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.
If it is his "secret will" then how can you state that the Nation of Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy or part of the divine order planned by God from the foundation of the earth?
Has God revealed his "secret will" to you?
Eat More Chikin
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. (Ryrie Study Bible)Another odd thing about Ryrie’s quote. It seems to make no allowance for Jews today (and for the past 2000 years) who come to faith in Christ. Note the structure of his comment. Place of privilege WAS occupied by Jews, and NOW is occupied by gentiles. No hint of Jews and gentiles together today as one new man ala Ephesians 2. IOW, no mention of the Church!
Again, this is a problem with classic dispensationalism. The proponents are often reluctant to see the implications of their system.
The Gospels certainly don't portray Jesus as being overly concerned about such distinctions -- though they do portray the Pharisees in that light.
All Jesus said was, "follow me."
Secret will (aka decretive will) simply means something not specifically declared to us in the Bible. E.g., the Bible does not tell us that Ronald Reagan was to be the 40th president of the US, although we know now that it certainly was.
This is over and against His prescriptive will, that which is plainly given to us in the Bible. An example of that would be that the Christ should be born of a virgin, or that He would be born in Bethlehem, or that the temple would be destroyed and OT sacrifices ended once for all time.
The existence of modern Israel is not part of God’s prescriptive will since nothing in the Bible can be positively and definitely linked to modern Israel.
Has God revealed his "secret will" to you?
No, but that is irrelevant to the subject at hand as I have demonstrated.
I know now that I should expect every aspect of your theology to be covered in any 3 sentences you utter from henceforth.
Obviously, covered elsewhere, TC. Can you honestly say with a straight face that you think Ryrie did not consider the Apostle John, a Jew, to be part of the Church?
Actually, you added the "all time" part to the scripture. Isn't it funny how our interpretations can impose themselves onto scripture until we begin to think they are scripture. Even though they aren't.
As you say about Chuck Smith, I guess this now puts you in that same class of "false prophet"....ehh?...someone who gets carried away with his interpretation.
But unfortunately he ends up with a three-headed monster. He has the Church with two heads (Jews and gentiles) and then he has this other thingy of post-rapture Jews. The remnant has to live in two different heads. It’s an unnatural beast.
The way Paul describes it in Romans 11 maps directly into the (non-dispensational) view of God’s people encompassed entirely in one people of God, the Church (Eph. 2:15).
But, because Ryrie has this silly idea of a pre-trib rapture, he needs to adorn the imagery in Romans 11 with speculative nonsense.
And I’m still hard-pressed to believe that Ryrie ever describes the Jews who make up the Church as the “remnant of Israel”. That idea is so non-dispensational.
Is there any doubt that salvation through Christ automatically makes one part of the Church? (Baptism being the sign of initiation.)
None whatsoever. And the Church is the one and only continuation of the people of God in Scripture. There is no corporate entity beyond the Church in God’s plan of salvation.
you added the "all time" part to the scripture.
"Obsolete, ready to pass away." Are you telling us they're coming back?
TC, I don't think you realize this but nearly all Old Testament prophecies about Christ were veiled and not plain. They were hidden in references to other people, to shepherds to prophets or to nations or to animals or even crops. If the references were so clear, why is it that nearly all of the biblical scholars of the time (you know, the ones with the advanced degrees) missed it?
The references to Christ's first coming were veiled as are the references to his second coming.
The existence of modern Israel is not part of God’s prescriptive will since nothing in the Bible can be positively and definitely linked to modern Israel.
Well God gathered the descendants of Abraham from every corner of the planet to meet in the same real estate he promised them he would hold in trust forever. That much is pretty clear in the Bible.
I’m saying it’s added to scripture where it didn’t exist before.
The temple being destroyed, and the sacrifice being ended are in the scripture. The part about “all time” is added.
Surely you realize that.
Sorry, that is precisely what Hebrews tells us.
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience-- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9)Forever means for all time. These things, blood sacrifices, etc., were only “until the time of reformation”, that is, until the time of Christ own service as the Great High Priest and Lamb of God.23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (Heb. 9)
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Heb. 10)
It is an abomination before God to suggest that sin offerings in blood will be made again ever again.
