An Incomplete Systematic Theology

American Vision ^ | March 15, 2011 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

Michael Horton is Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California. He has written a number of popular books on a variety of subjects. His latest book is The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way published by Zondervan in 2011[1]. Horton promotes a two-kingdom worldview that is similar to the cultural and civil quietism found in Lutheran theology. P. Andrew Sandlin offers this short analysis of the cultural and political consequences of the view:

Unlike the Reformed tradition [of which Horton claims to be an advocate], the Lutheran alternative has consistently maintained the “two-kingdoms” theory. The church is the realm of grace, and the state and the wider society is the realm of nature (“natural law”). This theory is ripe for murderous but shrewd tyrants like Adolph Hitler, who take advantage of the church’s withdrawal into the four walls of the institutional church and its willingness to be seduced by a state that can convince the church of the validity of a “natural” regime.

By contrast, few sectors of the church have stood as vigorously and courageously against political tyranny as the Reformed church, because the latter has refused to limit Christ’s authority to the church but has recognized that the magistrate too is bound to submit to the law of God in the Bible. Post-Reformational Calvinists strike fear into the hearts of political tyrants because these Calvinists refuse to limit biblical authority to the church. Two-kingdom advocates, on the other hand, are ripe pickings for these tyrants.[2]

[topcat54]

"Such a view is reinforced by an “already-not yet” view of eschatology that in reality always seems to be “not yet.” Two-kingdom theology wedded to an “already-not yet” eschatology is a cultural copout, a middle of the road approach that cannot deal honestly with prophetic texts. They read the Bible like dispensationalists. They can’t bring themselves to admit that a text says what it states when compared with passages with similar grammar and word meaning. To admit it would bring down their entire system.

"Horton is a full professor at a top-flight seminary. He’s just published a comprehensive 1000-page systematic theology. His section on eschatology runs nearly 90 pages and is mostly definitional. There is a section on Matthew 24 where he argues that a first-century, pre-A.D. 70 fulfillment of the entire discourse, at least up to verse 34, is impossible." [emph. added]

[topcat54]

Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)
Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

[circlecity]

"There is a section on Matthew 24 where he argues that a first-century, pre-A.D. 70 fulfillment of the entire discourse, at least up to verse 34, is impossible."

So? Even DeMar's mentor Ken Gentry acknowledges this. Or did DeMar switch from full blown preterist back to semi-preterist this week? He goes back and forth so often it's hard to keep track.

[fatboy]

Gary DeMar (aka “pipsqueak”) is correct that reformed/covenant and dispensationalists use the term “already, not yet” to discribe the kingdom in this present age. However they mean different things to the respective camps, a detail lost on the squeak.

I’m no fan of Horton, I have one or his works and it’s confusing at best and I don’t know why anyone thinks a new systematic theology is needed but it’s not my call.

But if Mr. DeMar would only read the Bible, a lot of this confusion would go away...”WHEN the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, THEN he will sit on his glorious throne.” Matthew 25:31

[topcat54]

Even DeMar's mentor Ken Gentry acknowledges this.

Can you be specific?

[topcat54]

But if Mr. DeMar would only read the Bible, a lot of this confusion would go away...”WHEN the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, THEN he will sit on his glorious throne.” Matthew 25:31

Yes, so? I don’t get your point. Perhaps the “pipsqueak” has outsmarted you.

[topcat54]

But if Mr. DeMar would only read the Bible, a lot of this confusion would go away...”WHEN the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, THEN he will sit on his glorious throne.” Matthew 25:31

Yes, so? I don’t get your point. Perhaps the “pipsqueak” has outsmarted you.

[circlecity]

He did a series “Demystifying Revelation” with Demar where he acknowledged this and He also has a recording somewhere on the net of a radio interview he gave. It came up in the context of Gentry making very clear he is a semi-preterist and that he did not believe in full blown preterism. He acknowledged a future component of the parousia and further cited the Olivet Discourse as being evidence of this. Although he mentioned Matthew, he relied more on Luke 21 because this version of the discourse distinguishes more clearly between the near aspect of the prophecy (fall of Jerusalem) and the far aspect (parousia). Matthew mixes them them up such that it can be difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. As a historicist in my eschatology I approach the topic with many of the same premises as Gentry and certainly agree with his approach. Semi-preterism is just a very front- loaded type of historicism. I was impressed with his analysis and this prompted me to read a couple of his works regarding the dating of revelation. While I ultimately don't agree with him I do acknowledge he argues his case well and makes the semi-preterism case about as well as it can be made. A excellent scholar.

