Posted on 06/07/2007 11:23:25 AM PDT by topcat54
Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, devotes a chapter to the subject of eschatology in his book The Evolution-Creation Struggle.1 He believes that the interpretive methodology of dispensational premillennialism is inexorably linked to the way its advocates defend their position on creation. Ruse isn’t the first to point this out. I’ve been making the same claim for years. It’s about to catch up with young-earth/global flood creationsists.
Consider the following comments on Matthew 24:34 from Henry M. Morris, a dispensationalist and a founding father of the modern-day creationist movement. The following comments on “this generation” come from his creationist themed Defender’s Study Bible which was first published in 1995: “ The word ‘this’ is the demonstrative adjective and could better be translated ‘that generation.’ That is, the generation which sees all these signs (probably starting with World War I) shall not have completely passed away until all these things have taken place” (1045). Morris describes the use of “this” as a “demonstrative adjective,” but it is better designated as a “near demonstrative” adjective identifying what generation will see the signs. In Greek and English, the near demonstrative (this) is contrasted with the distant demonstrative (that). Greek language specialists make this very point:
Greek grammars and lexicons recognize two demonstratives: near and distant. The near demonstrative, as the name denotes, points to someone or something “near,” in close proximity. They appear as the singular word “this” and its plural “these.” The distant demonstratives, as their name suggests, appear as “that” (singular), or “those” (plural).2
The near demonstrative “this” always refers to something contemporary, as the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature makes clear: “[T]his, referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away.”3 Prior to his comments in his Defender’s Study Bible, Morris wrote the following extended comments on Matthew 24:34 in his Creation and the Second Coming :
In this striking prophecy, the words “this generation” has the emphasis of “that generation.” That is, that generation—the one that sees the specific signs of His coming—will not completely pass away until He has returned to reign as King.4 Now if the first sign was, as we have surmised, the first World War, then followed by all His other signs, His coming must indeed by very near5—even at the doors! There are only a few people still living from that6 generation. I myself was born just a month before the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. Those who were old enough really to know about that first World War—“the beginning of sorrows”—would be at least in their eighties now. Thus, we cannot be dogmatic, we could very well now be living in the very last days before the return of the Lord.”7
Matthew 24:33 tells us what audience Jesus had in view: “so, you too, when YOU see all THESE things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” It is obvious, and without any need for debate, that the first “you” refers to those who asked the questions that led to Jesus’ extended remarks (Matt. 24:2–4). Jesus identifies those who will “see all these things” by once again using “you.” If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have eliminated all confusion by saying, “even so THEY too, when THEY see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, THAT generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Instead, Henry Morris and others have to massage the text to support a future tribulation period.8
Then there is the problem of the way Morris understands the meaning of “last days” in the notes found in his Defender’s Study Bible. He states that “this ‘last days’ prophecy of Joel was fulfilled at Pentecost only in a precursive sense” (1179). Even though Peter says that the events at Pentecost are a fulfillment of what Joel predicted (Joel 2:28–32)—“this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” Acts 2:17)—Morris argues that “its complete fulfillment must await the time of the end. . . . Thus Peter’s statement: ‘This is that’ (Acts 2:16) should be understood in the sense of ‘This is like that’” (1179).9 What implications does this have for the young earth-global flood interpretive methodology that is defended by dispensationalists as the most literal interpretation of the Bible?
Ruse demonstrates that evolutionists are beginning to pay attention to the hermeneutical model used by young earth-global flood creationists and how inconsistent they are in their interpretive methodology. How will we ever convince skeptics of the truthfulness of the Bible when it is distorted to defend interpretations where “this” means “that,” and “this is that” actually means “this is like that”? An evolutionist like Ruse may rightly argue that if Morris can make “this generation,” with its obvious first-century meaning, “have the emphasis” of “that generation” (distant future), then why can’t the time element of Genesis 1 (the use of yom= a 24-hour day) “have the emphasis” of long ages of time? Maybe the days of Genesis 1 are just like 24-hour days, given dispensational hermeneutics. If time indicators in the NT are not interpreted literally, then why must they be interpreted literally in the OT? The dispensationalists have a big problem on their hands, and so do the creationist ministries that tolerate their eschatological hermeneutic.
1. Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). In the Acknowledgments, Ruse writes: “At a more personal level, I have gained much from the friendship, insights, writings, and criticisms of Ronald Numbers [author of The Creationists] and David Livingstone [co-editor of Evolution, Science, and Scripture]. They showed me that my story would be radically incomplete without sensitivity to the significance of millennial thinking” (319).
2. Cullen I K Story and J. Lyle Story, Greek To Me: Learning New Testament Greek Through Memory Visualization (New York: Harper, 1979), 74. “Sometimes it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity or the speaker or the literary context of the writer. For this purpose the demonstrative construction is used. . . . For that which is relatively near in actuality or thought the immediate demonstrative [houtos] is used. . . . For that which is relatively distant in actuality or thought the remote demonstrative [ekeinos] is used.” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York; Macmillan, 1957], 127–128, sec. 136).
3. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4 th ed. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), 600.
4. There is nothing in Matthew 24 that says Jesus is going to return to earth to reign as king.
5. Why does “near” mean “even at the doors” for Morris in the twentieth century, but it did not mean “near” in the first century?
6. Notice how Morris uses the far demonstrative “that” to refer to a generation in the past. How would he have described the generation in which he was living? Obviously with the near demonstrative “this” to distinguish it from “that” past generation.
7. Henry Morris, Creation and the Second Coming (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991), 183. Morris died on February 25, 2006 at the age of 87.
8. The latest example is found in Tim Demy and Gary Stewart, 101 Most Puzzling Bible Verses: Insight into Frequently Misunderstood Scriptures (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007), 105–106. There is no mention of the audience reference in Matthew 24:33, just that “The phrases ‘this generation’ and ‘these things’ are linked together by context and grammar in such a way that Jesus must be speaking of a future generation.” This tells us nothing without an actually discussion of the grammar and the audience reference.
9. Thomas Ice argues in a similar way: “But this is [like] that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” He tries to explain the addition of “like” by claiming that “The unique statement of Peter (‘this is that’) is in the language of comparison and similarity, not fulfillment.” (Thomas Ice, “Acts,” in Tim LaHaye, ed. Prophecy Study Bible [Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000], 1187).
IMHO, the article manifests the mindset of many “reformed” believers who attempt to find solace by rationalism, worldly club attendance, and adversarial attacks upon those who simply believe in God through faith in Christ who aren’t members of their club.
IMHO, insofar as we remain faithful to God through Christ, all we need to know is what is available in the younger earth interpretation. Likewise, we know His return is imminent, not immediate. Those pastors associated with dispensationalism come closer to grasping His Word from the work of the Holy Spirit, than those who attack ‘dispensationalism’.
Since when did Christians like DeMar take it upon themselves to do the work of the Holy Spirit?
The shark deMar jumped is now a blip on the horizon in his rear-view mirror.
So, in othe words, Christian apologists can speak as irrationally as their wish, and as long as we have the Holy Spirit they are off the hook. Curious position, but it explains a lot, esp. why dispensationalism is so popular. It matches the irrational times we live in
It may look like a game to some. The difference is that plainly not every occurrence of "all" means literally "all", e.g., "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." (Luke 2:1) Did Caesar really expect his lackeys to travel to what is modern Bolivia or Iceland to conduct the census? So, context helps us to understand the intent of the word
Which demonstrates why “this” means “that” is a forced explanation with no contextual support at all. And what happens when theologians allow their preconceptions about the text dictate what they think the text is saying.
They will be judged in accordance with the knowledge and wisdom with which they have been entrusted.
Beyond that, as a Calvinist in the Tradition of Arminius, I would have to say... no harm, no foul.
Skeptics will not be excused at the judgment for failing to respond to the call of the Holy Spirit because some dispensationalist confused them. Nor is there anything any one of us can do to somehow use our own powers of persuasion to convince some skeptic of the truth of scripture.
God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy and if he chooses to show mercy to some skeptic, then he will obviously convince that skeptic of the truth of scripture as part of the process.
FWIW there is nothing logical or reasonable about the gospel message. Skeptics do not need to point to the words of irrational dispensationalists to find a reason NOT to believe. They can point to the arguments of preterists and reconstructionists and replacementarianists as well. To the natural man all of this stuff is foolishness. You will be barking at the moon if you think that your version of eschatology is any more rational to a skeptic than that of the dispensationalists. They think we are all nuts and if you think you can convince them that you are not as nutty as a dispensationalist and therefore they should follow Christ because your gospel is more reasonable, then you are nuts.
