“The Evidence-of-Genuineness proponents base their doctrine of perseverance on God’s promises in Scripture that He will complete His work of salvation in the individual believer. Even though a believer may fail miserably and sin terribly, he cannot remain in that condition. A Christian may fall totally, but his fall will not be final. The true believer will persevere” (Kenneth D. Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 177).
In studying the Doctrine of Eternal Security, I’ve learned that oftentimes, what is not said is just as important as what is said. Pertaining to the issue of the security of the believer, Calvinist theology dictates that the elect will persevere in faith because they have been given a faith that will remain. As seen in the quote above, Molinists believe the same thing. When it comes to the issue of eternal security, Molinists stand arm-in-arm with Calvinists.
I could cover many things pertaining to this issue; however, today, my goal is to cover a particular passage regarding the doctrine of eternal security. The quote above is the stated position of Molinists (and Calvinists). After the above quote, there is a scriptural passage given as justification for the above position in a footnote:
“Phil. 1:6, “I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 177).
Today, I wanna look at this verse in the Scriptures, place it in the context of Philippians 1, and see what this verse tells us with regards to the eternal security debate.
First, let’s notice that Keathley calls verses like Philippians 1:6 unconditional promises:
“Moody asserts that Calvinists have put so much emphasis on the assurance passages that they have bleached out the full force of the warning passages. However, he appears to have committed the same error in reverse when he ignores THE UNCONDITIONAL NATURE OF THE PROMISES OF PRESERVATION and makes them subordinate to the warning passages” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 175).
The promise of preservation in Philippians 1:6 for example, is, to Ken Keathley, an “unconditional promise”.
But is it really? Let’s examine the immediate context of Philippians 1:6...in this case, the following verse:
“just as it is right for me to think this of you all, BECAUSE I have you in my heart, inasmuch as BOTH IN MY CHAINS AND IN THE DEFENSE AND CONFIRMATION OF THE GOSPEL, YOU ALL ARE PARTAKERS WITH ME OF GRACE” (Philippians 1:7, NKJV).
The question on the table is, “Can we label Philippians 1:6 an ‘unqualified’ divine promise?” The answer to the question is “No.” In verse 7, we find that the Philippians are “sugkoinonous,” the Greek word for “partaker,” “participant,” or “sharer.” What are the Philippians “sharers” in? They share not only in Paul’s chains, but also in the defense and confirmation of the gospel: the Philippians, like Paul, are currently defending the faith at the time of Paul’s letter to them. Not only are they defending the faith, but by their own lives, they are “confirming” the gospel.
How are the Philippians “confirming the gospel”? Paul tells us that “you have always obeyed,” especially in his presence; he desires they do the same in his absence (2:12). Not only have the Philippians obeyed Paul by doing what he has instructed them to, but he tells them that to be unified in Christ will serve as further confirmation of the truth:
“Only let your conduct be WORTHY OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, so that whether I come and see you, or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, WHICH IS TO THEM A PROOF OF PERDITION, BUT TO YOU OF SALVATION, and that from God” (Phil. 1:27-28, NKJV).
For the Philippians, standing unified in Christ, contending for the faith, with holy boldness, would be “proof of salvation” for the Philippians, while serving as “proof of perdition” for their enemies. By so doing they would be proving themselves “worthy of the gospel of Christ.”
What need was there to make themselves worthy, IF God had already foreordained each individual to be saved on account of the gospel? Peter poses the same question to us in his first epistle: If the scattered believers of the Dispersion were “unconditionally elected” to salvation, why then, did they need to “be even more diligent to make their call and election sure” so as to “never stumble” (2 Peter 1:10)? There must be a reason why the lifestyles of the Philippians and scattered believers were to confirm their standing in Christ.
And it is no different with Paul in his letter to the Philippians. Go back to Philippians 1:
“just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you are partakers with me of grace.”
Paul states that “it is right for me to think this,” meaning that he has a reason to think that God will complete His work in them---namely, that the actions of the Philippian believers TESTIFY to this confidence. Paul can be confident because of the labor of love shown to God by the Philippians.
Contrary to the assumed idea that Philippians 1:6 states an “unqualified promise,” it actually states an optimism of Paul’s that is qualified by Paul himself (“just as it is right for me to think this of you all”). Paul has his reasons; and he is assured of God’s work in them because they continue to persevere.
The writer of Hebrews had something similar to say to the Hebrew converts to Christianity who were suffering persecution (in a situation quite like the Philippians):
“But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore, DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. FOR YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:32-36, NKJV).
The word “parresian” is the Greek word for “confidence.” According to Thayer’s Dictionary of the New Testament, the word can also mean “cheerful courage, free and fearless confidence, boldness,” and even “assurance.” And why do the Hebrew believers need to keep their assurance? Because “you have need of endurance” (Heb. 10:36). The believers need to maintain their assurance so that they can endure. Assurance of God’s promises is what produces endurance. This assurance is called the “full assurance of faith” earlier in the chapter (10:22). It is our faith that we must not throw away---for faith fuels the race of life, which requires endurance (Heb. 12:1-3). To lose faith is to lose endurance (Mark 4:16-17; Luke 8:13).
As has been shown here, Paul is confident of God’s work in the Philippians...but he is only confident because of the Philippians’ participation in the gospel (its defense) as well as a lifestyle “worthy of the gospel.” In other words, their current conduct and spiritual unity gave him great optimism regarding God’s future work in them. This confidence of Paul’s is not just written by Paul’s hand as a great compliment; rather, it is written by a soldier of Jesus Christ to fellow soldiers who were “enduring hardship as good soldiers of Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 2:3) even in the face of persecution.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian, Part IV: The Implications of Platonist and Aristotelian Philosophy For Dispensationalist and Covenantal Theology
In the first three parts of this mini-series, we saw the two schools of theology and their approaches to Biblical interpretation; next, we looked at Augustine and his alignment with the Alexandrian school, as a reaction to the literalistic theologians that surrounded him. In part III, we examined both Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy, and discovered that Platonism focuses on the “other” world known only by the intellect, while Aristotelian philosophy focuses on this world, since we can know nothing about the invisible world.
In this post, I’d like to spend time talking about how the philosophical perspectives of Plato and Aristotle impact theological views. We’ve already seen that Augustine’s Neo-Platonism was responsible for his allegorical approach to the biblical text on issues like the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation 20, for example. But did you know that we, like Augustine, are guilty of approaching the Bible with our own philosophical presuppositions?
You might say to me, “Hey---wait a minute! I approach the text objectively, simply reading what the Bible says.” But do you really? Truth be told, we all approach the text with our own philosophical and theological presuppositions. For example, when we read about God saving Israel with “His arm” or how God “bore them [Israel] on eagles wings” throughout the Scriptures, do we really assume God has an arm or wings? No we don’t. Instead, we chalk such language up to human writing with the purpose of revealing something about God through the use of anthropomorphic (“human form”) language. God is given the characteristics of humans (or animals, in the case of wings) within Scripture to communicate a truth about God. And why do we not take these descriptions literally? Because we all assume a philosophy of God, whereby “God is spirit” (John 4:24). If God is spirit, He cannot be physical, or human, and thus, find a way to reconcile such passages with the nature of God.
Now, what about the debate regarding dispensationalism and covenantal theology? Underlying the biblical passages is not only a theology, but a philosophy. In the same way that Plato viewed “real reality” as the “wholly other,” so do covenantalists view biblical passages as pointing to the “spiritual.” The words themselves have no inherent meaning; instead, they “point to” the real meaning (which is some spiritual interpretation that requires much creativity). Therefore, when they read “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) in the NT or “Israel” in the OT, they assume that the words refer to the Church.
Yesterday, I talked with a brother of mine at the local coffeeshop about his hermeneutic (he is covenantal in his theology). I asked him what about the progressive dispensationalist view did he intensely dislike...and he told me that his problem with the progressive view is that it is “not Christocentric.” And then, he proceeded to tell me that he doesn’t believe that the temple in Jerusalem is actually gonna rebuilt, he doesn’t believe in a world war against Israel, etc. I told him that those reasons are no reasons to discredit the biblical text about prophecies concerning national Israel: after all (for example), because an atheist doesn’t like the idea of Hell or believe in it does not nullify the fact that the Bible argues Hell as a real place. His last line of defense was that the progressive hermeneutic did not point to Christ.
It was at this point in the conversation that I asked him, “So where in Scripture are we ever told that the land of the OT refers to Christ in the NT?” This question is only one of many questions I could ask him. His response was a rehearsed covenantal response: “If you assume a Christocentric hermeneutic, then you can see that everything, all the promises, are summed up in Christ.” What this brother doesn’t seem to realize is that after Christ’s resurrection, according to Luke’s work in Acts, Christ spent forty days with the disciples, teaching them of the kingdom of God. At the end of the time, the disciples ask Jesus a legitimate question about the OT: “Lord, will You AT THIS TIME RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” (Acts 1:6, NKJV)
What is Jesus’ response? Does He tell them that this isn’t going to happen? No. Instead, He tells them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons...” (Acts 1:7) Christ’s response did not nullify the OT promise of the kingdom; rather, Christ simply told them that they were not to know the time or season in which the kingdom would be restored. This is the most logical assessment when we see that the disciples believed Christ would restore the kingdom to Israel “at this time.” They believed that by the end of His time with them, He would hand the kingdom over to Israel. But it was the timing Jesus rebuked them about, not the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.
As a result, my brother simply cannot handle the fact that the Scriptures only shroud the timing of the restoration and not the restoration itself. Why? because the restoration of Israel is an Old Testament promise! And if it is an OT promise, and the Lord Jesus (God incarnate) continues to uphold the promise, then this means that Revelation 20 (which mentions the millennial reign of Christ) will be literally fulfilled in Israel; the Israelites will return to their land, dwell in safety, and the Lord Himself will rule from the land of Israel. If you’re a covenantal theologian, this is not something to smile about.
So, do progressive dispensationalists REALLY rid themselves of the Christocentric hermeneutic? No. Rather, we uphold it---every promise of God will be fulfilled. God promised Abraham and Sarah that they would have a child named Isaac, from whom the Messiah would come. If this literal fulfillment leads to Christ, then why can’t the promise of the land make sense in the context of Christ’s one-thousand-year reign over earth? After all, the land will only provide security if Christ is there...and “there” He will be.
What about if one assumes Aristotelian philosophy? The text of Acts 1 is one that you rejoice over! When you understand that the disciples themselves read the OT promises of a future kingdom in Israel, it is clear that they adhered to a literal hermeneutic of some sort, that when God promised to restore the kingdom, He really meant what He said. And all this is clearly laid before you because, unlike Plato and covenantal theologians, you assume that what you can see and read with your sight is actual reality, that the words on the page tell you about life in this world. The words themselves have real inherent meaning, and are not only pointing to something beyond themselves. “Israel” refers to the nation of Israel itself, not the Church. If Israel is the nation itself, and God made her promises, then He will fulfill those promises. With the land, for example, progressive dispensationalists look to the future and anxiously await the fulfillment of promises for Israel that are yet to be fulfilled.
Both progressive dispensationalism and covenantal theology believe in a Christocentric hermeneutic; the difference in the two approaches has to do with philosophy: one focuses on the literal meaning of the text, while the other focuses on spiritual interpretation. The question is, “Can a person have both literal interpretation and still maintain a Christocentric hermeneutic? To this question I answer, “Yes; yes you can.”
In this post, I’d like to spend time talking about how the philosophical perspectives of Plato and Aristotle impact theological views. We’ve already seen that Augustine’s Neo-Platonism was responsible for his allegorical approach to the biblical text on issues like the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation 20, for example. But did you know that we, like Augustine, are guilty of approaching the Bible with our own philosophical presuppositions?
You might say to me, “Hey---wait a minute! I approach the text objectively, simply reading what the Bible says.” But do you really? Truth be told, we all approach the text with our own philosophical and theological presuppositions. For example, when we read about God saving Israel with “His arm” or how God “bore them [Israel] on eagles wings” throughout the Scriptures, do we really assume God has an arm or wings? No we don’t. Instead, we chalk such language up to human writing with the purpose of revealing something about God through the use of anthropomorphic (“human form”) language. God is given the characteristics of humans (or animals, in the case of wings) within Scripture to communicate a truth about God. And why do we not take these descriptions literally? Because we all assume a philosophy of God, whereby “God is spirit” (John 4:24). If God is spirit, He cannot be physical, or human, and thus, find a way to reconcile such passages with the nature of God.
Now, what about the debate regarding dispensationalism and covenantal theology? Underlying the biblical passages is not only a theology, but a philosophy. In the same way that Plato viewed “real reality” as the “wholly other,” so do covenantalists view biblical passages as pointing to the “spiritual.” The words themselves have no inherent meaning; instead, they “point to” the real meaning (which is some spiritual interpretation that requires much creativity). Therefore, when they read “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) in the NT or “Israel” in the OT, they assume that the words refer to the Church.
Yesterday, I talked with a brother of mine at the local coffeeshop about his hermeneutic (he is covenantal in his theology). I asked him what about the progressive dispensationalist view did he intensely dislike...and he told me that his problem with the progressive view is that it is “not Christocentric.” And then, he proceeded to tell me that he doesn’t believe that the temple in Jerusalem is actually gonna rebuilt, he doesn’t believe in a world war against Israel, etc. I told him that those reasons are no reasons to discredit the biblical text about prophecies concerning national Israel: after all (for example), because an atheist doesn’t like the idea of Hell or believe in it does not nullify the fact that the Bible argues Hell as a real place. His last line of defense was that the progressive hermeneutic did not point to Christ.
It was at this point in the conversation that I asked him, “So where in Scripture are we ever told that the land of the OT refers to Christ in the NT?” This question is only one of many questions I could ask him. His response was a rehearsed covenantal response: “If you assume a Christocentric hermeneutic, then you can see that everything, all the promises, are summed up in Christ.” What this brother doesn’t seem to realize is that after Christ’s resurrection, according to Luke’s work in Acts, Christ spent forty days with the disciples, teaching them of the kingdom of God. At the end of the time, the disciples ask Jesus a legitimate question about the OT: “Lord, will You AT THIS TIME RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” (Acts 1:6, NKJV)
What is Jesus’ response? Does He tell them that this isn’t going to happen? No. Instead, He tells them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons...” (Acts 1:7) Christ’s response did not nullify the OT promise of the kingdom; rather, Christ simply told them that they were not to know the time or season in which the kingdom would be restored. This is the most logical assessment when we see that the disciples believed Christ would restore the kingdom to Israel “at this time.” They believed that by the end of His time with them, He would hand the kingdom over to Israel. But it was the timing Jesus rebuked them about, not the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.
As a result, my brother simply cannot handle the fact that the Scriptures only shroud the timing of the restoration and not the restoration itself. Why? because the restoration of Israel is an Old Testament promise! And if it is an OT promise, and the Lord Jesus (God incarnate) continues to uphold the promise, then this means that Revelation 20 (which mentions the millennial reign of Christ) will be literally fulfilled in Israel; the Israelites will return to their land, dwell in safety, and the Lord Himself will rule from the land of Israel. If you’re a covenantal theologian, this is not something to smile about.
So, do progressive dispensationalists REALLY rid themselves of the Christocentric hermeneutic? No. Rather, we uphold it---every promise of God will be fulfilled. God promised Abraham and Sarah that they would have a child named Isaac, from whom the Messiah would come. If this literal fulfillment leads to Christ, then why can’t the promise of the land make sense in the context of Christ’s one-thousand-year reign over earth? After all, the land will only provide security if Christ is there...and “there” He will be.
What about if one assumes Aristotelian philosophy? The text of Acts 1 is one that you rejoice over! When you understand that the disciples themselves read the OT promises of a future kingdom in Israel, it is clear that they adhered to a literal hermeneutic of some sort, that when God promised to restore the kingdom, He really meant what He said. And all this is clearly laid before you because, unlike Plato and covenantal theologians, you assume that what you can see and read with your sight is actual reality, that the words on the page tell you about life in this world. The words themselves have real inherent meaning, and are not only pointing to something beyond themselves. “Israel” refers to the nation of Israel itself, not the Church. If Israel is the nation itself, and God made her promises, then He will fulfill those promises. With the land, for example, progressive dispensationalists look to the future and anxiously await the fulfillment of promises for Israel that are yet to be fulfilled.
Both progressive dispensationalism and covenantal theology believe in a Christocentric hermeneutic; the difference in the two approaches has to do with philosophy: one focuses on the literal meaning of the text, while the other focuses on spiritual interpretation. The question is, “Can a person have both literal interpretation and still maintain a Christocentric hermeneutic? To this question I answer, “Yes; yes you can.”
Sunday, June 20, 2010
In Its Entirety
Today is Father’s Day. And, as you can imagine, I heard a Father’s Day sermon at church. The speaker was a church member who was a director head of a ministry at the church, whom I will refer to as “Jim” in this post. Brother Jim was the guest speaker today for the Father’s Day message.
His sermon was basically about fathers being examples for their children, teaching them about the kingdom of God, the things of God, as well as modeling that in their lives. “First things first” seemed to be the mantra of the sermon.
However...as you can imagine, there’s always gonna be a criticism. Usually, I rarely just comment on church experiences for the sake of so doing. Normally, I have a point in mind that I wanna make here at the blog. And today’s sermon feeds right into that “need” of mine to correct wrong thinking in the church.
Brother Jim started to talk about how tradition can keep us from doing what is right, and he pointed to Matthew 15, where the Pharisees reinterpreted honoring their parents (Mosaic Law) as, “we can dishonor our parents ON THE CONDITION THAT we’re taking the money we would give to them and give it to the temple” (Matt. 15:3-6). He used this to then launch into a discussion of how, as believers, we go against what God’s Word says. This suddenly turned into a rant about the issue of divorce, where some people feel the need to divorce, but God’s Word tells us, “what God has joined together, let no man separate” (see Matt. 19:5-6, NKJV).
