-19 clearly speaks to this issue. Once we deny the Bible represents a closed system of truth, theological and spiritual chaos naturally ensues.
Please understand I am not saying that there shouldn't be any experience or emotion. There ought to be experience and emotion. However, neither experience nor emotion serves as the basis for Christianity. The basis is that certain things about God as revealed in Scripture are true. Man is to act upon the fact that those things as revealed are true.
Below is a passage from the writings of Francis Schaeffer. As always, he can explain what I mean better than I can. He wrote much on this topic. I just happened to read this today.
An Inner Feeling or Objective Truth
It is surprising to see how clearly the liberal, neo-orthodox way of thinking is reflected in the new weakened evangelical view. For example, some time ago I was on Milt Rosenberg's radio show "Extension 720" in Chicago (WGN) along with a young liberal pastor who graduated from a very well-known liberal theological seminary. The program was set up as a threeway discussion between myself, the liberal pastor, and Rosenberg, who does not consider himself to be a religious person. Rosenberg is a clever master of discussion. And with A Christian Manifesto and the question of abortion as the discussion points, he kept digging deeper and deeper into the difference between the young liberal pastor and myself. The young liberal pastor brought up Karl Barth, Niebuhr, and Tillich, and we discussed them. But it became very clear in that threeway discussion that the young liberal pastor never could appeal to the Bible without qualifications. And then the young liberal pastor said, "But I appeal to Jesus." My reply on the radio was that in view of his view of the Bible, he could not really be sure that Jesus lived. His answer was that he had an inner feeling, an inner response, that told him that Jesus had existed.
The intriguing thing to me was that one of the leading men of the weakened view of the Bible who is called an evangelical, and who certainly does love the Lord, in a long and strenuous but pleasant discussion in my home a few years ago, when pressed backwards as to how he was certain concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ, used almost the same words. He said he was sure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ because of the inward witness. They both answered finally in the same way.
My point is that a significant and influential section of what is called evangelicalism has become infiltrated by a point of view which is directly related to the view that had dominated liberal theological circles under the name of neo-orthodoxy. To me, this was curious at the time when I saw it happening a certain number of years ago because where this ends had already been demonstrated by the Niebuhr-Tillich "God-is-dead" syndrome. Neo-orthodoxy leads to a dead end with a dead God, as has already been demonstrated by the theology of the sixties. And is it not curious that some evangelicals are just now picking this up as if it were the thing we should hold if we are to be "with it" today? But equally significant, note that the liberal pastor and the leader with the weakened view of Scripture who calls himself an evangelical both end up in the same place — with no other final plea than "an inner witness." They have no final, objective authority.
This points up just how encompassing the infiltration is. Namely, just as the neo-orthodox roots are only a theological expression of the surrounding world view and methodology of existentialism, so what is being put forth as a new view of Scripture in evangelicalism is also an infiltration of the general world view and methodology of existentialism. By placing a radical emphasis on subjective human experience, existentialism undercuts the objective side of existence. For the existentialist it is an illusion to think that we can know anything truly, that there is such a thing as certain objective truth or moral absolutes. All we have is subjective experience, with no final basis for right or wrong or truth or beauty. This existential world view dominates philosophy, and much of art and the general culture such as the novel, poetry, and the cinema. And although this is apparent in the thinking in academic and philosophical circles, it is equally pervasive in popular culture. It is impossible to turn on the TV, or read the newspaper, or leaf through a popular magazine without being bombarded with the philosophy of moral relativism, subjective experience, and the denial of objective truth. In the new view of Scripture among evangelicals we find the same thing — namely, that the Bible is not objective truth; that in the area of what is verifiable it has many mistakes in it; that where it touches on history and the cosmos it cannot be trusted; and that even what it teaches concerning morality is culturally conditioned and can not be accepted in an absolute sense. But nevertheless this new weakened view stresses that "a religious word" somehow breaks through from the Bible — which finally ends in some expression such as "an inner feeling," "an inner response," or "an inner witness."
WTB
I really appreciate your comments on Scripture and experience and I agree with you, especially experience cannot be our guide. The well used illustration of the train engine, scripture and faith, pulling the train with the 'feeling' cabbose trailing behind (when was the last time you saw on a cabbose?)
