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.
Quit playing games, TC.
The issue isn’t what I think. The issue is what scripture actually says.
And in saying that there is no more sacrifice for sins, that means that an attempted “sin atoning sacrifice”, which never existed, will also not exist in the future.
That is NOT the same as saying that sacrifices will not be made. (Perhaps by Jews in a rebuilt Temple.)
The actual language leaves open the possibility.
You mean like Jesus and the apostles did repeatedly throughout the NT? I’m a Christian, so your charge is a non issue.
Because I recognize the truth of some of Calvins work does not mean I am a Calvinist
My only point was that you seem to imply that becoming Baptist was somehow automatically linked to being non Reformed or non covenantal. I do not see that necessary linkage.
I'm not the one who will not deal with all those Hebrews passages, my FRiend. I don't even need to refer to Daniel 9, although it does confirm the NT view of the end of the OT sacrifices once for all time with the coming of the Lamb of God.
That is NOT the same as saying that sacrifices will not be made. (Perhaps by Jews in a rebuilt Temple.)
Did you get this from the Bible, or did someone make it up for you?
The actual language leaves open the possibility.
Rather than read you mind, I’ll ask, what actual language are you referring to?
Shall I assume you didn't recognize the Hebrews reference in post #61?
Will there ever in the future be blood-based sin offering for atonement sanctioned by God as it was understood in the old covenant system, e.g., where God says:
And you shall offer a bull every day as a sin offering for atonement. You shall cleanse the altar when you make atonement for it, and you shall anoint it to sanctify it. (Exo. 29:36)
You may cuz I didn't. Which translation were you using?
“no more sacrifice for sins”
My memory is usually KJV, since that’s what I learned in my early years. I’ve used the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV pretty extensively.
The above quote which you posted answers your question about the future.
The above quote which you posted answers your question about the future.
So I take that to mean there will be no blood sacrifices, whether true or pretend, in the future. Certainly, there is nothing in the Bible that positively states anything about blood sacrifices in the future.
No. It means there will be no sacrifices that atone for sin.
Amen. "All one in Christ Jesus."
Will there be blood sacrifices of any kind, according to the Bible?
I'm interested in your answer, but let's not forget from when we came.
You claimed that the author of the OP was misapplying Ryrie. That the “remnant” included both those Jews in the Church and those end-times Jewish converts after the rapture. I asked where Ryrie states in in those terms. I'm still waiting for that answer.
You tried to steer us away from that question by asking, “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?” Clearly a red-herring since no one denies that the Church includes believing Jews.
Later you stated:
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?
But that was not the original claim by you that was an alleged misapplication of Ryrie. Again, you were attempting to dodge the issue by changing the subject.
So, let's try again. You stated:
The premise of this article misapplis Ryrie. Ryrie clearly believed in remnant Israel ALSO being within the Church.
Where exactly does Ryrie equate the “remnant of Israel” with both the Church and the post-rapture Jewish believers?
Regarding the matter of blood atonement for sin, how do you understand the passage from Exodus I quoted:
And you shall offer a bull every day as a sin offering for atonement. You shall cleanse the altar when you make atonement for it, and you shall anoint it to sanctify it. (Exo. 29:36)What would the bull being made “a sin offering for atonement” mean to a Jewish believer living in the days of Moses?
Wrong. The original statement from which the sacrifice discussion arose was over your adding to scripture that the temple would be destroyed and that sacrifices were then ended for “all time.” The discussion, if you recall, was about “all time.” I stated that was an addition to the scripture.
There never were, and never will be, any animal sacrifice that in and of itself atoned/atones for sin. The blood of an animal is not sufficient to atone for sin.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that someone someplace, even now at this moment, is not offering an animal sacrifice. Nor does it mean that, if the Jews were to rebuild a Temple, that they would not offer animal sacrifices. Nor would it preclude other reasons for reenactments of sacrifices that we’re not thinking of at the moment.
What it means is those sacrifices would not atone for even one itsy bitsy sin. Ever.
What it meant to a Jewish believer has nothing to do with what an animal sacrifice actually accomplished in regards to atoning for sin.
You are, by the way, discussing the Old Testament law.
Yes, they routinely threw out the entire OT background of God's work in human history through the nation of Israel and discarded the literal interpretation of the OT. Highlight and expansion is one thing ... replacement theology is another.
My only point was that you seem to imply that becoming Baptist was somehow automatically linked to being non Reformed or non covenantal. I do not see that necessary linkage.
The linkage may not be necessary, I conceed the point. But there is no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.
Dispensational and non-dispensational theology will always dialogue ... as our evangelism approach and our desire to live a pure life in anticipation of the imminent return of Christ are common positions. But there is unlikely to be common ground in escatological discussions because we approach the formation of systematic theology at different starting points.
My FRiend, I backed up all the way in the conversation. You have continually tried to deflect the issue. Your taking off on what I said about the end of the temple and OT sacrificial system was another twist in the road. Just be honest.
Are you saying they were deceived, or just incompetent when it came to the words spoken to them by God? Or are you saying that then God said “a sin offering for atonement” He meant something different, we are not to take it in a honest and normal fashion?
You are, by the way, discussing the Old Testament law.
Ding ding ding. Give that man a cigar.
So what?
All the blood sacrifices for atonement were part of the Old Testament law, from Exodus on through. Not sure what exactly that has to do with anything we are discussing.
Some folks believe that God has said that sometime in the future (probably real soon now) that animals will again be put to death as an atonement for sin according to OT law in a band spanking new temple in Jerusalem.
Is that what you believe the Bible teaches? That the OT system from the law will be put in place again?
Animal sacrifice never accomplished atonement for sin.
That's not how folks I know characterize it, but if caricatures work for you, that's quite OK.
replacement theology
I can see you are one of those scared by the boogeyman.
But there is no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.
Try it. You'll like it. Many of them even use confessions and creeds. They are not tossed about by every doctrine of man.
But there is unlikely to be common ground in escatological discussions because we approach the formation of systematic theology at different starting points.
Quite true. And as long as wacky claims are being made by futurists about what the Bible teaches, especially as it relates to current events, there will always be those of us around to call their bluff.
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.