Archive for the ‘Hermeneutics/Interpretation’ Category

Is There a Difference Between Normative and Progressive Dispensationalism? Part 1

Posted: November 15, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , ,
0

Charles Ryrie identifies three historic essentials of dispensationalism i.e., the “sine qua non.”  The three essential elements of dispensationalism according to Ryrie are (1) There is a distinction between God’s program for Israel, the OT people of God, and the Church, the NT people of God (2) The second distinction of dispensationalism is a literal hermeneutic consistently used. (3) The third sine qua non is the primary purpose of God through the ages is the glory of God.

PD says these have not been the essentials of dispensationalism since Darby. PD likes to divide dispensationalism into different period to demonstrate how dispensationalism has always been changing. The three periods are the initial period (represented by J. N. Darby), the classical period (represented by L. S. Chafer) and the essentialist period (represented by Charles Ryrie). PD identify these three periods in order to justify their advancement of  progressive dispensationalism as just another period.

No one will deny that have been improvements and refinements in dispensationalism. But there have not been alterations of the core beliefs of dispensationalism as PD is bringing as will be seen as we work our way the refutation. For example, PD teaches that Jesus is right now on David’s throne reigning spiritually and will in the millennium reign literally and physically  from David’s throne as promised in 2 Samuel 7. The Amillennialists also have Jesus reigning spiritually from David’s throne today. They reject a literal interpretation of the Davidic covenant promise in 2 Samuel 7 and allegorize that promise. They reject a future millennium. “The Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one and the same” (Darrell Bock, “Evidence from Acts,” in A Case for Premillennialism, page 194). PD has changed not just refined the dispensational interpretation of 2 Samuel 7. A consistent literal, historic, grammatical interpretation of Scriptures interprets second coming passages literally as well as first coming prophecies.

I like the way Robert Lightner illustrates the difference between improving  and altering a system. “I want to categorically reject that thesis because I think there is a world of difference between various differences within the system and altering the foundation of the system. I liken the three essentials, or sine qua non, as the foundation upon which dispensationalism rests. You can’t be a dispensationalists without these essentials, in my opinion. The other changes, the differences between how to interpret the New Covenant, for example, whether or not the Tribulation is another dispensation or a thousand other things such as that, I liken to moving furniture around in a room. It doesn’t affect the system. In fact, it’s healthy to have differences as to where this piece of furniture belongs and that one, and you may get tired of it being this way, so you shift it. That doesn’t affect the structure of the house. But the dispensational house is built upon the foundation of the three essentials I just named, and progressive dispensationalism is attacking these essentials” (Progressive Dispensationalism, page 2).

Dr. Mike Stallard refers to a document that dates back to 1856 whose author, a French pastor, held to the first two essentials of Ryrie’s sine qua non which demonstrates that has been a continuity in dispensationalism.

Do Replacement Theologians and Dispensationalists Teach Salvation by Works As Sproul Accuses?

Posted: October 18, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

R. C. Sproul accuses those who don’t believe the church is the New Israel, i. e., dispensationalists, and replacement theologians of teaching two ways of salvation: (I’m tweaking my last post)

“Whether it is said that the church is an afterthought or that the church replaces Israel, both views implicitly affirm that there are two different ways of salvation, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. However, the Bible teaches that there is but one people of God and only one way of salvation” (The People of God).

Sproul not only disagrees with dispensationalists or those who, in his opinion, believe the church is an afterthought, but he disagrees with other nondispensationalists, or those who believe in replacement theology, which includes many covenant theologians. Both of these groups, according to Sproul, teach two ways of salvation, i.e., salvation by grace and salvation by works. In other words, if you disagree with Sproul, you teach works for salvation. That  is a serious accusation. That is an accusation of heresy.

Some Reasons Dispensationalists are Charged with Teaching Two Ways of Salvation

1. This accusation is made because we call the present dispensation the dispensation of grace.

This is Daniel Fuller’s argument: “It is impossible to think of varying degrees of grace, for God either is or is not gracious” (Daniel Fuller. The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, 164). But even in a single dispensation, God “gives more grace” (James 4:6). Jesus also indicated that grace would be more prominent after the law in John 1:17. Peter says there was a grace that the Old Testament believer never experienced in 1 Peter 1:10.

2. Another reason for this accusation is the misstatements that have been made by dispensationalists.

Scofield made such a misstatement in his study Bible: “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24-25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation” (page 1115n. 2).

Nondispensationalists, however, have also made misstatements: “The Law is a declaration of the will of God for man’s salvation” (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, page 39). Louis Berkhof also made the same ungraded statement: “Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation,” and “From the law both as a means of obtaining eternal life and as a condemning power believers are set free in Christ” (Systematic Theology, pages 291, 614).

The New Scofield Bible wrote a clarifying statement: “Under the former dispensation, law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 3:21-22). Prior to the cross man’s salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4), being grounded on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior” (page 1124n. 2).

Even the original Scofield Bible was clear in other notes that there is only one way of salvation: “Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer (1245); It is exceedingly important to observe that the law is not proposed as a means of life” (93).

3. Another reason for the accusation is the statements that God’s grace ended when the Law began.

Some dispensationalists have implied this: “Israel deliberately forsook their position under grace, which had been their relation to God until that day, and placed themselves under the law” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:262). Paul’s argument is that the Law did not abrogate grace (Galatians 3:17-19).

Again, covenant theologians have made similar statements: “The Sinaitic covenant is an interlude, covering a period in which the real character of the covenant of grace, that is, its free and gracious character, is somewhat eclipsed by all kinds of external ceremonies and forms, which, in connection with the theocratic life of Israel, placed the demands of the law prominently in the foreground” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 296-297).