Last year, Dec. 20, my boss ask me if I wanted to come in for extra hours, 7am, and as I had the seniority I could say no and other more energetic ones could come in.
The next day he came to me again before he went to others and ask If I wanted to come in. I said no again and he said that was OK and then I abruptly said I would come in even though I didn't want to. The next day at 7am I helped a Jehovah Witness friend of mine load freight into a trailer till other able bodied people got there.
He had been witnessing to everyone who worked with him in the trailers for the several years we have been there. He started on me immediately. I was silent about my faith at work and kept it to myself. I engaged in conversation with him. Needless to say you do not engage in dialogue with a JW.
I left work that day and through the evening I studied the Bible to freshen up my conversation for the next day. I am not (was not) an early riser. I was a three snooooze button hitter. At four AM I was up and studing the Word with wide awake enthusiasm and went to work with Spirit-filled zeal to convert John. With more zeal than knowledge I preached Christ to John and then with the same zeal I went to both bosses and announced to them that they could fire me if they wanted but I fully intended to witness to every individual that John had talked to and tell them that "what John had told them was lies from the JW about Jesus and I was going to tell them who was the Jesus of the Bible." I told them I can find another job but I can't find another Jesus. They said, "go right ahead." And I went from person to person. Alarm clocks were useless now and I was up every morning preparing for the day with my JW friend and in the mean time every where I went I had to tell everyone about Jesus.
But what was amazing about this is that the Lord was comming to me seemingly unannounced, uninvited. My discipline, my resolve was not driving me and I related to my friends in very poor language that it was as though God broke into my house started coffee and waited at my bedside till I awoke! He was a thief in the night. He was saying, "lets spend several hours together, just you and I, and get you ready for work!"
After Christmas I was directly led by the Lord to go see my pastor and relate to him that I wanted all the boldness the Lord would give me. Getting to see the pastor after Christmas was not an eazy task and the Lord would not let me off from seeing him. He had that deer-in-the-headlight look and then opened up his Bible to John 15 (you guessed it) From that day till new years eve the Lord did a supernatural healing to my heart in a very personal way. I had been a Christian since a young boy but here I was a 59 YO man. He read my life like a book and left me feeling like a 10 YO in an old man's body! I had always loved the Bible and theology. The Lord was working so fast and thorough that I was searching for scripture to confirm experience. Now I am not a theologian but Luke 12:37 explained the way the Lord came to me, girded, and made me sit down to meat. It was not my dedication to him it was his dedication to me. 12:39 -He was a thief in the night. Rev. 3: He knows I have a little strength and he has set before me an open door and no man can shut it. I have kept his word and not denied his name. John 15- He chose me I didn't choose him. He first loved me. We are not seeking mystical and supernatural experience, not even the victorious overcomming life nor selfullfilled happiness. Honoring the Sovereign Lord, not thru silence but boldly, declaring, biblically, Christ's Lordship. The Lord will come to us in servitude! If we are going to be his witnesses he wants us to be whole and spiritually alive!
Warrenism wants to create a seeker friendly environment for the church and dispensationalism wants to create a reader friendly Bible. But both have thrown out the baby with the bathwater! It would seem that the efforts to perserve the authenticity and lasting importance of the Bible many today have perhaps done away with what may be the most important part of the Word. The part that causes men to fall on their face, worship God and know with certainty that "God is with us!"
Dispensationalism (or some variation thereof) has robbed American fundamentalism of the the 'pneumatika' that the 'primitive, apostolic assembly of saints' possessed. God is not wanting us to become pentecostal but he is wanting us to be truly 'Spirit-led' under guidance of the 'perfect law of liberty'. In the primitive church there was liberty of the many members of the body to be spiritually enabled in their specific ministries under the restraint of the inspired preacher. The pastor who has to restrain the zeal of immature believers is better off than the pastor who has to continually motivate believers to be zealous. Many times the resolution of messy people problems are corrected by the move of the Spirit in an obscure corner of the Church. God is not restricted to the interpretations of committees but he moves according to his choosing among diversity. The cessationist theory of dispensationalism has robbed us of the element of Church where the secrets of men's hearts are revealed and they fall on their face knowing they are in God's presence.
watching,
Just wanted to point out that being dispensationalist doesn't necessarily equate to a cessationist position. There are dispensationalists who sit on both sides of that aisle. I would guess that the majority of reformed believers are cessationist, with the exception of the Sovereign Grace Ministries movement. ie: CJ Mahaney, Joshua Harris, et al. Wayne Grudem is also a theologian of note who is fairly reformed but also is not cessationist unless I'm mistaken. The cessationist position is much like amillinialism in that there are reformed/Calvinistic believers as well as Arminian believers who hold that position.
