Monday, March 31, 2014
Which Bible Translation Should I Choose
Which Bible Translation Should I Choose?
Posted by Andreas Köstenberger
Trevin Wax with “The Gospel Coalition” recently interviewed Dr. Kostenberger on “Which Bible Translation Should I Choose?”. Here is the interview below.
Why is this book needed?
“Which Bible translation should I use?” is one of the most frequently questions we get asked. And, it’s true, choosing a Bible translation is a very important decision, because we need to be able to have confidence in the Bible we read and study and memorize.
In my experience, people often choose a Bible because, say, John Piper likes it, or because of tradition or emotional factors. In this book, we’ve tried to put choosing a Bible translation on a more objective footing.
In consultation with the representatives of the four major recent versions included in our volume, we chose over a dozen significant passages across both Testaments and have each of these scholars explain their particular choice of translation. In this way, we hope that we have provided our readers with a valuable tool for comparing these 4 translations.
Why did you choose these four versions?
The book started out as a symposium at Liberty University, with Wayne Grudem, Douglas Moo, and Ray Clendenen representing the ESV, the NIV, and the HCSB respectively. After the symposium, we solicited an additional response from Philip Comfort representing the NLT. The ESV, NIV 2011, HCSB, and NLT are the four most recent major English Bible translations that have appeared on the market, which is why they were chosen for comparison in our volume.
Even though some other significant versions such as the NKJV or the NASB were not explicitly included, we believe readers of our volume will still be given tools to evaluate these and other translations, because we focus not only on the rendering of individual passages but seek to unearth the underlying translation philosophy for the four major versions chosen for inclusion.
Our hope is that our volume will shed light on why a given translation chose a particular rendering. It’s not just a matter of that individual passage but the larger approach to translation that is used, which differs from version to version.
Take the reference to the qualification for a church leader to be a one-woman-type of man in 1 Timothy 3:2, for example. Some translations choose a word-for-word rendering (“husband of one wife,” NASB), while others opt for a more idiomatic translation (e.g. “faithful to his wife,” NIV). When you understand how a given translation philosophy influenced a particular rendering, it helps you evaluate a particular translation decision better. Eventually, you may even get to a point when, knowing the translation philosophy underlying the major English version, you can almost predict how a given version will translate a particular verse.
It’s interesting to see how the editors chose specific passages for each scholar to interact with, passages that are representative of the different translation philosophies. How did you go about choosing these passages?
Rather than dictate to the contributors the different passages, we allowed each to select four passages that they believed would illustrate the benefits of their translation philosophy. There were some passages we had in mind that we hoped would be covered, and they were selected by the contributors themselves.
I think the passages provide a good sampling. They are diverse enough to cover both testaments and several literary genres. There were various issues involved to help the readers see a bigger picture of how the translations applied their theory of translation in particular situations.
Do you see any trends in translation philosophy? What kind of translations do you think most Christians in the English-speaking world will gravitate to in the future?
I don’t want to give away the conclusion we reach in our book, because I want your readers to buy the book and benefit from the detailed analysis, but let me just say that we have the luxury of having several outstanding Bible translations in the English language. There is, of course, no perfect substitute for studying the Bible in the original languages, but many of the English versions that are available on the market today serve us extremely well.
Personally, I like to use several translations in conjunction with one another, which helps me to see the facets of a given passage in fuller perspective. Using multiple translations also is useful in that people in our churches do in fact use different translations, and so we can anticipate any questions they might have based on the translation they use.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Ken Ham on The Noah Movie
Friends, last night I watched the Hollywood (Paramount) movie Noah. It is much, much worse than I thought it would be—much worse. The director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky, has been quoted in the media as saying that Noah is “the least biblical biblical film ever made,” and I agree wholeheartedly with him.
I am disgusted. I am going to come right out and say it: this movie is disgusting and evil—paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie that portrays Noah as a psychopath who says that if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl then he will kill her as soon as she’s born? And when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls “righteous” in Genesis 7:1) brings a knife down to the head of one of the babies to kill her—and at the last minute doesn’t do it. And then a bit later, Noah says he failed because he didn’t kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion? Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.
I feel dirty—as if I have to somehow wash the evil off myself. I cannot believe there are Christian leaders who have recommended that people see this movie.
It’s as if someone heard the name Noah, and that there was a Flood and an Ark, and then made up a pagan movie about it. I don’t think there is anything else that really has to do with the Bible’s account except some names of people! For example, Methuselah is some sort of witch doctor who can do magical things. There is much more I could say about it—so much more. And what’s with the bizarre fallen angels being living rocks that help Noah?
I suggest you join us at CreationDebate.org tonight for our live stream at 8 PM eastern time. A number of AiG researches watched the movie last night as well, and several of us will be on the live stream to explain what we saw and heard.
I am so glad my wife did not come with me to see this—she would have been terribly upset. I feel violated as a Christian. Regardless of what others say, I just had to come right out and say this. Oh, and it is also a boring movie—yes, boring! Worst movie I think I’ve ever seen.
That’s my personal take—join us tonight for our discussion of Noah at CreationDebate.org.
The movie begins with (and also states later on), “In there beginning there was nothing.” However, the Bible states, “In the beginning God” (Genesis 1:1). That really sums up the difference!
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken
Friday, March 28, 2014
God’s Self-Existence
God’s Self-Existence
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”(Ps. 14:1a).
- Psalm 14:1a
We conclude our study of the relationship between science and theology with an examination of aseity — the doctrine of God’s self-existence. Aseity is the view that God is entirely self-sufficient and not dependent or contingent upon anything else. In other words, He is the eternal, independent, and personal cause of the universe.
Some thinkers appeal to self-creation in order to account for reality while denying God’s existence. As self-creation is illogical, others attack the concept of causality itself. An appeal to the philosophy of David Hume is often made to prove that uncaused effects do exist.
Using his famous illustration of a pool table, Hume stated that we never perceive the immediate cause of anything that happens. True, we strike a cue ball with a pool stick and believe the ball moves because of the impact. However, this does not prove striking the ball causes it to roll across the table. All we have seen for sure, Hume said, is a relationship of contiguity — a relationship where one event follows another in sequence. We assume the cause behind the effect but cannot be certain that something else did not cause the ball to move. Perhaps an unseen force was the actual cause of movement (as Christians, we answer Hume’s skepticism by saying both the cue stick and the unseen force of God’s decree make the ball roll).
In any case, Hume did not deny that causes exist, he just believed we cannot determine what they are. The law of causality still holds true: “Every effect must have a cause.”
In order for anything to exist, an uncaused something, or someone, must exist. It is not an uncaused effect that must exist, for there can be no such thing. Self-creation, an uncaused effect, may be an illogical contradiction, but a self-existent, “uncaused cause” is not.
This “uncaused cause” must have the power of being within itself — it must exist in and of itself. This cause must be eternal, for that which does not exist cannot later bring itself into existence. Moreover, this cause must be personal for an impersonal one could not create personal beings. Only a personal, self-existent God can answer the question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Is Jesus God?
Is Jesus God?
by Matt Slick
Yes, Jesus is God, but the answer needs to be expounded upon. When we say that Jesus is God we're using the term "God" in reference to the divine nature. But we have to be careful because we don't want to say Jesus is God and fail to understand that God is a Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is that God exists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
So, we have to be careful when we ask if Jesus is God because we have to be clear in the answer. If God is a Trinity and we say Jesus is God, then we are saying that Jesus is a Trinity. But that is not true. So in one sense the term "God" can be used to designate the totality of God as a Trinity, and in another sense it deals with the divine nature.
The correct answer is that Jesus is both divine and human. In other words, he is both God and man. God has a divine nature, and Jesus possesses the divine nature as well as the human nature. This dual nature characteristic is called the hypostatic union.
We know that Jesus is God in flesh because the Bible says many things declaring this. For example,
John 1:1, "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
John 1:14, "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."
John 8:24, "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."
John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I am."
Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Col. 2:9, "for in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form."
Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son he [The Father] says, 'You're throne, O God, is forever and ever.'"
After Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, Thomas, one of the disciples, doubted that he had risen. Jesus appears to him and Thomas responds by saying to Jesus "my Lord and my God," (John 20:28). Jesus makes no correction to Thomas about this. Titus 2:13 tells us to wait for the coming of "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." In John 5:18 it says that Jesus "was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
It is clear from the Scriptures that Jesus is considered to be God in flesh; that is, he is considered to be divine. The reason is because without Jesus being both God and man, he could not make a sacrifice of sufficient value to please God the Father. If he were not a man, he would not be able to die for the sins of mankind.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Apostasy in the Christian church
Apostasy in the Christian church
by Matt Slick
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," (2 Thess. 2:3, NASB).
Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. Therefore, an apostate is someone who has once believed and then rejected the truth of God. Apostasy is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against truth. In the Old Testament God warned the Jewish people about their idolatry and their lack of trust in Him. In the New Testament the epistles warn us about not falling away from the truth. Apostasy is a very real and dangerous threat.
The verse at the top of the page tells us that there will be an apostasy that is associated with the appearance of the Antichrist. Most Christians are looking for the arrival of the Antichrist, but very few are looking for "the apostasy" that must come first. The arrival of the Antichrist cannot occur until sufficient apostasy has happened in the world. The Antichrist, who is the ultimate of liars, cannot abide in a world where the truth of God's word is taught. This is why the Bible says that the apostasy will come first and then the Antichrist will be revealed.
Therefore, we must, as Christians, ask this question, "Is there an apostasy occurring in the Christian church today?" Some would say no and others yes. But, as we look for the arrival of the Antichrist, should we not also be looking for the arrival of apostasy? And where else should we first look but in our own house for the Bible tells us that judgment will begin in the house of the Lord (1 Peter 4:17).
If there is indeed an apostasy occurring in the Christian Church, we would not know it unless we first examined the Bible closely and then compared the present day Church to the Word of God. It is only after a standard of truth is established that we would then have a measuring rod by which apostasy can be detected. Therefore, I propose the following list of biblical truths as a sample of essential Christian and non-essential doctrines by which we might compare other teachings and phenomena. Note this is not absolute and the nuances of several topics can be debated since not all will agree with the categorization of all points. Still, we need to use the Bible as our standard and it gives us plenty of information by which we can know what the truth really is.
Primary Essentials (Nature and work of Christ) - Cannot deny and be Christian since they are explicitly stated as required in scripture.
Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14;8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21).
Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 5:1-5).
The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
There is only one God (Exodus 20:1-3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
Secondary Essentials - (Nature of God) Cannot deny and be Christian.
God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)
Virgin Birth of Jesus - relates to incarnation of Christ as God and man.
Primary Non-Essentials (Bible, Church ordinances, and practice) - Denial does not void salvation, yet principles are clearly taught in scripture. Denial suggests apostasy.
Male eldership and pastorate (1 Tim. 2:12-13; 3:15; Titus 1:5-7)
Fidelity in marriage in heterosexual relationships (1 Cor. 6:9)
The condemnation of homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27)
Inerrancy of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16)
Secondary Non-Essentials - does not affect one's salvation relationship with God. Debated within Christianity. Denial or acceptance does not suggest apostasy.
Baptism for adults or infants
Predestination, election, and free will
Communion every week, monthly, or quarterly, etc.
Saturday or Sunday Worship
Worship with or without instruments, traditional or contemporary.
Pretribulation rapture, midtribulation rapture, posttribulation rapture.
Premillennialism, amillennialism, and post millennialism.
Continuation or cessation of the charismatic gifts
Etc.
Of course, the non-essentials are debatable (which unfortunately leads to denominational fragmentation). But by way of explanation, the Primary Essentials, are those doctrines that the Bible states if they are denied, damnation follows. I have written on this in Essential Doctrines. For brevity, the Bible states that if you deny Jesus is God, you are dead in your sins (John 8:24,58 cf. Exodus 3:14); that if you deny Jesus' physical resurrection, your faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14, cf. John 2:19-21); that if you add works to salvation, you are not in Christ (Gal. 3:1-3; 5:1-4); and that if you preach a gospel contrary to what the apostles preached, you are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9, cf., 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, to deny any of these doctrines, according to scripture, is to be outside the camp of Christ, and invited eternal damnation. This would obviously be apostasy.
The Secondary Essentials are essentials that further clarify orthodoxy, but there is no explicitly scriptural statement regarding each (that I am aware of) which states that denying them results in damnation the way the Primary Essentials do. The Secondary Essentials deal with the nature of God, primarily. The fact that there is one God who is a Trinity, is clearly essential to Christian orthodoxy, but there is no scriptural statement stating that to believe in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. However, that does not mean that denial of the Trinity is acceptable. A person can be saved without knowing about the Trinity. But, since the Trinity is a biblical truth, and the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who bears witness of truth, a true Christian will not openly denounce the Trinity once he has been taught it from scripture. So, it could be said that the Secondary Essentials are essentials to the faith as well as the Primary Essentials are.
The Primary Non-Essentials are biblical teachings that if denied do not affect one's salvation. But, because the Bible teaches them, denying them is a sign of apostasy. The Secondary Non-Essentials do not affect ones position with God nor do they affirm or deny biblical teaching since they are debatable. Having differing beliefs in these is not a sign of apostasy, just differences of opinion. Again, I am aware that the categorization of the non-essentials is debatable, but I must draw the line somewhere. Sadly, it is in Secondary non-essential doctrines that most denominational fragmentation occurs. This is a sad display that most division occurs over that which is least important. Furthermore, I believe that it is in the area of the Non-Essentials that apostasy can first be detected.
2 Thessalonians 2
As quoted above, there is a prophecy in 2 Thessalonians about a coming apostasy that is associated with the disclosure of the anti-Christ.
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," (2 Thess. 2:3, NASB).
Have you been looking for the coming of the anti-Christ? Are you waiting for him to pop up on the world scene? If you are, are you also looking for the related apostasy? Most Christians are looking for the anti-Christ but are not looking for signs of apostasy.
The Bible is God's word and it tells us what is right and wrong. To the degree that anyone disagrees with the truths of God's word, to that same degree they are falling away from it. What, then, might be some of the signs of apostasy? I've compiled a representative list of issues. You may or may not agree with all of these, but I provide them as food for thought.
Denial of basic Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, and moral absolutes as found in the Bible.
God's word is true. Deviation from the basics of its truth is surely apostasy.
Countless denominational divisions that contradict John 13:35 and 1 Cor. 1:10.
Of course, there are bound to be divisions in the body of Christ and differences of opinions are permitted (Rom. 14:1-12). But, the amount of divisions in the Church is ridiculous and contrary to Col. 3:14.
Ordination of homosexuals
Homosexuality is clearly condemned in God's word (Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9). To ordain homosexuals into ministry is clearly contrary to biblical truth and clearly apostasy.
Women elders and pastors
Whether people like it or not in this politically correct environment, the Bible does not support women as elders or as pastors (1 Tim. 2:12-14; 3:2; Titus 1:5-7). Men are called to be leaders in the church. The fact that women elders and pastors exist is a sign that men are not doing their God-given job.
Also, if you believe in women pastors and elders, do not dismiss this article. You must always examine yourself to see if what you believe is biblical.
Not preaching the gospel per 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. It is not a message of convenience or embarrassment. Do not be ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16).
Using the Lord's name in vain, something a surprising number of Christians do.
God's name and title are to be used only by Christians in a reverent and respectful manner, never in casual exclamation. Just because the sinners do it, does not mean it is okay for the Christians.
Not sending out or failing to support missionaries (or cutting back unnecessarily) in violation of Matt. 28:18-20.
Carrying out the Great Commission is the command of Jesus. Any church that is able to support missionary work and does not, is in direct violation of Christ's command in the Great Commission.
Marketing and merchandising
Those in ministry should make a living from their labor. Churches should seek to spread the gospel best they can and selling things to do it is acceptable. But, how many trinkets and bobbles are offered in the name of Christ that do not honor God but are merely for the purpose of financial gain? Is the duty of the church business or the gospel? Remember how Jesus cleansed the temple?
Pastors who are more concerned with growing a church than preaching the truth.
Whoever and wherever they are, they need to repent. Pastors must stand on the truth of God's word, even if it costs them financially and materially.
Pastors who don't pray and seek God's face
Of course, this should be rare. But, any pastor who does not seek God's face in humility is seeking to do a job, not a ministry, under his own power.
Pastors who cave in to pressures from the church in contradiction to the word of God.
Any pastor who does this should repent now or step down from the pulpit. Pastors are to stand upon and for God's word, no matter what the obstacles or the cost.
Pastors who fail to equip their congregations according to God's word.
Pastors are called to equip the Christian for the work of the ministry in all aspects of life (Eph. 4:11): apologetics, evangelism, missionary work, prayer, service, love, etc. Far too many congregations are not being equipped with even the basics of Christianity and are instead being taught political correctness.
Pastors who don't teach damnation.
We are not saying that you must preach fire and brimstone all the time. But the fact is, the gospel that offends no one is not the gospel of the Bible. the truth of the gospel is that people will face damnation. This is part of the Christian message and it should be part of Christian preaching.