The tension exists because Scriptures teach there is a contrast between the law and grace and yet salvation has always been by grace alone (John 1:17; Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:23).

There was Grace Under the Law

Was there grace under the Law? The answer is yes. Just read Exodus 22:26-27, where in the midst of giving the 614 laws, God states that He does so because “He is gracious.” Here are a few examples of grace under the Law provided by Charles Ryrie:

1. Grace was displayed by God’s electing of Israel (Deut 7:14-16)

2. The  giving of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:32)

3. The great covenant with David, (Psalm 89:33-34) which was said to be God’s “lovingkindness.”

The Teaching of Covenant Theology on Salvation

The teaching of Covenant theology on salvation is represented by Charles Hodge: “It has always had the same promise, the same Redeemer, and the same condition of membership, namely, faith in the Son of God as the Saviour of the world” (Systematic Theology, 2:372-73).

John MacArthur, who is very reformed in his soteriology, does not agree with the position of this quote, when he said that Old Testament believers “received the gift of God’s salvation without seeing its full accomplishment (cf. Heb. 11:39-40), without seeing Jesus Christ or having a relationship with Him. Though the prophets wrote of Messiah, they never fully comprehended all that was involved in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection” (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, 1 Peter, page 52).

John 8:56 is usually quoted to prove Hodges’ statement: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

Abraham rejoiced to see My day, that is, the messianic salvation which God promised (“all peoples on earth will be blessed through you”; Gen. 12:3). Abraham by faith was granted a son Isaac, through whom the Seed (Christ) would come. How much of the messianic times God revealed to His friend Abraham is unknown. But it is clear that he knew of the coming salvation and he rejoiced in knowing about it and expecting it.[1]

But what did Abraham actually do to get justified according to the OT? In Gen 15:6, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. What did Abraham believe? Did Abraham believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? No!. In Gen 15:1-6, he believed the revelation of God he then was exposed to, which was, that God would multiply his seed.

The Teaching of Dispensationalism on Salvation

Dispensationalists believe, according to Charles Ryrie, that “the basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Dispensationalism, page 134).

Ryrie adds this thought: “It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation. When Adam looked upon the coats of skins with which God had clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the cross of Calvary” (Ibid., 134).

In Acts 17:30, “Paul summarized the Old Testament understanding of salvation and called the period, ‘the times of ignorance which God overlooked.’ That does not imply a clear comprehension of the Christological content of their faith. Paul again summarized the situation concerning salvation in the Old Testament as ‘remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God’” (Romans 3:25).

[1] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Jn 8:56.

Do Dispensationalists Teach Two Ways of Salvation?

Posted: October 17, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
3

R. C. Sproul accuses those who don’t believe the church is the New Israel, i. e., dispensationalists, of believing in two ways of salvation:

“Whether it is said that the church is an afterthought or that the church replaces Israel, both views implicitly affirm that there are two different ways of salvation, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. However, the Bible teaches that there is but one people of God and only one way of salvation” (The People of God). Sproul not only disagrees with dispensationalists or those who, in his opinion, believe the church is an afterthought, but he disagrees with other nondispensationalists, or those who believe in replacement theology, which includes many covenant theologians. Both of these groups, according to Sproul, teach two ways of salvation, i.e., salvation by grace and salvation by works. In other words, if you disagree with Sproul, you teach works for salvation. That  is a serious accusation. That is an accusation of heresy.

Some Reasons Dispensationalists are Charged with Teaching Two Ways of Salvation

1. This accusation is made because we call the present dispensation the dispensation of grace.

This is Daniel Fuller’s argument: “It is impossible to think of varying degrees of grace, for God either is or is not gracious” (Daniel Fuller. The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, 164). But even in a single dispensation, God “gives more grace” (James 4:6). Jesus also indicated that grace would be more prominent after the law in John 1:17. Peter says there was a grace that the Old Testament believer never experienced in 1 Peter 1:10.

2. Another reason for this accusation is the misstatements that have been made by dispensationalists.

Scofield made such a misstatement in his study Bible: “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24-25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation” (page 1115n. 2).

Nondispensationalists, however, have also made misstatements: “The Law is a declaration of the will of God for man’s salvation” (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, page 39). Louis Berkhof also made the same ungraded statement: “Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation,” and “From the law both as a means of obtaining eternal life and as a condemning power believers are set free in Christ” (Systematic Theology, pages 291, 614).

The New Scofield Bible wrote a clarifying statement: “Under the former dispensation, law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 3:21-22). Prior to the cross man’s salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4), being grounded on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior” (page 1124n. 2).

Even the original Scofield Bible was clear in other notes that there is only one way of salvation: “Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer (1245); It is exceedingly important to observe that the law is not proposed as a means of life” (93).

3. Another reason for the accusation is the statements that God’s grace ended when the Law began.

Some dispensationalists have implied this: “Israel deliberately forsook their position under grace, which had been their relation to God until that day, and placed themselves under the law” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:262). Paul’s argument is that the Law did not abrogate grace (Galatians 3:17-19).

Again, covenant theologians have made similar statements: “The Sinaitic covenant is an interlude, covering a period in which the real character of the covenant of grace, that is, its free and gracious character, is somewhat eclipsed by all kinds of external ceremonies and forms, which, in connection with the theocratic life of Israel, placed the demands of the law prominently in the foreground” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 296-297).

The tension exists because Scriptures teach there is a contrast between the law and grace and yet salvation has always been by grace alone (John 1:17; Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:23).