AOG
I stand corrected, thanks. I should have said the theory of cessationism has robbed us. . .
Like I have said I am an armchair theologian and I bow in appreciation of your knowledge. Thanks for the Grudem reference. I am in search of his systematic theology book but can't afford the $50+ pricetag as I am a bluecollar armchair theologian!
watching,
From one armchair theologian to another, this was just one of those things I happened to know a little about. So no bowing around here :)
Bear with me while I belabor this point. I want to understand the present delima of the Church today. I believe that the present state of fundamentalism in American is largely due to the influence of Darby-Scofield Dispensationalism. The witness unto Christ is marred by materialism, bigotry and depersonalization in the Christian community. Everyone to whatever degree they bear the name of Christ will be a witness unto him either good or bad. Good witnesses are the result of the Holy Spirit comming upon individuals in Biblical fashion. Chauvinistic and Rationalistic coldness pervades the leadership and strives to restrain unbalanced enthusiasm. Much of this restraint comes from the influence of Darby-Scofield dispensationalism and the ensuing influence of arminian/semi-pelagianism. The church has the form of godliness but not the power. It seems to me that some of the clues are hidden in I Cor. 12-14 as to how we conduct ourselves in assemblies and how we become reliant on the Holy Spirit. The harmony that the church achieves is a unique product of the supernatural operation. The reformed believer understands this better than anyone. From the beginning the supernatural creation of life begins the spiritual walk.
There must be harmony in the body. This does not mean the weak surrender to the dominance of the strong but that they blend together in such a way that the member that seems unimportant is treated with greater honor in an unpretensious way. Leaderhip has to restrain zeal and enthusiasm but what has to be restrained has to be heard and informed. If it is not restrained there will not be order and if it is not heard and informed there will not be harmony. Order alone eliminates discord and strife and unity above all prevails. Harmony produces the love and trust that identifies holiness and purity. With order, alone, secrets of men's hearts can be concealed but with harmony of a spiritual nature the secrets of the heart are revealed. The world will know that God is really with us!
The desire to build a church friendly to sinners conflicts with the desire of God to build a church where the Spirit draws sinners.
Before 1957 A.W. Tozer wrote about the current dilemma of fundamentalism in his day. "A widespread revival of the kind of Christianity we know today (1957) in America might prove to be a moral tragedy from which we would not recover in a hundred years." Tozer's words were prophetic! They are being fullfilled before our eyes.
He says: "A generation ago, as a reaction from Higher Criticism and its offspring, Modernism, there arose in Protestantism a powerful movement in defense of the historic Christian faith. This, for obvious reasons, came to be known as fundamentalism."
He also said, "Fundamentalism fell victim to its own virtues. The Word died in the hands of its friends. The voice of the prophet was silenced and the scribe captured the minds of the faithful. In large areas religious imagination withered. An unofficial hierarchy decided what Christians were to believe. Not the Scriptures, but what the scribe thought the Scriptures meant became the Christian creed. Christian Colleges, seminaries, Bible Institutes, Bible Conferences, popular Bible expositors all joined to promote the cult of textualism. The system of EXTREME DISPENSATIONALISM which was devised, relieved the Christian of repentance, obedience and cross carrying in any other than the most formal sense. Whole sections of the New Testatment were taken from the Church and disposed of after a rigid system of 'dividing the Word of Truth'."
"The error of texualism is not doctrinal. Not its theological beliefs are at fault, but its assumptions. It assumes, for instance, that if we have a word for a thing we have the thing itself. If it is in the Bible, it is in us. If we have the doctrine, we have the experience. If something was true for Paul it is of necessity true of us because we accept Paul's epistles as divinely inspired. The Bible tell us how to be saved, but textualism goes on to MAKE IT TELL US that we are saved, something which in the very nature of things it cannot do. Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resulant experience wholly mental."
The current condition of American fundamentalism is the "Beliver's Babylonian Captivity"
Tozer states, "the letter triumphed, the Spirit withdrew and textualism ruled supreme."
