Posts Tagged ‘Dwight Pentecost’

Book Review of Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism (Sermon on the Mount)

Posted: June 6, 2011 in Book Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism discusses the opposing views concerning the Sermon on the Mount.

One critic claims that dispensationalist believe that “the Sermon on the Mount is neither the Church’s duty nor privilege. It is not for now” (T. A. Hegre, The Cross and Sanctification, page 6). George E. Ladd said, “A system which tales this great portion of Jesus’ teaching away from the Christian in its direct  application must receive penetrating scrutiny” (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1952, page 104). This difference of views on the Sermon on the Mount is disagreement over interpretation not application of the sermon.

Various Views on the Sermon on the Mount

1. There is a liberal and conservative view that the Sermon on the Mount is a message of salvation.

The Liberal View: Adolf Harnack views the sermon as works for salvation. According to Harnack the Sermon on the Mount teaches “the several departments of human relationships and human  failings so as to bring the disposition and intention to light in each case, to judge man’s works by them, and on them to hang heaven and hell” (What is Christianity? London: Williams & Norgate, 1904, 72).

The Conservative View: John MacArthur, Jr. says the Sermon on the Mount “is pure gospel, with as pointed an invitation as has ever been presented” (The Gospel According To Jesus, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988, p. 214).

Ryrie responds with a series of questions:

“The discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people. About what were they to repent? About their disobedience to God’s Law. That repentance was with a view to What? To entering the kingdom of heaven, which was at hand. The Messianic, Davidic kingdom on this earth.” There is not one statement of gospel in the Sermon.

2. The Sermon on the Mount is a message for the Church.

Martin Lloyd-Jones, says the Sermon “is something which is meant for all Christian people. It is a perfect picture of life in the kingdom of God”  Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 1:16. If the Sermon is primarily for the Church, it is impossible to interpret it consistently literal. Example from Ryrie: “Every businessman all Christian schools would go bankrupt if they gave to all who asked anything of them (Matt. 5:42). Carl F. H. Henry said, that the Sermon is “the rule of daily life for the Christian believer” (Christian Personal Ethic, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1957, 287). Ryrie’s response, “The complete of all the teachings of Jesus does not mention the Holy Spirit once or the church per se or prayer in the name of Christ. These things were taught by Christ on other occasions during His ministry but not in the Sermon (John 14:16; 16:13, 24; Matt. 16:18).

3. The Sermon on the Mount is related to the Kingdom.

“This has to do with interpretation, not application, for all dispensationalists that I have ever read say, even insist, that the Sermon contains teachings whose principles apply to the church.” Ryrie, p. 99. Another example is the Original Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1000. “The distinction is between understanding the Sermon as the rule of life for those in the church (in which case its prescriptions must be taken word for word) and applying principles and lessons from it.” Ryrie, p. 99.

There are Three Basic Version of this last view:

a. The Sermon relates only to the millennial kingdom.

This is Dwight Pentecost’s view: “We conclude, then, that the Sermon on the Mount was our Lord’s exposition of the holiness of God. It set forth the demands that a holy God made on those who would be accepted by Him and received into Messiah’s kingdom.” What about Matt. 6:10; 5:10? (Words and Works of Jesus Chirst, page 172).

b. The Sermon relates to any time the Messianic kingdom is offered (during the Lord’s offer and the future Tribulation).

This view is supported by verses that anticipate the coming kingdom: 5:11, 12; 44; 6:10; 7:15. This view is weakened by verses that demand obedience in the context of a righteous government (5:38-42).

c. The Sermon relates both to any time the kingdom is offered and to the time when the millennial kingdom is functioning on this earth.

The Sermon is a detailed explanation of what the Lord meant by repentance for Israel. The Sermon relates to any time the kingdom is offered. The Sermon also relates to life in the millennial kingdom. The Sermon is applicable for believers today because “all Scripture is profitable” (2nd Tim. 3:16). Are other sermons in Matthew interpreted for the church today? (Mt. 10:5-15; 19:21; 24:20). The answer is no.

