Posted on 10/20/2009 8:00:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
My friends have often heard me say, “The more I read my Bible the less dispensational I become.”
This statement comes from someone who was spiritually nurtured in churches with dispensational theology, who graduated from a Christian university steeped in dispensational theology, who received his first graduate degree from a dispensational seminary, and who—for twelve years—preached sermons that reflected dispensational theology. For the first sixteen years of my Christian life, I rarely questioned the fundamental distinctions of dispensational theology. What are those distinctions? In his discussion of what he called the “sine qua non of dispensationalism,”
Ryrie asserted:
“A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct … . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive” (Ryrie 44-45).
Later he concluded:
“the essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church” (Ryrie 47).
As a dispensationalist I studied my Bible with the understanding that God had dual and separate plans for Israel and the church. I understood this “church age” to be somewhat parenthetical until God resumed His plan with the nation of Israel. I believed that the Abrahamic covenant and all the other Old Testament covenants were essentially for national Israel, and that only the soteriological benefits of the covenants belonged to the church.
As I continued to pastor and preach, I realized that my training in the Old Testament was weak. I decided to pursue a Master of Theology in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. My dispensational comrades in ministry assured me that Westminster would ruin my theology. I suppose many of them believe that has happened. Nevertheless, I was drawn to Westminster primarily because Bruce Waltke was teaching there. I had read books and articles by Dr. Waltke and had profited immensely from them.
While at Westminster I had the privilege of learning from Vern Poythress, Tremper Longman, and Raymond Dillard, along with Bruce Waltke. At first I listened as an antagonist, but I was soon won over by their personal graciousness and their commitment to Scripture. I began to experience discomfort as I realized that my commitment to dispensationalism was often unyielding, even when contradicted by the results of exegesis. These words from the introduction to my Th.M thesis summarize my response at that time:
Exegesis often eviscerates one’s theological presuppositions. When a theological bulwark withstands the penetration of biblical exegesis, its tenets remain secure. However, if its walls crumble beneath the weight of incisive and precise exegesis, then one must abandon the fortress and construct a better one (Davis, 1990, 1).
During the course of my study at Westminster, Bruce Waltke was my faculty advisor. I was privileged to have a number of personal discussions with him regarding the uneasiness I felt in questioning dispensationalism. As I considered what to research for my Th.M thesis, he suggested a topic that would be beneficial to me on my journey and helpful to others. I wrote “A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” The writing of that thesis opened a door and gave me a gentle push toward my eventual departure from dispensationalism.
As I worked through the exegesis of the Abrahamic Covenant and the hermeneutical issues surrounding it, I came to this conclusion:
Through an inductive study, this paper has arrived at a position that approximates covenant theology, namely, that that covenants confirm and explicate the program by which God redeems a people for Himself. It has been established that Israel and the church need to be perceived as sub-categories of a larger concept, i.e. the people of God. The Abrahamic covenant is not the beginning of the people of God, but rather God’s redemptive means, after the rebellion at Babel and the dispersion, to reclaim a fallen world to Himself. The Abrahamic covenant needs to be viewed in its relation to God’s purposes for the entire world, not simply His purposes for a nation. The Abrahamic covenant needs to viewed in light of the inauguration of eschatological times with the first advent of Jesus Christ, as well as the consummation of eschatology at the second advent (Davis 109).
Since those years at Westminster, I have continued to think about these issues and have become more and more convinced that exegesis and biblical theology do not support the sine qua non of dispensationalism (i.e., the distinction between Israel and the church). Since Christ is the final and fullest revelation of God, I now see that the Old Testament anticipated Christ and finds its interpretation and fulfillment in Christ.
In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land.
Of the seventy four references to Abraham in the New Testament, not one clearly focuses on the “earthly” elements of the covenant. Even the acceptance of a mass conversion of Israelites at some future time does not demand a return to a former order of things.
Take, for example, the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the relationship of the law to saving faith, in Galatians 3.
He introduces Abraham as a paradigm of saving faith and of inclusion in the promises of God. In the course of his discussion, the apostle makes interpretive statements based on his understanding of the Genesis passages. These reflect on the Abrahamic covenant. These statements are as follows:
1) – “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
2) -“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ’All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:8).
3) - “Those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
4) – “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:14).
5) – “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
6) - “But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).