And then he used his own life as an example of how his wife went against how most people interpret the Word of God: he said,
“my wife knows what it’s like to be abused, called every name in the book, etc. She knows what it’s like to lose job after job, with me leaving the house on Friday and not being found until the following Tuesday. She knows what it’s like to go to the grocery store to buy groceries or to the bank to pay bills and be told, ‘There’s no money in the account.’ And there was no money in the account NOT because we didn’t have enough...but because her husband was a drug addict. Yet and still, SHE STAYED. Why? did she stay because she believed I would get saved? Did she stay because she thought I would be a better husband? No---she stayed because GOD’S WORD TOLD HER TO STAY.”
Really? God’s Word told her to stay? His only proof for this was Matthew 19:5-6---
“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:5-6, NKJV).
Now, on the surface, this looks convincing. I mean, does it not say, “What GOD has joined together, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE”? However, there’s a problem. This is a prooftext FROM the passage, NOT the passage in its entirety. Let’s zoom out from these verses and look at how they fit into the larger context.
After Jesus words in verses 5 and 6, the Pharisees question Him: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Jesus said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (v.8).
True, divorce was not an original part of God’s plan. However, does Jesus condemn divorce? Not entirely. Read these words:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery”(v.9).
Notice the words in caps? “Except for sexual immorality...” These are the grounds within which divorce is allowed. The word for “sexual immorality” in the Greek is “porneia,” which can mean here “fornication, unchastity, unlawful sexual intercourse,” according to the Zondervan “Reader’s Greek New Testament, Second Edition.”
So, back to brother Jim. Jim did not expound the text in its entirety; instead, he picked out verses 5 and 6 and neglected verse 9. This is a result of bad exegesis. Verses should never be read out of context in this manner.
Secondly, Jim overlooked the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding Christians who are married to unbelievers:
“But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has a wife who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him...but IF THE UNBELIEVER DEPARTS, LET HIM DEPART; A BROTHER OR A SISTER IS NOT UNDER BONDAGE IN SUCH CASES. BUT GOD HAS CALLED US TO PEACE. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13, 15-16, NKJV)
In the words of Paul here, if an unbeliever decides to leave their Christian spouse, the Christian spouse should let them---because we are called to be at peace, not to war and fight and retaliate. Throughout my life, I’ve heard some people say, “Well, these are the words of Paul; Paul is the one who said this, not Christ.” Well, Paul did say them: however, Paul also said, “and I think I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40), which shows us that he certainly believed what he was saying was in line with the Word of God. So in such cases of unbelievers filing for divorce or adultery, divorce is permitted.
These are two instances biblically, where exceptions for divorce are permitted; why then, did brother Jim not touch on these? Why did he claim that ANY divorce is unbiblical? And why did he make it seem as though any divorce for the two permitted reasons above is just “mere tradition” of a godless society??
Last but not least, he told his testimony regarding his wife remaining in their marriage. And I think it is honorable and noble. I think that Jim’s wife is a phenomenal woman who has been given such grace and inner strength by God Himself. But at the same time, I can give an example of a case where the wife stayed and the marriage ended due to her cold-blooded murder by way of her husband.
My mother worked with this woman, a friend of hers named “Shirley.” Shirley was a dear friend of my mother’s. Shirley and mom were real close, sisters in Christ, fellow sisters at heart, who could always talk about anything. Shirley started coming to work in the finance department with bruises on her, noticeable bruises. The women in the finance department began to talk with Shirley over lunch, to convince her to get protection, leave this guy, and tell the police what was going on. The women wanted her to leave her husband, to go get help for herself (to save her life) and for her husband. The women (including my mother) feared that Shirley would die at the hands of her husband if she didn’t. Shirley told them she couldn’t leave her husband because he vowed to kill her and her family if she left. For the sake of her family, she decided to stay in this unhappy marriage. Sometimes, you just don’t know what’s going on in the lives of people you meet, even if they do wear a smile...
Well, one day, her husband (a self-professed Christian), told her that he was quitting his drug habit. He wanted her to hide his drug money, not give it to him---even if he wanted the drug money. So Shirley did as asked; she refused to give him the drug money. One night, he came home and started asking again, but she resisted (as he had told her to do). He continued to ask, she continued to resist. She resisted until he got a baseball bat at home that he had, bashed her head in, until he killed her; and then, he sat down, Shirley’s body laying on the floor before him, and ate dinner as if he had done nothing wrong.
I know this story is chilling and so tragic; but I had to tell you this because I think the world needs to hear it. Brother Jim can easily stand in a pulpit and preach about how his wife stayed with her husband; but there are some cases when staying in a physically abusive relationship does more harm than good. Shirley was in her mid 40s at the oldest; and if she had ran from her husband and gotten governmental protection, she might be here with us today. Her attempt to protect her family was noble, but she lost her life in the process.
Shirley needed to flee her marriage. And I think that some spouses, because of the depravity of man, are forced to do so today. Divorce is not something that the world should applaud; it’s not something that we should chant for from the rooftops; but it is something that sometimes, serves as, in the words of Robert Frost, “the road less traveled by,” that some must take for their sake, the sake of their children, and so forth.
God can restore broken marriages. That’s the message I wanna leave with you in this post: that God can fix what is broken, even marriages headed down the drain. However, God will not fix every mistake humans have made on this earth. After all, if the power of human choice means anything, we have been given the right to make choices whether good or bad...and those choices have major impact on us and those around us (for either good or bad). Since humans chose wrongly in the Garden, we have suffered the consequences of it ever since...and divorce falls in this category of consequences. Failing to teach properly on divorce, or preach properly on the subject, only misleads those who sit under us.
I’m all for godly, successful marriages; at the same time, though, I’m for the truth of God’s Word. And a woman who has spent every night for the last 15 years without her husband (a husband who is sexually active with other women) has the God-given right to unite herself to someone else. After all, her husband divorced her through his adultery, did he not?
His sermon was basically about fathers being examples for their children, teaching them about the kingdom of God, the things of God, as well as modeling that in their lives. “First things first” seemed to be the mantra of the sermon.
However...as you can imagine, there’s always gonna be a criticism. Usually, I rarely just comment on church experiences for the sake of so doing. Normally, I have a point in mind that I wanna make here at the blog. And today’s sermon feeds right into that “need” of mine to correct wrong thinking in the church.
Brother Jim started to talk about how tradition can keep us from doing what is right, and he pointed to Matthew 15, where the Pharisees reinterpreted honoring their parents (Mosaic Law) as, “we can dishonor our parents ON THE CONDITION THAT we’re taking the money we would give to them and give it to the temple” (Matt. 15:3-6). He used this to then launch into a discussion of how, as believers, we go against what God’s Word says. This suddenly turned into a rant about the issue of divorce, where some people feel the need to divorce, but God’s Word tells us, “what God has joined together, let no man separate” (see Matt. 19:5-6, NKJV).
And then he used his own life as an example of how his wife went against how most people interpret the Word of God: he said,
“my wife knows what it’s like to be abused, called every name in the book, etc. She knows what it’s like to lose job after job, with me leaving the house on Friday and not being found until the following Tuesday. She knows what it’s like to go to the grocery store to buy groceries or to the bank to pay bills and be told, ‘There’s no money in the account.’ And there was no money in the account NOT because we didn’t have enough...but because her husband was a drug addict. Yet and still, SHE STAYED. Why? did she stay because she believed I would get saved? Did she stay because she thought I would be a better husband? No---she stayed because GOD’S WORD TOLD HER TO STAY.”
Really? God’s Word told her to stay? His only proof for this was Matthew 19:5-6---
“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:5-6, NKJV).
Now, on the surface, this looks convincing. I mean, does it not say, “What GOD has joined together, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE”? However, there’s a problem. This is a prooftext FROM the passage, NOT the passage in its entirety. Let’s zoom out from these verses and look at how they fit into the larger context.
After Jesus words in verses 5 and 6, the Pharisees question Him: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Jesus said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (v.8).
True, divorce was not an original part of God’s plan. However, does Jesus condemn divorce? Not entirely. Read these words:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery”(v.9).
Notice the words in caps? “Except for sexual immorality...” These are the grounds within which divorce is allowed. The word for “sexual immorality” in the Greek is “porneia,” which can mean here “fornication, unchastity, unlawful sexual intercourse,” according to the Zondervan “Reader’s Greek New Testament, Second Edition.”
So, back to brother Jim. Jim did not expound the text in its entirety; instead, he picked out verses 5 and 6 and neglected verse 9. This is a result of bad exegesis. Verses should never be read out of context in this manner.
Secondly, Jim overlooked the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding Christians who are married to unbelievers:
“But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has a wife who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him...but IF THE UNBELIEVER DEPARTS, LET HIM DEPART; A BROTHER OR A SISTER IS NOT UNDER BONDAGE IN SUCH CASES. BUT GOD HAS CALLED US TO PEACE. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13, 15-16, NKJV)
In the words of Paul here, if an unbeliever decides to leave their Christian spouse, the Christian spouse should let them---because we are called to be at peace, not to war and fight and retaliate. Throughout my life, I’ve heard some people say, “Well, these are the words of Paul; Paul is the one who said this, not Christ.” Well, Paul did say them: however, Paul also said, “and I think I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40), which shows us that he certainly believed what he was saying was in line with the Word of God. So in such cases of unbelievers filing for divorce or adultery, divorce is permitted.
These are two instances biblically, where exceptions for divorce are permitted; why then, did brother Jim not touch on these? Why did he claim that ANY divorce is unbiblical? And why did he make it seem as though any divorce for the two permitted reasons above is just “mere tradition” of a godless society??
Last but not least, he told his testimony regarding his wife remaining in their marriage. And I think it is honorable and noble. I think that Jim’s wife is a phenomenal woman who has been given such grace and inner strength by God Himself. But at the same time, I can give an example of a case where the wife stayed and the marriage ended due to her cold-blooded murder by way of her husband.
My mother worked with this woman, a friend of hers named “Shirley.” Shirley was a dear friend of my mother’s. Shirley and mom were real close, sisters in Christ, fellow sisters at heart, who could always talk about anything. Shirley started coming to work in the finance department with bruises on her, noticeable bruises. The women in the finance department began to talk with Shirley over lunch, to convince her to get protection, leave this guy, and tell the police what was going on. The women wanted her to leave her husband, to go get help for herself (to save her life) and for her husband. The women (including my mother) feared that Shirley would die at the hands of her husband if she didn’t. Shirley told them she couldn’t leave her husband because he vowed to kill her and her family if she left. For the sake of her family, she decided to stay in this unhappy marriage. Sometimes, you just don’t know what’s going on in the lives of people you meet, even if they do wear a smile...
Well, one day, her husband (a self-professed Christian), told her that he was quitting his drug habit. He wanted her to hide his drug money, not give it to him---even if he wanted the drug money. So Shirley did as asked; she refused to give him the drug money. One night, he came home and started asking again, but she resisted (as he had told her to do). He continued to ask, she continued to resist. She resisted until he got a baseball bat at home that he had, bashed her head in, until he killed her; and then, he sat down, Shirley’s body laying on the floor before him, and ate dinner as if he had done nothing wrong.
I know this story is chilling and so tragic; but I had to tell you this because I think the world needs to hear it. Brother Jim can easily stand in a pulpit and preach about how his wife stayed with her husband; but there are some cases when staying in a physically abusive relationship does more harm than good. Shirley was in her mid 40s at the oldest; and if she had ran from her husband and gotten governmental protection, she might be here with us today. Her attempt to protect her family was noble, but she lost her life in the process.
Shirley needed to flee her marriage. And I think that some spouses, because of the depravity of man, are forced to do so today. Divorce is not something that the world should applaud; it’s not something that we should chant for from the rooftops; but it is something that sometimes, serves as, in the words of Robert Frost, “the road less traveled by,” that some must take for their sake, the sake of their children, and so forth.
God can restore broken marriages. That’s the message I wanna leave with you in this post: that God can fix what is broken, even marriages headed down the drain. However, God will not fix every mistake humans have made on this earth. After all, if the power of human choice means anything, we have been given the right to make choices whether good or bad...and those choices have major impact on us and those around us (for either good or bad). Since humans chose wrongly in the Garden, we have suffered the consequences of it ever since...and divorce falls in this category of consequences. Failing to teach properly on divorce, or preach properly on the subject, only misleads those who sit under us.
I’m all for godly, successful marriages; at the same time, though, I’m for the truth of God’s Word. And a woman who has spent every night for the last 15 years without her husband (a husband who is sexually active with other women) has the God-given right to unite herself to someone else. After all, her husband divorced her through his adultery, did he not?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian, Part III: Distinguishing Platonist and Aristotelian Philosophy
Just what exactly is “Neo-Platonism,” anyway? That is one of my tasks in this post: to give a succinct definition of the term itself and how it relates to my current discussion on Augustine.
To find the answer to this question, I began to search for an old philosophy book that served as required reading for me in my Introduction to Philosophy course back some two and a half years ago here at seminary. Picking up the book again, I found a definition that was accurate and to-the-point. Platonism comes from Plato’s “theory of Forms or Ideas,” which states that
“total reality...[is] divided into two realms. There is the visible world, the world as it is presented to our senses, our ordinary everyday world, in which nothing lasts and nothing stays the same--- as Plato liked to put it, EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS ALWAYS BECOMING SOMETHING ELSE, BUT NOTHING EVER JUST PERMANENTLY IS. (This formulation became shortened to ‘everything is becoming, nothing is.’) Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But THEN THERE IS ANOTHER REALM WHICH IS NOT IN SPACE OR TIME, AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO OUR SENSES, AND IN WHICH THERE IS PERMANENCE AND PERFECT ORDER. THIS OTHER WORLD IS THE TIMELESS AND UNCHANGING REALITY of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. BUT THAT IS WHAT ONE MIGHT CALL REAL REALITY, because it alone is stable, unshakeable---it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction to the World’s Greatest Thinkers and Their Ideas.” New York: DK Publishing, 2001, page 28).
If the invisible world is the “real reality,” then what is the visible world? The visible world is “a figment of our imagination,” as my friend Tammy said [although she really doesn’t believe that (smile)!]. In other words, life as we know it here is nothing more than “virtual reality,” like a toy truck instead of the Chevrolet F-150! Life here is nothing short of an illusion.
But if this life is an illusion, how can we have the smallest idea of what the OTHER life, the one beyond this one, is like? If, as Bryan Magee says, “our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses” of the other world, how can we even know which “glimpses” are reliable and trustworthy (if life itself is an illusion)? Basically, humanity is being “deceived by the deception.” This last statement, in and of itself, is self-defeating.
In addition, if the “other,” unchanging world is truth, and our glimpses of this “other” world are deceiving, how can we even know what truth is? How can we distinguish between truth and error here on earth? We can’t. We have no way of knowing truth, according to Platonist philosophy. In other words, we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery. We can’t even know if “we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery”!!!
Now, on to Aristotelian philosophy. First, though, a little bit about Aristotle himself:
“Aristotle himself was born in the city of Stagira in 384 BC. His father died when he was still a boy, so he was brought up by a guardian, who sent him to Athens when he was about 17 to be educated at Plato’s Academy” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
As Magee tells us, Aristotle, then, was a student of Plato. However, Aristotle disagreed with his teacher in regards to philosophical thought:
“he [Aristotle] rejected something fundamental to Plato’s philosophy, namely THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE TWO WORLDS. As we have seen, Plato taught that there can be no such thing as reliable knowledge of this ever-changing world that is presented to our senses. The objects of true knowledge inhabit, he said, another world, an abstract realm...as far as Aristotle was concerned, THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD THAT WE CAN DO ANY PHILOSOPHIZING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN AND EXPERIENCE...furthermore, Aristotle did not believe that we could find any firm ground outside this world on which to stand, and from which to pursue philosophical enquiries. WHATEVER IS OUTSIDE ALL POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE FOR US CAN BE NOTHING FOR US. We have no validatable way of referring to it, or talking about it, and therefore it cannot enter into our discourse in any reliable way; IF WE STRAY BEYOND THE GROUND COVERED BY EXPERIENCE WE WANDER INTO EMPTY TALK” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
Simply put, Aristotle disagreed with Plato because Plato, while referencing this “other” world beyond human experience, gave the intellect NOTHING by which to compare this world and the “other.” How can one distinguish two worlds if there is nothing by which one can compare one world to another?
As believers, let’s take the Bible. If there is NOTHING in this world that testifies to the “other” world, and the Bible is in this world, then the conclusion follows--- The Bible cannot be trusted. It cannot tell us what the “other” world is like. The words on the pages of Holy Writ would be like the rest of the world in which we live: fleeting.
As I mentioned in my last post on “Augustine’s Encounter With Biblical Interpretation,” Augustine himself held to Neo-Platonism. I’ve covered Platonist philosophy; but what exactly does it mean to be “Neo-“ Platonist? It was Plotinus who prepared Platonist philosophy for its entrance into Christianity:
“Plotinus taught that since ultimate reality consists of Plato’s Ideal Forms, what exists is ultimately mental, and therefore for something to be created is for it to be thought. There are, he believed, three ascending levels of being. The lowest, on which human beings are, is SOUL. The next level up, ON WHICH THE IDEAL FORMS ARE APPREHENDED, is the intellect. The highest level is the good. Reflective human beings are engaged in an attempted ascent towards one-ness with the good. Christians translated this into their doctrines that the world has been created in the mind of God, and that human beings are aspiring to one-ness with God, who is perfect goodness” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” 30).
Earlier, when I attempted to describe Platonism, I made mention of Plato’s view of the “other” world that is permanent and unchanging. This world is really just a temporary reality to get to the next (the changing for the unchanging). However, if we place this into our discussion of Augustine and hermeneutics, what becomes clear is that Augustine, a Neo-Platonist, believed that man is striving to “apprehend the Ideal Forms” of life, which lay in his mind (intellect). If this be the case, then, doesn’t it make sense that Augustine believed in allegorical interpretation?
“This accent upon the spiritual value of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth...that could be unpacked through MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT given by the Spirit and DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Peterson, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 23).