RYRIE’S FINAL STATEMENT

“Thus, the dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount simply tries to follow consistently the principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. It results in not truing to relegate primarily and fully the teachings of the Sermon to the believer in this age. But it does not in the least disregard the ethical principles of the Sermon as being not only applicable but also binding on believers today” (p. 101).

 

Amillennialism and Revelation 20

Posted: March 26, 2010 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
21

R. C. Sproul gives an overview of the millennial views. He formerly was amillennial but more recently has changed to preterism.This video series is based on his book The Last Days according to Jesus. Walvoord defines amillennialism in his introduction to Revelation 20: “The amillennial interpretation is essentially a denial that there will be a millennial reign of Christ after His second advent. It is amillennial or nonmillennial because it denies such a literal reign of Christ on earth” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 284). Walvoord divides amillennialism into different subdivisions.

The Historic Augustinian form of Amillennialism

The impact of Augustine on eschatology is noted by Pentecost: “With the contribution of Augustine to theological thinking amillennialism came into prominence. While Origen laid the foundation in establishing the non-literal method of interpretation, it was Augustine who systematized the non-literal view of the millennium into what is now known as amillennialism” (Things To Come, page 381). Augustine’s false view of eschatology arose out of his false view of ecclesiology.

In Augustines’s The City of God, Augustine taught that the visible church was the Kingdom of God on earth. In addition to spiritualizing Israel into the church, Augustine spiritualized away the millennium into the inter-advent period between the two advents of Christ.

In reference to Revelation 20, Augustine believed that verses 1-6 were a recapitulation of the preceding chapters rather than a chronological sequence that follows the events of chapter 19. Augustine also interpreted the first resurrection of 20:4-6 as the new birth of believers in this age. He believed the 1000 year millennium would end around AD 650 (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, page 3).

Like Walvoord, Pentecost divides amillennialism into two camps. Augustinian amillennialism is held to by Roman Catholicism because they view the reign of Christ over the kingdom in His church on earth. This is the amillennialism of Berkhof.

The B. B. Warfield form of Amillennialism

B.B. Warfield believed the present reign of Christ is not over saints on earth as Augustine believed and later the Roman Catholic Church, but the present reign of Christ is over believers in heaven.

Amillennial problem with a literal 1000 years in Revelation 20

The number for the length of the millennium is stated six times in Revelation 20:1-7. Whether the amillennialists are in the Augustine or Warfield camp, they reject a literal interpretation of “a thousand years” (chilia ete) and allegorize the numbers to mean an undetermined, extended length of time between the two advents of Christ.

The first use of the definite time designation in Revelation 20 is used to describe the length of time Satan will be bound in the abyss. Robert Thomas answers the amillennialist’s interpretation of this 1000 year binding as not literal but a restriction of the influence of Satan today. “The account of 20:1-3 tells of a removal from the earth that keeps him from pursuing these activities any longer. The only way one could view Satan as bound before a time in the future would be to construe his binding as a restriction of his activity, not a cessation of it. Confinement to the abyss, however, requires a complete termination of his activity in the sphere of the earth. To date this has never happened. The uniform testimony of the NT is that Satan is not bound during the period between Christ’s two advents” (Revelation 8-22, page 404). Apparently Peter did not think the Devil was bound or restricted in his influence according to 1Peter 5:8 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.”

A typical argument for rejecting the 1000 years as literal is voiced by Vaughan: “I am not aware of any instance in which that particular duration (one thousand years) is used in Scripture literally. We are all familiar with the phrase, A thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The application of the expressions is always vague, not strict: it denotes a period protracted, prolonged, but indefinite” (C. J. Vaughan, Lectures on the Revelation of John, page 215-216).

Thomas refutes this objection: “This view looks to 2 Pet. 3:8 for support, but 2 Pet. 3:8 along with Ps. 90:4 states the very opposite. ‘A thousand years’ in these two verses refers to a literal thousand years. To say that the period with man is only one day with God, does not deny that it is actually a thousand years with God too. The point is that time does not limit an eternal God, not that He is ignorant of what time means with man” (Revelation 8-22, page 407).