Christians gathering teachers to themselves to make them feel good
Is comfort or truth the primary objective for the Christians? Are we divine in nature or sinners saved by grace? Do we deserve to be saved or are we saved by God's free choice? Christians who want merely to be entertained and comforted from the pulpit are still children. They should be challenged to grow and take risks.
Evolution
Denominations that either adopt evolutionary principles or refuse to take a stand on evolution.
Apostasy is all around us in varying degrees. As Christians, we need to be very sure that we are clinging to the truth of God's word and resisting the inclusion of liberalism, moral relativism, and the oncoming secularism that is all around us. We need to stand on the word of God and never be ashamed of the truth of the Gospel:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," (Rom. 1:16).
Monday, March 24, 2014
Does the Bible say that masturbation is a sin?
Does the Bible say that masturbation is a sin?
Below is a brief summary of some of the issues dealing with this subject. I hope it might help. This is one of those hot buttons on which there is a great deal of disagreement and what is given here by no means touches all the bases.
Summary: The Bible no where specifically forbids or denounces masturbation. It does, of course, denounce all forms of sexual impurity and fantasies that would involve adulterous relationships whether actual or mental. The problem with masturbation is that it not only can become habit forming and addictive, but men and women often engage in pornography and adulterous fantasies in order to reach a climax. Further, the difference in sex drive in a couple is often not the real problem or issue. It is rather a breakdown in the relationship and in an understanding of the role of sex in marriage as that which not only gives pleasure but expresses love, unity, and commitment to each other. Masturbation expresses the opposite unless done with the other partner. The husband may experience orgasm with his wife without actual intercourse. If away from his wife and he is experiencing strong sexual desire and he can have an orgasm by thinking about his wife, etc. then that could be appropriate.
More Detail: As mentioned, the Bible does not directly address the issue of masturbation or deliberate self-stimulation of the sexual organ to the point of orgasm. It does warn against all forms of self-indulgence, adultery of the mind, and fornication. One of the problems involved is that though God created sex for enjoyment and pleasure, it is to be confined to the marriage relationship because it is also designed to express love (not just sexual love), unity, and total commitment. Masturbation is an act of self-gratification rather than a part of giving gratification and pleasure to one’s partner. Here are a few of the dangers of masturbation that some have listed:
1. Psychic effects. Masturbation has a tendency to isolate its captives psychologically and socially. In masturbation, the person is focused on self-alone even though he or she usually is fantasizing about someone else at the same time.
2. Emotional deprivation. It is impossible for the one who is practicing this habit to experience the full extent of sex emotions. Therefore, in short-circuiting the emotions one can easily be removed from the world of reality.
3. Damaged sensibility. The habit of masturbation has a tendency in numbing the mechanism of the sexual organs if practiced excessively. This lessens the sensibility and thus detracts from normal sexual relations of married life.
4. Self-gratification. The emotional background of self-gratification is not the least bit healthy and usually militates against the home, wife and family because it is focused only on self.
5. Control of the mind. Along with the act of masturbation comes the fantasy of the mind. When practiced often, a pattern or cycle seems to become established within the individual’s mind. Thus, perversion has a tendency to control the mind and this in turn initiates the act. The real danger lies in the guilt that increases as the individual dwells in this world of fantasy.
Much more could be said, but this will give you a few things to think about. There are plenty of theologians and pastors, etc., that I am sure would disagree with my comments on this, but here are some things for consideration.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Mega Church Pastor Steven Furtick
Steven Furtick (born Feb. 19, 1980) is the founder and pastor of Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. He "attended North Greenville University, received a B.A. in communications and went on to complete a Master of Divinity from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."1 His church has over 10,000 attendees on a weekly basis.
He has experienced rapid church growth, and he is building various campuses where church services are expanding. His church started with 19 people in 2006 and is now at over 9,000 as of 2012. He attributes the growth to "the jars." As he says, "the oil is something only God can give. It represents his spirit, his presence, his power...", etc. 2. He is right to give God the glory. He promotes Christ, has positive messages about what God wants for his people, and reaches out in faith to expand the kingdom for God. This is admirable and we should applaud him for it.
Steven Furtick says that he wants Elevation Church to be...
"...a church for the overlooked, for the unloved...we preach Jesus so people far from God can know Jesus. And then we train them up so that others can know Jesus. It is called Kingdom multiplication. It is what Elevation Church is all about."3
This is fine. Preaching Jesus so people can come to know him is admirable and is one of the things the Christian church is supposed to do.
Mocking the doctrines of grace
However, shortly after the above quote in the same video and after speaking of multiple conversions occuring at his church, he said...
"...if that doesn't get you excited and you need the doctrines of grace as defined by John Calvin to excite you, you in the wrong church. Let me get a phone book. There are 720 churches in Charlotte. I am sure we can find one where you can stuff your face until you're so obese spiritually that you can't even move."4
The problem with Mr. Furtick's comments are both subtle and profound. The Doctrines of Grace are often described by the acronym TULIP. Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. This is often called Calvinism. In other words, the doctrines of grace affirm that man is completely lost in his sin and it is only by the grace of God through the person of Jesus that salvation is possible. It is not up to man's sinful free will, but God's sovereignty over his creation (Rom. 9:22-23; Eph. 1:4-5). It further states that because of man's enslavement to sin he is unable to freely choose God (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the doctrines of grace include God's electing and predestining people to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13), which is by God's choice, not man's (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16), and that the saved are eternally secure because their salvation rests in Christ's work, not man's faithfulness (John 10:27-28). Now, whether or not you agree with these doctrines, the truth is that they affirm the greatness of God and his sovereign work of saving people. They are held by millions of Christians all over the world.
Mr. Furtick is entitled to not agree with the doctrines of grace, but to mock them as he did is uncalled for and is potentially a serious spiritual error on his part. It seems that he is not only ridiculing those who hold to the doctrines of grace, but that he is also mocking the very doctrines which the scriptures teach. Is not God a God of grace? Of course he is (Rom. 3:24; 11:6, Eph. 2:8; 2 Thess. 1:12). Mr. Furtick's mockery divides the body of Christ, helps to create a holier-than-thou attitude and potentially risks a direct violation of scripture.
Furtick supports a woman pastor
Steven Furtick introduced Pastix Christine Caine to preach on a Sunday morning at Elevation Church.5
Women pastors in the church have been debated for many years. However, just because something is debated doesn't mean that both sides have valid arguments. The issue is not if a woman is an international speaker, great musician, great parent, etc. Instead, we must ask if having a woman preacher is what the Bible affirms. It is not.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet6, 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." (1 Tim. 2:12-13).7
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion," (Titus 1:5-7). (Literally in Greek, the phrase "husband of one wife" is "a man of one woman.")
A woman pastor is, by definition, in the place of authority when she is preaching on a Sunday morning. She is violating what the scriptures teach concerning such teaching (1 Tim. 2:12-13) and, as Titus 1:5-7 says, the elder (a pastor is an elder, see 1 Tim. 5:17) is to be a male. Furtick contradicts God's word when he supports a woman pastor by having her preach in his church. His intentions might be in line with political correctness, liberal thinking, and contemporary applications of the "needs of the church," but they are not biblical.8 I recommend that the reader do a serious study of the issue and see exactly what is biblical.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Mega Church Money
Mega Church Money
In the final season of Breaking Bad, Walter White, the chemistry teacher turned drug kingpin, has made more money than he can spend without breaking his cover as a mild-mannered cancer survivor. In one scene, he and his wife stare disconsolately at a ton of hundred dollar bills stacked two feet high, realizing it was all but useless to them.
Recently we’ve been discovering that celebrity pastors understand that they have a similar conundrum. Having built megachurches with budgets in the tens of millions and generous salaries to match, they can’t really spend all the money they’re earning. Unless they’re fully certified prosperity preachers, there’s a certain decorum that pastors must follow when spending their congregation’s money. When you live off money given to God, your public lifestyle ought to be just slightly constrained.
It’s the Walter White Problem. White couldn’t spend his fortune because it was dirty. Pastors can’t spend theirs because it’s holy.
Take Steven Furtick, pastor and founder of the 14,000-member Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC. Last year he realized that the local NBC affiliate was about to report on a three million dollar mansion he was building for himself. Anticipating that his congregation might take a dim view of that kind of thing, Furtick told his church that it was “not that great of a house” and that the money for it had come entirely from income from his books, one of them a New York Times best seller.
Neither claim was true. Sure, compared to the Biltmore, Furtick’s house wasn’t that great, but, at 16,000 square feet, it’s grander than almost any other house in North Carolina. To pay for it he’d have to sell 1.5 million books, though it’s unlikely that he has sold more than 350,000.