In other words, “reaching for the Ideal Forms” in the text required Augustine to “go beyond” the world of “words” and see the “unchanging reality” behind them. Now, does it all make sense? Can you see why Augustine argued so heavily for spiritual interpretations of the biblical text? His philosophy advocated it! And embracing Neo-Platonism, Aurelius Augustine made it his philosophy of everything, INCLUDING hermeneutics. This explains why he interpreted the words of Scripture as not significant in and of themselves, but “pointing” to something beyond them. And that is why his view of the Millennium (Rev. 20) turned into the “present reign of Christ in the hearts of His people.” With enough diligence and hard work, man could find the “ideal forms”---if only he would engage his intellect, which contained them. Since striving for the ideal forms would lead towards the destination of “oneness with the Divine,” then man’s exercise in spiritual interpretation was a worthy one, a noble one, a more spiritual one than just reading the words and understanding what lay on the page.
We can now put many things together about this mini-series. After today’s post, you can understand why it is that I began the small series with discussion of the two schools of theology, the Alexandrian (allegorical) and the Antiochene (typological). I did this because I wanted to show that, in the same way there have been two approaches to theology, there have also been two approaches to philosophy, as this post reveals (Platonist and Aristotelian). And the two theologies and philosophies have dominated the philosophical and theological worlds ever since.
In my next post, I will discuss the implications of Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy upon theology, with regards to the issue of Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology.
To find the answer to this question, I began to search for an old philosophy book that served as required reading for me in my Introduction to Philosophy course back some two and a half years ago here at seminary. Picking up the book again, I found a definition that was accurate and to-the-point. Platonism comes from Plato’s “theory of Forms or Ideas,” which states that
“total reality...[is] divided into two realms. There is the visible world, the world as it is presented to our senses, our ordinary everyday world, in which nothing lasts and nothing stays the same--- as Plato liked to put it, EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS ALWAYS BECOMING SOMETHING ELSE, BUT NOTHING EVER JUST PERMANENTLY IS. (This formulation became shortened to ‘everything is becoming, nothing is.’) Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But THEN THERE IS ANOTHER REALM WHICH IS NOT IN SPACE OR TIME, AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO OUR SENSES, AND IN WHICH THERE IS PERMANENCE AND PERFECT ORDER. THIS OTHER WORLD IS THE TIMELESS AND UNCHANGING REALITY of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. BUT THAT IS WHAT ONE MIGHT CALL REAL REALITY, because it alone is stable, unshakeable---it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction to the World’s Greatest Thinkers and Their Ideas.” New York: DK Publishing, 2001, page 28).
If the invisible world is the “real reality,” then what is the visible world? The visible world is “a figment of our imagination,” as my friend Tammy said [although she really doesn’t believe that (smile)!]. In other words, life as we know it here is nothing more than “virtual reality,” like a toy truck instead of the Chevrolet F-150! Life here is nothing short of an illusion.
But if this life is an illusion, how can we have the smallest idea of what the OTHER life, the one beyond this one, is like? If, as Bryan Magee says, “our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses” of the other world, how can we even know which “glimpses” are reliable and trustworthy (if life itself is an illusion)? Basically, humanity is being “deceived by the deception.” This last statement, in and of itself, is self-defeating.
In addition, if the “other,” unchanging world is truth, and our glimpses of this “other” world are deceiving, how can we even know what truth is? How can we distinguish between truth and error here on earth? We can’t. We have no way of knowing truth, according to Platonist philosophy. In other words, we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery. We can’t even know if “we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery”!!!
Now, on to Aristotelian philosophy. First, though, a little bit about Aristotle himself:
“Aristotle himself was born in the city of Stagira in 384 BC. His father died when he was still a boy, so he was brought up by a guardian, who sent him to Athens when he was about 17 to be educated at Plato’s Academy” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
As Magee tells us, Aristotle, then, was a student of Plato. However, Aristotle disagreed with his teacher in regards to philosophical thought:
“he [Aristotle] rejected something fundamental to Plato’s philosophy, namely THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE TWO WORLDS. As we have seen, Plato taught that there can be no such thing as reliable knowledge of this ever-changing world that is presented to our senses. The objects of true knowledge inhabit, he said, another world, an abstract realm...as far as Aristotle was concerned, THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD THAT WE CAN DO ANY PHILOSOPHIZING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN AND EXPERIENCE...furthermore, Aristotle did not believe that we could find any firm ground outside this world on which to stand, and from which to pursue philosophical enquiries. WHATEVER IS OUTSIDE ALL POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE FOR US CAN BE NOTHING FOR US. We have no validatable way of referring to it, or talking about it, and therefore it cannot enter into our discourse in any reliable way; IF WE STRAY BEYOND THE GROUND COVERED BY EXPERIENCE WE WANDER INTO EMPTY TALK” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
Simply put, Aristotle disagreed with Plato because Plato, while referencing this “other” world beyond human experience, gave the intellect NOTHING by which to compare this world and the “other.” How can one distinguish two worlds if there is nothing by which one can compare one world to another?
As believers, let’s take the Bible. If there is NOTHING in this world that testifies to the “other” world, and the Bible is in this world, then the conclusion follows--- The Bible cannot be trusted. It cannot tell us what the “other” world is like. The words on the pages of Holy Writ would be like the rest of the world in which we live: fleeting.
As I mentioned in my last post on “Augustine’s Encounter With Biblical Interpretation,” Augustine himself held to Neo-Platonism. I’ve covered Platonist philosophy; but what exactly does it mean to be “Neo-“ Platonist? It was Plotinus who prepared Platonist philosophy for its entrance into Christianity:
“Plotinus taught that since ultimate reality consists of Plato’s Ideal Forms, what exists is ultimately mental, and therefore for something to be created is for it to be thought. There are, he believed, three ascending levels of being. The lowest, on which human beings are, is SOUL. The next level up, ON WHICH THE IDEAL FORMS ARE APPREHENDED, is the intellect. The highest level is the good. Reflective human beings are engaged in an attempted ascent towards one-ness with the good. Christians translated this into their doctrines that the world has been created in the mind of God, and that human beings are aspiring to one-ness with God, who is perfect goodness” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” 30).
Earlier, when I attempted to describe Platonism, I made mention of Plato’s view of the “other” world that is permanent and unchanging. This world is really just a temporary reality to get to the next (the changing for the unchanging). However, if we place this into our discussion of Augustine and hermeneutics, what becomes clear is that Augustine, a Neo-Platonist, believed that man is striving to “apprehend the Ideal Forms” of life, which lay in his mind (intellect). If this be the case, then, doesn’t it make sense that Augustine believed in allegorical interpretation?
“This accent upon the spiritual value of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth...that could be unpacked through MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT given by the Spirit and DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Peterson, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 23).
In other words, “reaching for the Ideal Forms” in the text required Augustine to “go beyond” the world of “words” and see the “unchanging reality” behind them. Now, does it all make sense? Can you see why Augustine argued so heavily for spiritual interpretations of the biblical text? His philosophy advocated it! And embracing Neo-Platonism, Aurelius Augustine made it his philosophy of everything, INCLUDING hermeneutics. This explains why he interpreted the words of Scripture as not significant in and of themselves, but “pointing” to something beyond them. And that is why his view of the Millennium (Rev. 20) turned into the “present reign of Christ in the hearts of His people.” With enough diligence and hard work, man could find the “ideal forms”---if only he would engage his intellect, which contained them. Since striving for the ideal forms would lead towards the destination of “oneness with the Divine,” then man’s exercise in spiritual interpretation was a worthy one, a noble one, a more spiritual one than just reading the words and understanding what lay on the page.
We can now put many things together about this mini-series. After today’s post, you can understand why it is that I began the small series with discussion of the two schools of theology, the Alexandrian (allegorical) and the Antiochene (typological). I did this because I wanted to show that, in the same way there have been two approaches to theology, there have also been two approaches to philosophy, as this post reveals (Platonist and Aristotelian). And the two theologies and philosophies have dominated the philosophical and theological worlds ever since.
In my next post, I will discuss the implications of Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy upon theology, with regards to the issue of Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian, Part II: Augustine's Encounter With Biblical Interpretation
In my last post, I discussed Rodney Petersen’s chapter on the history of hermeneutics, how the two approaches to theology (Alexandrian and Antiochene) is what started the debate of how the Old and New Testaments work together. The Alexandrian school, as you’ll remember in my last post, focused on allegory and spiritual interpretation (Origen), while the Antiochene school emphasized typology---this interpretive device placed the historical event or person itself side-by-side with the spiritual implications (or events). In the Antiochene school, the historical was not sidelined for the spiritual; rather, the spiritual built upon the foundation that the historical figure provided.
In this post, however, I intend to do what Rodney Petersen does: zoom in on Augustine. Aurelius Augustine (354-430) was one of the most influential (if not the most) of his time. According to Petersen, many factors influenced Augustine’s hermeneutic:
“Several stages marked Augustine’s passage to faith in Christ. Each left its mark upon his interpretation of the text. At first, put off by the archaisms and infelicities of the text, Augustine was driven toward MANICHAEAN DUALISM WITH ITS DENIGRATION OF THE OT” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Manichaean dualism believed that there were two “forces” in the world: one good, and the other evil. Manichaeism was rather like Gnosticism in that it postulated that the material world was bad, the immaterial world good. To build the soul (immaterial), the individual had to “discipline” the flesh (the material), and rebel against the flesh’s lusts. This involved things like beating oneself with whips or starving oneself for as long as possible. If this doesn’t sound bad enough, add to this the fact that Manichaeans also made distinction between the literal and spiritual interpretations: the literal being material (which was bad), the spiritual being immaterial (which was good). As a result, the spiritual interpretation (what Manichaeans considered to be the NT) was accepted, while the literal interpretation of the OT (“shadows of the things to come”) was outright rejected.
As I mentioned earlier, in case you don’t believe that philosophy has anything to do with theology, check out the Manichaean belief: because of their underlying philosophy of material (bad) and immaterial (good), they viewed the Old and New Testaments through their belief system and decided the Old Testament was bad and should be rejected. I fear that covenantal theologians do the same today when they argue that the New Testament “replaces” the Old Testament in biblical interpretation.
In 386, Augustine was converted to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397). Ambrose, a Neo-Platonist who freely used allegorical interpretation,
“helped Augustine to accept the Scriptures more readily. In his own work, Augustine would often make free use of allegorism. This accent upon THE SPIRITUAL VALUE of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth behind the symbols of expression. THAT TRUTH COULD BE UNPACKED THROUGH MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT AND DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
There is a connection here that I don’t want you to miss: first, Augustine was won to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose was a Neo-Platonist; therefore, Augustine, upon studying under Ambrose, embraced the teachings of NEO-PLATONISM. And Neo-Platonism, according to Petersen, involves great emphasis on “allegorism” and “spiritual interpretation.”
Augustine’s philosophical embrace (Neo-Platonism) can best be seen regarding his struggle in his interpretation of the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20:
“As Augustine wrestled with traditional understandings of the millennium (Rev. 20:3), a time in which the promises to Israel would be realized, he rejected what he felt to be THE CRASS LITERALISM of many of his predecessors. Instead, HE FOLLOWED ORIGEN, offering a spiritual interpretation. IT [the millennium] WAS THE TIME SYMBOLIZED BY THE PRESENT LIFE OF THE CHURCH, experienced by those who, having accepted Christ, live under his general sway” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Augustine interpreted the Millennium of Revelation 20 to be that which is being experienced currently (that being, Christ ruling in the hearts of those who make up His church). While I respect Augustine as a great theologian to the early church, I disagree with his interpretation of Revelation 20 for the simple fact that his spiritual interpretation does not make sense in light of Revelation 2, for example, with the church at Sardis (as well as the other wayward churches of Asia Minor). If Christ was ruling and reigning in the hearts of those churches, then why was there so much decline in godliness that even the Lord threaten to return against His own believers in eschatological judgment? And these churches (most of the 7) were not even “generally godly” in practice.
However, what is most striking about Augustine’s spiritual interpretation is that, in so doing, “he followed Origen”---which means that he took up the theology of the Alexandrian school. Remember what I said about Alexandrian theology?
“Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who ‘argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT’ (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, ‘the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING’” (21).
There was “little regard for the history” of the OT; instead, every word of the OT “pointed beyond” itself to the NT.
This is the Alexandrian School’s theology; but if “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology,” and the theology is “allegorical and spiritual,” then what is the driving philosophy? Platonism. Augustine, as I mentioned above was a “Neo-Platonist,” being tutored under the great preacher Ambrose. Since Neo-Platonism was Augustine’s philosophy, it had just as much a role to play in Augustine’s writing as did his theology. His theology then, reveals that he holds to some sort of “spiritual, mystical” philosophy. Just what is “Neo-Platonism,” anyway? You’ll find out in my next post.
In this post, however, I intend to do what Rodney Petersen does: zoom in on Augustine. Aurelius Augustine (354-430) was one of the most influential (if not the most) of his time. According to Petersen, many factors influenced Augustine’s hermeneutic:
“Several stages marked Augustine’s passage to faith in Christ. Each left its mark upon his interpretation of the text. At first, put off by the archaisms and infelicities of the text, Augustine was driven toward MANICHAEAN DUALISM WITH ITS DENIGRATION OF THE OT” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Manichaean dualism believed that there were two “forces” in the world: one good, and the other evil. Manichaeism was rather like Gnosticism in that it postulated that the material world was bad, the immaterial world good. To build the soul (immaterial), the individual had to “discipline” the flesh (the material), and rebel against the flesh’s lusts. This involved things like beating oneself with whips or starving oneself for as long as possible. If this doesn’t sound bad enough, add to this the fact that Manichaeans also made distinction between the literal and spiritual interpretations: the literal being material (which was bad), the spiritual being immaterial (which was good). As a result, the spiritual interpretation (what Manichaeans considered to be the NT) was accepted, while the literal interpretation of the OT (“shadows of the things to come”) was outright rejected.
As I mentioned earlier, in case you don’t believe that philosophy has anything to do with theology, check out the Manichaean belief: because of their underlying philosophy of material (bad) and immaterial (good), they viewed the Old and New Testaments through their belief system and decided the Old Testament was bad and should be rejected. I fear that covenantal theologians do the same today when they argue that the New Testament “replaces” the Old Testament in biblical interpretation.
In 386, Augustine was converted to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397). Ambrose, a Neo-Platonist who freely used allegorical interpretation,
“helped Augustine to accept the Scriptures more readily. In his own work, Augustine would often make free use of allegorism. This accent upon THE SPIRITUAL VALUE of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth behind the symbols of expression. THAT TRUTH COULD BE UNPACKED THROUGH MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT AND DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
There is a connection here that I don’t want you to miss: first, Augustine was won to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose was a Neo-Platonist; therefore, Augustine, upon studying under Ambrose, embraced the teachings of NEO-PLATONISM. And Neo-Platonism, according to Petersen, involves great emphasis on “allegorism” and “spiritual interpretation.”
Augustine’s philosophical embrace (Neo-Platonism) can best be seen regarding his struggle in his interpretation of the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20:
“As Augustine wrestled with traditional understandings of the millennium (Rev. 20:3), a time in which the promises to Israel would be realized, he rejected what he felt to be THE CRASS LITERALISM of many of his predecessors. Instead, HE FOLLOWED ORIGEN, offering a spiritual interpretation. IT [the millennium] WAS THE TIME SYMBOLIZED BY THE PRESENT LIFE OF THE CHURCH, experienced by those who, having accepted Christ, live under his general sway” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Augustine interpreted the Millennium of Revelation 20 to be that which is being experienced currently (that being, Christ ruling in the hearts of those who make up His church). While I respect Augustine as a great theologian to the early church, I disagree with his interpretation of Revelation 20 for the simple fact that his spiritual interpretation does not make sense in light of Revelation 2, for example, with the church at Sardis (as well as the other wayward churches of Asia Minor). If Christ was ruling and reigning in the hearts of those churches, then why was there so much decline in godliness that even the Lord threaten to return against His own believers in eschatological judgment? And these churches (most of the 7) were not even “generally godly” in practice.
However, what is most striking about Augustine’s spiritual interpretation is that, in so doing, “he followed Origen”---which means that he took up the theology of the Alexandrian school. Remember what I said about Alexandrian theology?
“Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who ‘argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT’ (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, ‘the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING’” (21).
There was “little regard for the history” of the OT; instead, every word of the OT “pointed beyond” itself to the NT.
This is the Alexandrian School’s theology; but if “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology,” and the theology is “allegorical and spiritual,” then what is the driving philosophy? Platonism. Augustine, as I mentioned above was a “Neo-Platonist,” being tutored under the great preacher Ambrose. Since Neo-Platonism was Augustine’s philosophy, it had just as much a role to play in Augustine’s writing as did his theology. His theology then, reveals that he holds to some sort of “spiritual, mystical” philosophy. Just what is “Neo-Platonism,” anyway? You’ll find out in my next post.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian: The Schools of Alexandria and Antioch
Here at the Center for Theological Studies (CTS), I am always blogging on theological issues, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism and Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology. In today’s post however, I will still consider the theological topic of dispensationalism and covenant theology, but I will do so from a philosophical perspective.
In case no one has ever told you this, philosophy and theology go hand in hand, like a ball in a glove (“philosophy is the handmaiden of theology”). Because philosophy supports theology, one’s theology will reveal an individual’s philosophy.
This morning, while up reading a chapter in John S. Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments,” I read a chapter on the debate on continuity and discontinuity of the Testaments throughout church history. Feinberg tells us that there were two schools of theology at the time:
“They [the theologians] were generally oriented around two ‘schools’ of theology, one located at Alexandria and the other at Antioch. Both understood the OT as an historical document, ultimately the work of the same divine Spirit as that present in the NT. Both agreed on certain key events and the way in which these foreshadowed Christ and the church...both believed that the new was contained in the old. DIFFERENCES APPEARED IN THE MANNER BY WHICH THE NEW REVELATION WAS DISCERNED IN THE OLD AND IN THE INDEPENDENT STATUS OF THE FORMER REVELATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW” (“Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 20).
