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.
So, it was a type?
Type is probably an ok word. The OT sacrifice was effectual only as much as it signified the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. It looked forward to the true sacrifice.
That does not preclude any other sacrifice from being offered now or in the future, illegitimate or legitimate.
Will there be a legitimate sacrificial system in the future that looks back at Calvary rather than looking forward to it? It could be. I don't see anything that is necessarily opposed to it.
Rom. 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
It seems to me that God is not done with Israel.
It was am obvious red herring.
Type is probably an ok word. The OT sacrifice was effectual only as much as it signified the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. It looked forward to the true sacrifice.
So it would not make any sense, and in fact would be repugnant to go back to an old covenant type such as animal sacrifices. Would you agree?
That does not preclude any other sacrifice from being offered now or in the future, illegitimate or legitimate.
Why not? Would it not a supreme affront to the Lamb of God?
Will there be a legitimate sacrificial system in the future that looks back at Calvary rather than looking forward to it? It could be. I don't see anything that is necessarily opposed to it.
But is there something explicit in favor? Are people who get all excited about such things – new temple and the possibility of animal sacrifices – just self-deceived?
With all the strong language in the NT about the nature of the once for all sacrifice of Christ, and similar strong language in the book of Galatians about judaizing and a return to the law, you don't see anything necessarily wrong?
Absolutely true. The error usually comes about by defining "Israel" in a way other than how it is used in the Bible.
Jesus himself told us how to read the OT; it's all about him.
I speak as one who went the opposite direction ... from being brought up in the Reformed camp and eventually embracing the Baptist tradition.actually seem to me to be born of a fairly poor, almost inexcusable knowledge of the actual "Baptist Tradition." What, with the great works of the Reformed champion, the "Prince of Preachers" Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the beloved Puritan preacher and author John Bunyan, and the signatories of the Great Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644/46 and 1689) so readily available? I actually should find it quite surprising that the majority of Baptist Churches in America aren't Reformed. That is, of course, if I weren't fairly well versed in the history of the American Evangelical tradition post Ryrie, Schofield, and Finney. So, well, I'm not surprised, but still sort of shocked at what I can't escape calling "misstatements." Perhaps a better statement would be:
I speak as one who went the opposite direction (towards dispensationalism)... from being brought up in the Reformed camp and eventually embracing the American Evangelical tradition in a (Free Will; Trinity; Southern; American) Baptist Church.I dunno. Either way, like any other church that clings to the dividing of God's people or watches the horizon for a new temple to be erected and sacrifices to begin again, yours is not of the Baptist tradition but of 160 year old mostly American tradition.
no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.Well, allow me to introduce you to one of many (who are, happily, spreading again). Rockdale Community Church is a Reformed Baptist Fellowship in Conyers, GA. We are, in fact, adherents to Covenant Theology (of a slightly different brand than my friend topcat54, to be sure). And, to introduce you to a Reformed Baptist covenant theology adherent:
My name is Ray Nearhood. I, along with my family, am a Particular Baptist. I confess with the Great Creeds of the Christian Church (the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689. My children are being catechized and taught the creeds. My eldest son, upon his confession of faith, was baptized just a few short years ago (to this day, the gladdest day of my life - to be equaled only by seeing youngest confess and be baptized). My faith is, undoubtedly, of a Puritan bend, in that I daily strive at mortification, I hold to a Regulative Principal of Worship, and I understand daily my wretchedness and try to depend wholly on the strength and guidance of the Sovereign Lord who saved me and daily saves me (though I fail in all these things too often).Well, there you have it. You've "met" one Calvinist Baptist over the interwebs. Here's hoping you meet more.
The current debate is really about the meaning of literal interpretation. My conjecture is that covenant theology and dispensational theology believe they are each employing literal interpretation. But they cannot both be consistent in that application because of the huge chasm between them in the area of eschatology. Certainly I would not claim that reformers are not interpreting the NT literally ... but when approaching the OT the literal interpretation used in the reformed camp breaks down IMO. By projecting a NT understanding on the OT text in the interpretive process you are ignoring the OT background and removing the OT from its historical context ... which can have the effect of shifting meaning and replacement theology.