Last year, Elevation Church spent $7.5 million on salaries, a sizable portion of that going to Furtick. His church income surely dwarfs his book royalties, so why the denial that his pastor’s salary was used for the house?
Walter White. You may have the cash, but you can’t just spend it however you’d like.
We don’t expect our pastors to live in palaces, especially ones paid for from the collection plate. Furtick sensed this in his protest about the television report. “I thought this ain’t right,” he told his church. “I didn’t even build that house with money from the church.”
This is a big reason why celebrity pastors love the book business. It’s more comforting to think that the pastor’s five-car garage was paid for by faceless Amazon customers than from a tithe check. Even if the mansion money actually does come mostly from the collection plate, the illusion of Amazon-based wealth is important.
Nothing is better at maintaining that illusion than an author earning a place on the New York Times bestseller list. Of course Steven Furtick can afford to build his mansion, we think; he’s a bestselling author. So is Perry Noble, whose church attracts 30,000 people each week in South Carolina. So is Mark Driscoll.
But that, too, is an illusion. We have discovered in the last few weeks that Mark Driscoll and Perry Noble each authorized their churches to spend around $200,000 to buy 11,000 of their books to artificially force them onto the Times’ bestseller list. Steven Furtick’s church also bought enough copies of his books so that he, too, appeared on the NYT bestseller list twice. Without the bulk purchases, though, each of the pastors’ books fell off the list after one week.
That fleeting bestseller designation is one that the pastors have embraced and trumpeted. Until last week, Mark Driscoll promoted himself as a #1 bestselling author. Perry Noble’s Facebook profile says only two things: He’s a pastor and a New York Times bestselling author. While the bestseller designation has its own value in increasing future book sales and inflating speaking fees, its special value is in the appearance of non-church wealth it creates for these pastor-authors.
The truth, however, is that much of their spendable wealth is generated by laundered tithe money, so the royalties and speaking fees comprise a second, hidden church salary. By using tithed money and their own pulpits to drive book sales and even buy the books outright, celebrity pastors have turned their non-profits into personal profit centers.
The problem isn’t only an ethical one. Tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from contriving special financial gains for their leaders, a violation called inurement that the IRS can punish by revoking the organization’s tax-exempt status. That seems a risk that these pastors are either unaware of or comfortable with, because their churches’ budgets, branding, and messaging are routinely used to sell as many books as possible to make the preachers even wealthier.
Because it’s earned commercial wealth, it can be freely spent. Only when pastors can show us that their spending money isn’t really church money do they feel confident enough to flaunt it, even if they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of tithed money to create that illusion
Thursday, March 20, 2014
The Church: Continuing What Jesus Began (Acts 1:1, 2)
The Church: Continuing What Jesus Began (Acts 1:1, 2)
How do you launch a worldwide enterprise? In the last century, Coca-Cola did it. You can go just about anywhere in the world and buy a Coke. They are the world’s largest multi-national corporation. Right behind them is Microsoft. Last year when I was in Poland and Romania, I discovered that although the languages were different, their computers looked and worked just like mine, with the familiar Windows and Word screens.
The church is Jesus Christ’s worldwide “enterprise.” He prophesied that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). The Book of Acts tells us how His church began in Jerusalem and spread to the ends of the earth. It provides a vital link between the gospels and the New Testament epistles. How did the Christian faith that began with a few followers of Jesus in Israel spread to Rome and points beyond? How did an ardent Jew who was not even a believer become the apostle to the Gentiles? How did the early church, which was exclusively Jewish, begin to reach out to and incorporate the Gentiles? Without Acts, we would be hard pressed to answer these questions. While we have four gospel accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, there is only one Book of Acts.
The title, Acts of the Apostles, was probably added sometime in the second century, but it is a bit of a misnomer. “Acts” fits, since there is plenty of action. But “apostles” isn’t quite right, since the story does not tell of the deeds of most of the apostles, but primarily of Peter (chapters 1-12) and Paul (chapters 13-28). The book actually describes the acts of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in His servants.
Almost all Bible scholars agree that Luke was the author of Acts. He was a physician (Col. 4:14), and the only Gentile author of the Bible. An early writing, dated between A.D. 160-180, tells us that Luke was a Syrian from Antioch, a single man who accompanied Paul until his martyrdom, and who died himself at age 84 (cited by Simon Kistemaker, Acts [Baker], p. 20). Luke probably wrote Acts about A.D. 62-64, toward the end of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, where the book leaves off. There is no mention of the intense persecution launched by Nero in A.D. 64, or of the martyrdom of Paul in about 68, and so Acts was probably written before these events.
The first verse of Acts links it with the introduction of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). Both volumes were written to an otherwise unknown man, Theophilus, who was probably a Roman official, to provide an accurate historical foundation for his faith in Jesus Christ. Together, Luke and Acts comprise about 30 percent of the New Testament, surpassing both the writings of Paul and John in size (Richard Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan], p. 207).
Purpose: Why did Luke write Acts? Several theories are proposed, but probably his primary purpose was to provide an account of the beginnings of the Christian church in order to strengthen his readers’ faith and to give assurance that its foundation is firm (I. Howard Marshall, Acts [IVP/Eerdmans], p. 21). Perhaps a skeptic had tried to convince Theophilus that his faith was based on myths or legends. Luke wants to show through his gospel and Acts that the accounts were based on eyewitness testimony given by credible men who were not promoting it for personal gain. In fact, they proclaimed the message in the face of strong opposition and even death.
Luke also intended to explain how the church spread from Jerusalem to Rome, encompassing both Jews and Gentiles, in accord with God’s purpose. One key to understanding Acts is to see that it is a transitional book, showing how the worship of God moved from the Jewish temple, to the hesitant acceptance of Gentiles into the Jewish church, and finally to the Christian worship of predominately Gentile churches all over the Roman empire. Acts shows us how God went from working primarily with the Jews as a nation to working with the church, comprised of Jews and Gentiles on equal footing. In Matthew 21:43, Jesus had told the Jewish leaders, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” Acts shows us the transition that lasted from the death of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy.
Acts records many miraculous signs that were given to prove to Israel that they had been wrong to reject Jesus as their Messiah and Lord. The main message that the apostles and others in Acts proclaimed centered on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, which was the primary sign authenticating Jesus as the Christ, and on the offer of forgiveness of sins in His name. The apostles were given unusual miraculous power, authenticating them as God’s witnesses to Jesus Christ and His resurrection. While God obviously can and does work miracles today (after all, He is God!), to claim as some do that miracles should happen today with the same frequency as in Acts is to miss the transitional nature of the book. God had a special purpose for miracles, to authenticate the apostles within this transition period.
Themes: In addition to the transitional nature of Acts with miracles to authenticate the message and the messengers, and the central message of Christ and His resurrection from the dead, there are several other themes running throughout Acts:
The sovereignty of God in the founding of the church and the spread of the gospel. Clearly, God is at work and nothing can stop what He intends to do.
The power of the Holy Spirit, given to all who believe in Jesus Christ.
The importance of prayer in the life of the church.
The importance of preaching God’s Word. Acts contains numerous sermons and speeches, including eight by Peter, nine by Paul, one lengthy sermon by Stephen, and a shorter one by James. The addresses by Peter, Paul, and Stephen make up about 25 percent of the book (John Stott, The Message of Acts [IVP], p. 69).
The importance of mission to all peoples. This outward thrust of the gospel is the main story line of Acts. Acts shows us how to do evangelism and missions.
The reality of opposition and suffering in the spread of the gospel. Clearly, although God is sovereignly at work and nothing can stop what He is doing, His servants often suffer greatly, even unto death, in the cause.
The life and organization of the church. Acts gives us glimpses of early church life that show us how the church dealt with problems as it grew.
Outline: A simple outline of Acts is contained in Acts 1:8:
The witness in Jerusalem—primarily to Jews (1:1-8:3).
The witness in Judea and Samaria—including the first Gentiles (8:4-11:18).
The witness to the remotest parts of the earth—to the Jew first, but predominately to Gentiles (11:19-28:31).
With that as a brief introduction to the book, let’s look at the first two verses, which develop an important theme:
By the power of the Holy Spirit the church is obediently to continue to do and teach what Jesus began.