Had John wanted to describe the millennium as an indefinite period, he could have just done as he described the time of Satan’s release from the pit as an indefinite (micron chronon, “a little season”). But instead, John chose to a definite time designation.

Amillennialists say the numbers in Revelation are symbolic therefore the 1000 years in Revelation 20 must also be interpreted figuratively as a very long and indefinite period. Thomas makes this claim that “confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible….If the writer wanted a very large symbolic number, why did he not use 144,000 (7:1 ff.; 14:1 ff.) 200,000 (9:16), “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands of thousands” (5:11), or any incalculably large number (7:9)? The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number” (Revelation 8-22, page 408, 409).

Amillennial problem with this First Resurrection

The amillennialists interpret the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 as a spiritual resurrection or the new birth experience. Dr. Bowman in his unpublished notes deals with two important words in Revelation 20 that disprove this view.

The first word is the verb “lived” (Gr. ezesan). In Revelation 20:4, the text says that tribulation believers were martyred for Christ at the first resurrection “lived” which is an ingressive aorist which means that they lived again. The verb is used of physical resurrection (Revelation 1:18; 2:8; 13:14; 20:5). These in Revelation 20:4 died for Jesus so they could not experience a spiritual resurrection because they were already saved before they came to life again.

The second important word is the noun “resurrection” (Gr. anastasis). The noun is used of both resurrections (cf. John 5:29). So, if one is physical the other must also be physical (cf. Revelation 20:4-6).

Amillennial problem with The Great White Throne

Dr. Bowman also in his unpublished notes for Advanced Eschatology refutes the amillennial belief in a general judgment. “Amillennialists believe the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) is the same judgment of sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. This judgment will be at the second advent (Floyd E. Hamilton—The Basis of Millennial Faith, pp. 70-85). It is very doubtful if ta ethne (the nations) in Matthew 25:31-46includes Jews. Hamiltion says the term is elastic enough to include Jews (Ibid, 80). But “my brethren” must be Jews as they are not in this judgment. Thus, “the nations” must be living Gentiles judged at the second advent (cf. ta ethne in Matthew 28:19; Romans 16:26; Revelation 14:8; 20:3). Ta ethne is never used of ‘the dead’ so the sheep and goat account cannot synchronize with the G.W.T. account (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom II, 372-84).

God’s Call to Salvation, Part 2

Posted: December 1, 2009 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
17

The following is an impressive array of theologians who believe the Scriptures teach an effective, effectual call or efficacious grace.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Since it is clearly indicated that one hundred percent of those predestinated are called, and one hundred percent of those called are justified, and one hundred percent of those justified are glorified (Rom. 8:30). . . .Likewise, there is a general call which may be felt whenever the gospel is preached, and it, too, may be resisted as it often is; but over against this is the efficacious call of Romans 8:30. In this passage, as before observed, it is assured that everyone whom God predestinates is called, and the precise numerical company, again, of those called are justified, and that same company—no more and no less—are to be glorified (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. III Soteriology, Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, pages 211 and 216).

This divine call which results in salvation is called efficacious grace because it is certainly effectual in revealing the gospel and in leading to saving faith.

John Walvoord

In contrast to this work of God is the general call to salvation given to all who hear the gospel. In this sense, Christ said, “I come not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:13). The call to repentance and faith was not always heeded, as demonstrated by the fact that Christ also said, “For many are called, but few chosen” (Matt. 22:14). An examination of the many references to calling in the New Testament will reveal, however, that in most instances they refer to the efficacious call. Efficacious grace, then, stands in contrast to common grace as the effectual call stands in contrast to the general call.

For practical purposes, the grace provided is involved in the call given, and divine calling and the grace which is inherent in it are the same subject (John Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1991, p.120).

Dwight Pentecost

The word “predestination” is logically followed by the word “called,” which is to be understood in its normal designation in which God calls whom He has foreknown, those whom He has elected, those whom He has predestinated, unto Himself. The call of God to the elect of God—who have been predestinated unto glory—is the consummating act of God’s foreordination. God sees to it that His purpose will be accomplished. Those whom He has chosen for Himself will be brought to Himself, that His foreknown and predetermined program might be brought to consummation. The Apostle, in Roman 8:30, said, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” The call, then, is a summons to Himself, because they have been predestined unto glory by His foreordained purpose and program.