Why do dispensationalists see future promises for the nation of Israel? Because the literal interpretation of the OT text shows that the promises to the nation of Israel have yet to be fulfilled in their entirity. So, for example, the discussion on Daniel 9:24-27 (which I think started the whole discussion) the dispensationalist would come to a different understanding of this prophecy that the reformed theologian. Why? Well, as I have mentioned previously, the reformed perspective will substitute meanings for details in the text that the grammatical historical context does not support. How could you ever get that the "abomination of desolation" is the continuance of the sacrificial system between Christs death and 70 AD? You have to impose a NT theme on the OT text. At that point you have abandoned any sense of literalism.
I can see why it would be outdated, don't see why any part of the law would be repugnant. After all, Paul says that the Law is holy; and Jesus said not one jot or tittle would fail. Those are 2 pretty powerful statements of support.
I see no reason for it to be an affront. I'm sure Jesus is aware that His was the only effectual sacrifice, and that the others were signs of the better that was to come. Likewise, I doubt He'll find bread and wine repugnant or an affront in some future dispensation.
Judaizing
The Judaizers were castigated for suggesting to Gentiles that salvation required cutting one's flesh. As Jews, they were perfectly free to engage in temple ritual. In fact, Paul and friends did so in Acts 21.
It’s quite simple.
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,” (1 Tim. 1:8)
The OT law had it place prior to the coming of Christ. It was lawful to offer animal sacrifices in the manner stipulated by God.
Once Christ came and made the final, once for all time sacrifice for sin, that OT command no longer had any lawful use. That is the plain testimony of Hebrews, Galatians, etc in the NT.
So to suggest that in the future, after the coming of Christ to atone for the sins of His people, that such OT sacrifices would again be made, is repugnant and an affront to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dispensational confusion comes about by failing to see the distinction between the OT sacrifices and the new covenant sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which were specifically given by our Lord to the Church to be done often until He comes again.
What evidence do you have from the Bible that this use of “literal interpretation” as proposed by dispensationalists is even valid? Esp. one that ignores or minimizes the way that Jesus and the NT writers approached the subject.
You take issue with the way covenant theology reads the OT in light of the NT, but that is exactly what the apostles did. Remember, it was the apostate Jews who took a “literal interpretation” of the OT prophecies and failed to see Jesus, looking instead for a carnal political ruler who would wage a carnal political war. The same sort of person many modern dispensationalists expect to appear after the rapture and during the futurist millennium.
Dispensationalism is the odd man out since there is no justification for their definition of “literal interpretation.”
Amen!!
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. (Luke 24)If you don’t see Jesus in the prophecy you probably do not understand the Scriptures.
The law is holy.
There is nothing in the bible that I can find that says the old sacrificial system became “repugnant” after Calvary. In fact, Acts 21 shows both Paul and the Apostles deeply involved as Jewish Christians in the Temple ritual.
I don’t know where you come up with “repugnant.” Even with the 1 Tim 1:8 verse, there is a clear affirmation that the law is good. And there is no scripture that says that the sacrificial system is “repugnant.” It does say: (1) that the sacrifices weren’t what really was effectual in atonement; and (2) they are not required of Gentiles (Acts 15).
What would the bull being made “a sin offering for atonement” mean to a Jewish believer living in the days of Moses?
.................................
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?
Fascinating discussion. What WOULD a Jewish believer of the day (an OT righteous, saved in fact by grace through faith) have said if you asked him why he was performing or participating in animal sacrifices? Would he have said "I do this because God commanded it, though I know it does not really atone for my sins. It points toward a future and perfect sacrifice that will TRULY atone for my sins of today."?
Also, would a non-dispensational answer likely or necessarily disagree with a dispensational one?
How exactly does it work in the first place?
I steal something from my neighbor. I kill a sheep. How does the dead sheep make my sin for stealing go away?
Any answer you give, other than “God said so.” is less than satisfying.
You need to ping Buggman for his take on this issue.
Possibly because the innocent sheep was sacrificed in your place. The death (blood, Heb. 9:22) of the sheep atoned (paid for) your sin. I have also seen the idea that OT animal sacrifices actually DID atone for sins, but only temporarily. That is why they had to be repeated over and over. With Christ of course the sacrifice was all encompassing, total, and forever. A couple of verses given to support this are:
Lev 4:35 : He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
Lev 5:10 : The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
I'm not sure what to make of this. If this idea is correct, then while it is easy for us to say that Christ died for all of our sins because He preceded us, did Christ atone for the OT sins of the righteous whose sins were already atoned for through animal sacrifice? I wouldn't think there could be "double atonement".