Luke’s words about his gospel, that it contained what Jesus began to do and teach, have the strong implication that His work is not done. He was taken up into heaven, but His work on earth did not cease. Rather, His body, the church, continues to do and teach what Jesus began. Jesus was God in human flesh, dwelling among us, showing us what the Father is like (John 1:14; 14:9-10). While Jesus was totally unique, perfect in all of His ways, we are given the daunting task of representing Jesus Christ to the world as His body. Ray Stedman makes the point that whether in the Gospels or in Acts, God uses incarnation—His life manifested through human life—as His strategy to change the world. The book of Acts, he says is the record “of men and women possessed by Jesus Christ and manifesting His life every day. Anytime you find a Christianity that is not doing this, it is a false Christianity” (Acts 1-12, Birth of the Body [Vision House], p. 14).
To understand what we are to do as His church, we must first understand what Jesus Christ began to do and teach:
1. Christ’s work was to bring salvation to a lost human race.
As I said, Jesus Christ was totally unique in all history, in that He alone was God dwelling in sinless human flesh. John makes this clear in the prologue of his gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1, 14). Christ’s mission was to come to this earth to offer Himself as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). When on the cross, Jesus cried out, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He had completed that work of redemption, offering Himself as the sacrifice for our sins. In all these matters, Jesus Christ was totally unique. No further offering for sin is needed. Christ is the sufficient sacrifice (Heb. 10:12).
Christ’s mission was to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Jesus was always focused on the task of reconciling sinful men with the holy God. He did this through His life and deeds and through His teaching of God’s Word.
2. Christ’s work is to continue through His obedient church.
Before Jesus was taken up into heaven, He gave orders to His apostles. This can refer to all that He commanded them over the course of the three years that He taught them. But specifically it focuses on the final command, the Great Commission, to take the good news to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). As you read through the Book of Acts, it becomes obvious that the apostles and early church were not doing their own thing, formulating their own plans, and building their own empires. Rather, they were instruments through whom the Lord was working His purpose and plan.
When they choose a successor to Judas, it is the Lord who chooses (Acts 1:24). When Peter explains the phenomenon of tongues on the Day of Pentecost, he makes it clear that it was the risen Jesus who did it (2:33). When we read of the early church growing in number, it is stated, “The Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (2:47). When Peter and John healed the man by the temple gate, they make it clear that it is not them, but Jesus Christ the Nazarene who healed him (3:6; 4:10). When Saul of Tarsus is converted, it is plain that the Lord sovereignly saved him and sent Ananias to open his eyes (Acts 9:1-19). And so it goes throughout the Book of Acts. Men are merely the instruments; it is the Lord who is at work through them.
This same truth can also be seen in the way that the narrative of Acts picks up and then drops various men according to the degree which they are for the moment the instruments of Christ’s power. If Acts had been written solely by Luke (apart from the Holy Spirit), do you think that he would have said nothing about the majority of the twelve apostles, or that he would have treated his main characters as he did? Peter, the most prominent apostle, slips out of the narrative without a word after chapter 15. James, another of the inner circle with Jesus, is mentioned only in the list in 1:13, and then in one verse when he is martyred (12:2). John, the other inner circle apostle, is only referred to in the first four chapters, once in chapter 8, and then in reference to his brother’s martyrdom, and he passes from the scene in Acts. Barnabas, who pioneers the first Gentile church in Antioch and who goes with Paul on the first missionary journey, slips into oblivion after chapter 15. Even the great apostle Paul, who dominates the last half of the book, is left in the final chapter in Rome in prison, with no account of his subsequent work or martyrdom. (For the above two paragraphs, I am indebted to Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture, Acts 1-12:17 [Baker], pp. 12-14.)
Students of the Book of Acts have puzzled over the somewhat abrupt ending. The narrative is sailing along, telling of Paul in prison in Rome, when suddenly it stops. The best explanation of this is that Luke intended for the book to be viewed as an unfinished story. The followers of Jesus throughout the centuries are writing the remainder of the book. As G. Campbell Morgan (The Acts of the Apostles [Revell], p. 11) observes:
When we come to the study of this book, therefore, we must understand that it is not a merely mechanical story of the journeyings of Paul, or of the doings of Peter. It is intended to reveal to us the processes through which Christ proceeds in new power, consequent upon the things He began to do and teach, toward the ultimate and final victory, which we see symbolized in the mystic language of Revelation.
What kind of men does Christ use in His work?
3. Christ’s work continues as He works through:
Chosen men.
Luke begins by stating that Christ had chosen the apostles. He wants us to know that these men were not self-appointed leaders. They did not even volunteer for the job. Jesus Christ sovereignly chose them, first to salvation, and then to apostleship (the word “apostle” means “sent one”). They were men under authority, laboring as bondservants. They were not entrepreneurs, building their own empires. They did not make up or preach their own message. Rather, they were witnesses, relaying to others what they had seen and heard.
Throughout Acts, Luke puts a distinct emphasis on the sovereignty of God in the progress of the gospel. This is especially seen in the case of Paul’s dramatic conversion, which is told three times for emphasis (Acts 9, 22, 26). But we also see it in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), of Cornelius (Acts 10), where God “granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (11:18). In Acts 13:48, after Paul preached, “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” In Acts 16:14, it was the Lord who opened Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message. In Acts 18:10, the Lord tells Paul to keep preaching in Corinth, and explains, “for I have many people in this city.”
When salvation is genuine, those who come to the Lord know and testify that it was not their decision that saved them. It was God who mightily saved them when they could not save themselves.
Obedient men.
Christ gave the apostles orders by the Holy Spirit (1:2). Everything that Jesus did, He did in obedience to the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit. Even so, we are never to live under self-will, but only for God’s will. The Book of Acts makes it plain from early on that being obedient to God’s will engages us in God’s mission, and that this often brings us into persecution. Peter and John were arrested and warned against preaching the gospel. They continued preaching, leading to all of the apostles being arrested and warned. They responded, “We must obey God rather than men” (5:29). When they were beaten, they rejoiced that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for Christ’s name, and they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ (5:41-42).
The book goes on to tell of Stephen’s martyrdom and of the many trials that Paul and his companions suffered as they sought to take Christ to the nations. Paul told the young churches, “It is through many tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God” (14:22). But the suffering did not deter these men from obeying the orders that Christ had given them. So also should we be obedient to our Lord, no matter what the cost.
Spirit-filled men.
The great difference between the disciples before the crucifixion and after the Day of Pentecost is clearly attributed to the Holy Spirit’s coming upon them. Before, they were confused, often self-seeking, doubting, and fearful. After, they were clear, self-denying, bold and confident. The difference was the fulness of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
Since the Day of Pentecost, all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:2-5). But, we must learn to walk daily in the Spirit’s power, not in the flesh (Gal. 5:16-23). We must be sure that we are clean vessels, fit for God to indwell and use. We must seek the Lord to fill us every day so that He can do His work through us.
Men working together.
While the Book of Acts emphasizes the ministry of two great men, Peter and Paul, it shows clearly that these men were not one-man shows. They worked together with many others to do the Lord’s work. Luke lists over 100 personal names in Acts. He shows that God has an interest in individuals and that He works through bringing these individuals together into His church.
Furthermore, Acts shows us that God is no respecter of persons (10:34). He cares about people from every walk of life and every racial background. In Antioch, the church leaders consisted of a former Jewish priest (Barnabas, 5:36), a black man, a man from North Africa, a man brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and former Pharisee, Paul (13:1). A major theme in Acts is that the gospel is not just for the Jews, but for all people. It is to God’s glory to save men and women from diverse racial and social backgrounds and to bring them together to labor for His cause. There is no place in His church for racial discrimination.
Men with confidence in the power of God’s Word.
Another major theme throughout Acts is the power of God’s Word. The church is to continue teaching as Jesus taught. In Luke, we saw the emphasis on the teaching ministry of Jesus. He believed in and powerfully taught God’s Word. God’s Word is the seed of the gospel that has within it the power to give life to dead sinners (Luke 8:11). The Book of Acts contains 40 references to God’s Word. The apostles did not want to be distracted with administrative duties; they declare their priority: “But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word” (6:4). Thus we read that “the word of God kept on spreading” (6:7). We are not committed to the ongoing work of Jesus unless we are committed to teaching and preaching God’s Word.
Conclusion
We should come away from our initial study with two great truths that should lead us to ask ourselves a basic question. First, Christianity is a faith rooted in history. We saw this in our initial study of Luke also. Christianity is not the religious speculations of a bunch of brilliant thinkers. Christianity is God’s revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. The apostles faithfully handed down to us what they had seen and heard concerning the life, death, resurrection, and teaching of Jesus Christ. Our faith is built on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Thus we can have confidence about our faith.