The relationship of the Old and New Testaments was the subject of frequent dialogue and debate in church history. Contrary to what some may think, this issue did not just start with contemporary theologians as a newly-created debate to keep believers in continual disagreement. No---the debate itself has existed since the completion of the New Testament canon...and according to Paul, since the time of the Romans to which he wrote his epistle.
Now, the question becomes, “What ideas did the two ‘schools’ consist of?” In other words, “What did these two schools believe about theology?” That is what I will detail now.
First, let’s start with the school at Alexandria. This school was founded by Origen (c. 185- c.254), who promoted allegorical exegesis. According to Rodney Petersen, Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who “argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT” (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, “the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING” (21).
To put this clearly, the Alexandrian school believed that the actual text itself did not contain meaning, but POINTED TO MEANING (“meaning was concealed in the old”). The Alexandrian school, devoted to allegorical interpretation, believed that the true meaning of the text was not found in the words, but something “behind” the words; and this “something behind the words” was to be discovered by the exegete himself. Exegesis, as a result, became more of an exercise in creative imagination than an exercise in understanding and comprehension. The text, in Alexandrian theology, participated in a game of “hide-and-seek”: true meaning was hidden, but could be found with enough diligence.
And what about the Antiochene School? The Antiochene School argued for typology:
“This relationship was seen as correspondence, not simply symbolism. It was believed to be found in Scripture itself (Isa. 51:9-16; Gal. 4:24). EVENTS AND PERSONS IN AN EARLIER REVELATION WERE ‘TYPES’ OF THAT WHICH WOULD APPEAR LATER. IN THIS WAY THE SPIRITUAL MEANING AND HISTORICAL SENSE OF THE TEXT WERE CLOSELY BONDED. Through insight (theoria) one might discern both the historical reality and proper spiritual intent of a text set within a clearer picture of the development of revelation (fuller truth about Christ is found in the Gospels, not in a spiritual interpretation of the OT). THIS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF OFFERING A MORE INTEGRAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE. Allegory appeared to lose this through unreliable or illegitimate associations” (21).
The Antiochene School argued for typology, insisting that the historical event and a greater spiritual reality were BOTH important to understanding the text.
If we use an example, let’s use the example of the Israelites in Exodus. God told the Israelites to place the blood of a slaughtered lamb on their doorposts. This had to be done so that the death angel would “pass over” them (thus, the “Passover” event, Exodus 12:21-30). Historically, this is important: the Israelites were “literally” told to obey God’s instructions. Since the Egyptians did not do this, they lost the firstborn in all of their homes. Failure to take a lamb, slaughter it, and place its blood on the doorpost would result in the loss of the firstborn child. For the lives of Jewish firstborns, it was imperative that the Israelites hear and obey everything God told them.
However, there was also a future spiritual meaning to the act. The act of slaughtering a lamb and sprinkling its blood to cover them and prevent death foreshadowed Christ who was to come. This is why Paul would go on to write in 1 Corinthians while condemning the church for allowing a man to remain in their midst who was sleeping with his stepmother:
“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. FOR INDEED CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, WAS SACRIFICED FOR US. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8, NKJV).
Here we find that the slaughtering of the lamb in the Old Testament was not meant to be just a mere command and tradition; rather, by celebrating the Passover (slaughtering a lamb, and so forth), the Israelites were actually anticipating the Christ event that was to come. Now, in lieu of Calvary, the believers in the early church (and us today) are to remember the death of Christ, remember what He died for---that being our sin. Because He died for our sins, He commands us to “reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead...” (Rom. 6:11-13)
The “old leaven,” what Paul labels as “malice and wickedness,” is that which the “old man,” the man before Christ, would do. But the new man in Christ is to have newly unleavened bread, that being “sincerity” of heart and truth (everything he does is to be pure, just, and right).
Now, Paul’s words are good to the New Testament church about the spiritual commemoration of the Passover; but does this nullify the commandment God gave the Jews about Passover? What is the commandment God gave the Jews, anyway?
“And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance FOR YOU AND YOUR SONS FOREVER. It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that YOU SHALL KEEP THIS SERVICE. And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households’” (Exodus 12:24-27).
The Jews were told to commemorate that special night when they entered the Promised Land. It was not just told to them to remember it once or twice, but to be done by them “and...sons FOREVER”. It would be performed every year, from generation to generation to generation. In the eyes of Scripture, then, the foreshadowed meaning of the Passover and Christian ethics in light of the future event (Christ’s death) does not cancel out the necessity of the Jews to remember God’s command to celebrate the Passover. In the Antiochene School and its use of typology, both the historical event and the spiritual significance are upheld, side by side. Neither is negated for the other.
In this daunting post, I have described the Alexandrian and Antiochene Schools of Theology and their hermeneutics (interpretive methods) regarding Scripture. In my next post, I will cover the popularity of the Alexandrian School (focusing on Augustine in particular) and the underlying philosophical thought behind the two theologies.
In case no one has ever told you this, philosophy and theology go hand in hand, like a ball in a glove (“philosophy is the handmaiden of theology”). Because philosophy supports theology, one’s theology will reveal an individual’s philosophy.
This morning, while up reading a chapter in John S. Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments,” I read a chapter on the debate on continuity and discontinuity of the Testaments throughout church history. Feinberg tells us that there were two schools of theology at the time:
“They [the theologians] were generally oriented around two ‘schools’ of theology, one located at Alexandria and the other at Antioch. Both understood the OT as an historical document, ultimately the work of the same divine Spirit as that present in the NT. Both agreed on certain key events and the way in which these foreshadowed Christ and the church...both believed that the new was contained in the old. DIFFERENCES APPEARED IN THE MANNER BY WHICH THE NEW REVELATION WAS DISCERNED IN THE OLD AND IN THE INDEPENDENT STATUS OF THE FORMER REVELATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW” (“Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 20).
The relationship of the Old and New Testaments was the subject of frequent dialogue and debate in church history. Contrary to what some may think, this issue did not just start with contemporary theologians as a newly-created debate to keep believers in continual disagreement. No---the debate itself has existed since the completion of the New Testament canon...and according to Paul, since the time of the Romans to which he wrote his epistle.
Now, the question becomes, “What ideas did the two ‘schools’ consist of?” In other words, “What did these two schools believe about theology?” That is what I will detail now.
First, let’s start with the school at Alexandria. This school was founded by Origen (c. 185- c.254), who promoted allegorical exegesis. According to Rodney Petersen, Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who “argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT” (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, “the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING” (21).
To put this clearly, the Alexandrian school believed that the actual text itself did not contain meaning, but POINTED TO MEANING (“meaning was concealed in the old”). The Alexandrian school, devoted to allegorical interpretation, believed that the true meaning of the text was not found in the words, but something “behind” the words; and this “something behind the words” was to be discovered by the exegete himself. Exegesis, as a result, became more of an exercise in creative imagination than an exercise in understanding and comprehension. The text, in Alexandrian theology, participated in a game of “hide-and-seek”: true meaning was hidden, but could be found with enough diligence.
And what about the Antiochene School? The Antiochene School argued for typology:
“This relationship was seen as correspondence, not simply symbolism. It was believed to be found in Scripture itself (Isa. 51:9-16; Gal. 4:24). EVENTS AND PERSONS IN AN EARLIER REVELATION WERE ‘TYPES’ OF THAT WHICH WOULD APPEAR LATER. IN THIS WAY THE SPIRITUAL MEANING AND HISTORICAL SENSE OF THE TEXT WERE CLOSELY BONDED. Through insight (theoria) one might discern both the historical reality and proper spiritual intent of a text set within a clearer picture of the development of revelation (fuller truth about Christ is found in the Gospels, not in a spiritual interpretation of the OT). THIS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF OFFERING A MORE INTEGRAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE. Allegory appeared to lose this through unreliable or illegitimate associations” (21).
The Antiochene School argued for typology, insisting that the historical event and a greater spiritual reality were BOTH important to understanding the text.
If we use an example, let’s use the example of the Israelites in Exodus. God told the Israelites to place the blood of a slaughtered lamb on their doorposts. This had to be done so that the death angel would “pass over” them (thus, the “Passover” event, Exodus 12:21-30). Historically, this is important: the Israelites were “literally” told to obey God’s instructions. Since the Egyptians did not do this, they lost the firstborn in all of their homes. Failure to take a lamb, slaughter it, and place its blood on the doorpost would result in the loss of the firstborn child. For the lives of Jewish firstborns, it was imperative that the Israelites hear and obey everything God told them.
However, there was also a future spiritual meaning to the act. The act of slaughtering a lamb and sprinkling its blood to cover them and prevent death foreshadowed Christ who was to come. This is why Paul would go on to write in 1 Corinthians while condemning the church for allowing a man to remain in their midst who was sleeping with his stepmother:
“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. FOR INDEED CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, WAS SACRIFICED FOR US. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8, NKJV).
Here we find that the slaughtering of the lamb in the Old Testament was not meant to be just a mere command and tradition; rather, by celebrating the Passover (slaughtering a lamb, and so forth), the Israelites were actually anticipating the Christ event that was to come. Now, in lieu of Calvary, the believers in the early church (and us today) are to remember the death of Christ, remember what He died for---that being our sin. Because He died for our sins, He commands us to “reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead...” (Rom. 6:11-13)
The “old leaven,” what Paul labels as “malice and wickedness,” is that which the “old man,” the man before Christ, would do. But the new man in Christ is to have newly unleavened bread, that being “sincerity” of heart and truth (everything he does is to be pure, just, and right).
Now, Paul’s words are good to the New Testament church about the spiritual commemoration of the Passover; but does this nullify the commandment God gave the Jews about Passover? What is the commandment God gave the Jews, anyway?
“And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance FOR YOU AND YOUR SONS FOREVER. It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that YOU SHALL KEEP THIS SERVICE. And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households’” (Exodus 12:24-27).
The Jews were told to commemorate that special night when they entered the Promised Land. It was not just told to them to remember it once or twice, but to be done by them “and...sons FOREVER”. It would be performed every year, from generation to generation to generation. In the eyes of Scripture, then, the foreshadowed meaning of the Passover and Christian ethics in light of the future event (Christ’s death) does not cancel out the necessity of the Jews to remember God’s command to celebrate the Passover. In the Antiochene School and its use of typology, both the historical event and the spiritual significance are upheld, side by side. Neither is negated for the other.
In this daunting post, I have described the Alexandrian and Antiochene Schools of Theology and their hermeneutics (interpretive methods) regarding Scripture. In my next post, I will cover the popularity of the Alexandrian School (focusing on Augustine in particular) and the underlying philosophical thought behind the two theologies.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Such Is The Nature of Choice
“If Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, and yet we can somehow become unsaved – and therefore undo what Christ came to do – WOULD IT NOT BE WISE FOR GOD TO TAKE US ON TO HEAVEN THE MOMENT WE ARE SAVED IN ORDER TO INSURE WE MAKE IT? ISN’T IT UNNECESSARILY RISKY TO FORCE US TO STAY HERE?” – Charles Stanley
I’ve spent the last few posts writing on dispensationalism and covenantal theology, the new hot topic here at the blog. Today, though, I’ll provide a little intermission to the new topic with a post that places us back into the old---the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.
The above Charles Stanley quote is one that I found on a church website regarding the doctrine of eternal security. I’ve examined the doctrine itself here in over 30 posts, which I recommend my readership examine in great detail (see “Doctrine of Perseverance/Eternal Security” and “Hermeneutics” as sections to the right of the main page for more information).
Stanley’s argument above is one used to argue for eternal security: that is, that if one could “lose their salvation,” God would not allow that person to stay here and throw away their security in Christ. Rather, He would take them before they threw it away because His mission was “to seek and save that which was lost,” meaning “people” or “individuals.”
There is a problem, however, with Stanley’s approach. He “stacks the deck” when he says that God wants to “insure we make it.” I can admit: God does desire for every single individual to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). However, will God ensure that EVERY SINGLE PERSON will be saved? In the end, will heaven be full of every human ever born and hell emptied of every single soul? I think not. And this is the issue: that God coming to save means that every single person will be guaranteed eternal life.
I’m sure that Charles Stanley believes that Christ came for all people, for every single individual---man, woman, boy, and girl. And because of this, all are given the opportunity to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. If this offer is genuine, and without force, then some will come to Him, such as the Samaritan woman, while others will walk away (such as the rich young ruler and some of the disciples of John 6).
But some will say to me, “Charles Stanley is not talking about those who are unsaved, but those who are saved, God’s own. Doesn’t God wanna insure that THEY are saved in the end?” I would then respond with the words, “What about the Israelites, the Jews? Were they not ‘God’s chosen people?’ Yes. However, not every ethnic Jew experienced the blessings of the Promised Land. In fact, only two Jews of the wilderness generation---Joshua and Caleb---made it to the Promised Land, while the rest of the nation died in the wilderness. Was God not committed to blessing them? No---HE WAS COMMITTED! The issue then, was not the commitment of God, but the faithlessness of the Jewish nation.
So, if God were committed to “insuring” the success of anyone, don’t you think we would see that guaranteed success with God’s own chosen people, the Jews? And yet, we do not see God “guaranteeing” the Promised Land for them. The reason is that God requires constant, enduring faith (Hebrews 4:2), something that the Israelites failed to possess. Instead, the Israelites “hardened their hearts” and refused to obey the voice of God (Heb. 3:8-11, 16-18).
Why then, won’t the Lord take us before we throw away our faith? Because “such is the nature of choice.” A choice involves two or more options, not one option that is determined in nature. Ken Keathley writes in his work “Salvation and Sovereignty” that the definition of perseverance is really “perseverance in faith”:
“After I wrote this chapter [‘E is for Eternal Life’, added chapter title], Dr. Schreiner was kind enough to send me a draft of his upcoming book ‘Run to Win the Prize’ (InterVarsity). In it he clarifies his position and provides a helpful response to many concerns expressed by me and others. Most helpful is his description of perseverance, WHICH HE DEFINES AS ‘PERSEVERING IN FAITH’---A DEFINITION WITH WHICH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 185).
The problem with the Israelites is that they failed to “persevere in faith,” and Keathley (a Molinist) and Tom Schreiner (a Calvinist) agree on this point with me (a Classical Arminian). All three camps (Arminian, Calvinist, and Molinist) agree on the issue of perseverance as NOT being a perseverance in works, but a perseverance in faith (Heb. 11:6). I would say this to Charles Stanley in response to his question:
“Why would God not take a believer out before they failed to lose their salvation? Why would God not insure that all of His children endure to the end, but enable them to endure? Because such is the nature of choice. After all, God did not even spare the soil that believed ‘for a time’ (Mark 4:17; Luke 8:13).”
I’ve spent the last few posts writing on dispensationalism and covenantal theology, the new hot topic here at the blog. Today, though, I’ll provide a little intermission to the new topic with a post that places us back into the old---the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.
The above Charles Stanley quote is one that I found on a church website regarding the doctrine of eternal security. I’ve examined the doctrine itself here in over 30 posts, which I recommend my readership examine in great detail (see “Doctrine of Perseverance/Eternal Security” and “Hermeneutics” as sections to the right of the main page for more information).
Stanley’s argument above is one used to argue for eternal security: that is, that if one could “lose their salvation,” God would not allow that person to stay here and throw away their security in Christ. Rather, He would take them before they threw it away because His mission was “to seek and save that which was lost,” meaning “people” or “individuals.”
There is a problem, however, with Stanley’s approach. He “stacks the deck” when he says that God wants to “insure we make it.” I can admit: God does desire for every single individual to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). However, will God ensure that EVERY SINGLE PERSON will be saved? In the end, will heaven be full of every human ever born and hell emptied of every single soul? I think not. And this is the issue: that God coming to save means that every single person will be guaranteed eternal life.
I’m sure that Charles Stanley believes that Christ came for all people, for every single individual---man, woman, boy, and girl. And because of this, all are given the opportunity to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. If this offer is genuine, and without force, then some will come to Him, such as the Samaritan woman, while others will walk away (such as the rich young ruler and some of the disciples of John 6).
But some will say to me, “Charles Stanley is not talking about those who are unsaved, but those who are saved, God’s own. Doesn’t God wanna insure that THEY are saved in the end?” I would then respond with the words, “What about the Israelites, the Jews? Were they not ‘God’s chosen people?’ Yes. However, not every ethnic Jew experienced the blessings of the Promised Land. In fact, only two Jews of the wilderness generation---Joshua and Caleb---made it to the Promised Land, while the rest of the nation died in the wilderness. Was God not committed to blessing them? No---HE WAS COMMITTED! The issue then, was not the commitment of God, but the faithlessness of the Jewish nation.
So, if God were committed to “insuring” the success of anyone, don’t you think we would see that guaranteed success with God’s own chosen people, the Jews? And yet, we do not see God “guaranteeing” the Promised Land for them. The reason is that God requires constant, enduring faith (Hebrews 4:2), something that the Israelites failed to possess. Instead, the Israelites “hardened their hearts” and refused to obey the voice of God (Heb. 3:8-11, 16-18).
Why then, won’t the Lord take us before we throw away our faith? Because “such is the nature of choice.” A choice involves two or more options, not one option that is determined in nature. Ken Keathley writes in his work “Salvation and Sovereignty” that the definition of perseverance is really “perseverance in faith”:
“After I wrote this chapter [‘E is for Eternal Life’, added chapter title], Dr. Schreiner was kind enough to send me a draft of his upcoming book ‘Run to Win the Prize’ (InterVarsity). In it he clarifies his position and provides a helpful response to many concerns expressed by me and others. Most helpful is his description of perseverance, WHICH HE DEFINES AS ‘PERSEVERING IN FAITH’---A DEFINITION WITH WHICH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 185).
The problem with the Israelites is that they failed to “persevere in faith,” and Keathley (a Molinist) and Tom Schreiner (a Calvinist) agree on this point with me (a Classical Arminian). All three camps (Arminian, Calvinist, and Molinist) agree on the issue of perseverance as NOT being a perseverance in works, but a perseverance in faith (Heb. 11:6). I would say this to Charles Stanley in response to his question:
“Why would God not take a believer out before they failed to lose their salvation? Why would God not insure that all of His children endure to the end, but enable them to endure? Because such is the nature of choice. After all, God did not even spare the soil that believed ‘for a time’ (Mark 4:17; Luke 8:13).”