There was Grace Under the Law

Was there grace under the Law? The answer is yes. Just read Exodus 22:26-27, where in the midst of giving the 614 laws, God states that He does so because “He is gracious.” Here are a few examples of grace under the Law provided by Charles Ryrie:

1. Grace was displayed by God’s electing of Israel (Deut 7:14-16)

2. The  giving of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:32)

3. The great covenant with David, (Psalm 89:33-34) which was said to be God’s “lovingkindness.”

The Teaching of Covenant Theology on Salvation

The teaching of Covenant theology on salvation is represented by Charles Hodge: “It has always had the same promise, the same Redeemer, and the same condition of membership, namely, faith in the Son of God as the Saviour of the world” (Systematic Theology, 2:372-73).

John MacArthur, who is very reformed in his soteriology, does not agree with the position of this quote, when he said that Old Testament believers “received the gift of God’s salvation without seeing its full accomplishment (cf. Heb. 11:39-40), without seeing Jesus Christ or having a relationship with Him. Though the prophets wrote of Messiah, they never fully comprehended all that was involved in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection” (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, 1 Peter, page 52).

John 8:56 is usually quoted to prove Hodges’ statement: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

Abraham rejoiced to see My day, that is, the messianic salvation which God promised (“all peoples on earth will be blessed through you”; Gen. 12:3). Abraham by faith was granted a son Isaac, through whom the Seed (Christ) would come. How much of the messianic times God revealed to His friend Abraham is unknown. But it is clear that he knew of the coming salvation and he rejoiced in knowing about it and expecting it.[1]

But what did Abraham actually do to get justified according to the OT? In Gen 15:6, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. What did Abraham believe? Did Abraham believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? No!. In Gen 15:1-6, he believed the revelation of God he then was exposed to, which was, that God would multiply his seed.

The Teaching of Dispensationalism on Salvation

Dispensationalists believe, according to Charles Ryrie, that “the basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Dispensationalism, page 134).

In Acts 17:30, “Paul summarized the Old Testament understanding of salvation and called the period, ‘the times of ignorance which God overlooked.’ That does not imply a clear comprehension of the Christological content of their faith. Paul again summarized the situation concerning salvation in the Old Testament as ‘remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God’” (Romans 3:25).

[1] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Jn 8:56.

Who Are Bedfellows in Rejecting the Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy?

Posted: October 2, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , ,
7

Who rejects the literal fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Religious liberals call Biblical prophecy imaginary. For example, Farrell Till, who has debated with Norman Geisler:

Prophecy fulfillment is a popular argument that bibliolaters rely on in trying to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. They claim that the Bible is filled with recorded events that prophets foretold years and even centuries before they happened. They argue that there is no way to explain how these predictions could have been so accurately made except to conclude that the Holy Spirit enabled the prophets who uttered them to see into the future. In prophecy fulfillment, then, they see evidence of God’s direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.

 A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn’t necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their “powers,” although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamuses and Edgar Cayces of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future.

George Peters, in his classic, The Theocratic Kingdom, accused those of spiritualizing Biblical prophecy of the same rejection of the literal fulfillment of prophecy and that this allegorizing of prophecy provides fuel for the skeptics:

The prophecies referring to the Kingdom of God, as now interpreted by the large majority of Christians, afford the strongest leverage employed by unbelievers against Christianity. Unfortunately, unbelief is often logically correct. Thus, e.g., it eagerly points to the predictions pertaining to David’s Son, showing that, if language has any legitimate meaning, and words are adequate to express an idea, Literalism would end their uncertainty in interpretation of this point! They unmistakably predict the restoration of David’s throne and kingdom, etc., and then triumphantly declare that it was not realized (so Strauss, Baur, Renan, Parker, etc.). They mock the expectation of the Jews, of Simeon, the preaching of John, Jesus, and the disciples, the anticipation of the early Church, and hastily conclude, sustained by the present faith of the Church (excepting only a few), that they will never be fulfilled; and that, therefore, the prophecies, the foundation upon which the superstructure rests, are false, and of human concoction. The manner of meeting such objections is humiliating to the Word and Reason; for it discards the plain grammatical sense as unreliable, and, to save the credit of the Word, insists upon interpreting all such prophecies by adding to them under the claim of spiritual, a sense which is not contained in the language, but suits their religious system adopted. Unbelief is not slow in seizing the advantage thus given, gleefully pointing out how this introduced change makes the ancient faith an ignorant one, the early Church occupying a false position, and the Bible a book to which man adds any sense, under the plea of spiritual, that may be deemed necessary for its defense (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952, 1:167-168).

Of course, Peters is referring to Amillennialists who practice a literal, historic/grammatical hermeneutic with first coming prophecies but flip-flop and allegorize Second coming prophecies. Just as the plain sense of language is necessary for the fulfillment of first coming prophecies, Jesus was born in Bethlehem according to Micah 5:2, why not be consistent in your hermeneutic and interpret literally Second coming prophecies like Isaiah 11 and Revelation 20:1-7?

Has Covenant Theology Been Divisive?

Posted: September 20, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
8

There are some disturbing consequences to Replacement Theology according to MacArthur. MacArthur quotes Barry Horner in his Future Israel:

“The wrong perception of Israel and the Jews by so called Christians has produced consequences of horrific proportions during the history of the church. Such a shameful legacy perpetrated during the illustrious Reformation and onwards remains undiminished, largely unconfessed and still prevalent in substantial degrees up to the present within a Calvinistic Reformed and Sovereign Grace environment.” What he is saying is that while we are being told we ought to apologize as a nation for the early attitude in America manifest in slavery toward African‐American people, we ought to start apologizing to the Jews for the way the American [and European] Church has treated them with its replacement theology.