God’s call is not a call to the human will, asking the human will unaided by divine grace, to respond. God’s call is also God’s enablement; and God, who issues the call, imparts the power through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to respond to that call, so that the sinner who is dead, who is without life, who is under condemnation and judgment, may hear God’s call; and although he has no power in himself because he is dead, and no desire to respond because God has been put out of his life, he is enabled by the Holy Spirit to respond to the gracious invitation (Dwight Pentecost, Things Which Become Sound Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965, pages 141, 142).

 Charles Ryrie

Efficacious grace is the work of the Holy Spirit which effectively moves men to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. It is the work of the Spirit which moves men to believe; therefore, it may be said that no man is saved against his will (Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p. 61).

 Robert Lightner

Salvation becomes a reality when, at the moment of faith, the Holy Spirit imparts life to the believing sinner. When the Holy Spirit moves in this way upon the individual, His ministry is always 100 percent effective (note Rom. 8:28-30 that those called are glorified). This work of the Spirit in moving sinners to trust in Christ, the sin bearer, has been called efficacious grace, or effectual grace (Robert Lightner. Sin, The Savior, and Salvation, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 154).

 Hoyle Bowman

Such a position obviously separates the work of Christ on the cross from the Holy Spirit’s application of that work to the sinner. As has been stated the cross does not secure its own results. The effect must be prompted by another cause which is the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit issuing in saving faith (Hoyle Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, Winston/Salem: Piedmont Baptist College, p. 6).

 Robert Gromacki

This general call is an expression of divine grace. It alone does not save nor does it always lead to salvation. Man must respond to this call. Paul wrote, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Ro 10:13). However, not every man answers God’s general call by calling upon Him. Many are called, but few are chosen. The chosen are those who are the objects of God’s effectual call. They are the called ones according to God’s eternal purpose (Ro 8:28). It is God’s direct will that these called receive all that is involved in God’s gift of salvation. Note Paul’s words, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Ro 8:30). These called have already (according to God’s sovereign decree) been foreknown and predestinated. Their justification and glorification are just as certain as their calling (Robert Glenn Gromacki, Salvation is Forever, Chicago: Moody Press, 1973, pages 39, 40).

Millard J. Erickson

Special calling is in large measure the Holy Spirit’s work of illumination, enabling the recipient to understand the true meaning of the gospel. This working is necessary because of the depravity which is  characteristic of all humans prevents them from grasping God’s revealed truth. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, George Ladd remarks that “only by the illumination of the Spirit can men understand the meaning of the cross; only by the Spirit can men therefore confess that Jesus who was executed is also Lord (1 Cor.12:3)” (Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985, 931).

Wayne Grudem

We may define effective calling as follows: Effective calling is an act of God the Father, speaking through the human proclamation of the gospel, in which he summons peope to himself in such a way that they respond in saving faith. It is important that we not give the impression that people will be saved by the power of this call apart from their own willing response to the gospel. Although it is true that effective calling awakens and brings forth a response from us, we must always insist that this response still has to be a voluntry, willing response in which the indivdual person puts his or her trust in Christ” (Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, 692-693).

From this list we see that both dispenstationalists and reformed theologians believe in the effective call. But there is usually a difference in the relationship between the effective call and regeneration. Reformed theologians believe that regeneration precedes the effective call and saving faith. For example, Wayne Grudem writes, “Scripture indicates that regeneration must come before we can respond to effective calling with saving faith” (page 700).

I agree with Millard J. Erickson who wrote that, “The logical order is calling, conversion, regeneration….The special calling is simply an intensive and effective working of the Holy Spirit. It is not the complete transformation which constitutes regeneration, but it does render the conversion of the individual both possible and certain. Thus the logical order of the initial aspects of salvation is special calling—conversion—regeneration” (pages 932-933).