Monday, June 14, 2010
"Taking the Entire New Testament Out of Context"
“It is widely held that the most obvious corollary to the Christocentric hermeneutic is the ‘theologia crucis’ that THE NEW TESTAMENT MUST ALWAYS BE OUR GUIDE TO INTERPRETING THE OLD TESTAMENT. But why would a rule be imposed on the revelation of God that demands that the Old Testament passages may not become the basis for giving primary direction on any doctrines or truths that have relevancy for New Testament times? This is only to argue in the end for A CANON WITHIN A CANON...we misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says THE MOST RECENT REVELATION OF GOD IS TO BE PREFERRED OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT WHICH CAME EARLIER” (W.C. Kaiser Jr., “The Land of Israel and the Future Return”; quoted by Barry E. Horner, “Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged.” Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007, page 183).
Today, I began reading the section “Kingdom Promises and the Testaments,” in John Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Arguing for the promises as purely scriptural is Bruce K. Waltke, a covenantal theologian whose work I was exposed to this past semester in my OT theology course. The other theologian, writing for some discontinuity, was Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., whose quote is given above regarding a proper biblical hermeneutic.
In this post, I want to dive into Kaiser’s quote above, while also introducing the viewer to Bruce Waltke’s comments regarding the kingdom promises as spiritual. I want to establish that hermeneutics is the key to where one stands in the dispensationalism-covenantal theology debate. While arguing that hermeneutics determines perspective, I will also argue (however) that there is only one proper hermeneutic of the text that does justice to both testaments. Like the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, there is only one right theology in this debate; and it will all come down to hermeneutics, the method by which one interprets the biblical text.
Back somewhere around two years ago, I took Dr. David Hogg for my Theology III course, titled “The Church and Eschatology.” In my theology III class, Dr. Hogg covered the chapter on Romans 11 regarding Israel. In his lecture, he argued that “the church is taking the entire New Testament out of context.” According to Dr. Hogg, the church has become so “Gentile” in its outlook that, when Pastors witness, they carry around small pocket Bibles that only contain the Old Testament books of Psalms and Proverbs while carrying around ALL of the New Testament books without reservation. And why do we carry around only the OT books of Psalms and Proverbs? Because “we can sing the psalms and give wisdom with the proverbs,” he said. In short, he stated that preachers know so little about the Old Testament that they rarely preach out of it...and when they do, they only preach the narratives like Daniel in the Lions’ Den, or David fighting Goliath, or the Red Sea Experience, etc. There are other books, for example, like Leviticus, even Job, that are rarely ever preached on in pulpits across the country. Pastors rarely touch the other books of the Old Testament because they know so little about them. In my estimation, however, I think pastors and preachers alike rarely preach from those books because they don’t think the Word will be enough to “entertain” their congregations. It’s a sad day when the Word is only “good” when it entertains us and makes us feel good about ourselves (which is so contrary to what the Word is meant to do, which is instruct and correct us)...
Dr. Hogg’s lecture came back to the surface of my mind as I began to read Walt Kaiser’s words on Covenantal Theology and its need to create a “canon within a canon.” I think my former theology professor was right when he made it clear that most preachers preach the New Testament without realizing that the foundation for the New Testament is the OLD Testament! That’s right: were it not for the OLD Testament, there would be no NEW Testament! It seems then, that to preach the NT does not only compute to preaching only ONE-HALF of the counsel of God (instead of the whole), but also, to preach the “house” of the Scriptures without first “laying the foundation” thereof. How can a house stand if it has no foundation? In the same manner, how can the Word of God make sense if the foundation (the Old Testament) is not preached first?
Kaiser’s words come to an alarming climax when he writes,
“This is only to argue in the end for A CANON WITHIN A CANON...we misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says THE MOST RECENT REVELATION OF GOD IS TO BE PREFERRED OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT WHICH CAME EARLIER.”
Why is there a need for “a canon within a canon”? Why do evangelicals feel as though they need to decide which of the testaments is “more” important (as if to say that both are not equally important)? Let’s take Jesus for example: the early church declared that Christ was “fully God, fully man,” without any distinction to “this percentage God” and “this percentage man.” In the eyes of the early church, Christ’s divinity and humanity were equally important: Christ’s divinity, because only God, a perfect Lamb, could die for the sins of imperfect mankind; and Christ’s humanity, because only Christ could fulfill God’s Law---something required by all of human creation). Both were equally important to Christ’s mission as Savior on earth, and neither was to be disqualified or “substituted” for the other.
If Christ is the Word (John 1:1), and the Word reveals Christ, why then, must believers take the Word of God (God’s revelation to us in written form) and classify which testament is greater? Did not Paul say that “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD AND PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV)? At the time Paul made this remarkable claim, all the New Testament church had was the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES! So Paul’s words here to Timothy are to reveal that “all Scripture,” even the Old Testament, is inspired by God, or “theopneustos” (“God-breathed”) and useful for instruction. But what purpose does the modern-day church give the OT? How useful is the OT in today’s church? If the OT is useful, why then, do we not make use of it and use it in our teaching, preaching, and witness? Why is the OT considered by some to be just a “substitute teacher” until the NT came along?
What about Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1?
“BUT WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS GOOD, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...ungodly and ...sinners...the unholy and profane...murderers of fathers and mothers...manslayers...fornicators...sodomites...kidnappers... liars...perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-10, NKJV).
The Law in question here is the Old Testament, for this is all the early church had as a formative canon. It seems that, since this is Paul’s introduction to his letter, the Old Testament Law was possibly being twisted in the name of false doctrine in the church at Ephesus: especially with “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4), as well as with the creation account from Genesis, with Adam’s formation before Eve and Eve’s deception having to be defended as orthodox (1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Despite the twisting of the Law for bad use, Paul still believed the Law was good. Let’s check out these words regarding Law and sin:
“But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? IS THE LAW SIN? CERTAINLY NOT! On the contrary, I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN SIN EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAW. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’...therefore THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THE COMMANDMENT HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD...FOR WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL, but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Romans 7:6-7, 12, 14).
As believers saved by grace through faith in the work of Christ on the cross, we do not have to offer the sacrifices of Leviticus, for example. However, while we are not bound to the sacrifices of Leviticus, we are bound to “the Spirit” of Leviticus, for as the writer of Hebrews tells us,
“By Him let us continually offer THE SACRIFICE OF PRAISE TO GOD, that is, THE FRUIT OF OUR LIPS, giving thanks to His name” (Hebrews 13:15).
For Paul, the Law still served as a valuable guide to the Christian (whether Jew or Gentile); why then, have we become “post-Paul” in our thinking and decided that the Law serves no purpose for the modern-day church?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is what covenantal theology (often called “replacement” theology) is doing in its assessment of the Old Testament, with regards to Israel, Hermeneutics, etc. And herein lies the problem: that one part of the counsel of God is being ditched for the other.
I’ll conclude with words from Bruce Waltke regarding how dispensationalists view the implications of covenantal theology upon the biblical text:
“Amillennialists differ from dispensational premillenialists in their hermeneutics by calling for A SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF KINGDOM PROMISES OVER AGAINST A ‘LITERALISTIC’ (J.I. Packer’s term) INTERPRETATION OF THEM. Amillennialists emphasize with Augustine that ‘THE NEW IS IN THE OLD CONCEALED AND THE OLD IS IN THE NEW REVEALED,’ while dispensationalists complain that in the amillennial system ‘THE OLD IS BY THE NEW RESTRICTED AND THE NEW IS ON THE OLD INFLICTED’” (Bruce Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” from “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” by John Feinberg, editor. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 272).
Ask yourself the following: Are both Old and New Testaments the Word of God? If you answer yes to this question, then one more remains: “Is Christ divided” (1 Cor. 1:13)? If Christ is not divided, then why treat God’s Revelation (The Word) as though IT is?
Today, I began reading the section “Kingdom Promises and the Testaments,” in John Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Arguing for the promises as purely scriptural is Bruce K. Waltke, a covenantal theologian whose work I was exposed to this past semester in my OT theology course. The other theologian, writing for some discontinuity, was Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., whose quote is given above regarding a proper biblical hermeneutic.
In this post, I want to dive into Kaiser’s quote above, while also introducing the viewer to Bruce Waltke’s comments regarding the kingdom promises as spiritual. I want to establish that hermeneutics is the key to where one stands in the dispensationalism-covenantal theology debate. While arguing that hermeneutics determines perspective, I will also argue (however) that there is only one proper hermeneutic of the text that does justice to both testaments. Like the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, there is only one right theology in this debate; and it will all come down to hermeneutics, the method by which one interprets the biblical text.
Back somewhere around two years ago, I took Dr. David Hogg for my Theology III course, titled “The Church and Eschatology.” In my theology III class, Dr. Hogg covered the chapter on Romans 11 regarding Israel. In his lecture, he argued that “the church is taking the entire New Testament out of context.” According to Dr. Hogg, the church has become so “Gentile” in its outlook that, when Pastors witness, they carry around small pocket Bibles that only contain the Old Testament books of Psalms and Proverbs while carrying around ALL of the New Testament books without reservation. And why do we carry around only the OT books of Psalms and Proverbs? Because “we can sing the psalms and give wisdom with the proverbs,” he said. In short, he stated that preachers know so little about the Old Testament that they rarely preach out of it...and when they do, they only preach the narratives like Daniel in the Lions’ Den, or David fighting Goliath, or the Red Sea Experience, etc. There are other books, for example, like Leviticus, even Job, that are rarely ever preached on in pulpits across the country. Pastors rarely touch the other books of the Old Testament because they know so little about them. In my estimation, however, I think pastors and preachers alike rarely preach from those books because they don’t think the Word will be enough to “entertain” their congregations. It’s a sad day when the Word is only “good” when it entertains us and makes us feel good about ourselves (which is so contrary to what the Word is meant to do, which is instruct and correct us)...
Dr. Hogg’s lecture came back to the surface of my mind as I began to read Walt Kaiser’s words on Covenantal Theology and its need to create a “canon within a canon.” I think my former theology professor was right when he made it clear that most preachers preach the New Testament without realizing that the foundation for the New Testament is the OLD Testament! That’s right: were it not for the OLD Testament, there would be no NEW Testament! It seems then, that to preach the NT does not only compute to preaching only ONE-HALF of the counsel of God (instead of the whole), but also, to preach the “house” of the Scriptures without first “laying the foundation” thereof. How can a house stand if it has no foundation? In the same manner, how can the Word of God make sense if the foundation (the Old Testament) is not preached first?
Kaiser’s words come to an alarming climax when he writes,
“This is only to argue in the end for A CANON WITHIN A CANON...we misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says THE MOST RECENT REVELATION OF GOD IS TO BE PREFERRED OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT WHICH CAME EARLIER.”
Why is there a need for “a canon within a canon”? Why do evangelicals feel as though they need to decide which of the testaments is “more” important (as if to say that both are not equally important)? Let’s take Jesus for example: the early church declared that Christ was “fully God, fully man,” without any distinction to “this percentage God” and “this percentage man.” In the eyes of the early church, Christ’s divinity and humanity were equally important: Christ’s divinity, because only God, a perfect Lamb, could die for the sins of imperfect mankind; and Christ’s humanity, because only Christ could fulfill God’s Law---something required by all of human creation). Both were equally important to Christ’s mission as Savior on earth, and neither was to be disqualified or “substituted” for the other.
If Christ is the Word (John 1:1), and the Word reveals Christ, why then, must believers take the Word of God (God’s revelation to us in written form) and classify which testament is greater? Did not Paul say that “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD AND PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV)? At the time Paul made this remarkable claim, all the New Testament church had was the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES! So Paul’s words here to Timothy are to reveal that “all Scripture,” even the Old Testament, is inspired by God, or “theopneustos” (“God-breathed”) and useful for instruction. But what purpose does the modern-day church give the OT? How useful is the OT in today’s church? If the OT is useful, why then, do we not make use of it and use it in our teaching, preaching, and witness? Why is the OT considered by some to be just a “substitute teacher” until the NT came along?
What about Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1?
“BUT WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS GOOD, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...ungodly and ...sinners...the unholy and profane...murderers of fathers and mothers...manslayers...fornicators...sodomites...kidnappers... liars...perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-10, NKJV).
The Law in question here is the Old Testament, for this is all the early church had as a formative canon. It seems that, since this is Paul’s introduction to his letter, the Old Testament Law was possibly being twisted in the name of false doctrine in the church at Ephesus: especially with “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4), as well as with the creation account from Genesis, with Adam’s formation before Eve and Eve’s deception having to be defended as orthodox (1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Despite the twisting of the Law for bad use, Paul still believed the Law was good. Let’s check out these words regarding Law and sin:
“But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? IS THE LAW SIN? CERTAINLY NOT! On the contrary, I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN SIN EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAW. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’...therefore THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THE COMMANDMENT HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD...FOR WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL, but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Romans 7:6-7, 12, 14).
As believers saved by grace through faith in the work of Christ on the cross, we do not have to offer the sacrifices of Leviticus, for example. However, while we are not bound to the sacrifices of Leviticus, we are bound to “the Spirit” of Leviticus, for as the writer of Hebrews tells us,
“By Him let us continually offer THE SACRIFICE OF PRAISE TO GOD, that is, THE FRUIT OF OUR LIPS, giving thanks to His name” (Hebrews 13:15).
For Paul, the Law still served as a valuable guide to the Christian (whether Jew or Gentile); why then, have we become “post-Paul” in our thinking and decided that the Law serves no purpose for the modern-day church?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is what covenantal theology (often called “replacement” theology) is doing in its assessment of the Old Testament, with regards to Israel, Hermeneutics, etc. And herein lies the problem: that one part of the counsel of God is being ditched for the other.
I’ll conclude with words from Bruce Waltke regarding how dispensationalists view the implications of covenantal theology upon the biblical text:
“Amillennialists differ from dispensational premillenialists in their hermeneutics by calling for A SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF KINGDOM PROMISES OVER AGAINST A ‘LITERALISTIC’ (J.I. Packer’s term) INTERPRETATION OF THEM. Amillennialists emphasize with Augustine that ‘THE NEW IS IN THE OLD CONCEALED AND THE OLD IS IN THE NEW REVEALED,’ while dispensationalists complain that in the amillennial system ‘THE OLD IS BY THE NEW RESTRICTED AND THE NEW IS ON THE OLD INFLICTED’” (Bruce Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” from “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” by John Feinberg, editor. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 272).
Ask yourself the following: Are both Old and New Testaments the Word of God? If you answer yes to this question, then one more remains: “Is Christ divided” (1 Cor. 1:13)? If Christ is not divided, then why treat God’s Revelation (The Word) as though IT is?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Distinguished Israel: The "Stumbling Stone" of Romans 11, Part II: Future Hope for Israel
In my last post, I stated Marten H. Woudstra’s argument for continuity between Israel and the church. I also pointed out that contextually, Romans 9-11 refutes Woudstra’s view of a “spiritual Israel,” since Paul makes statements like “my kinsmen (countrymen) according to the flesh” and “those of my flesh,” etc. In addition, with the analogy of the vine and the branches and the broken-off branches, we learned that the broken-off branches were severed from the vine because of unbelief. These branches can also be grafted in again, because God can graft them in again should they cease to persist in their unbelief and begin to believe once more (Rom. 11:23).
Now, someone may say, what about the continuity of Israel and the church? Woudstra is not entirely wrong in his argument. Paul does talk about all the branches, both Jewish and Gentile, being grafted into the same vine (Rom. 11:17, 24). However, Paul’s discussion throughout Romans 9-11 has not been primarily concerned with the believing Jewish remnant. Paul mentions this remnant once in Romans 11:5, and basically says that this remnant is a sign of God’s promise to save Israel to the full (“how much more their fullness!”, verse 12).
The idea of the Jewish remnant in Romans 11:5 poses an interesting question: for what do we do with Paul’s words in verse 7?
“What then? ISRAEL has not obtained what it seeks; but THE ELECT have obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7, NKJV).
Notice that “Israel” is being placed in contrast to “the elect,” and this statement comes right after Paul’s mention of a Jewish believing remnant (11:5).
Throughout these first verses of Romans 11, Paul has been consumed with the people of God, that is, national Israel. But here in verse 7, Paul distinguishes between two groups of Israel: the elect (those who believe, Romans 10:9-13), and “the rest,” those who do not believe.
Do u see the words of Romans 11:7?
“The elect have obtained it, and THE REST WERE BLINDED.”
Since the elect refers to the believing remnant (11:5), “the rest” refers to unbelieving national Israel; this means, therefore, that the rest (unbelieving Israel) were blinded. The words of verse 7 meet their match in verse 25:
“I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery...that BLINDNESS IN PART HAS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Here is where Marten Woudstra says, “See, Israel will be saved (v. 26) by the inclusion of the Gentiles...thus creating a spiritual Israel.” While the inclusion of the Gentiles does mean that they are grafted into the “cultivated olive tree” of God’s people (“spiritual Israel”), this does not take away from Paul’s words of future hope for the nation of Israel. In verse 24, Paul talks about the “natural branches” being grafted back into “their own olive tree,” meaning that the branches will be grafted in once more (v.26). The Gentiles, labeled “wild olive trees” (v.17), cannot turn around and be the “natural branches” of the cultivated olive tree. This is also why Paul uses the phrase “contrary to nature” (v.24) to describe the Gentile inclusion into the people of God (the vine). Paul writes this way to make it clear that, while both Israel and Gentiles will partake of the vine together, such communion of spiritual blessings DOES NOT nullify the promises of God to national Israel. Israel then, is represented by the “natural branches,” while the Gentiles are represented by the “wild olive” branches. It is natural for the Jews to be part of the cultivated olive tree, but UNNATURAL for the Gentiles (wild olive branches) to become part of the natural olive tree. If God has such mercy on a people who do not belong to the vine, then surely, He will have mercy on those who BELONG TO THE VINE by nature (Rom. 11:24)!