Paramount in these verses is the redemptive significance of the Abrahamic covenant as it finds its consummation in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ, as the quintessential seed of Abraham, is both the guarantor and inheritor of the promises of the covenant.
Relationship with Christ, established by emulating the faith of Abraham, guarantees one’s participation in the promises of the covenant. It is not the keeping of the law or physical descent from Abraham that constitutes one as a child of Abraham, but rather faith in Jesus Christ.
These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles, and they substantiate the view that there is one people of God of all ages that share the covenants of Scripture which find their consummation in Christ.
Strikingly, Paul perceives redemption in Christ to be the dominant, though not exclusive, feature of the Abrahamic covenant. He finds the consummation of the covenant in Christ and participation in the covenant to be predicated on relationship to Christ. Though, admittedly, I argue from silence here, the “material” nature of the promises to Abraham appears to be somewhat idealized in Christ. Though not necessarily removing those “material” elements of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul’s treatment certainly places them in a new light.
Consequently, due to the advent of Christ as the seed of Abraham, the New Testament sees a semi-realized fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in New Testament believers and the church and an ultimate eternal fulfillment in the New Heavens and Earth for all those who are “seed” of Abraham by faith.
In Christ we have our “landedness” as we are “blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3) and are assured that we have “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade kept in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:3).
The New Testament texts that consider the question, “Who are the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant?” unequivocally answer, “All of those who are in Christ Jesus.”
In reference to the unity of believing Jews and Gentiles, George N. H. Peters cogently concludes:
Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same olive tree; both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body, fellow-citizens of the same commonwealth; both are Jews “inwardly” (Romans 2:29), and of the true “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), forming the same “peculiar people,” “holy nation,” and “royal priesthood”; both are interested in the same promises, covenants, and kingdom; both inherit and realize the same blessings at the same time (Peters 404).
In conclusion, may we all continue to “do theology” rooted in humility, exegesis, biblical theology, and community. Though I do not agree with many of Clark Pinnock’s theological conclusions, I do appreciate his delightful approach to the theological enterprise. He said,
I approach theology in a spirit of adventure, being always curious about what I may find. For me theology is like a rich feast, with many dishes to enjoy and delicacies to taste. It is like a centuries-old conversation that I am privileged to take part in, a conversation replete with innumerable voices to listen to…. More like a pilgrim than a settler, I tread the path of discovery and do my theology en route (quoted in Grenz 134).
Works Cited
Davis, John P. “A Critical Examination of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” Master of Theology Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990.
Grenz, Stanley J. Renewing the Center. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1952.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
Yep.
Are you suggesting that a nation of Jewish refugees called Israel could rise from the ashes of history and it would not be in conformance with God's will or his divine plan?
Is God not in control?
I am saying that the re-gathering and restoration of the Nation of Israel is something that God is going to do in the future.
God is certainly in control, but He is not governing right now - there’s a difference, in my opinion.
OK, so when a non-dispensationalist makes that claim, saying the remnant of Israel is that part which identifies with Christ and His Church, the problem is what exactly?
You didn’t ping Gamey, and he’s the one who started the thread.
Oversight.
You haven’t read Ryrie have you?
I have a few of his books including Dispensationalism Today, I just do not recall that particular language and his argument for the distinction you claim he’s making.
Is he on a coffee break from the Throne?
Who exactly is in charge, anyway? Obama?
"The olive tree is the place of privilege that was first occupied by the natural branches (the Jews). The wild branches are Gentiles who, because of the unbelief of Israel, now occupy the place of privilege. The root of the tree is the Abrahamic covenant that promised blessing to both Jew and Gentile through Christ."
Do you suggest that any biblical Christian would suggest that "On this rock I will build my Church" did not include the Jewish Apostles themselves?
Yes, and we determine that meaning from the Bible, not Scofield’s Notes.
It seems to me that grace and the law are mutually exclusive,
And you have pointed out the confusion rendered by the original version of Scofield’s Notes.
Salvation is entirely by grace. Thus the need for a covenant of grace. All men in all times have been saved by the gracious act of God in offering His Son for the sins of His people. That was true for Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, … everyone who found favor in the sight of the Lord.
The law was given to demonstrate to man their need for this covenant of grace. It was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. It could never save anyone, nor could anyone ever find favor in God’s sight simply by lawkeeping.