Second, God is at work in history through His church. While the life and ministry of Jesus Christ is the historical foundation of our faith, God didn’t just send Christ, pull Him off the planet, and stop working. Jesus began the work; His church continues it. That’s why He saved us and why He leaves us here on earth. This leads to a basic question that each of us needs to ask ourselves:
Am I committed to God’s work through His church? There are many that profess to know Jesus Christ as Savior, but if you examine their weekly schedules, they are living for themselves. I realize that most people are not going to be supported by their labors for the Lord. But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about a mindset, a basic focus in life. Do you see yourself primarily as the servant of Jesus Christ, fully committed and obedient to His cause? Ask any pastor in America and he will tell you that one great frustration in ministry is that only 20 percent of those who attend church are doing 80 percent of the work. If you are a Christian, serving the Lord in His cause through His church is not optional. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we as His church are obediently to continue to do and to teach what our Lord Jesus began.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
A Dispensational View of Theological Order: Why It Offends Covenant Theologians
A Dispensational View of Theological Order: Why It Offends Covenant Theologians
by Charles A. Clough
In a previous article1 I noted that dispensationalism grew out of a nineteenth century situation. From the late 1800s until the present day, it has been a major point of contention inside Reformed circles with covenant theologians. Why do these two theologies that otherwise agree on the great body of orthodox christology and soteriology, disagree so vigorously in ecclesiology and eschatology?2
In my previous article I noted a pattern in previous great theological debates during past Church history. "Both specific Scriptural texts and basic organizing 'models' (or 'presuppositions' or 'preunderstandings')"3 played vital roles. This latest debate appears to be no different.
EMERGING AWARENESS OF ROOT DIFFERENCES
Both covenant and dispensational theologians after many decades of trying to debate primarily over specific texts, increasingly are probing for the source of conflict at the presuppositional level also.
Even the polemical book by John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991) insists that there is a fundamental logical structure in dispensationalism that, he thinks, necessarily leads to multiple ways of salvation regardless of whether or not individual teachers actually teach that view (pp. 149-169). An earlier book by a more gracious covenant theologian Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Zondervan, 1987) also pointed out the dominating role of presuppositions. His fifth chapter entitled "The Near Impossibility of Simple Refutations" noted: "A system that is carefully and thoroughly elaborated, whether right or wrong, will almost certainly include answers to standard objections; and different parts of the system 'come to the aid' of any part that is challenged" (p 52). (Poythress was not thereby denying that his covenant theology had its own presuppositions.)
Advocates of dispensationalism agree that presuppositions play a vital role but increasingly disagree over what those presuppositions are. Dallas Seminary professor Craig Blaising found fault with Charles Ryrie's triadic sina qua non (doxological purpose of God, literal hermeneutics, the Israel-Church distinction) but didn't offer a replacement.4
Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary prof David Turner discussed the literal hermeneutic issue that traditionally is seen as a defining difference between covenant theology and dispensationalism. He noted, however, that its actual use in specific textual situations was determined by the presuppositions of the exegete, not by an arbitrarily chosen hermeneutical system.5
So we see an emerging awareness that dispensational and covenant theologies differ because of deep rooted presuppositions. The trick is to define where they are and what they are. In the following sections I will attempt to contrast the "classical" forms of each system to discover their different senses of theological order.6
THEOLOGICAL ORDER
Let's look how a Bible student might set the "data" of special revelation in some systematic order. First, imagine the history of the created universe as a series of states
denoted by "Si" where "i" goes from "0" (origin in Gen. 1:1) to "T" (terminal state in Rev. 21-22). S0, S1, . . . . , ST
Then the following five propositions can be defended:
1. A predetermined terminal state, ST, will one day come into existence and be experienced.
2. God's sovereignty moves history from S0 to ST "after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11).
3. Therefore, ST expresses the most complete revelation of the ultimate will of God for mortal existence.
4. Therefore, all preceding states, S0, . . . , ST-1, express less complete revelation of God's will.
5. Therefore, ST is the vantage point from which to interpret the historical meaning of any single one or group of the antecedent states, S0, . . . , ST-1.
This set of propositions provides the rationale for doxology at the end of mortal history. I'll refer to this sort of thinking at history's end as "retrospective interpretation." By it historical revelation may be fully interpreted (within the finite limits of the creature).
A second set of propositions may be added to the first set. Because of the Creator- creature distinction, we have:
6. God is eternal and immutable.
7. Therefore, the plan of God for ST existed in the mind of God "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), viz., S0.
Propositions 1-7 outline a way of setting in order Scriptural revelation. I will use them as a field on which to compare classical covenant theology with classical dispensationalism.
THE STRUCTURE OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
Covenant theologians love the covenant form of structure. In the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) God is said to have made two covenants with mankind. The first covenant was "of works" and promised life if Adam obeyed (VII, 2). The second was the "covenant of grace" which "offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ", promised to the elect "his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe", and "was differently administered" in past ages by various means "which were for that time sufficient and efficacious" (VII, 3-5).
After Westminster, Reformed theologians developed the covenant form further. Charles Hodge, for example, in his 1872 systematic theology wrote of the "eternal covenant of grace."7 This enlargement of Westminster's second covenant virtually equated theological order with the structure of the covenant of grace. Followers of this tradition take offense at dispensationalism because they view it as destructive of the unity of the Bible, which for them has essentially become the unity of the eternal covenant of grace.
Let's map their position onto the seven propositions listed above for analysis. Since the terminal stage, ST, hasn't come into existence yet, everyone is limited to the prophetic data in Scripture as the only means of knowing about it. Covenant
theologians are assured, however, that the covenant of grace reveals the essence of this terminal state. The covenant of grace, they believe, has been so thoroughly revealed in the New Testament exposition of the New Covenant that we can rest assured we now have the essential form of the end state of God's plan. So, in place of ST we may substitute the covenant characterization of it that we denote by cT. The lower case "c"
reminds us that the covenant form depicts only part of ST.
The covenant form now completely dominates all five propositions of retrospective
interpretation:
1. The predetermined terminal state is essentially characterized by the covenant of grace, cT.
2. God's sovereignty moves history from S0 to the fulfillment of the covenant of grace "after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 2:11).
3. Therefore, cT expresses the most complete revelation of the ultimate will of God for mortal existence.
4. Therefore, all preceding states, S0, . . . ,ST-1 express less complete revelation of God's will.
5. Therefore, cT is the vantage point from which to interpret the historical meaning of any single one or group of antecedent states, S0, . . . , ST-1.
THE REDUCTIONIST PROBLEM AND HERMENEUTICS
Let's look further at logical implications of making cT a stand-in for ST. We recall that it arose, not from ST, but from an antecedent state of creation history—from the New Testament stage. It is the covenant "behind" the New Covenant revealed by Jesus and the apostles. If we denote the New Testament stage by SNT, then we have: S0, . . . ,SNT, . . . ,ST. By Proposition 4, SNT expresses revelation less complete than ST. How can something arising out of the NT stage of revelation, like cT, be used as a stand-in for the supreme vantage point of retrospection at the end of mortal history? In my terms, how does it warrant the premature start of retrospective interpretation?
And make no mistake about it. The covenant of grace does come out of reflection upon the New Testament and therefore is limited by the boundaries of New Testament revelation. Here's an example of one such limitation. Social and political policy revelation is nearly all located in the Old Testament and almost completely intertwined with the nation Israel. What, then, is God's will for His covenant Gentile people regarding their earthly citizenship, especially in a participatory democracy? Trying to answer this question has led to the theonomy debate of recent years.8 Proposed solutions range from extending Mosaic policies as covenantally binding in all national situations to extracting from the Old Testament general "equity" or "wisdom" principles for creative, contemporary application.
Regardless of the attempted solution, the very debate shows the widespread agreement that New Testament revelation lacks social and political policy revelation directly from our risen Lord and His apostles. One must, therefore, think of the possibility that for some reason the New Covenant may not yet be fully revealed in SNT.
Of course, we have come to what others have concluded about covenant theology: it suffers from a reductionism. It tries to look at all history, including Old Testament history, from the fleeting moment of New Testament history. It has to ignore the
possibility that there could be Old Testament themes prior to SNT that have their fulfillment in the future—fulfillments lying within the horizon of ST but not even within the scope of the SNT. Let's picture matters in this fashion:
All revelatory themes (solid lines) must pass through SNT. No themes can "skip" SNT (dashed line). These restrictions on history, I believe, are implicit in theology that centers on the eternal covenant of grace concept.
Out from this presupposition come forces that shape hermeneutics. A covenant theologian doing exegesis will select a literal or metaphorical approach so as to assert the "vantage point" of cT. For example, he takes as a "given" that the pattern of New Testament uses of the Old Testament is exhaustive—no other usage schemes are possible. He also believes that the New Testament emphases in Old Testament theme selection are normative for all history.