In verses 26-27, we find that Israel’s salvation is certain because God Himself declared it to His people in the Old Testament:
“And so all Israel will be saved, AS IT IS WRITTEN:
‘The Deliver will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins’” (11:26-27; referencing Isa. 59:20, 21).
Paul declares that God wrote it in His Old Testament Scriptures that national Israel would be saved. And then comes the reference from Isaiah 59:20-21.
It is at this time that I would ask covenantal theologians, “Do these verses pertain to national Israel in the Old Testament, or to the church in the New Testament, or to both?” If I’ve done my reading correctly, covenantal theologians will respond, “to the church.” But to think this way would be to overlook the context of the Old Testament itself. Let’s return to Isaiah 59:20-21 to see who receives God’s promise there. First, let’s see what Isa. 59:20-21 says:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, AND TO THOSE WHO TURN FROM TRANSGRESSION IN JACOB, says the LORD. ‘As for Me,’ says the LORD, ‘THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants...from this time and forevermore.”
Who is Isaiah told to speak this to---the Gentiles? No. Instead, we find that Isaiah is given these words to national Israel herself: in Isaiah 58:1, Isaiah speaks to “the house of Jacob.” Jacob was renamed Israel, through whom the twelve sons (tribes) came forth. This, then, refers to national Israel. To deny that the house of Jacob refers to Israel would be costly---for it would mean denying things like the Red Sea Experience of Exodus, or the fact that the nation of Israel physically entered the Promised Land, which was a physical territory!
So when God makes this covenant, He does so with the “house of Jacob,” referring to national Israel.
Verse 26 distinguishes between national Israel and spiritual Israel (i.e., the Gentiles): “concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” Here we find that Israel and the church are chosen according to two different things: National Israel is chosen according to an unconditional election, while national Edom (Gentile nations) are chosen according to a conditional election, namely, election by faith (Rom. 11:20-22). Individual Jews and Gentiles are elect by faith as well, but nationally, Israel has an unconditional election given by God that will never be done away with. Why is this the case? “for the gifts and the calling of God are IRREVOCABLE” (v.29).
Because God called Israel and unconditionally elected her, she as a nation will be elect REGARDLESS! This is the nature of “unconditional”---that Israel cannot be cast away, no matter how unbelieving she may be.
In verses 30-31, Paul writes that both the Gentile nations and national Israel have been given the same mercy by God: “For as you were once DISOBEDIENT to God, yet have now obtained MERCY through their DISOBEDIENCE, even so these also have now been DISOBEDIENT, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.” The Gentiles were once estranged from God and have now been brought near; in the same way, the Jews, once near God, have “fallen”---but in her fallenness, God is willing to grant her mercy again.
Now, there is one more question that I’d like to address: “Who is the “you” and “these” and “they” of verses 30-31? The “you” refers to the Gentiles, since Paul wrote in verse 13, “For I speak to you Gentiles...” The “these” of verse 31 refers to unbelieving national Israel. The “they” of verse 31 refers to the same unbelieving Israel.
If Paul was only concerned with the Jewish believers and Gentile believers (“spiritual Israel”), why then, does he spend one verse on the Jewish believers (11:5), but the rest of the chapter (the next 25 verses or so) on the unbelieving nation of Israel as well as the believing Gentiles? As context has demonstrated, Paul’s major concern was for national Israel to be saved. This makes sense of the “great sorrow and continual grief” in Paul’s heart for Israel (Rom. 9:1-3). Believing Gentiles are discussed in this section, but only because of their view of the Jews. The Gentile opinion gives Paul a reason to write “I do not desire, brethren, that...you should be wise in your own opinion...” (11:25) The fact that most of chapter 11 encompasses unbelieving national Israel testifies to the progressive dispensationalist view that God still has a place for national Israel, while also making room for the Gentile nations. According to election, Israel (Jacob) is chosen; according to the gospel, the Gentiles (Edom) are chosen.
Now, someone may say, what about the continuity of Israel and the church? Woudstra is not entirely wrong in his argument. Paul does talk about all the branches, both Jewish and Gentile, being grafted into the same vine (Rom. 11:17, 24). However, Paul’s discussion throughout Romans 9-11 has not been primarily concerned with the believing Jewish remnant. Paul mentions this remnant once in Romans 11:5, and basically says that this remnant is a sign of God’s promise to save Israel to the full (“how much more their fullness!”, verse 12).
The idea of the Jewish remnant in Romans 11:5 poses an interesting question: for what do we do with Paul’s words in verse 7?
“What then? ISRAEL has not obtained what it seeks; but THE ELECT have obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7, NKJV).
Notice that “Israel” is being placed in contrast to “the elect,” and this statement comes right after Paul’s mention of a Jewish believing remnant (11:5).
Throughout these first verses of Romans 11, Paul has been consumed with the people of God, that is, national Israel. But here in verse 7, Paul distinguishes between two groups of Israel: the elect (those who believe, Romans 10:9-13), and “the rest,” those who do not believe.
Do u see the words of Romans 11:7?
“The elect have obtained it, and THE REST WERE BLINDED.”
Since the elect refers to the believing remnant (11:5), “the rest” refers to unbelieving national Israel; this means, therefore, that the rest (unbelieving Israel) were blinded. The words of verse 7 meet their match in verse 25:
“I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery...that BLINDNESS IN PART HAS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Here is where Marten Woudstra says, “See, Israel will be saved (v. 26) by the inclusion of the Gentiles...thus creating a spiritual Israel.” While the inclusion of the Gentiles does mean that they are grafted into the “cultivated olive tree” of God’s people (“spiritual Israel”), this does not take away from Paul’s words of future hope for the nation of Israel. In verse 24, Paul talks about the “natural branches” being grafted back into “their own olive tree,” meaning that the branches will be grafted in once more (v.26). The Gentiles, labeled “wild olive trees” (v.17), cannot turn around and be the “natural branches” of the cultivated olive tree. This is also why Paul uses the phrase “contrary to nature” (v.24) to describe the Gentile inclusion into the people of God (the vine). Paul writes this way to make it clear that, while both Israel and Gentiles will partake of the vine together, such communion of spiritual blessings DOES NOT nullify the promises of God to national Israel. Israel then, is represented by the “natural branches,” while the Gentiles are represented by the “wild olive” branches. It is natural for the Jews to be part of the cultivated olive tree, but UNNATURAL for the Gentiles (wild olive branches) to become part of the natural olive tree. If God has such mercy on a people who do not belong to the vine, then surely, He will have mercy on those who BELONG TO THE VINE by nature (Rom. 11:24)!
In verses 26-27, we find that Israel’s salvation is certain because God Himself declared it to His people in the Old Testament:
“And so all Israel will be saved, AS IT IS WRITTEN:
‘The Deliver will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins’” (11:26-27; referencing Isa. 59:20, 21).
Paul declares that God wrote it in His Old Testament Scriptures that national Israel would be saved. And then comes the reference from Isaiah 59:20-21.
It is at this time that I would ask covenantal theologians, “Do these verses pertain to national Israel in the Old Testament, or to the church in the New Testament, or to both?” If I’ve done my reading correctly, covenantal theologians will respond, “to the church.” But to think this way would be to overlook the context of the Old Testament itself. Let’s return to Isaiah 59:20-21 to see who receives God’s promise there. First, let’s see what Isa. 59:20-21 says:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, AND TO THOSE WHO TURN FROM TRANSGRESSION IN JACOB, says the LORD. ‘As for Me,’ says the LORD, ‘THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants...from this time and forevermore.”
Who is Isaiah told to speak this to---the Gentiles? No. Instead, we find that Isaiah is given these words to national Israel herself: in Isaiah 58:1, Isaiah speaks to “the house of Jacob.” Jacob was renamed Israel, through whom the twelve sons (tribes) came forth. This, then, refers to national Israel. To deny that the house of Jacob refers to Israel would be costly---for it would mean denying things like the Red Sea Experience of Exodus, or the fact that the nation of Israel physically entered the Promised Land, which was a physical territory!
So when God makes this covenant, He does so with the “house of Jacob,” referring to national Israel.
Verse 26 distinguishes between national Israel and spiritual Israel (i.e., the Gentiles): “concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” Here we find that Israel and the church are chosen according to two different things: National Israel is chosen according to an unconditional election, while national Edom (Gentile nations) are chosen according to a conditional election, namely, election by faith (Rom. 11:20-22). Individual Jews and Gentiles are elect by faith as well, but nationally, Israel has an unconditional election given by God that will never be done away with. Why is this the case? “for the gifts and the calling of God are IRREVOCABLE” (v.29).
Because God called Israel and unconditionally elected her, she as a nation will be elect REGARDLESS! This is the nature of “unconditional”---that Israel cannot be cast away, no matter how unbelieving she may be.
In verses 30-31, Paul writes that both the Gentile nations and national Israel have been given the same mercy by God: “For as you were once DISOBEDIENT to God, yet have now obtained MERCY through their DISOBEDIENCE, even so these also have now been DISOBEDIENT, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.” The Gentiles were once estranged from God and have now been brought near; in the same way, the Jews, once near God, have “fallen”---but in her fallenness, God is willing to grant her mercy again.
Now, there is one more question that I’d like to address: “Who is the “you” and “these” and “they” of verses 30-31? The “you” refers to the Gentiles, since Paul wrote in verse 13, “For I speak to you Gentiles...” The “these” of verse 31 refers to unbelieving national Israel. The “they” of verse 31 refers to the same unbelieving Israel.
If Paul was only concerned with the Jewish believers and Gentile believers (“spiritual Israel”), why then, does he spend one verse on the Jewish believers (11:5), but the rest of the chapter (the next 25 verses or so) on the unbelieving nation of Israel as well as the believing Gentiles? As context has demonstrated, Paul’s major concern was for national Israel to be saved. This makes sense of the “great sorrow and continual grief” in Paul’s heart for Israel (Rom. 9:1-3). Believing Gentiles are discussed in this section, but only because of their view of the Jews. The Gentile opinion gives Paul a reason to write “I do not desire, brethren, that...you should be wise in your own opinion...” (11:25) The fact that most of chapter 11 encompasses unbelieving national Israel testifies to the progressive dispensationalist view that God still has a place for national Israel, while also making room for the Gentile nations. According to election, Israel (Jacob) is chosen; according to the gospel, the Gentiles (Edom) are chosen.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Distinguished Israel: The "Stumbling Stone" of Romans 11
“Paul regards the remnant idea not so much from its eschatological aspect, but rather as an entity which is now present and comes to light in the way in which God deals with the church in relation to its Jewish members: ‘So, too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace’ (Rom. 11:5). But in the meantime the fullness (Greek: pleroma) of the Gentiles is complete, and in this way (Greek: houtos) ‘all Israel’ will be saved. L.A. De Caro has well pointed out that the biblical use of the word ‘until’ does not always mean a later reversal of a given situation (see Ps. 110:1; 1 Chron. 28:20; Isa. 6:9-13). In other words, THE APOSTLE’S EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON SOME LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE A REVERSAL IN THE HARDENING IN PART OF THE JEWS. Rather, THE emphasis is upon the word ‘so’ or ‘thus,’ ‘in this way.’ ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED IN THE WAY OF THE BRINGING IN OF THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES” (Marten H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” from “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” by John S. Feinberg, ed. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 236).
I’m the kind of person that loves to examine arguments. Coming to seminary and reading theology has taught me to assess arguments. Most theologians often give scriptural proof-texts as a way to convince people that their take on a given issue is correct; however, upon assessing that Scripture, one can either see the truth or find that the given theologian’s view is in error.
And after reading Marten Woudstra’s chapter on “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” I found just the error: he stumbled over the distinguished Israel of Romans 11.
Regarding the above quote, Woudstra states that, according to his own research (L.A. De Caro), the word “until” does not always indicate a reversal of a situation, then providing prooftexts to show why this statement is true. However, while “until” may not always indicate a REVERSAL of a situation, it does indicate a CHANGE in situation. Look at Psalm 110:1, one of the verses Woudstra cites above as proof of his take of the word “until.” The verse reads (NKJV), “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The word “till” (until) indicates a change in situation: UNTIL the Lord subdues His enemies, the Son is to sit at the right hand. But what happens after the enemies are subdued? God will reign supreme!
The writer to the Hebrews comments on Psalm 110:1---
“But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’?” (Heb. 1:13, NKJV)
In other words, God never said the words of Psalm 110:1 to an angel; no---the statement is made to Christ, who is the person of God the Son. There will come a time when the Son will not just sit at the right hand and “wait” for His enemies to be subdued...the enemies of God WILL be subdued! When that time comes, God will then reign over all things, since all things will be reconciled to Himself (Colossians 1:20). Although the reconciliation of all things is not yet, such as death (1 Cor. 15:26), one day, this will change; all things will be reconciled to God. So the word “until” signals a time when the existing world conditions will change completely.
Having said this, let’s take a look at Woudstra’s quote once more. Of the above quote, the most telling portion would be:
“...L.A. De Caro has well pointed out that the biblical use of the word ‘until’ does not always mean a later reversal of a given situation (see Ps. 110:1; 1 Chron. 28:20; Isa. 6:9-13). In other words, THE APOSTLE’S EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON SOME LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE A REVERSAL IN THE HARDENING IN PART OF THE JEWS. Rather, THE emphasis is upon the word ‘so’ or ‘thus,’ ‘in this way.’ ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED IN THE WAY OF THE BRINGING IN OF THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES.”
To see if Woudstra’s conclusions are correct, we will have to get a sweeping context of Romans 9-11. Although Woudstra states that the emphasis is on the Gentiles “completing” spiritual Israel, I think he has smeared his argument. In chapter 9, Paul’s concern is over “my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). “According to the flesh” refers to the physical Jewish descent. “My countrymen” tells it all---Paul is referring to physical Jews, fellow Israelites, the people of the national Israel. There is nothing here about spiritual Israel or the church.
In chapter 10:1, Paul writes, “brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel IS THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED” (10:1). This is an unsaved Israel Paul is referring to here; if not, why would he pray for the saved to be saved again? Therefore, Paul continues his discussion in chapter 10 of unbelieving Israel’s salvation (the salvation of the nation).
In chapter 11:1, Paul asks the question, “has God cast away HIS PEOPLE? Certainly not! FOR I ALSO AM AN ISRAELITE, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (11:1). Who are God’s people referred to here? National Israel. This is why Paul goes on to say, “I also am an Israelite...” Paul is referring to the unbelieving nation of Israel.
In verse 5 of the Romans 11, Paul says, “Even so, then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Who is the remnant being discussed here? The remnant here refers to the Jews. Remember, back in chapter 9, Paul quotes from Isaiah 1:9 about the Jewish remnant (9:29). This remnant, however, will experience a fullness: “Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” (11:12) Paul cannot be in a discussion of the church comprised of Jews and Gentiles here, for he is contrasting a certain group apart from the Gentiles, whom he explicitly mentions in verse 12. In verses 13-14, Paul writes, “I speak to you Gentiles...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy THOSE WHO ARE MY FLESH AND SAVE SOME OF THEM.” With the words, “those who are my flesh” and “some of them,” we see that Paul is referring to Jews of physical descent (“my flesh”) and the unbelieving nation (“save some of them”). Paul cannot refer here to the believing remnant of Israel, nor can he refer to the Gentiles. Gentiles are not physical descendants of the Jews.
Verse 15 does what verse 12 does: it reveals the “lesser-to-greater” argument. In verse 12 Paul talks about “their fall,” the fall of the Jews, with “their fullness,” while in verse 15, Paul discusses “their being cast away” with “their acceptance.” In verse 15, the Jews have been “cast away,” but not finally or completely; this is why the end of verse 15 discusses “their acceptance.” So, contrary to Woudstra’s argument, there is a discussion regarding change in Israel’s situation: while she is currently cast away, in the future, she will be accepted once more.
In verse 17, we find that only “some of the branches” of the olive tree were broken off. The Gentiles are a “wild olive tree” (v.17) whose branches “were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree” (v.24). So “some of the branches” of the olive tree must be the branches of the Jews, some of the Jewish tribes of national Israel.
Now, the question becomes, “Which group of Israelites are the branches that have been broken off?” We are given the answer to this in verse 20: “BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, and you stand by faith.” So the branches are unbelieving branches. If the branches refer to Israel (which I have already established), and the branches are broken, then the broken branches represent unbelieving national Israel. Verse 23 confirms that there is hope for Israel, since “God is able to graft them in again” only if they believe (v.23). Contra Woudstra, God has not given up on the nation itself. The passage then, is not about “spiritual” Israel, but national Israel, the nation of Jewish descendants.
I will continue with verses 25ff and what they have to say about national Israel (against Woudstra’s argument) in my next post.
I’m the kind of person that loves to examine arguments. Coming to seminary and reading theology has taught me to assess arguments. Most theologians often give scriptural proof-texts as a way to convince people that their take on a given issue is correct; however, upon assessing that Scripture, one can either see the truth or find that the given theologian’s view is in error.
And after reading Marten Woudstra’s chapter on “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” I found just the error: he stumbled over the distinguished Israel of Romans 11.
Regarding the above quote, Woudstra states that, according to his own research (L.A. De Caro), the word “until” does not always indicate a reversal of a situation, then providing prooftexts to show why this statement is true. However, while “until” may not always indicate a REVERSAL of a situation, it does indicate a CHANGE in situation. Look at Psalm 110:1, one of the verses Woudstra cites above as proof of his take of the word “until.” The verse reads (NKJV), “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The word “till” (until) indicates a change in situation: UNTIL the Lord subdues His enemies, the Son is to sit at the right hand. But what happens after the enemies are subdued? God will reign supreme!