10. And whatsoever make there be of the house of Israel. God here not only condemns to death whosoever shall have polluted themselves by eating of blood, but declares that He will Himself take vengeance on them, though they may escape from the hands of the judges; for He not only prescribes to the judges what it is right for them to do, but asserts for Himself the office of inflicting the punishment. For, if we consider the intention of the Law, is there anything to surprise us in this; for although it be not consistent that the blood of a brute should be compensated for by the death of a man, still we must remember that this mode of instruction[22] was necessary for a rude people, lest they should speedily lapse into barbarism. But, lest they should complain that no use remained for the blood, He reminds them that since it was given for atonement, they would be very ungrateful if they were not content with so great a blessing; and surely, since it was the price they were to pay for appeasing God, this was an employment of it far to be preferred to food. If, then, they desired to exchange into ordinary food the blood, which was destined to the altar for the reconciliation of God, Moses indirectly reproves their ingratitude; for when God took away the right of eating it, He left them something better, which should have abundantly satisfied them. But we have elsewhere[23] seen in what manner blood atones for souls, i e., in a sacramental manner, upon which it must be observed that what properly belongs to Christ is thus transferred by metonomy to figures and symbols, yet in such a way that the similitude should neither be empty nor inefficacious; for in so far as the fathers apprehended Christ in the external sacrifices, atonement was truly exhibited in them.The details of the law of Moses represented Christ to the people (cf. Luke 24:44,45).Notes: 22 “Hanc paedagogiam.” — Lat. “Ceste doctrine puerile.” — Fr.
23 See on Exodus 12:21, ante vol. 1 p. 221.
21. Then Moses called for all the elders. His address is especially directed to the elders, that they might afterwards repeat it to the multitude; for he could not have been heard at the same time by so great a number of people. But, although the disorganization of the people had been terrible under that severe tyranny, still God willed that certain relics of order should be preserved, and did not suffer those, whom He had adopted, to be deprived of all government. This also had been an availing means of preserving their unity, so that the chosen seed of Abraham should not be lost. But Moses here only speaks of the sprinkling of the blood; because he had already addressed them as to the eating of the lamb. He therefore commands branches of hyssop to be dipped in the blood, which had been caught in the basin, and every one’s lintel and two side-posts to be sprinkled with this. By which sign God testified that He will preserve His people from the common destruction, because they will be discerned from the wicked by the mark of blood. For it was necessary that the Israelites should first be reminded, that by the expiation of the sacrifice, they were delivered from the plague, and their houses preserved untouched; and, secondly, that the sacrifice would profit them, only if its conspicuous sign existed among them. We elsewhere see that the Paschal lamb was a type of Christ, who by His death propitiated His Father, so that we should not perish with the rest of the world. But, already of old time, He desired to bear witness to the ancients under the Law, that He would not be reconciled to them otherwise than through the sacrifice of a victim. And there is no doubt that by this visible symbol He raised up their minds to that true and heavenly Exemplar, whom it would be absurd and profane to separate from the ceremonies of the law. For what could be more childish than to offer the blood of an animal as a protection against the hand of God, or to seek from thence a ground of safety? God, then, shows that He spares the Israelites on no other condition but that of sacrifice; from whence it follows, that the death of Christ was set before them in this ordinance, which alone constituted the difference between them and the Egyptians. But at the same time He taught that no advantage was to be expected from the blood poured forth, without the sprinkling; not that the external and visible sprinkling produced any good effect, but because by this familiar rite it was useful that the ignorant should be brought to perceive the truth, and that they might know that what was put before them Visibly must be spiritually fulfilled. It is notorious from the testimony of Peter, (1 Peter 1:2,) that our souls are sprinkled with the blood of Christ by the Spirit. This was typified by the bunch of hyssop,[141] which herb possesses great cleansing power, and therefore, was often used in other sacrifices also, as we shall hereafter see in the proper places.Notes:
141 There has been much discussion as to the plant to which this name is given. “In no instance,” says the Illustrated Commentary, “has any plant been suggested, that at the same time had a sufficient length of stem, to answer the purpose of a wand or pole, and such detergent qualities, as to render it a fit emblem of purification.” The author himself has no question but. that it was of the genus Phytolacca; which combines, in a remarkable manner, these two qualities. Dr. Royle, however, considers it to have been the caper-plant, (Capparis spinosa,), which possesses another important condition wanting in the Phytolacca, viz., that it still grows in the countries to which it is attributed in Scripture.
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.