This is where I disagree with Piper’s sermon: The Free Will of the Wind: “So what verse 8 is teaching is this: We don’t cause the Spirit to bring about the new birth any more than we make the wind blow. Or to be more specific, the decisive act of will in the new birth is not ours. The Spirit’s will is decisive. To be sure, our will moves in the moment of the new birth. Change happens in us. There are perceptible effects of the wind—“ you hear its sound.”

Even Grudem admits “that two passages suggest  that God regenerates us at the same time as he speaks to us in effective calling:1 Peter 1:23 ‘since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.’ And James says, ‘He chose to give us birth through the word of truth’ (James 1:18 NIV)” (Grudem, 700).

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 8 “Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols” Part 2

Posted: July 28, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

I want to continue to answers some questions on typology. In my first post I answered What is a Type?

Why Should we  Study Types?

Because God Himself used types (Heb.8:5; 9:8-9; 10:19-20). Revelation mentions “Lamb” 29 times. Christ used types (Luke 24:25-44; John 6:32-35). I take Christ expounding Himself from the OT to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus as at least in part in types. The Bible uses vocabulary that speak of types in relationship to the Tabernacle: Heb. 8:5 “example” (hupodeigma), “shadow” (skia),  Heb. 9:8-9 “figure” (parabole), and Heb. 10:1 “image” (eikon). Also in relationship to the Wilderness wanderings (1 Cor. 10:6, 11 “examples” tupoi). Zuck makes an important point when he states that typos is not always a technical word. Only 1 of the 15 times typos is used is theological (Hebrews 8:5).

What are the Different Views Concerning Types?

A. No types in the Bible: The Liberal view which denies the supernatural aspect of predictive prophecy.

B. Excessive use of types: Every nut, bolt, socket, and board of the Tabernacle typifies Christ. Every puddle in the Wilderness typifies the baptism. Walter L. Wilson has 1163 types in the OT (Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types) this is in stark contrast with Zuck who sees only 17 types.

Allegorizers accuse Dispenstionalists of allegorizing in their typology and I believe their accusation is correct in some cases: “While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers” (Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church, p.21) p.8 in Things to Come. The Scofield Study Bible provides an example on page 89 in reference to Exodus 15:25 where God tells Moses to cast a tree in the bitter waters of Marah which then became sweet: “The ‘tree’ is the cross (Gal. 3:13), which became sweet to Christ as the expression of the Father’s will (John 18:11).”

Is the allegorical and typological interpretation the same method or different methods?

Ammillennialists see little difference. The allegorical interpretation finds meanings in a text that is foreign, peculiar, or hidden. It is independent of the literal meaning of a text. The typological interpretation proceeds directly out of the literal explanation.

C. The Moderate view: The are two kinds of types which is Milton S. Terry’s view (255-256).

An innate type is specifically designated in Scripture. An inferred type is strongly suggested. If the whole of the Tabernacle or Wilderness journey is typical then are the parts typical (Dr. Steven’s view). Bernard Ramm “If the whole (e.g., the Tabernacle, the Wilderness journey) is typical, then the parts are typical. It is up to the exegetical ability of the interpreter to determine additional types in the parts of these wholes” (228).

D. Types are types only if the NT designates: “The former (type) must not only resemble the latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter. It must have been so designed in it’s original institution” (Bishop Marsh). This is preferrable view to avoid the excesses of the Scofield example.

How do we interpret a type?

Zuck gives the following helpful tips.

A. There must be a resemblance between the type and the antitype. But there must be more than a resemblance.

B. There must be a historical reality (Hebrew 8:5; 9:23-24).

C. There must be a prefiguring. “Does this mean that people in the OT knew that various thing were types?” Answer: Hebrews 9:8. Illustrations look back: Elijah (James 5:17) Jonah (Mt. 12:40). Types look forward. Allegorical interpretation looks behind.