The writer to the Hebrews comments on Psalm 110:1---
“But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’?” (Heb. 1:13, NKJV)
In other words, God never said the words of Psalm 110:1 to an angel; no---the statement is made to Christ, who is the person of God the Son. There will come a time when the Son will not just sit at the right hand and “wait” for His enemies to be subdued...the enemies of God WILL be subdued! When that time comes, God will then reign over all things, since all things will be reconciled to Himself (Colossians 1:20). Although the reconciliation of all things is not yet, such as death (1 Cor. 15:26), one day, this will change; all things will be reconciled to God. So the word “until” signals a time when the existing world conditions will change completely.
Having said this, let’s take a look at Woudstra’s quote once more. Of the above quote, the most telling portion would be:
“...L.A. De Caro has well pointed out that the biblical use of the word ‘until’ does not always mean a later reversal of a given situation (see Ps. 110:1; 1 Chron. 28:20; Isa. 6:9-13). In other words, THE APOSTLE’S EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON SOME LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE A REVERSAL IN THE HARDENING IN PART OF THE JEWS. Rather, THE emphasis is upon the word ‘so’ or ‘thus,’ ‘in this way.’ ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED IN THE WAY OF THE BRINGING IN OF THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES.”
To see if Woudstra’s conclusions are correct, we will have to get a sweeping context of Romans 9-11. Although Woudstra states that the emphasis is on the Gentiles “completing” spiritual Israel, I think he has smeared his argument. In chapter 9, Paul’s concern is over “my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). “According to the flesh” refers to the physical Jewish descent. “My countrymen” tells it all---Paul is referring to physical Jews, fellow Israelites, the people of the national Israel. There is nothing here about spiritual Israel or the church.
In chapter 10:1, Paul writes, “brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel IS THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED” (10:1). This is an unsaved Israel Paul is referring to here; if not, why would he pray for the saved to be saved again? Therefore, Paul continues his discussion in chapter 10 of unbelieving Israel’s salvation (the salvation of the nation).
In chapter 11:1, Paul asks the question, “has God cast away HIS PEOPLE? Certainly not! FOR I ALSO AM AN ISRAELITE, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (11:1). Who are God’s people referred to here? National Israel. This is why Paul goes on to say, “I also am an Israelite...” Paul is referring to the unbelieving nation of Israel.
In verse 5 of the Romans 11, Paul says, “Even so, then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Who is the remnant being discussed here? The remnant here refers to the Jews. Remember, back in chapter 9, Paul quotes from Isaiah 1:9 about the Jewish remnant (9:29). This remnant, however, will experience a fullness: “Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” (11:12) Paul cannot be in a discussion of the church comprised of Jews and Gentiles here, for he is contrasting a certain group apart from the Gentiles, whom he explicitly mentions in verse 12. In verses 13-14, Paul writes, “I speak to you Gentiles...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy THOSE WHO ARE MY FLESH AND SAVE SOME OF THEM.” With the words, “those who are my flesh” and “some of them,” we see that Paul is referring to Jews of physical descent (“my flesh”) and the unbelieving nation (“save some of them”). Paul cannot refer here to the believing remnant of Israel, nor can he refer to the Gentiles. Gentiles are not physical descendants of the Jews.
Verse 15 does what verse 12 does: it reveals the “lesser-to-greater” argument. In verse 12 Paul talks about “their fall,” the fall of the Jews, with “their fullness,” while in verse 15, Paul discusses “their being cast away” with “their acceptance.” In verse 15, the Jews have been “cast away,” but not finally or completely; this is why the end of verse 15 discusses “their acceptance.” So, contrary to Woudstra’s argument, there is a discussion regarding change in Israel’s situation: while she is currently cast away, in the future, she will be accepted once more.
In verse 17, we find that only “some of the branches” of the olive tree were broken off. The Gentiles are a “wild olive tree” (v.17) whose branches “were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree” (v.24). So “some of the branches” of the olive tree must be the branches of the Jews, some of the Jewish tribes of national Israel.
Now, the question becomes, “Which group of Israelites are the branches that have been broken off?” We are given the answer to this in verse 20: “BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, and you stand by faith.” So the branches are unbelieving branches. If the branches refer to Israel (which I have already established), and the branches are broken, then the broken branches represent unbelieving national Israel. Verse 23 confirms that there is hope for Israel, since “God is able to graft them in again” only if they believe (v.23). Contra Woudstra, God has not given up on the nation itself. The passage then, is not about “spiritual” Israel, but national Israel, the nation of Jewish descendants.
I will continue with verses 25ff and what they have to say about national Israel (against Woudstra’s argument) in my next post.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Nature of Compatibilism
Dr. Ken Keathley, a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as author of the book “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach,” will teach a contemporary theology class on “Molinism” this coming June 28-July 2. As you can imagine, I’m pretty excited about this course because I will be a student in the class. You, the readership, can expect some good comments from me regarding the course itself...so be prepared to be amazed!
Along these lines, I talked to a friend of mine yesterday whom I had no idea was taking the course. He is a staunch Calvinist, so he sees problems with Molinism itself.
But his attack of Molinism as a system was not because of the NATURE of the system...but because of the idea that Molinism argues for “compatibilism,” the idea that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility cooperate rather than frustrate each other. Molinism espouses that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are like a ball in a glove: they just fit well together. Never is there an overpowering of one against the other.
In this post, I wanna deal with the nature of compatibilism. Compatibility is a good thing when it comes to divine sovereignty and human responsibility; but the issue of Molinism itself is not that it argues compatibilism---but HOW its compatibilism comes about.
Calvinism asserts that divine sovereignty rules the day; “God does whatever He pleases,” and, although God performs actions in the world (whether good or evil), man must still pay for what God drove him to do. In other words, in the Calvinist system, God does all the wrong and leaves mankind to take the blame for it. As you can see, there is no need for compatibilism in a system where only one of the two theological concepts exists (that is, divine sovereignty).
In the Molinist and Classical Arminian systems, however, both concepts exist in a real and true way. Molinists and Classical Arminians argue for compatibilism. They do not disregard either concept to make room for the other, but embrace them both in their systems. In the Classical Arminian system, for instance, human responsibility, the idea that humans are “response able” (provided by R.K. McGregor Wright, a five-point Calvinist in his work, “No Place For Sovereignty”), testifies to the sovereignty of God: for humans are unable to respond without the aid of divine grace. The fact that humans are enabled to respond shows that God has so enabled man to respond to Himself. God will not ask us to respond if we cannot, so He has granted the ability of response to every single human individual regarding salvation. The Spirit of grace enables every person to respond to the gospel when they hear the message preached (Romans 10). The Spirit frees the human will from its bondage to sin so that the person can make a genuine decision to either accept or reject the gospel. We cannot please God without faith (Heb. 11:6).
In the Molinist system, divine sovereignty and human responsibility coexist because God has selected a world where humans will make genuine choices. God knows all the genuine choices that can be made, and from the different combinations of possibilities, He selects one world that will bring about the greatest good and the greatest glory to Himself (hence the view of “the best of all possible worlds”). But God’s selection of a world, in Molinist thought, still allows man responsibility for his actions. God’s sovereignty, unlike the implications of the Calvinist system, allows man to make choices that he himself GENUINELY makes. God doesn’t make someone do something against their will. They choose to do what they actually do. It’s just that God knew this all along (because He selected the world).
Now, whenever I attempt to explain what Molinism is to someone, I usually get the response that, if God selects the world, and your choice is to do “X,” then God selects your choice. Why? because, in another state of affairs, you would have committed action “Y”---but that world does not get actualized. Because God selected the world (and thus, action X would infallibly come to pass), then X infallibly happened, without the possibility of failure. And when genuine choice is involved, the person has the possibility of choosing “Y” although they genuinely chose “X.” Most of those I talk to about this seem to think that the Molinist system itself gives too much credit to Calvinism, and thus, rule Molinism as a semi-deterministic system. God’s selection of a set state of affairs (actions) comes before man actually performs them in time. That is basically what Calvinists claim about salvation: in their interpretation of Ephesians 1, God “chose us to be in Christ” (although the text only says “He chose us IN CHRIST”), and when we actually come to Christ, we come not because of a genuine decision---but because it was all predetermined, “before the foundations of the world.”
It is the lack of two options regarding a choice that makes some I talk to rather skeptical of Molinism. The skeptics desire to see a system that accounts for what I call “GCIT,” that is, “Genuine Choice In Time.” And the biblical text provides such examples, like 1 Samuel 23 when David is told he will be captured by Saul but he escapes this divine prediction. So there is good and bad to Molinism (as to every system): while middle knowledge leaves room for possibility of choices (which is good), the arm of determinism really cancels the need for middle knowledge (since the divine has already made the choice Himself).
When it comes to divine sovereignty and human responsibility, we must ask ourselves the question, “Are both concepts of divine sovereignty and human responsibility emphasized and acknowledged in Scripture?” The answer to question 1 is “yes.” If this question is answered, we must then proceed to the question, “how do they fit together?” Molinism tries to answer both questions in the affirmative. Calvinism, however, answers question 1 in the negative (only divine sovereignty is emphasized) and treats question 2 as if it does not exist. Calvinism, therefore, is far more theologically errant than Molinism.
Molinism has its good and bad points; however, I applaud Luis de Molina for at least arguing the compatibilism of divine sovereignty and human freedom in the Bible. His system was quite an innovation in his time amidst a world of theologians who didn’t see that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are inseparable.
Along these lines, I talked to a friend of mine yesterday whom I had no idea was taking the course. He is a staunch Calvinist, so he sees problems with Molinism itself.
But his attack of Molinism as a system was not because of the NATURE of the system...but because of the idea that Molinism argues for “compatibilism,” the idea that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility cooperate rather than frustrate each other. Molinism espouses that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are like a ball in a glove: they just fit well together. Never is there an overpowering of one against the other.
In this post, I wanna deal with the nature of compatibilism. Compatibility is a good thing when it comes to divine sovereignty and human responsibility; but the issue of Molinism itself is not that it argues compatibilism---but HOW its compatibilism comes about.
Calvinism asserts that divine sovereignty rules the day; “God does whatever He pleases,” and, although God performs actions in the world (whether good or evil), man must still pay for what God drove him to do. In other words, in the Calvinist system, God does all the wrong and leaves mankind to take the blame for it. As you can see, there is no need for compatibilism in a system where only one of the two theological concepts exists (that is, divine sovereignty).
In the Molinist and Classical Arminian systems, however, both concepts exist in a real and true way. Molinists and Classical Arminians argue for compatibilism. They do not disregard either concept to make room for the other, but embrace them both in their systems. In the Classical Arminian system, for instance, human responsibility, the idea that humans are “response able” (provided by R.K. McGregor Wright, a five-point Calvinist in his work, “No Place For Sovereignty”), testifies to the sovereignty of God: for humans are unable to respond without the aid of divine grace. The fact that humans are enabled to respond shows that God has so enabled man to respond to Himself. God will not ask us to respond if we cannot, so He has granted the ability of response to every single human individual regarding salvation. The Spirit of grace enables every person to respond to the gospel when they hear the message preached (Romans 10). The Spirit frees the human will from its bondage to sin so that the person can make a genuine decision to either accept or reject the gospel. We cannot please God without faith (Heb. 11:6).
In the Molinist system, divine sovereignty and human responsibility coexist because God has selected a world where humans will make genuine choices. God knows all the genuine choices that can be made, and from the different combinations of possibilities, He selects one world that will bring about the greatest good and the greatest glory to Himself (hence the view of “the best of all possible worlds”). But God’s selection of a world, in Molinist thought, still allows man responsibility for his actions. God’s sovereignty, unlike the implications of the Calvinist system, allows man to make choices that he himself GENUINELY makes. God doesn’t make someone do something against their will. They choose to do what they actually do. It’s just that God knew this all along (because He selected the world).
Now, whenever I attempt to explain what Molinism is to someone, I usually get the response that, if God selects the world, and your choice is to do “X,” then God selects your choice. Why? because, in another state of affairs, you would have committed action “Y”---but that world does not get actualized. Because God selected the world (and thus, action X would infallibly come to pass), then X infallibly happened, without the possibility of failure. And when genuine choice is involved, the person has the possibility of choosing “Y” although they genuinely chose “X.” Most of those I talk to about this seem to think that the Molinist system itself gives too much credit to Calvinism, and thus, rule Molinism as a semi-deterministic system. God’s selection of a set state of affairs (actions) comes before man actually performs them in time. That is basically what Calvinists claim about salvation: in their interpretation of Ephesians 1, God “chose us to be in Christ” (although the text only says “He chose us IN CHRIST”), and when we actually come to Christ, we come not because of a genuine decision---but because it was all predetermined, “before the foundations of the world.”
It is the lack of two options regarding a choice that makes some I talk to rather skeptical of Molinism. The skeptics desire to see a system that accounts for what I call “GCIT,” that is, “Genuine Choice In Time.” And the biblical text provides such examples, like 1 Samuel 23 when David is told he will be captured by Saul but he escapes this divine prediction. So there is good and bad to Molinism (as to every system): while middle knowledge leaves room for possibility of choices (which is good), the arm of determinism really cancels the need for middle knowledge (since the divine has already made the choice Himself).
When it comes to divine sovereignty and human responsibility, we must ask ourselves the question, “Are both concepts of divine sovereignty and human responsibility emphasized and acknowledged in Scripture?” The answer to question 1 is “yes.” If this question is answered, we must then proceed to the question, “how do they fit together?” Molinism tries to answer both questions in the affirmative. Calvinism, however, answers question 1 in the negative (only divine sovereignty is emphasized) and treats question 2 as if it does not exist. Calvinism, therefore, is far more theologically errant than Molinism.
Molinism has its good and bad points; however, I applaud Luis de Molina for at least arguing the compatibilism of divine sovereignty and human freedom in the Bible. His system was quite an innovation in his time amidst a world of theologians who didn’t see that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are inseparable.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Traditional Dispensationalism: The "Literal" Problem of the Literal Approach in Genesis 12:3
This is the first post on the debate of the summer: Dispensationalism versus Covenantal Theology. To start off this great debate, as you can imagine, I had to pick which of the two theologies to begin with. The one I chose is Dispensational Theology, since it is the theology most attacked in Calvinist theology.
To examine Dispensational Theology, I will first look at traditional dispensationalism to assess its problems and see the need for a revision of traditional dispensationalism. To this end, I will employ Elliott E. Johnson and his chapter in Herbert Bateman IV’s edited work titled “Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views.” Johnson writes:
“One such opinion, shared by both Blaising and Bock, is the use of the Abrahamic covenant to refer to Gentile believers. THAT REFERENCE IS SAID TO INVOLVE A SPIRITUAL FULFILLMENT. Blaising writes: ‘In spite of revised dispensationalism’s insistence on consistent literal interpretation, they believed that the church was the ‘spiritual’ seed of Abraham, that is, the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled ‘spiritually’ in the church’...in reference to a spiritual seed, where does such a commitment appear? Statements in Genesis (13:16; 15:5; 22:17) commit God to multiply Abraham’s descendants. Such descendants would be ‘spiritual’ in the sense that God provided them, but the focus is that the descendants are ‘physical or natural.’ So the statements of Genesis do not include references to Gentiles as descendants...if it would be determined from the perspective of Christ, then the original meaning of Genesis is expanded based on this new perspective. This sensus plenior must then be attributed to what God meant in some fashion. Bock follows a similar argument for expanded meaning in fulfillment” (Elliott E. Johnson, “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic,” from “Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999, page 68).
The above quote by Johnson is Bock’s argument for progressive dispensationalism, which focuses on the progressive revelation of God throughout Scripture. Based on this view, we know more in Revelation than we knew in Genesis, for example. However, Johnson disagrees and states his disagreement in the following paragraph:
“Such an argument [Bock] for a spiritual fulfillment is neither necessary nor warranted from the texts involved nor from a dispensational system. Rather, GENTILES, AS BLESSED, ARE A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF GENESIS 12:3, and the blessing of becoming the seed of Abraham is received as the theological result of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26-29)” (Johnson, “Three Central Issues,” page 68).
To examine Johnson’s argument, let’s look at Genesis 12:
“Now the Lord had said to Abram: ‘Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I WILL MAKE YOU A GREAT NATION; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; AND IN YOU ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED’” (Gen. 12:1-3, NKJV).
Johnson claims that the Gentiles coming to faith is a LITERAL fulfillment of the text itself. But this poses problems, as Abraham shows us later in Genesis:
“Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I GO CHILDLESS, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?’ Then Abram said, ‘Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!’ And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, ‘This one shall not be your heir, BUT ONE WHO WILL COME FROM YOUR OWN BODY SHALL BE YOUR HEIR’” (Genesis 15:2-4, NKJV).
Abraham’s focus is on a Jewish descendant; this would not involve Gentiles. No Gentile could be a physical fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.
What about the part regarding the nations being blessed in Abraham (Gen. 12:3)? This question poses a problem for the traditional camp; why? because the promise of a male heir is the physical fulfillment of this promise, what God actually fulfills (Gen. 17:21; 21:1-3).
So the Lord gives Isaac to Abraham and Sarah; but how do Gentiles become a part of the family of Abraham? Abraham has Isaac, who brings forth Jacob, who then becomes the chosen one, through whom Jesus Christ comes (Matt. 1:1-16). Gentiles are united to Christ, but by faith (Rom. 4:16). Gentiles then, bear no physical union with Abraham, but a spiritual one; and these two unions must be distinguished.
Paul certainly distinguishes them when he writes, “for they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). He further distinguishes both physical and spiritual Israel when he writes, “those who are the CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, these are not the children of God; but the CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE are counted as the seed” (Rom. 9:8). “Children of the flesh” are those who are physically born in Abraham’s lineage, while “children of the promise” are those who are tied to Abraham by faith.
Romans 4:16 states, “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to ALL THE SEED, not only to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE LAW, but also to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL.” Here we see that “those of the law” are distinguished from “those of the faith of Abraham.” These two groups are not the same, so both groups cannot be the result of literal fulfillment. Earlier in Romans 4, Paul provides the labels “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” to the groups in question (Rom. 4:11). If you recall, the Lord required every Jewish male to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-11). How then, are the “uncircumcised” of Romans 4 allowed to become children of Abraham, if not by some other, NON-PHYSICAL union?