A.W. Tozer, 'Keys to the Deeper Life'
The Biblical orthodxy that triumphed in the mid 1800 and was under attack at the turn of the century was a two-fold attack of modernism. What we mistakingly call conservative theology today was a type of liberal theology and both were opposed to orthodox Christianity. Both were humanistic expressions of free will over God's sovereignty. Jesus met both Sadducees and Pharisees in debates. One added to the Scriptures and the other took away from scripure. In the same way opposition to orthodox theology undermined the authority of scripure and denied God his supernatural power to intervene in human affairs. In the plain words of Christ to both groups he says they are ignorant of the Scriptures and God's power. When leaders of the Southern Baptist say they led the church away from liberalism and back on conservative tract they just moved from the backwoods to the middle of the woods, still in the wilderness.
Natural processes have replaced the actual presence of God to rule. We have the form of godliness but not the power.
Dispensationalism and evolution have some similarities. Both are theories that are prominent in this century. I started school in 1952 and already we were exposed to the pictures of the development of man from an ape. That picture was a lie from the deepest part of hell. It was a picture that even Darwin himself would not accept. No intelligent scientist would ever see that picture as a reflection of scientific honesty. It was simplistic and emotive ridicule of people's belief in creationism. Yet in public schools it was portrayed as fact.
In churches Christians accepted another theory as fact and that was dispensationalism. Both theories have done irrepairable harm to America.
Scofield says that the revelation concerning the Holy Spirit is progressive. In the O.T. He comes upon whom He will. On the day of Pentecost He comes upon the whole body of believers. After Pentecost, so long as the gospel was preached to Jews only, the Holy Spirit was imparted by the laying on of hands. (how is this gospel different?) When Peter opened the door to the Gentiles, the Holy Spirit, without delay, or other condition than faith, was given to thoes who believed. Though this is one of the many theories of rightly dividing the Word (there are better) Scofield says, "this is the permanent fact for the entire church-age." This faith that Scofield speaks about is not the Faith that Paul spoke of but a semipelagian faith that insults the Spirit of Grace. Incidently He says that this insult is a sin of unbelievers against the Holy Spirit.
If Scofield is right here then dispensationalism is equal to blasphemy.
The confusion of Scofield is seen in Notes to I Cor 12 when he implies that the Holy Spirit acts in free sovereignty distributing spiritual enablements to believers for service. "There is no room for self choosing, and Christian service is simply the ministry of such gift as the individual may have received."
But in I Cor 14 this liberty for ministry is not relevant for us today. So that on one hand He insults the Holy Spirit now he implies that we don't need this primitive liberty we have that which is perfect and we have confusion as to what is perfect and that which is "in part". We have in the words of a famous pastor, Steve Gaines, hung a "Do Not Disturb" sign on our bedroom doors. No thank you Holy Spirit we'll figure it out ourselves. Then to seal the stone door Scofield seals the door shut with the words, "These injunctions are declared to be the commandments of the Lord" Oh My!
"As redemptive history began opening up to me...there was a unity and continuity that I saw in it that just didn't seem to fit into that scheme. Of late I've been studying covenant theology from a Baptist perspective..my views are still in formation on that...though I think I can say I'm definitely NOT dispensational."
So it is just a theory of Biblical interpretation. And not a good one at that.
What do you mean by a unity and continuity. . .?
watching,
Yes, I see dispensationalism as a view or "theory" if you will concerning Biblical revelation. Just as covenant theology is a view of the same.
What I meant my unity and continuity is that in my study of the chronology of redemptive history I see a unity in the covenants and a continuation of God's redemptive plan in those covenants. From my view, I see each of the covenants as a different administration of the one covenant of grace..not different economies...just more of Christ revealed in each one until the final administration..the New Covenant..which is the fullest and final revelation of God to man...all the previous covenants are fulfilled in Christ who is the federal head and mediator. Hope that clarifies it some.
AOG
Thanks for the clarification.
One other question: what do you mean by "not different economies"
AOG
interesting article here. It maybe a view I was raised in as a Pentecostal.
My biggest leap is a strong belief in Total Depravity. There is not a place for the least bit of self-determination. When the Bible says we are dead we are dead.
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Pratt.pdf
Post a Comment