Dispensationalism is the confusing factor in the discussion. Some dispensationalists have tried to clean up their act. Scofield’s Notes were revised to undo the suggestion of salvation by lawkeeping in the original. Progressive dispensationalism goes even further in the direction of covenant theology. Progress is being made.
Not much of a shock that one would come out of WTS a anti-dispensationalist after that indoctrination.
About as much shock as a Dallas theological Seminary graduate leaving as a dispensationalist.
I think He is presently letting man walk after his own ways - let the evidence speak for itself - mankind has been reaping what it has been sowing. If God were governing right now, there would be a whole lot of folks who would be turned into toast on the spot as a result of their actions. The fact that they are not toast speaks to me of a God presently acting in grace, that is, granting unmerited favor to the underserving. I believe a time is coming when He again will indeed act in judgment, but alas, I don’t think it is so today.
Could Israel have been re-established in 1947 if it were not for the hand of God guiding the events?
To suggest that God did not have a hand in the re-establishment of "a" Nation called Israel in 1947 is to suggest that God is NOT in control of anything?
Is God in control in your life? Could you even take another breath if it were not in the will and divine plan of God for you to do so?
Yes, we are familiar with Darby's theories. Quoting him does not really help.
The question is, how do you distinguish between the remnant in the Church and some other remnant without being entirely artificial? E.g., why the need to divide “all Israel” up into distinct chunks?
Do you suggest that any biblical Christian would suggest that "On this rock I will build my Church" did not include the Jewish Apostles themselves?
Absolutely not. It is my argument that every Jewish believer in Jesus Christ is the remnant of Israel (“all Israel” if you will) and is being saved during the time in which we live. They are the Church, along with their gentile brethren. Natural and wild grafted into one root, Jesus Christ.
In fact you are making the non-dispensational case very well.
Not as many as you might think, with the overtaking of DTS by the progressive dispensationalists (aka covenant theology lite). I’m always amazed at the number of DTS grads in non-dispensational churches/positions. Many of the best and brightest.
It was a Ryrie Study Bible Quote...not Darby.
And I’m not including all of “modern Israel” as part of the remnant. The remnant are those in “that day” who will say “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”
God in control of everything means also the presidency of Obama. And of my not voting for him.
Do I believe that God could have used a corrupt, man-made organization such as the United Nations to accomplish His purpose? Of course! Do I believe that’s what happened in 1947-48? Not necessarily. Yes, a nation was created called Israel. Do I believe it was the Israel of God created back then? No. Will the Nation of Israel be created? Yes, and by God it will.
Did God decide what you were going to have for breakfast this morning? Don’t you think He has more important things with which to concern Himself?
God gives me the very breath of life. If He stopped that flow I would no longer be breathing.
If you are saying that God’s providence extends to the rise and fall of nations, absolutely not.
If by that you are contending that modern Israel is the fulfillment of specific Bible prophecies that can be proven, the answer is that such is not the teaching of the Bible.
“Re-establish” is really the wrong term. Modern Israel has little in common with biblical Israel. There is no direct connection.
Israel being constituted as a secular nation in 1947 is no different than the unification of Italy in the 19th century or the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. God orders the affairs of men according to His secret will and good pleasure.
Oops. Sorry. I found that quote listed on a very confusing page that seemed to attribute it to Darby.
And I’m not including all of “modern Israel” as part of the remnant. The remnant are those in “that day” who will say “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”
I’m still missing the part where Ryrie says that the remnant of Israel is part of the Church and the remnant of Israel is some future group. I don’t see it in that quote.
Many Jewish sects believe there is. The same with many Christians.
How do you "prove" that a time of God is upon us or is around the corner? Aside from direct revelation, all we have is the possibility of certain scriptures aligning.
The Apostles weren't aware of the resurrection until after it had occurred, even though Jesus told them many times.
At the same time, I, too, would counsel caution. I would also counsel knowledge of other perspectives. I am a sola scriptura kind of guy.
The bottom line is this: if we don't appeal to scripture as authoritative then to what do we appeal?
He says that both are part of the olive tree through Christ.
Is there any doubt that salvation through Christ automatically makes one part of the Church? (Baptism being the sign of initiation.)
He foreknew and foreordained it. If it were God's will that I should have had something else, I would have.
Don’t you think He has more important things with which to concern Himself?
He knows how many hairs you have on your head.
What I have for breakfast will affect me in some way for the rest of my life. If I have bacon and eggs every morning then it is probably God's will that I die young.
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.