There is a literal element to the promise of Genesis 12:3---while Christ is a Jewish descendant of Abraham by PHYSICAL birth, He blesses the nations by being their Savior who extends mercy to them by grace through faith. Christ blesses the Jews and fulfills the promises “made to the fathers,” while extending mercy to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:8-9). The Scriptures, however, say nothing of the Gentiles receiving salvation because of “promises made to the fathers”; this distinction remains for the Jews only. It is on account of the fathers, for the sake of election, that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26-29).
Scripture itself distinguishes between physical and spiritual Israel; and we must do so as well. What Johnson fails to see is that there is not a direct one-to-one correspondence between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel; for, while ethnic Israel receives the material blessings promised to her through the fathers, she cannot be saved without the gospel...and while all of spiritual Israel will not inherit under the covenant of law God made to the fathers, all of spiritual Israel WILL inherit salvation by faith. Johnson makes the same mistake that covenantal theologians will assume in their own theology (one-to-one correspondence). For now, though, keep Johnson’s work in mind; you just might see something similar again, sometime soon.
To examine Dispensational Theology, I will first look at traditional dispensationalism to assess its problems and see the need for a revision of traditional dispensationalism. To this end, I will employ Elliott E. Johnson and his chapter in Herbert Bateman IV’s edited work titled “Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views.” Johnson writes:
“One such opinion, shared by both Blaising and Bock, is the use of the Abrahamic covenant to refer to Gentile believers. THAT REFERENCE IS SAID TO INVOLVE A SPIRITUAL FULFILLMENT. Blaising writes: ‘In spite of revised dispensationalism’s insistence on consistent literal interpretation, they believed that the church was the ‘spiritual’ seed of Abraham, that is, the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled ‘spiritually’ in the church’...in reference to a spiritual seed, where does such a commitment appear? Statements in Genesis (13:16; 15:5; 22:17) commit God to multiply Abraham’s descendants. Such descendants would be ‘spiritual’ in the sense that God provided them, but the focus is that the descendants are ‘physical or natural.’ So the statements of Genesis do not include references to Gentiles as descendants...if it would be determined from the perspective of Christ, then the original meaning of Genesis is expanded based on this new perspective. This sensus plenior must then be attributed to what God meant in some fashion. Bock follows a similar argument for expanded meaning in fulfillment” (Elliott E. Johnson, “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic,” from “Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999, page 68).
The above quote by Johnson is Bock’s argument for progressive dispensationalism, which focuses on the progressive revelation of God throughout Scripture. Based on this view, we know more in Revelation than we knew in Genesis, for example. However, Johnson disagrees and states his disagreement in the following paragraph:
“Such an argument [Bock] for a spiritual fulfillment is neither necessary nor warranted from the texts involved nor from a dispensational system. Rather, GENTILES, AS BLESSED, ARE A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF GENESIS 12:3, and the blessing of becoming the seed of Abraham is received as the theological result of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26-29)” (Johnson, “Three Central Issues,” page 68).
To examine Johnson’s argument, let’s look at Genesis 12:
“Now the Lord had said to Abram: ‘Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I WILL MAKE YOU A GREAT NATION; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; AND IN YOU ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED’” (Gen. 12:1-3, NKJV).
Johnson claims that the Gentiles coming to faith is a LITERAL fulfillment of the text itself. But this poses problems, as Abraham shows us later in Genesis:
“Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I GO CHILDLESS, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?’ Then Abram said, ‘Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!’ And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, ‘This one shall not be your heir, BUT ONE WHO WILL COME FROM YOUR OWN BODY SHALL BE YOUR HEIR’” (Genesis 15:2-4, NKJV).
Abraham’s focus is on a Jewish descendant; this would not involve Gentiles. No Gentile could be a physical fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.
What about the part regarding the nations being blessed in Abraham (Gen. 12:3)? This question poses a problem for the traditional camp; why? because the promise of a male heir is the physical fulfillment of this promise, what God actually fulfills (Gen. 17:21; 21:1-3).
So the Lord gives Isaac to Abraham and Sarah; but how do Gentiles become a part of the family of Abraham? Abraham has Isaac, who brings forth Jacob, who then becomes the chosen one, through whom Jesus Christ comes (Matt. 1:1-16). Gentiles are united to Christ, but by faith (Rom. 4:16). Gentiles then, bear no physical union with Abraham, but a spiritual one; and these two unions must be distinguished.
Paul certainly distinguishes them when he writes, “for they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). He further distinguishes both physical and spiritual Israel when he writes, “those who are the CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, these are not the children of God; but the CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE are counted as the seed” (Rom. 9:8). “Children of the flesh” are those who are physically born in Abraham’s lineage, while “children of the promise” are those who are tied to Abraham by faith.
Romans 4:16 states, “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to ALL THE SEED, not only to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE LAW, but also to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL.” Here we see that “those of the law” are distinguished from “those of the faith of Abraham.” These two groups are not the same, so both groups cannot be the result of literal fulfillment. Earlier in Romans 4, Paul provides the labels “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” to the groups in question (Rom. 4:11). If you recall, the Lord required every Jewish male to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-11). How then, are the “uncircumcised” of Romans 4 allowed to become children of Abraham, if not by some other, NON-PHYSICAL union?
There is a literal element to the promise of Genesis 12:3---while Christ is a Jewish descendant of Abraham by PHYSICAL birth, He blesses the nations by being their Savior who extends mercy to them by grace through faith. Christ blesses the Jews and fulfills the promises “made to the fathers,” while extending mercy to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:8-9). The Scriptures, however, say nothing of the Gentiles receiving salvation because of “promises made to the fathers”; this distinction remains for the Jews only. It is on account of the fathers, for the sake of election, that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26-29).
Scripture itself distinguishes between physical and spiritual Israel; and we must do so as well. What Johnson fails to see is that there is not a direct one-to-one correspondence between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel; for, while ethnic Israel receives the material blessings promised to her through the fathers, she cannot be saved without the gospel...and while all of spiritual Israel will not inherit under the covenant of law God made to the fathers, all of spiritual Israel WILL inherit salvation by faith. Johnson makes the same mistake that covenantal theologians will assume in their own theology (one-to-one correspondence). For now, though, keep Johnson’s work in mind; you just might see something similar again, sometime soon.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
"Make Them Willing"
As I announced two days ago, I am tackling the theological debate regarding dispensationalism and covenantal theology. Yesterday, I decided to read some on Michael Horton’s “The God of Promise: An Introduction to Covenantal Theology.”
In Horton’s chapter five, titled “From Scripture to System: The Heart of Covenant Theology,” Horton quotes from the Westminster Confession regarding the Reformed Theology covenants of works and grace:
“...The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ORDAINED UNTO LIFE, HIS HOLY SPIRIT, TO MAKE THEM WILLING AND ABLE TO BELIEVE” (Westminster Confession, Chapter Seven; quoted by Horton in “The God of Promise: An Introduction to Covenantal Theology.” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008, page 82).
I’ll tell you up-front without hiding it: Michael Horton is a Calvinist, so the above quote from the Westminster Confession is not surprising (taking his theology into context). In any case, I desire to examine Horton’s quote from the Westminster Confession here and see whether or not this is what Scripture teaches about belief and salvation.
Notice that the Confession says that the Holy Spirit is given to those “ordained unto life,” and that the Spirit “make[s] them willing and able to believe.” According to the second portion of the capitalized quote, the Spirit makes the person able and willing to believe. True, without the Spirit, man cannot believe (John 6:44, 65). However, is the Spirit given BEFORE belief?
I’m gonna use one of the classic Calvinist passages regarding how belief and salvation operate--- the text of Ephesians 1.
In this text, we find these words:
“In Him you also trusted, AFTER you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, HAVING BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13, NKJV).
Paul gives us an order of the process of salvation: first, the person hears the word of truth, the gospel; “after” so hearing, the person trusted (“you also trusted, after you heard the word”); once they trusted, they were sealed (“having believed”). The word for “having believed” is “pisteusantes,” which is an Aorist Active Participle. The tense is “aorist,” which means that the event itself (belief) occurred in the past or has already happened. This is why the word “pisteusantes” is translated in most bible versions as “having believed.” Secondly, the voice of the verb “pisteusantes” is “active,” which means that the person is doing the action (the person is the one believing). The active tense demonstrates that belief itself is not passive: in other words, the person is not being made to believe, but is choosing to believe, acting on his or her own volition.
But notice the end of the verse: “having believed, YOU WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1:13). The person is not sealed until after confession and belief (Rom. 10:9). This leaves us with a question: if we are not sealed until AFTER we believe, but the Spirit must draw us in order to believe, then exactly how does the Spirit work to bring us to faith in Christ? This is indeed, a good question.
According to the Westminster Confession, God “makes” a person willing to believe, not just “makes them able.” But if the Spirit is the only one who can “make someone willing,” why does He not make everyone willing? If the Spirit is the only one who can do this, why then, does He not force Himself on everyone? If you listen to Calvinist theology, God does not make everyone because He doesn’t desire everyone to be saved; this, my friends, is a direct violation of Scripture (1 Timothy 2:4). If everyone does not believe, then, the root of the problem is not the Spirit’s willing, but THE PERSON’S WILLING!!
Now, go back to the role of the Spirit in salvation. If the Spirit does not seal a person until AFTER belief, then how does the Spirit affect a person PRIOR TO belief? If the Spirit is not within a person up to the moment of belief, how then, does the Spirit affect a person’s coming to faith? The person cannot be regenerated, for to be regenerated means “to be born again”...and the person cannot be born again until he or she believes. So, while the Spirit will not force a person to believe, He will draw a person to come to faith, will woo a person to believe. This drawing influence, however, is not one that guarantees a person’s faith, but one that enables a person to believe.
The Westminster Confession, then, only has half of its statement right: while the Spirit does enable us to believe, He does not guarantee human willing. Why then, may you ask, would the Westminster Confession bear such a statement? It does so because it is committed to the idea that “faith is a work.” Let’s follow Calvinist logic in a syllogism:
a. Faith is a work.
b. A person must believe in order to be saved.
c. We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9).
d. Faith, as a work, must be given by God.
e. Therefore, man must be made to “work,” he must be “made willing” to believe.
As a result, the Calvinist will always argue that regeneration precedes faith. If, however, we come to understand that faith is not a work (Rom. 4:5), then a person can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with the Spirit’s enablement, but without the Spirit’s “forcing” belief.
It’s amazing how studying on other subjects such as dispensationalism and covenantal theology can still bring us back to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. And much of our study this summer (and the rest of the year) will bring us back to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. But such is the nature of theology: it is an unbroken circle of doctrines, all reinforcing one another, again and again.
In Horton’s chapter five, titled “From Scripture to System: The Heart of Covenant Theology,” Horton quotes from the Westminster Confession regarding the Reformed Theology covenants of works and grace:
“...The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ORDAINED UNTO LIFE, HIS HOLY SPIRIT, TO MAKE THEM WILLING AND ABLE TO BELIEVE” (Westminster Confession, Chapter Seven; quoted by Horton in “The God of Promise: An Introduction to Covenantal Theology.” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008, page 82).
I’ll tell you up-front without hiding it: Michael Horton is a Calvinist, so the above quote from the Westminster Confession is not surprising (taking his theology into context). In any case, I desire to examine Horton’s quote from the Westminster Confession here and see whether or not this is what Scripture teaches about belief and salvation.
Notice that the Confession says that the Holy Spirit is given to those “ordained unto life,” and that the Spirit “make[s] them willing and able to believe.” According to the second portion of the capitalized quote, the Spirit makes the person able and willing to believe. True, without the Spirit, man cannot believe (John 6:44, 65). However, is the Spirit given BEFORE belief?
I’m gonna use one of the classic Calvinist passages regarding how belief and salvation operate--- the text of Ephesians 1.
In this text, we find these words:
“In Him you also trusted, AFTER you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, HAVING BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13, NKJV).
Paul gives us an order of the process of salvation: first, the person hears the word of truth, the gospel; “after” so hearing, the person trusted (“you also trusted, after you heard the word”); once they trusted, they were sealed (“having believed”). The word for “having believed” is “pisteusantes,” which is an Aorist Active Participle. The tense is “aorist,” which means that the event itself (belief) occurred in the past or has already happened. This is why the word “pisteusantes” is translated in most bible versions as “having believed.” Secondly, the voice of the verb “pisteusantes” is “active,” which means that the person is doing the action (the person is the one believing). The active tense demonstrates that belief itself is not passive: in other words, the person is not being made to believe, but is choosing to believe, acting on his or her own volition.
But notice the end of the verse: “having believed, YOU WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1:13). The person is not sealed until after confession and belief (Rom. 10:9). This leaves us with a question: if we are not sealed until AFTER we believe, but the Spirit must draw us in order to believe, then exactly how does the Spirit work to bring us to faith in Christ? This is indeed, a good question.
According to the Westminster Confession, God “makes” a person willing to believe, not just “makes them able.” But if the Spirit is the only one who can “make someone willing,” why does He not make everyone willing? If the Spirit is the only one who can do this, why then, does He not force Himself on everyone? If you listen to Calvinist theology, God does not make everyone because He doesn’t desire everyone to be saved; this, my friends, is a direct violation of Scripture (1 Timothy 2:4). If everyone does not believe, then, the root of the problem is not the Spirit’s willing, but THE PERSON’S WILLING!!
Now, go back to the role of the Spirit in salvation. If the Spirit does not seal a person until AFTER belief, then how does the Spirit affect a person PRIOR TO belief? If the Spirit is not within a person up to the moment of belief, how then, does the Spirit affect a person’s coming to faith? The person cannot be regenerated, for to be regenerated means “to be born again”...and the person cannot be born again until he or she believes. So, while the Spirit will not force a person to believe, He will draw a person to come to faith, will woo a person to believe. This drawing influence, however, is not one that guarantees a person’s faith, but one that enables a person to believe.
The Westminster Confession, then, only has half of its statement right: while the Spirit does enable us to believe, He does not guarantee human willing. Why then, may you ask, would the Westminster Confession bear such a statement? It does so because it is committed to the idea that “faith is a work.” Let’s follow Calvinist logic in a syllogism:
a. Faith is a work.
b. A person must believe in order to be saved.
c. We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9).
d. Faith, as a work, must be given by God.
e. Therefore, man must be made to “work,” he must be “made willing” to believe.
As a result, the Calvinist will always argue that regeneration precedes faith. If, however, we come to understand that faith is not a work (Rom. 4:5), then a person can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with the Spirit’s enablement, but without the Spirit’s “forcing” belief.
It’s amazing how studying on other subjects such as dispensationalism and covenantal theology can still bring us back to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. And much of our study this summer (and the rest of the year) will bring us back to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. But such is the nature of theology: it is an unbroken circle of doctrines, all reinforcing one another, again and again.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
Dear Readership,
Your writer here! It's June 1st...which means that it's time for an exciting announcement.
I am done with finals and ready to proceed in our studies of the Word of God. This past year, I tackled the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. There is still much to study regarding those two theological systems (and we will study them more in the future); however, the theological debate for the summer (one of the summer tackles) will concern "Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology." On an initial level, I have some books to recommend: (1) "Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views" by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor; (2) "Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged" by Barry E. Horner; (3) "Progressive Dispensationalism" by Darrell Bock; (4) "Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Poythress; (5)"Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie. I also recommend the work done by the Feinberg brothers on (6) "Continuity and Discontinuity" as well as (7) Robert Saucy's "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism."
For those who, like me, love to read historical theology, I recommend a special book to you: (8) "The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact On the Evangelical Church" by R. Todd Mangum and Mark S. Sweetnam. I own all of these eight books and will be posting on them here in the days ahead.
Since dispensationalism is often the position of the two above most attacked, I decided to start with studying it first. Having already finished one book of the eight above in my summer pursuits, I can say that I think progressive dispensationalism might be one of the most upsetting rivals to covenantal theology. To my readership, I would recommend the work of Darrell Bock in this camp and say that his work will be greatly prized here at the site. If you desire to know, I do own a work on covenantal theology that I am reading: (9) "God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology" by Michael Horton. I plan to do lots more reading on both dispensational and covenantal theology in the coming days.
Feel free to recommend books here and even comment on books you read if you desire to do so. Like the debate on Calvinism and Arminianism this past year, we too, will grow together as we embark on this new and exciting theological journey. May the Lord grant us grace, mercy, and wisdom as we seek to know His truth...and may the work done here at the site be to the glory of our God...
Your writer here! It's June 1st...which means that it's time for an exciting announcement.
I am done with finals and ready to proceed in our studies of the Word of God. This past year, I tackled the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. There is still much to study regarding those two theological systems (and we will study them more in the future); however, the theological debate for the summer (one of the summer tackles) will concern "Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology." On an initial level, I have some books to recommend: (1) "Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views" by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor; (2) "Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged" by Barry E. Horner; (3) "Progressive Dispensationalism" by Darrell Bock; (4) "Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Poythress; (5)"Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie. I also recommend the work done by the Feinberg brothers on (6) "Continuity and Discontinuity" as well as (7) Robert Saucy's "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism."
For those who, like me, love to read historical theology, I recommend a special book to you: (8) "The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact On the Evangelical Church" by R. Todd Mangum and Mark S. Sweetnam. I own all of these eight books and will be posting on them here in the days ahead.
Since dispensationalism is often the position of the two above most attacked, I decided to start with studying it first. Having already finished one book of the eight above in my summer pursuits, I can say that I think progressive dispensationalism might be one of the most upsetting rivals to covenantal theology. To my readership, I would recommend the work of Darrell Bock in this camp and say that his work will be greatly prized here at the site. If you desire to know, I do own a work on covenantal theology that I am reading: (9) "God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology" by Michael Horton. I plan to do lots more reading on both dispensational and covenantal theology in the coming days.
Feel free to recommend books here and even comment on books you read if you desire to do so. Like the debate on Calvinism and Arminianism this past year, we too, will grow together as we embark on this new and exciting theological journey. May the Lord grant us grace, mercy, and wisdom as we seek to know His truth...and may the work done here at the site be to the glory of our God...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)