MacArthur argues, as well as others, that Replacement Theology started with Augustine and resulted in anti-Semitic attitudes:

Augustine, the North African church father who came up with this idea (Replacement Theology), established this idea that the church was the new [Spiritual] Israel. During the thirteenth century, the church established Replacement theology as canonical law. It became the official dogma of the church. Let me give you a little bit of this history written by Robert Wistrich: “Augustine even likened the Jewish people to Cain, the first criminal recorded in biblical history who had murdered his own brother and merited death but instead had been condemned to wander unhappily ever after.” [Likewise] Augustine saw the Jewish people to be like Cain, alive but dispossessed, a perpetual wanderer. “The Jews,” Augustine said, “might deserve to be eradicated for their crime of rejecting Christ, but he preferred that they should be preserved as wandering witnesses until the end time,” that is witnesses to what happens when you reject the truth.

The influence of Augustine is also referred by others: Wistrich [further] says in his book, Anti‐ Semitism, The Longest Hatred,

“The Augustinian theology reinforced the notion of the Jews as a wandering, homeless, rejected and accursed people who were incurably carnal, blind to spiritual meaning, perfidious, faithless, and apostate. Their crime being one of cosmic proportions, merited permanent exile and subordination to Christianity.” One writer W.J. Grier, writing in the The Momentous Event, said, “The power of Augustine is best seen in the fact that he removed the ghost of premillennialism so effectively that for centuries the subject was practically ignored.”

MacArthur cites the Lateran Council (the Fourth Lateran of Council 1215) as another example:

The Lateran Council of the thirteenth century, in the year 1215, codified this segregation of the Jews. And further this Lateran Council segregated the Jews by requiring them to wear distinguishing dress. In Germanic lands they wore a conical hat and what they called a Jew‐ badge, usually a yellow disc sewn onto their clothing with the color symbolizing Judas’ betrayal of Christ for gold coins. That is what was done to them in Latin countries. These effects, of the badge that was required to be worn and the conical hat, were to make the Jews more visible and vulnerable to attack which [in turn] reduced their ability to travel. And so they were placed in ghettos during the twelve hundreds. The German Reformation a few hundred years later, under Luther’s guidance, led to a very unfavorable direction for the Jews, that is the seeding of hatred that was sewn deep, and Luther did nothing to remove it. It eventually found its full flower in the Third Reich with Hitler. And the German Protestants showed themselves amazingly receptive to Nazi anti‐Semitism, it having become so ingrained for many, many centuries. You can go back to the Council of Nicaea in 325, a council which was debating the person of Christ and came up with the right understanding of his divine and human nature. But in the documents of [that same] Council of Nicaea, Jews are called “that odious people.”

MacArthur gives current examples of this result of Replacement Theology:

Now this actually continues to be an issue today. In our modern world, our tolerant world, a world that embraces everybody and everything, there is still this subjective sort of impositional, presuppositional anti‐Judaism, if not anti‐ Semitism, not necessarily racist but this anti‐Judaism mentality. Melanie Philips, a Jewish columnist for the London Daily Mail, wrote a really amazing article about the hostility within the Anglican Church toward Israel. This is some of which she said:

“The church’s hostility has nothing to do with Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians.” And she wrote this after she went to a conference [in which] Anglicans were discussing Israel and [its relationship with] the Palestinians, the current situation. This is what she wrote, “The church’s hostility has nothing to do with Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians, this was merely an excuse. The real reason for the growing antipathy was the ancient hatred of Jews rooted deep in Christian theology and now widespread once again, a doctrine,” she wrote, “going back to the early church fathers, suppressed after the Holocaust, [that] has been revised under the influence of the Middle Eastern conflict. This doctrine is called this is a Jewish writer, Replacement Theology. In essence it says that the Jews have been replaced by the Christians in God’s favor and so all God’s promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity.” That is Replacement theology.

You can go to websites like Christian‐ zionism.org, and other websites and find many Anglican leaders who are pro‐ Palestinian, and think Israel has absolutely no [biblical] right to the land. Christian anti‐Judaism is strong in the U.K., very strong, much to the delight of the two million Muslims that now live there. It is interesting to find the view that the Anglican church takes concerning Israel. One writer, Colin Chapman, an Anglican who wrote Whose Promised Land? says, “Israel is responsible for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.” He is supported, by the way, by such notable scholars as N.T. Wright who says, “Israel doesn’t mean an ethnic people, but it means a worldwide family.” To support his own view, Chapman says, “The Old Testament is not the inerrant Word of God, it is simply a very ethno‐centric interpretation of Israelitish history.”

Has Replacement Theology been divisive? Has Replacement Theology caused a rife in the church between God’s people and God’s Elect? It sounds like Covenant Theology has been divisive not dispensationalism.

MacArthur’s point is that Calvinists believe in unconditional election and God has elected Israel and given Israel unconditional and irrevocable promises that He must keep. Just as God will not cast off His church because of her disobedience as seen in Romans 8:28 ff neither will He cast off his elect nation because their disobedience. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 is the primary example:

There is in [this] one passage the answer to Replacement Theology. God is not going to cast off Israel even for what they have done. And listen to this, the New Covenant was given through Jeremiah at a time when Israel’s disobedience was so severe that they were punished by God. They were under divine punishment, under divine judgment at the very time this covenant was given to them. Jeremiah is what kind of prophet? He is a weeping prophet, weeping over Israel’s judgment, the captivity. The New Covenant is not a reward for their faithfulness, it is given in spite of their unfaithfulness. God says there will be a day when I will change their hearts sovereignly and I will be their God and they shall be My people. “And they shall not teach again,”verse 34, “each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me,’ the whole nation, ‘from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.’” There is a word for this; it is salvation! This is the promise of salvation to Israel. This is the promise to them of a seed, the promise to them of a land, the promise to them of a Kingdom, the promise to them of a King, but they cannot have any of it unless it is God who saves them. And He will, and He will not change His plan anymore than He will allow the fixed order of His creation to be altered. And when that [New] Covenant comes [to Israel], He will write His Law on the inside.