We cannot convince the skeptic of the truth of the gospel. Only God can do that. And if God has determined to convince some skeptic of the fact, then there is nothing Tim Lahaye or Gary DeMar or topcat or Marlowe can possibly say that will dissuade them from that decision.
The Bible says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Jesus placed equal emphasis on Spirit and Truth (John 4:23). God does not call his people to preach an irrational message. So, while it is true that no one will be convinced apart from the operation of the Spirit, it is equally true that God intends the message to be accurate and in accordance with the Word of God.
Your initial comment stand as a testament to irrationality in bringing the gospel message.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV)
We can struggle to make it as rational as possible, but in the absence of the work of the Holy Spirit, we are not going to convince anyone that what we are preaching is anything other than nonsense.
People may try to use Henry Morris as an excuse not to believe in Christ, but that ain't gonna fly. Especially if we someday find out that Henry Morris was right.
The foolishness is because of a defect in the hearers, not in the speakers. The gospel is quite rational to rational people. Unfortunately, the unsaved are by definition irrational. Thus the rational gospel is foolishness to their (dead) ears.
Let's not loose track of your initial suggestion.
Since when did Christians like DeMar take it upon themselves to do the work of the Holy Spirit?
By this statement you were clearly insinuating that gibberish could come out of ones mouth and they would be preaching the gospel according to the will of God, since all one needs to believe is the Holy Spirit.
The wise crack backfired.
IIRC something like that happened on the day of Pentecost.
When I wrote that I thought to myself, “He won’t bring up Pentecost, will he?”
In case you missed the details of the story, the men heard the Word preached in their own, known languages (Acts 2:6,11). They were not speaking heavenly gibberish.
It is not the power of the preacher or even the eloquence of the message that will bring a skeptic to understanding, but the power of God's word and the moving of the Holy Spirit.
You act as if Henry Morris, by contending for the truth of the flood, is somehow going to be responsible for some skeptic going to hell because he didn't believe Henry Morris. Well that ain't gonna happen. If that skeptic wants to use Henry Morris as an excuse for not believing the Bible, then that skeptic will have nobody but himself to blame when he stands before God on Judgment day.
Personally while I am open to just about any interpretation of the creation, I tend to believe that since the creation was a miracle and since God affirmed in Exodus Chapter 20 that he created the heavens and the earth in six days, that, in fact, God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is in 6 days.
You got a problem with that?
That's absolutely not true. The men all heard the message in their own native language. It was not gibberish to them.
6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine." (Acts. 2)With their natural ears they heard the message in their own language. Of course, God also needed to sovereignly open their spiritual ears to apply the message. God saves those whom He wills to save.
You got a problem with that?
You sound like a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.
Translated by the power of the Holy Spirit in a manner in which each who heard it was convicted. Are you suggesting that the men who spoke the words were men of strong persuasive oratorical skills and that is why there was such an intense and unparallelled response to the gospel, or was it that these men simply spoke what they believed and the holy spirit convicted those who heard.
Does not the Holy Spirit have the power to turn hearts and minds at the preaching of an imbicile? Should credit be given to the speech writers or should it be given to the subject of the message?
You sound like a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.
I offer no apologies for the gospel. I presuppose only that the Bible is true and that the facts presented in that book are facts and not fables. I have no reason to doubt that when God wrote upon the tablets that he made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days, that God did exactly as he said. If that makes me a presuppositionalist, then by gosh I'm proud to accept that title.
All I'm saying is that it was a plain, clear, sound Word of the Lord. No more, no less. It was not gibberish. God does not expect His people to speak gibberish. After all, if He came make an ass speak clear intelligible words, He does not need us to speak gibberish and expect the Holy Spirit to do some mystical translation on the fly.
So, want to retract your statement about DeMar now that we have beaten this horse to death?
As soon as you retract any negative posts you've posted about Henry Morris.
BTW what did I say that was negative about DeMar?
I don't recall ever mentioning Henry Morris.
Since when did Christians like DeMar take it upon themselves to do the work of the Holy Spirit?
Now, was DeMar really taking the work of the Holy Spirit upon himself? Or were you just itching to make a comment about him?
If he thinks that with the power of logic he can turn a skeptic into a believer, then yes.
You’re not seriously trying to equate DeMar’s legitimate criticism of Morris’ scholarship with your backhanded slam of DeMar, now are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.