D.  There must be a heightening of truth. “The antitype were on a higher plane than the types” (Zuck, 174).

E. There must be divine design.

F. There must be a designation of a type in the NT. “Scripture must in some way indicate that an item it typical” (Zuck, 176).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 8 “Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols” Part 1

Posted: July 25, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

“The Old Testament can well be called the kindergarten of the Bible. Intricate doctrines, abstract truths, and metaphysical concepts involved in the story of redemption as set forth in the New Testament are broken down in the Old and laid out in pieces. Someone has said that the study of types is a study of Christ in parts” (Dr. Charles H. Stevens. The Wilderness Journey, Scripture Truth, 11).

Types have been called “picture prophecies” because types are a kind of prophecy. Types prefigure coming reality while prophecies verbally describe the future. Types are expressed in events, persons, and acts while prophecies are expressed in words. “In the Old, we have the portrait; in the New we have the Person” (Dr. Charles H. Stevens, 12). For example, the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:9) was a picture prophecy or type of Christ’s death. Isaiah 53 is a verbal prophecy of Christ’s death. Both are predictive. Prophecy is verbally predictive. Types are typically predictive. “Typology is but the handmaiden of theology. Typology is the OT visual aid to the NT doctrines” (Dr. Charles H. Stevens, 12).

What is a Type?

Dwight Pentecost defines a type: “A type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity” (Pentecost, Things To Come, page 51). Bernard Ramm states his definition: “In the science of theology it properly signifies the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament bear to correspoinding persons, events, and institutions in the New” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 227).

Allegorial interpretation is not ordained nor preordained by God but comes from the imagination of the interpreter: “A fitting example of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is seen in the change that came over the vicious persecutor Saul of Tarsus, who was a wolf ravening and destroying, but who was so transformed by the Gospel of Christ that he became a lamb. After his conversion he lost his hatred for the Christians, and became instead their humble friend, confidant, defender” (Isa. 11:6). (Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977, 90).

In my next post I will discuss why we should study types.

How Does the New Testament Use the Old Testament, Part Two

Posted: June 19, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , ,
2

The New Testament uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. We will discuss these four New Testament categories into which all Old Testament prophecies are used. Three of the four involve what Robert Thomas calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA) without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

Direct Prophecy

The first way the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecies is what Dwight Pentecost calls direct prophecy (The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 68) and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum calls literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment (Israelology, 843). An example is the prophecy in Micah 5: 1-2 that predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5-6 said it was fulfilled. There is no New Testament fuller or plenary meaning attached to this prophecy. This prophecy was directly fulfilled.

Literal Fulfillment Plus Application

There is one point of comparison between Matthew 2:17-18 and the prophecy in  Jeremiah 31:15: In both cases Jewish women weep for their sons that they will never see again. Pentecost calls this a prophecy of double reference (page 71). Robert Thomas would object to the idea of double reference or fulfillment which would do away with the single meaning of Jeremiah 31:15.  Fruchtenbaum more accurately identifies this fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as literal fulfillment plus application (page 844). The original meaning of the women weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 is not changed and has only one meaning or interpretation. This historical incident is applied by Matthew. This is an example of ISPA. The meaning of Jeremiah 31:15 was not altered but was applied and expanded to Jesus’ life.

Prophetic Summary

Pentecost calls the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 a prophetic summary of Old Testament prophecies (page 73). Fruchtenbaum simply calls this a “summation” (page 845). Matthew 2:23 even refers to the “prophets” in the plural… “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets that he should be called a Nazarene.”  There is no direct prophecy that predicted this incident. Here is Fruchtenbaum’s explanation: “Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa. 53:3) and that is summarized by the term Nazarene.”

Prophetic Type

I would like to focus on the ISPA of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Pentecost calls this a prophetic type (page 70) and Fruchtenbauw calls it literal plus typical (page 843). Hosea 11:1 is the historical reference to God calling Israel “my son” out of Egypt and is not even a prophecy. And yet Matthew 2:15 says when the child Jesus was brought out of Egypt by His parents Hosea 11:1 was “fulfilled.” Pentecost says “Matthew saw Israel’s history as a type of God’s future dealing with His people” (page 70).