All the NT testifies of the end of the old covenant system with the coming of Christ. The only why one can come up with future blood offerings for sin is by ripping isolated OT passages out of the Bible and reading them apart from the largely Scripture context.
As you say about Chuck Smith, I guess this now puts you in that same class of "false prophet"....ehh?...someone who gets carried away with his interpretation.
Nice try, but Smith is in a class by himself.
Oh come on, TC, you and I both know that the reference was to the Daniel 9 passage. That's the only passage that puts together the destruction of the Temple and the end of the sacrifice.
If someone can't be honest with simple things, how can I trust them when they get into complex things?
I sure he would say he is just another humble servant of God.
True to a certain degree. That is why Christ gave us His apostles, to infallibly interpret to OT passages relating to the Christ. I don’t see any apostles running around today pointing at Israel as anything significant.
The references to Christ's first coming were veiled as are the references to his second coming.
But we are still dependent on the infallible interpretation of the apostles to explain these things to us. The only place we find that infallible interpretation is in the NT. And I do not see anything in the writings of the apostles pointing to the modern secular state of Israel as anything prophetically significant.
Well God gathered the descendants of Abraham from every corner of the planet to meet in the same real estate he promised them he would hold in trust forever. That much is pretty clear in the Bible.
If you are referring to the modern, secular state of Israel, you are begging the question, my FRiend. It’s not clear at all.
I’m not sure about your point. You didn’t like all the NT passages? Besides, “you and I both know” is a form of making it personal. You are attempting to read my mind.
If someone can't be honest with simple things, how can I trust them when they get into complex things?
You’re not making any sense.
It is clear, TC, that God will gather his children into their promised land. I confess, though, that I once read some preterist even argue that these "modern Jews" aren't the real descendants of those diaspora Jews. (DNA notwithstanding).
Nonetheless, the land is promised, and a return is promised. A careful reader would see in P-Marlowe's post that that was all he stated. He did not say that this return of the children of Abraham to that real estate was necessarily that scripture-mentioned return. We don't know that there might not be another return yet planned or a consummation of this return.
However, we do know that Jews have come to Israel from all over the world to settle in the land promised to them by God. A smart person would make that a point of consideration each time eschatology comes up.
Hardly. I mentioned the only section of scripture that mentions both the destruction of the temple and the end of the sacrifice.
Gotta disagree on that one. Covenant theology imposes a NT perspective on the OT text, plain and simple. You are not able to come to a consistent Biblical Theology of the Old Testament by viewing it through a NT lense because by reading the NT into the OT text you are overriding and redefining the original authorial intent of the OT text. It is inevidable that you are shifting the original meaning by doing this. When discussing the priority of the testaments when interpreting the OT, I would say the OT takes priority ... you would say the NT takes priority; this is the fundamental difference between a dispensational and non-dispensational approach to the interpretation of the OT.
That’s an odd connection since most of the Baptists I know are reformed and covenantal ...
Because I recognize the truth of some of Calvins work does not mean I am a Calvinist. Because I am a escatalogical futurist doesn't mean I am necessarily a dispensationalist. But your statement is a broad stroke of, in my opinion, wishful thinking. There are 4 baptist churches in my immediate area of the Peoples Republic of Maryland and none of them are reformed/covenant in any respect (and 2 of them would be considered hostile to Calvinism).
We could go on and on ... back and forth ...
Actually, you added the "all time" part to the scripture. Isn't it funny how our interpretations can impose themselves onto scripture until we begin to think they are scripture. Even though they aren't.
While you may have, I never had just one verse in mind for connecting the temple and sacrifices ending. Neither you nor I mentioned Daniel. Your claim is listed above. Note the lack of any reference to Daniel on your part.
So, I take you to Hebrews where it is plainly taught about the end of sacrifice once for all time at Christ’s coming, and you are complaining. Perhaps you misinterpreted my reference as meaning “Old Testament” when all I said was “Bible,” as in “This is over and against His prescriptive will, that which is plainly given to us in the Bible.”
Perhaps just trying to divert the subject away from the facts.
So, let’s cut to the chase, do you sincerely believe from all the Bible teaches that animal sacrifices for the atonement of sin pleasing to God will be reinstituted in the future?
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.