Has Dispensationalism Been Divisive?

Posted: September 20, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: ,
7

Was John MacArthur’s provocative lecture, Why Every Self‐Respecting Calvinist Is A Premillennialist at the March 2007 Shepherds’ Conference just another example of the divisiveness of dispensationalism? The reason I ask that question is because that is a common criticism of dispensationalism.

C. B. Bass in his Backgrounds to Dispensationalism makes the charge that because Dispensationalism has been a separatist movement it therefore is untrue:

One need not scrutinize contemporary evangelical church life too closely to see this principle at work today. Nor does it take more than a casual survey of the history of theology since Darby’s day to trace the continuity of his view of separation to our day. There exists a direct line from Darby through a number of channels- prophetic conferences, fundamentalistic movements, individual prophetic teachers, the Scofield Reference Bible, eschatological charts-all characterized by and contributing to a spirit of separatism and exclusion. The devastating effects of this spirit upon the total body of Christ cannot be underestimated (page 99).

I have two questions in response.

1. Is ecclesiastical separation from apostasy or disobedient brethren wrong or Biblical? Paul severely rebuked false teaching in Galatians 1:6-9. Paul admonished believers to separate from disobedient believers in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

2. Has all ecclesiastical separation in history been dispensational?

Ryrie, after mentioning the Protestant Reformation’s stand against the Roman Catholic’s infused instead of imputed righteousness, cited later separatist movements that also were not dispensational:

Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) in 1843 led about one-third of the ministers of the Church of Scotland out of the General Assembly to organize the Free Church of Scotland.

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) withdrew from the Dutch Reformed Church and founded in 1886 the Free Reformed Church.

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) left Princeton Theological Seminary because of modernism and founded Westminster Theological Seminary and the Independent Board of Missions.

In addition to the historical examples that Ryrie provides, there is the Downgrade Controversy that Charles Spurgeon lead against his own Baptist Union. Spurgeon, not a dispensationalist, fought against the liberalism in his Baptist denomination.

The Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy of the 1920s and 30s was not a dispensational movement. Historic Fundamentalism was cross denominational.

Can John MacArthur’s lecture, Why Every Self‐Respecting Calvinist Is A Premillennialist at the March 2007 Shepherds’ Conference be considered divisive? His premise for this statement is the election of Israel by God which like all elections in Scripture is unconditional and irrevocable. And yet, as MacArthur concludes:

In the [Reformed/Calvinist] theological world where people believe in the doctrine of election more strongly than anywhere else, they are more prone to deny Israel’s election than anywhere else. In fact, they have come up with the idea that the church, God’s new and present elect, receives all the promises once given to Israel. That is, all those Old Testament promises and covenants have been cancelled to Israel because of Israel’s apostasy, Israel’s unbelief, and Israel’s rejection of Christ. So this nation has become permanently set aside, the result being that all of their promises have now come to the church.

Rejecting God’s election of Israel, as MacArthur describes, is called “replacement theology, that the church replaces Israel in the promises of God, [is to say that] Israel as God’s Elect is no longer God’s Elect since it is cancelled out.”

Replacement Theology has two consequences according to MacArthur:

1) First, you have to change the meaning of election: “I don’t know anybody who believes in the doctrine of election who thinks its temporary with the elect angels, or temporary with the elect Son or temporary with the elect church, so this has to be a category invented to accommodate replacement theology.”

2) Secondly, you have to change your hermeneutics: “The second thing that has to happen is, you cannot interpret Scripture in the normal meaning, the normal sense in which it is written both in the Old Testament and the New Testament because clearly in both testaments promises are made to Israel. Therefore Israel does not mean Israel, a thousand years does not mean a thousand years, reigning in Jerusalem does not mean reigning in Jerusalem; rather these mean something else, something not apparent in any normal interpretation of the language.”

MacArthur noted that not all reformed theologians reject the election of Israel. For an example MacArthur cited “Horatius Bonar. He is a nineteenth century Scottish preacher and theological writer. In 1847 he wrote Prophetic Landmarks and he took a position very different from his Reformed friends. Bonar believed that elect Israel would be restored to their land because of God’s election.” MacArthur quoted Bonar,  ‘I am one of those who believe in Israel’s restoration and conversion, who receive it as a future certainty, that all Israel shall be gathered, and that all Israel shall be saved. As I believe in Israel’s present degradation, so do I believe in Israel’s coming glory and preeminence. I believe that God’s purpose regarding our world can only be understood by understanding God’s purpose as to Israel.” Now remember, this is a time long before they [the Jews] had ever been gathered back into their land.

MacArthur quotes another, bur more recent reformed writer, Willem VanGemeren, writing in the Westminster Theological Journal of 1983 who said, “Israel is the hermeneutical crux in the interpretation of prophecy.”

In my next post we will consider some disturbing anti-Semitic consequences to Replacement Theology according to MacArthur. My next post will be entitled Has Covenant Theology Been Divisive?

 

Are Both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism Recent in Origin?

Posted: September 18, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

R. C. Sproul who is a Covenant theologian charged dispensationalism with historical recency and therefore invalid as a theology: “Dispensationalism theology is a ‘Johnny come lately’ on the scene of historic Christian thought” (Theology Night with guest Dr. Sinclair Ferguson).

1. My first response to this statement is that it is true that Dispensationalism was not early as a system of theology. But there are evidences of early concepts that later developed into the system of dispensationalism. Charles Ryrie quotes these early truths of dispensationalism by Justin Martyr (110-165) and Irenaeus (130-200). Ryrie also quotes the theologian Covenant theologians usually reference, Augustine. Fifth century Augustine wrote: “The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God” (To Marcellinus, CXXXVIII, 5, 7). None of these men were dispensationalists, but held to some of the principles that later were part of the theology of dispensationalism. If that seems to be a weak defense listen to John Murray, who restricted the term covenant theology to “the more fully developed covenant theology of the seventeenth century” (The Covenant of Grace, London: Tyndale, 1954, 3).