Robert Thomas explains that the word “fulfilled” can also mean “complete.” “In the Matthew 2:15 citation of Hosea 11:1 Matthew uses it to indicate the completion of a sensus plenior meaning he finds in Hosea 11:1. The Hosea passage is not a prophecy, and translating the word fulfill in this instance is misleading. Matthew’s meaning is that in some sense the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses. In Mark 1:15 Jesus uses the same Greek verb to speak of the completion of a period of time prior to the drawing near of the kingdom of God. The English word fulfill would hardly communicate the correct idea in a case like that” (page 263).

Roman Catholics, Covenant theologians, and newer evangelicals use sensus plenior to change the original of Old Testament prophecies and thus violate the single meaning principle of interpretation. Thomas’ ISPA is true to this classic principle in hermeneutics.

Can sinners be saved in the Tribulation who heard the gospel before the Rapture?

Posted: December 26, 2008 in End Time Events
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
20

CAN sinners who heard the gospel and are “Left Behind” at the Rapture be saved in the Tribulation Period? Anxious people have been asking this question since the first century. Have you ever asked this question?

  

Because of the persecution the Thessalonians were enduring, they had been deceived into thinking they had missed the rapture and were in the Tribulation. The deceivers of the Thessalonians were the original posttribulationalists. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 gives his most concentrated development of the Day of the Lord to convince the Thessalonians that they were not in the Tribulation. Paul enumerates four events that must transpire before the Day of the Lord or in this context the Tribulation. The first event is the rapture (2:1). Next is “the apostasy” in the 2:2, 3. The third event is the revelation of the lawless one or the antichrist (2:3b-4). The fourth event is the removal of the restrainer in 2:5-12. These are not in order of sequence.

 

Dwight Pentecost argues convincingly that the restrainer could not be the Roman Empire, human government, Satan, the church but must be the Holy Spirit (Things To Come, page 262). When the Holy Spirit is removed at the Rapture in His restraining influence, Paul informs us in verses 9-12 that the unsaved will be deceived. Do these verses explicitly say that if a sinner hears the gospel before the Rapture he automatically cannot be saved after the Rapture?

 

Thomas L. Constable in Bible Knowledge Commentary leans in the direction of that view (notice he is not dogmatic):

  

The ‘powerful delusion’ (v. 11) that God will bring on these individuals in particular suggests that few if any then living on the earth will be saved after the Rapture. This seems to be a special judgment from God that will occur at this one time in history. The many saints which the Book of Revelation indicates will be living on the earth during the Tribulation may thus be people who did not hear and reject the gospel before the Rapture (cf. Rev. 7:4) (Bible Knowledge Commentary, page 721).

 

These verses teach that sinners in the tribulation will reap the consequences of not receiving the truth (v. 10) or believing “the lie” that the antichrist is God in verse 4. The same consequence of rejecting truth, however, is happening today with sinners according to Romans 1:18-32. In these verses, God’s wrath is being revealed against all who hold down or suppress the truth. The way God’s wrath is being continually revealed today is not Sodom and Gomorrah like but rather God is allowing sinners to reap the consequences their sin or as Paul states this reality three times in Romans 1:24-32: God gives them over to the consequences of their sin. So what God does in the Tribulation in allowing the sinner to reap the outcome of his sin is not unique to that period.

 

Walvoord offers a preferable view:

  

Some understand from verse 11 that if a person in this present age of grace hears the gospel and does not receive Christ as Savior, then when Christ comes and takes His church home to glory these will find it impossible to be saved after the church is translated. It is unlikely that a person who rejects Christ in this day of grace will turn to Him in that awful period of tribulation. But the usual principle of Scripture is that while there is life there is hope. It is possible, though very improbable, that a person who has heard the gospel in this present age of grace will come to Christ after the rapture” (The Thessalonian Epistle, page 129). 

 

Therefore, the point of no return for the sinner in the Tribulation is not hearing the gospel before the Tribulation. But clearly the destiny of the sinner is sealed and doomed in the Tribulation when that sinner receives the mark of the beast according to Revelation 14:9-11. For those who worship the antichrist, “the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God… and the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever.” If you are deceived by Satan now, just imagine the deception in the Tribulation Period after the church is raptured. In other words, trust Christ now!