[HarleyD]

Two-kingdom theology wedded to an “already-not yet” eschatology is a cultural copout, a middle of the road approach that cannot deal honestly with prophetic texts.

I'm a little confused by the "two-kingdom" theology so I had to look it up. Here what it stated:

... the two kingdoms (or two reigns) of God teaches that God is the ruler of the whole world and that he rules in two ways. He rules the earthly or left-hand kingdom through secular (and, though this point is often misunderstood, also churchly) government, by means of law (i.e., the sword or compulsion) and in the heavenly or righthand kingdom (his spiritual kingdom, that is, Christians insofar as they are a new creation who spontaneously and voluntarily obey) through the gospel or grace. - Wikipedia-Two Kingdoms

I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here but the other side seems to be in a snit.

[Lee N. Field]

Such a horrible thing ("Oh Noes!") to be thought Lootherin. < /sarc>

Horton's The Christian Faith is on my list to get, but pretty far down. I already have Calvin, Berkhof, and 2/3's of Hodge.

Too much to do, too tired. Later

[topcat54]

I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here but the other side seems to be in a snit.

There are several variations on 2K theology. E.g., Lutheran, Reformed, and neo-2K emanating primarily from Westminster Seminary California and the White Horse Inn crowd.

A chief distinction between traditional Reformed 2K (ala John Calvin) and neo-2K would be the matter of the enforcement of the first table of the moral law by the civil magistrate.

[topcat54]

He did a series “Demystifying Revelation” with Demar where he acknowledged this and He also has a recording somewhere on the net of a radio interview he gave. It came up in the context of Gentry making very clear he is a semi-preterist and that he did not believe in full blown preterism. He acknowledged a future component of the parousia and further cited the Olivet Discourse as being evidence of this.

Both Gentry and DeMar see an AD70 as well as a future parousia fulfillment in the Olivet Discourse. The division is around vv 34-36 of Matt. 24, vv. 4-34 begin Ad70 and vv36 and following being the future Second Coming. Neither Gentry nor DeMar are full preterists who deny a future Second Coming. I’m not aware of any significant differences between the two men on their understanding of the Olivet Discourse.

[fatboy]

not very likely
not very likely

[fatboy]

One of the things that troubles me, and I think you would agree with me Lee N. Field is that covenant a-mills and preterists seem to always recommend that the potential dispy learn about dispensationalism by reading books about dispensationalism written by covenant a-mills and preterists. Dispensationalism according to Covenant theology is what I call it.

Could you imagine if the situation were reversed, a knowledgable dispensationalists recommending to a potential covenant a-mill that he get his/her knowledge of reformed theology exclusivly from dispensationalists writers?

[fatboy]

I don't know anything about anyone being in a snit but you sir, with your advanced web search skills must in an M-Div candidate.

[Lee N. Field]

One of the things that troubles me, and I think you would agree with me Lee N. Field is that covenant a-mills and preterists seem to always recommend that the potential dispy learn about dispensationalism by reading books about dispensationalism written by covenant a-mills and preterists. Dispensationalism according to Covenant theology is what I call it.

Could you imagine if the situation were reversed, a knowledgable dispensationalists recommending to a potential covenant a-mill that he get his/her knowledge of reformed theology exclusivly from dispensationalists writers?

Actually, no. Recognizing that your typical pop dispensational pundit makes an utter hash of it when they describe the amil position, I think they can't be reading any of the folks I read. It's unrecognizable.

Get your dispensationalism from a dispensationalism. Just let them talk, they'll be a "say what?" moment something weird soon enough.

[r9etb]

Post-Reformational Calvinists strike fear into the hearts of political tyrants because these Calvinists refuse to limit biblical authority to the church.

Lol..... Yes, I'm sure murderous tyrants lie awake at night, worrying about post-Reformational Calvinists.

(As an aside, is there any such thing as a pre-Reformational Calvinist?)

[D-fendr]

chief distinction between traditional Reformed 2K (ala John Calvin) and neo-2K would be the matter of the enforcement of the first table of the moral law by the civil magistrate.

So the traditional is in line with Calvin's Geneva where the city council executes heretics, yes? If so, is this the view Sandlin is advocating?

[Gamecock]

Agreed.

[Gamecock]

***(As an aside, is there any such thing as a pre-Reformational Calvinist?)***

I prefer the term pre-Calvinist.
Paul and Augustine come to mind. <8-)