Covenant theologians like George Ladd have falsely stated that dispensationalism originated with John Darby in the 1800’s: “Dispensationalism has had such wide influence that it must be called a movement—had its source with Darby” (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, 49).

There is evidence that dispensationalism as a system originated, like Covenant theology, in the seventeenth with Pierre Poiret. “The first person on record to develop a genuine dispensational scheme in a systematic fashion was the French philosopher Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)” (Renald Showers). Poiret published The Divine Economy in 1687. His view of the ages is both premillennial and dispensational.

Here is seven-fold schemes which Poiret referred each of which was made up of a  “period or dispensation.”

I. Infancy—to the Deluge

II. Childhood—to Moses

III. Adolescence—-to the prophets

IV. Youth—to the coming of Christ

V. Manhood—“some time after that”

VI. Old Age—“the time of man’s decay”

VII. Renovation of all things—The Millennium

John Edwards (1637-1716) and Issac Watts (1674-1748) also had dispensational systems. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) did much to systematize and popularize dispensationalism. But dispensationalism as a system did not originate with Darby as is mostly argued.

Even if dispensationalism had originated with Darby that is not a valid argument to discredit the system. Neither was Covenant theology developed until the seventeenth century. Cornelius Van Til, who is a covenant theologian admitted: “The idea of covenant theology has only in modern times been broadly conceived” “(Covenant Theology” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955, 1:306). Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) is usually credited with systematizing covenant theology in his published work in 1648. Westminster Confession in 1647 referred to a covenant of works and grace.

What is ironic is that the same recency of history argument was leveled against the Reformation doctrines (most of the opponents of dispensationalism are Reformed). Here is John Calvin’s rebuttal: “First, by calling it ‘new’ they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty. . . .That it has lain long unknown and buried is the fault of man’s impiety. Now when it is restored to us by God’s goodness, its claims to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of recovery” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, London: Wolfe & Harison, 1561, 4).

History is not test of a doctrine’s validity but the Scripture. The question is not, “Is it historical, but is it Biblical?” James Bear, a covenant theologian agreed, “Doctrines may be new and yet not untrue” (Dispensationalism and the Covenant of Grace, Richmond: Union Seminary Review, 1938, 4).

2. My next response to Sproul’s statement is that the history of doctrine has been a process. Ryrie refers to James Orr’s The Progress of Dogma which shows that the major doctrines have chronologically developed. A study of the history of doctrinal disputes and church councils shows that these were responses to heresy:

1) Bibliology and Montanus in (170) who believed in additional revelations.

2) Modalism of Sabellius was the next doctrinal conflict in the early 200s.

3) The deity of Christ was settled at The Council of Nicea n 325. Arianism was rejected.

4) The deity of the Holy Spirit was determined at The Council of Constantinople in 381.

5) Original sin was correctly stated at The Council of Ephesus in 431. Pelagius’ false view of original sin condemned.

6) The doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone was restored by the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s.

Ryrie observes that, “the systematizing of dispensationalism is recent should not be surprising. It would not be unexpected that a subject whose primary distinctions have to do with eschatology should not have been systematized until eschatology began to be refined seriously by the church. . . .Undoubtedly the recency of systematic eschatology partly accounts for the relative recency of systematic dispensationalism” (Dispensationalism, 80).

Is the Church the “New Israel” or “The Israel of God”? Part 2

Posted: August 31, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
6

R. C. Sproul in the article, The People of God, does not believe in Replacement theology but that there has always been one people of God. In the O. T. it was Israel and in the N.T. it is the church who is the true Israel of God. His conclusion is the similar to Replacement Theology in that the church is not a separate people of God and all the OT promises to Israel must be allegorized to be fulfilled today by the church. Sproul also makes the unfounded accusation that because we believe in two peoples of God we believe in two ways of salvation. Notice there is no documentation for this caricature. Here is his article:

“Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:10).

- 1 Peter 2:9–10

In our day there exists much confusion regarding the identity of the true people of God. Some conceive of the church as a mere parenthesis in the plan of God — an afterthought brought about by ethnic Israel’s rejection of Christ. For these people, the authentic people of God are the physical descendants of Abraham.

Others say that the church has replaced Israel in the plan of God. Older proponents of this view have tended to say that with the church, God has exchanged the Gentiles for the Jews.

While both groups of people would affirm the necessity of Christ for salvation, neither is the biblical view. Either way, the fundamental unity of the people of God across the ages is denied. Whether it is said that the church is an afterthought or that the church replaces Israel, both views implicitly affirm that there are two different ways of salvation, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles

However, the Bible teaches that there is but one people of God and only one way of salvation. In 1 Peter 2:9, Peter calls his mostly Gentile audience “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a people for his own possession.” These are all terms used for the nation of Israel in the Old Testament (Ex. 19:5–6; Isa. 43:20–21), and Peter applies them to the church because the church is the true Israel of God.

The biblical view (which is sometimes mistakenly called “replacement theology”) does not say that the church “replaces” Israel. Rather, it affirms that true Israel always was, always is, and always will be comprised of those who trust in Christ alone for salvation. This is plain from 1 Peter 2:10. The Gentiles, who were formerly not God’s people, are now God’s people because they have trusted in the Messiah and because they worship Israel’s true King.