Matters are a bit more complex, therefore, than simply distinguishing covenant hermeneutics from dispensational hermeneutics as being less "literal". They may be so, or may not, but one thing will always be true: the covenant hermeneutic is a literary expression of a distinct presuppositional concept of theological order in history. Any revelatory theme found in a specific text, in this view, will be interpreted to fit into the state of affairs in SNT whether a literal, typological, or allegorical meaning is assigned.
A fundamental reductionism thus shapes covenant hermeneutics.
THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROBLEM AND PROGRESSIVE REVELATION
Besides reductionist-caused hermeneutic effects, the covenant view of theological
order leads into another problem area--the significance of history. Let's consider the span of history from New Testament times until the end of mortal history:
SNT+1, . . . , ST
Since ST is already characterized by cT as known from SNT, it follows that this post- New Testament historic period cannot be expected to add significant content to ST (e.g.,
new themes or climaxes to as yet unresolved Old Testament themes). If it could, then the all-encompassing nature of cT would be undermined. Post-New Testament history is an era that in this view has lost any fundamental significance.
But the matter goes further. Because cT has been substituted for ST, our supreme vantage point—which was to have been an experienced state at the termination of
mortal history—has been turned into an intellectual abstraction. Premature retrospective interpretation of present history has already begun in terms of this abstraction. Propositions 6 and 7 above have become, under the covenant concept:

6. God is eternal and immutable which is revealed in His administration of cT.
7. Therefore the plan of God, cT, existed in the mind of God "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4).
The cT-for-ST substitution has made substantial alterations in these propositions. Proposition 6 has become much narrower. God's eternal immutability has become so identified with the final features contained in cT that His historic interaction with man leading up to that point seems peripheral. Actions like His "negative repentance" over creating man in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:7); His "positive repentance" after Moses' intercessory prayer (Exod. 32:14); and His readiness to send twelve legions of angels to rescue Jesus from Gethsemene (Matt. 26:53-54), even the preaching of the gospel to those who will never believe (the non-elect) seem, in this view, beside the point.
Interestingly, this consequence was clearly seen at Westminster Seminary by Cornelius Van Til. He warned some of his fellow Reformed thinkers about their abstract logic in treating historical progress in God's works. Concerning the example of His gradual differentiation of the elect and non-elect, he wrote:
We may, like the impatient disciples, anticipate the course of history and deal with men as though they already were that which by God's eternal decree they one day will be. Yet God bids us bide our time. . . . We are to think of non-believers as members of the mass of humankind in which the process of differentiation has not yet been completed. It is not to the righteous and to the unrighteous as fully differentiated that God gives His rain and sunshine. . . .9
Van Til recognized that there was significance to the progressive unfolding of God's plan in history ("the process of differentiation"). Negation of this significance, he points out, comes not from the high Reformed view of God's sovereignty but from abstract, non-Christian logic.
I would add the proposal that the gateway through which much of such corrupt logic enters is the single, abstract covenant model of theological order.
Proposition 7 is now made to assert that God's infinite plan is virtually identical with man's statement of cT. The intellectual abstraction constitutes a "higher" system of
theological order than the Scripture itself. From here it is but a short step into thorough-going idealistic, anti-historical rationalism like that of Reformed philosopher Gordon Clark.
Clark so identified God's and man's reasoning that he virtually denied that sensory (and therefore historical) experience belonged to "truth." Recognizing his basic error of erasing the Creator-creature distinction in epistemology, Van Til fought a bitter debate within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church against Gordon Clark during the 1940s.10
Covenant theology, therefore, has a second structural problem. Its abstract one- covenant system of theological order, eternalized, relegates history with its progressive revelation to the periphery of serious theological vision. Theological order is thus treated separately from historical order. In so doing, we shall shortly discover, it has retarded efforts to solve a very serious post-Reformation crisis over the relation of the Bible to history. Covenant theology as a result has been very slow to offer a comprehensive answer to unbelief of the modern type.
To sum up: covenant theology's presupposition of theological order requires a certain kind of hermeneutic (due to its reductionism) and isolates theological order from historical development (due to its rationalistic tendencies). Dispensationalism, we shall see, differs fundamentally on both issues.
THE CALVINIST WOMB OF DISPENSATIONALISM
Both sides in the present covenant-dispensational debate seem to be avoiding the Calvinistic origins of dispensational theology. For example, Dispensationalist Blaising questions the legitimacy of its Reformed heritage.11 The Reformed sponsor of a recent "social concerns" conference attended by the Biblical Perspectives editor and myself had to be asked to change his seating labels which distinguished the covenant speakers as "Reformed" from our group as "Dispensational".
That dispensationalism came out of the womb of Calvinism has been shown in a recent study of fundamentalism by George Marsden. Its first thorough-going systematizer, John Nelson Darby, according to Marsden, was "an unrelenting Calvinist". In America the growing movement "had strong Calvinist ties" and followed the Puritan tradition of striving for precision in Bible interpretation.12 Thus the question is: what new presupposition arose inside Calvinist thought that led to the formulation of dispensationalism?
Marsden's study proved that dispensationalism was a major presuppositional or paradigmatic shift because it provided "a new historical scheme", "anti-humanist and anti-developmental", that was "a negative parallel to secular concepts of progress" and "opposed the liberal trends at almost every point."13 It reversed liberal attempts to explain biblical faith in terms of historical development by explaining historical development in terms of biblical faith.
THE SCOPE OF PREDISPENSATIONAL FRUSTRATIONS
Such paradigmatic shifts usually occur only after a long series of failures with using a previous presupposition (or paradigm or model). Therefore, I would like to go beyond Marsden and identify a few examples of the "long series of failures" that frustrated predispensational Calvinist thought. Before identifying them, however, I need to point out why this post-Reformation crisis differs from similar crises in earlier Church history.
The two major, earlier Church crises were the christological debates (leading to Chalcedon) and the soteriological debates (leading to the Reformation). Being debates about "heavenly things", these earlier crises necessarily occurred almost exclusively within the area of special revelation and involved primarily only theologians. This is not to say there weren't historical or "earthly" (political and ecclesiastical) after-effects, but the debates themselves centered on "heavenly things"—matters such as the very Throne of God and the awful work accomplished within the darkness of Golgotha. The panorama of history from creation to judgment was not a major player.
An important result of the Reformation, however, would forever change the scope of all subsequent such debates. With the person of Christ more clearly understood (via the Trinity model) and his saving work (via the Atonement and Legal/Justification models), redeemed mankind now had a clear grasp of reconciliation with the Creator of the all things. Freed from preoccupation with alleviating His wrath, redeemed Adam could return to the matter of "earthly things"--seeking dominion over the works of His hands. This Reformation "open door" revolutionized Christian attitudes toward the sciences and arts.
It should not be surprising, therefore, that the next crisis in Church history would involve the Church's relationship to earthly things as well as to heavenly things. This time around not only would theologians be involved but specialists from other fields as well. The scope would necessarily expand to encompass the sciences and arts. It follows, then, that the "long series of failures" in predispensational Calvinist thought occurred in the matters where redeemed Adam was trying to "name" correctly the earthly things of God's creation.
To grasp what was happening, we need to visualize the two different categories of revelation: special and general. Special revelation since the last apostle died consists of the Bible. General revelation consists of man and nature. These two "books of God" confront believing man with major questions. First, how do they relate one to the other? (Let's call this question, "Q#1") On one hand, to understand the Bible we need to know things from general revelation such as sheep, water, trees, and our history. On the other hand, to understand ourselves and our world correctly we need to know things from special revelation such as God's imperatives and crucial historical specifics such as origins, destiny, and His "mighty works" in earthly history.14
Figure One shows the possible relationships of these two books to each other in terms of a Venn diagram. The Bible is divided into two parts--the "religious" imperatives ("r") and the historical specifics ("h"). Relationship "A" pictures total "intersection" (total identity, inerrancy) between biblical facts and history. Relationship "B" pictures partial intersection where the imperatives are valid truth to be obeyed but the historical specifics are not considered to correspond to "real" history (a neo- orthodox type of situation). "C" pictures total separation wherein the Bible becomes a quaint religious story book whose imperatives, as well as historical details, are ignored. "A", "B", and "C" constitute the three possible answers to Q#1.
FIGURE 1.--Three possible relationships between the Bible (consisting of religious imperatives, "r", and historical specifics, "h") and the "book" of nature (general revelation).