Old covenant believers were likewise able to be the people of God because they were in Christ. Though they lived before the Son became incarnate, they looked forward to the day in which He would come, and they trusted in Him (John 8:56). Their example likewise shows us that the true Israel of God has always been comprised of those who love and serve the Messiah.

Coram Deo

That the church is the Israel of God does not mean that every church member has authentic faith. Throughout history, the visible church has always included those who are not true believers because of their inauthentic faith (Rom. 9:6–7). However, in Christ, God is fulfilling all of the promises made to Israel. As the people of God, we must fulfill the task of Israel and proclaim God’s excellency (1 Peter 2:10). Seek to do this in whatever you do.

Three reasons for believing “the Israel of God” is the believing Jewish remnant within the church and not Israel’s replacement or the same as the OT people of God. 

The first reason is grammatical in Galatians 6:16

The common use of the kai is the continuative or conjunctive and is the primary meaning which should be used. Charles Ryrie speaks of the emphatic use of kai as in Mark 16:7 and Acts 1:14 which also draw a distinction between groups. Kai is used over 9000 times as simple conjunction or “and.”

The second reason is exegetical in Galatians 6:16

“Exegetically the view is sound, since ‘Israel’ has its uniform Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking climatic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his ‘battle-epistle’ with its harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page192).

The third reason is theological in Galatians 6:16

What Paul presents in Galatians 6:16 is consistent with his teaching in Romans 9 and 11 that there are two groups in the church: Gentiles and ethnic Jews. In Romans 9, Paul describes Israel’s past (not the church). In Romans 10, Paul presents Israel’s present (not the church 10:1). In Romans 11, Paul predicts Israel’s future (11:25-26). God is not through with Israel.

Is the Church the “New Israel” or “The Israel of God”? Part 1

Posted: August 30, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
6

Replacement theology states that the church has replaced Israel and is the new Israel to the point of saying that the two terms in the New Testament are synonymous. Arnold Fruchtenbaum attributes this view to William E. Cox in his Amillennialism Today on pages 46-47. Although believing in just one people of God, R. C. Sproul rejects the title Replacement theology. We will examine his view in Part 2.

Fruchtenbaum presents a powerful refutation to the claim that the terms Israel and the church are interchangeable in the New Testament when he states that the word Israelis used seventy-three times in the New Testament in Issues in Dispensationalism on page 118 and then proceeds to list all seventy-three references in the New Testament. When you read the seventy-three references to Israel, it is obvious that the two terms are not interchangeable. The overwhelming majority of the seventy-three listings refer to ethnic Israel.

Then Fruchtenbaum states that of the seventy-three references, replacement theologians only use one passage to equate Israel with the church. That one passage out of seventy-three that is Galatians 6:16: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” There are two other passages that replacement theologians use but they are not unanimous in believing that these passages equate Israel with the church. The other two passages are Romans 9:6 and 11:26. Some replacement theologians think these two passages speak of national, ethnic Israel and not the church or spiritual Israel.

In Galatians, Paul is defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone against the Judaizers who were persuading Gentile believers to put themselves under the law to earn salvation. So clearly in Galatians 6:15, Paul declares that salvation is not through Jewish circumcision but the power of God who makes those trust Christ a “new creature.” “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” In Galatians 2:7-9, Paul identified two groups: Jews and Gentiles or the circumcision and the uncircumcision. The Jews and Gentiles in the two groups who responded to the gospel preached by Peter and Paul are now in Christ.

In Galatians 6:16, Paul pronounces God’s blessings on these two groups: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Paul refers to “them” and “the Israel of God.” Here is where the debate begins between replacement theologians and dispensational theologians. Is Paul referring to two different groups within the church or is he stating that both groups are the same? The question is, “Who is the Israel of God?” If you are a replacement theologian your answer is the church. If you are a dispensational theologian, your answer is Jewish believers in the church.

Fruchtenbaum mentions an important work on Galatians 6:16 by S. Lewis Johnson in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. The name of the chapter is “Paul and ‘The Israel of God.’” In this chapter, Johnson rejects the view that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 can be the church for three reasons.

Three reasons for rejecting “the Israel of God” is the church.

The first reason is grammatical.

To interpret the  “kai” [English “and”] as “even” so that “them” and “the Israel of God” are the same is use the secondary meaning of kai and not the primary meaning which is “and.”

This is to use the explicative or appositional kai. Johnson provides a principle for this case: “It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense” (page 187). The reason the common usage of kai is not used by Replacement theologians is because it does not fit their amillennial system.

Fruchtenbaum mentions another impressive reason given by Johnson rejecting on grammatical grounds the view that “the Israel of God” is the church. “If Paul’s intention was to identify the “them” as being “the Israel of God,” then the best way of showing this was to eliminate the kai altogether” (Issues in Dispensationalism, page 123).

The second reason is exegetical.

“From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israelbeing used in the sense of the church” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page189). Romans 9:6 does not refer to “they that are of Israel” as being the church and for that reason not all replacement theologians use Romans 9:6 in their argument.

The third reason is theological.

“There is no historical evidence that the term Israel was identified with the church before A.D 160. Further, at that date there was no characterization of the church as ‘the Israel of God.’ In other words, for more than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page 191).

In Part 2, I will discuss three reasons for believing “the Israel of God” is the believing Jewish remnant within the church and not “the true Israel of God” as R. C. Sproul teaches.

 

Progressive Revelation or The Blessed Truth that NOW We Can Eat Boganles’ Country Ham Biscuits

Posted: August 28, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

You know Peter before Acts 10 could not eat Boganles’ ham or sausage biscuits or even his mother’s. Nor could he eat “endless shrimp” at neither Red Lobster nor Dave’s BBQ. Why do we not circumcise all baby boys on the eighth day for spiritual reasons? Why do we not lobby for capital punishment for all church members guilty of running around on their mates? Progressive revelation is the Biblical truth that “God progressively revealed more truths about many subjects” (Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 271). The classics on hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation) affirm this important principle of rightly dividing the Word of truth: Milton Terry wrote in his Biblical Hermeneutics, “It is impossible to trace the record of these ten generations of the Book of Genesis without observing the steady progress of divine revelation….With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or some great purpose of God is brought to light” (page 568).

The reason we can eat pork and other forbidden “unclean” meats in the OT is because God changed 1500 years of tradition in Acts 10 so Peter would no longer consider Gentiles as unclean and take the Gospel to them. God takes sin just as seriously as He did in the OT, but according to 1 Corinthians 5, the church does not stone adulterers in this age but we do church discipline them.

Progressive revelation means God added to His revealed truth in previous Scripture. For example, about the doctrine of the Trinity, Wayne Grudem writes, that “the doctrine of the Trinity is progressively revealed in Scripture” (Systematic Theology, page 226) and “more complete revelation of the Trinity is in the New Testament” (page 230). In Isaiah 48:16 and 63:7-10 are rare glimpses of the three Persons in the OT while the NT is replete.

Another example is the doctrine of the Church. This doctrine is not in the Old Testament. Paul will explain this new doctrine in Ephesians 2:11-3:13. The doctrine of the Church is a Biblical mystery or a truth heretofore not revealed but now revealed by God. There is no rapture in the Old Testament. Christ gave some teaching on the rapture in John 14:1-6. Paul gives the fullest description of the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. The last word on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is in the Epistles. Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell believers nor were believers baptized by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “For he dwells with you, and shall be in you…. at that day (Day of Pentecost in Acts 2) you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me (Baptism of the Holy Spirit), and I in you (Indwelling of the Holy Spirit)” (John 14:17 and 20). Paul gives the last phase of progressive revelation on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:9: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Roy Zuck says about progressive revelation, “This is not to suggest that what was recorded in earlier portions of the Bible was imperfect and that the later revelations were perfect. Nor does it suggest that earlier portions were in error and the later portions were truthful….Recognizing this progress of revelation means that the interpreter will be careful not read back into the Old Testament the New” (Basic Bible Interpretation, page 73).

Progressive revelation also means that God has not changed the basis of salvation but He has changed the content of faith. Charles Ryrie explains, “The basis of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Dispensationalism, page 134). Ryrie quotes from the Dallas Seminary doctrinal statement on this aspect of progressive revelation relevant to salvation:

We believe that according to the ‘eternal purpose’ of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always ‘by grace, through faith,’ and rests upon the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation. . . . We believe . . . that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (john 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. (Article V) (page 134).

In Genesis 15:6, Abraham believed God and God imputed to him righteousness. Paul quotes this verse in Romans 4:1-3 to prove his doctrine of justification by faith. But what was the content of Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15:1-5? The revelation that God was going to multiple the seed of Israel as the sand of the sea. What is the content of our faith today in order to be justified by faith? Paul answers clearly in Romans 4:24, “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

What if someone has never heard to gospel but like Abraham responds to nature, to the stars in heaven, and believes in a higher power? Can he like Abraham have righteousness imputed to him?

One form of inclusivism (sometimes called accessibility) states that salvation is through nature or general revelation. This is the view of Terrance L. Tiessen:

“All who have ever been saved, who are now being saved, or who ever will be saved, are saved because Jesus Christ died and rose again for them…. Nevertheless, God does not require a faith that would be impossible for anyone by virtue of their ignorance. In the Day of Judgment, God will hold all people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation. God may graciously save some who do not believe in Jesus as Savior if they are ignorant of him through no fault of their own.”

Does God save people who have only general revelation from nature and not the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus Christ? Paul answers that question in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity: so that they are without excuse.” Abraham responded to special revelation. The progress of revelation has now increased special revelation to include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If a person dies without hearing and responding to the special revelation of the gospel that person is without excuse. Instead of general revelation being sufficient to save if someone has never heard of Christ, general revelation is sufficient only to condemn.

Tiessen continues, “All people meet Jesus Christ personally at the moment of death, and they respond to him in a manner consistent with the response they had been giving to God and His revelation during their lifetime. At that moment, those who had received forms of revelation less complete than the gospel but who had responded in faith, by a work of the Holy Spirit, will joyfully find in Christ the fulfillment of all their hopes and longings” (Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religious, Downers Grove, IVP. 2004, 478).

Can people be saved after death? In Luke 16:26, Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell. The rich man in Hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and just put one drop of water on his tongue. Abraham responded:“Between me and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.” There is no purgatory, postmortem like second chance.

Some are agnostic concerning the fate of those who die never having heard the special revelation of the gospel.

John Stott, the famous British pastor and widely read author, expressed his agnosticism: “The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it” (David Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove, IVP, 1988, 327).

The Scriptures have declared with certainty the eternal future of those who are not reached with the gospel. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned” because they were born sinners (Romans 5:12). The result of those who die in this universal sin condition (including those who never heard) is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23a); unless that sinner places faith in Christ and receives the gift of eternal salvation (Romans 6:23b). How can sinners be saved by faith in Christ? Not by nature’s outstretched hand pointing to a higher power. Someone has to give them gospel (Romans 10:13-15). If you have any doubts about this subject take the time to carefully read and study these verses.

Because Paul believed his inspired by God Words in Romans 10:13-15, he traveled on three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul did not qualify these verses in Romans 10:13-15 saying, “If you missionaries cannot make it to the field, don’t worry about it all religions are equal or at death they can receive Christ.” Pluralism and inclusivism are not the Scriptural views on salvation.

Progressive revelation is absolutely necessary to properly understanding and applying God’s Word to our lives.

Older Entries