Closely related to Q#1 is a second one: how are these books properly read and interpreted? (Call this question "Q#2") Are they really open to any reader with an "objective" mind or does total depravity affect the interpretative process in both books?
Because post-Reformation man sought dominion in the sciences and arts, he had to give answers to Q#1 and Q#2; he couldn't interpret his Bible or his experiments or observations without doing so. In particular, the kind of earthly things that most seriously demanded these answers were in the area of historical studies. During the three centuries between the Reformation and Darby, he had to learn "the hard way" about how crucial these answers were. I will now give two examples of "failure series", both in historical areas that had direct impact on the Bible's authority.

PREDISPENSATIONAL FRUSTRATIONS IN THE SCIENCES
It is now well known that for 150 years prior to Darby post-Reformation teachers were constructing comprehensive schemes of biblical history based upon a sequence of distinct eras or ages. Several of these schemes were remarkably similar to that of later classic dispensationalism. Three such "protodispensational" systems are described by Ryrie--those by Jonathan Edwards (1639-1716), Pierre Poiret (1646-1719), and Isaac Watts (1674-1748).15 It is also now known that the Church-Israel distinction was already being talked about at Trinity College, Dublin where Darby attended as a student.16 These were all products of theological interests.
Less known is the struggle going on during these same 150 years in the new science of historical geology. Table One shows what happened.17 The left column lists the "Flood Geologists" who founded the science. To Q#1 these men gave answer "A" of Fig. 1. Specific biblical reports of past and future geological events established the framework for "reading" the strata of nature (general revelation). Fossils, they showed, were not "in situ" productions as medieval Aristotelians believed; they were evidence of the Noahic Flood.
The middle column of Table One lists the "Catastrophists". Their position can be illustrated by the intellectual shift of the English clergyman and naturalist Thomas Burnet (1635?-1715) from Flood Geology to Catastrophism.
On the surface his work, Sacred History of the Earth (1681), seemed orthodox. He divided earth history into three stages based upon II Peter 3:5-7: Creation to Deluge (Antediluvian Age); Deluge to Conflagration (Present Age); and Conflagration to Eternity (Millennium). Below the surface, however, he made a mistake that was to cost him his victory--a mistake which has been repeated hundreds of times since. He adopted the idea of the absolute uniformity of processes inside nature, and he claimed that what appeared miraculous in the biblical account could be explained by science as products of naturalistic processes.
Predictably his critics showed that known present processes could not explain events like a global flood recorded in the Bible. Faced with the choice between biblical [historical] evidence and naturalistic type evidence, Burnet surrendered biblical authority, making visible his previously hidden humanistic presuppositions. By 1691, in his Archeologia Philosophicae, he explicitly abandoned biblical authority by 'reinterpreting' Genesis allegorically.18
Catastrophists following Burnet kept reducing the scale of catastrophes and increasing the age of the earth. They were having serious problems with Q#1. If they were to move in the direction of answer "B", they would explicitly falsify the Bible's historical truth that was something few in their generation were prepared to do. If they held to answer "A", they had to confront Q#2: how could the Biblical record of a short Adamic genealogy and a world-wide flood be "reinterpreted" in an opposite sense?
The right column lists the "Uniformitarians". Even more than the catastrophists they were in trouble with both Q#1 and Q#2. In their zeal to anchor themselves to a clearly naturalistic footing, not only did they have to posit the uniformity of natural law (such as heat transfer, energy conservation) but also the uniformity of systems or arrangements of those laws that operate within what are called "boundary conditions" (such as the current atmospheric circulation operates between its boundaries of outer
space and the planetary surface). To get firm intellectual dominion, they committed themselves to a uniformitarian "hermeneutic" with which to read the book of nature.
The development of historical geology, therefore, shows a series of failures in trying to "name" nature and at the same time trying to retain answer "A" to Q#1. The theologians working only with the Bible might have made up their biblical "histories", but their scientific brethren had the responsibility of linking the Bible and nature. Classical Calvinism attempted to solve the frustration by extending accommodation trends found in Calvin's writings.19 The idea here was to retreat from historical details of the text to avoid what was considered "unnecessary" conflict with historical science. This accommodation, however, only promoted the drift to answer "B" and eventually set the stage for nineteenth century higher criticism with its answer "C".
FLOOD GEOLOGISTS CATASTROPHISTS UNIFORMITARIANS
1650
1669-Steno
1681-Burnet (early) 1689-Ray
1695-Woodward
1820-Rodd 1826-Bugg
1837-Fairholm
1691-Burnet (later) 1695-Whiston
1789-Deluc 1812-Cuvier 1823-Buckland(early)
1830-Lyell 1836-Buckland
(later) 1839-Smith
1845-Murchison 1840-Agassiz
1700
1750
1800
1850
1748-de Maillet 1749-de Buffon
1785-Hutton
CHART ONE. Some representative names with dates of their most relevant work for each of the three schools of geological interpretation.
PREDISPENSATIONAL FRUSTRATIONS IN THE ARTS
A second example of a series of failures in post-Reformation thought, this one in the arts, was the "euhemerist" movement. Euhemerism is the belief of certain Christian historiographers between 1650 and 1800 that pagan gods were really mythological memories of post-Noahic patriarchs. Euhemerist scholars include both Frenchmen (Samuel Bochart and Paul Pezron) and Englishmen (Andrew Tooke and Jacob Bryant). (Many of us are familiar with a later writer in this tradition, Alexander Hislop.)
Whereas the Flood Geologists had begun to assemble a coherent history of the earth,
the euhemerists were trying to compose a coherent history of the origin of civilization. Like the Flood Geologists, they also believed in the total intersection of special and general revelation (answer "A"). Genesis 9-11, they believed, provided keys to interpret folklore and mute relics of ancient history.
Unfortunately they, too, met with eventual defeat. Their "monogenetic" concept of civilization's origin out of the single family of Noah was overwhelmed by early anthropological schemes that refused to accept the relevancy of biblical data (answer "B" to Q#1). Pilkey, who has studied intensively this movement for over twenty-five years, writes:
The failure of Bryant, Faber, and others to develop a satisfactory Noahic science around 1800 was one of the greatest disappointments of Protestant history and one of the first hints that Protestantism, like Catholicism, had 'come short of the glory of God'. . . .The collapse of many Protestant leaders into Liberal infidelity was inexcusable but followed logically from one of the greatest scientific failures of modern times.20
THE STRUCTURE OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY
By the nineteenth century, therefore, a major new Church crisis had begun. Redeemed Adam had obediently started to seek dominion through the sciences and arts only to find that God's two books apparently were irreconcilable in their depictions of history. Theologically, he was bound to answer "A" because the faithfulness of God can only be shown where general and special revelation intersect in historical detail. Without trust in God's faithfulness, post-Reformation man could not walk by faith and do all to the glory of God.
Scientifically and historically he observed seemingly irresistible trends toward answers "B" and "C" within his own Calvinist circles. It was as though the past 300 years of Protestant cultural growth had taken a wrong turn somewhere. The very fruit of Christian effort had strangely boomeranged back against the Bible.
The only option now was to go back to Reformation basics and begin anew, benefiting this time from the three centuries of botched reading of the book of nature. This new approach could no longer avoid the linkage between theological order and historical order as older "accommodating" theology had done and as covenant theology still tends to do. "A" was the only allowable answer to Q#1. So the crisis focused attention on Q#2, how to interpret both books so that "A" was secure. For "A" to be secure, general revelation had to be "controlled" by a comprehensive universal history built from special revelation.
In theology that meant going back through the Bible in a different way. Instead of looking only for answers to heavenly doctrines, the Church now had to look also for any and all historical details that might intersect general revelation. (The more clues, the easier the puzzle is to solve.) I suggest this need caused the so-called "literal" hermeneutic so characteristic of dispensationalism. It simply is the way historical records are to be read by anyone believing that theological and historical order coincide after the manner of "A"! The terms "literal" and "spiritual" are used by Scofield, for example, in just this sense.21 By the twentieth century this phase has been largely completed with dispensational pretribulational premillennialism and its discontinuous progress through a series of distinct stages.
In the historical studies things would be more difficult. Redeemed man would have to devote great creativity and effort in linking details of the book of nature to this universal history. Mistakes like Burnet made would have to be avoided. The matter of
total depravity's effect on the "hermeneutics" of nature and theory construction (Q#2) would have to be thoroughly investigated (Van Til's presuppositionalism is a major contribution toward this end.). This revision in historical studies is only just beginning 150 years after Darby in a sort of academic underground that is initiating creation studies in many disciplines. Prominent in the "new hermeneutics" of the book of nature are punctuated power explanations that replace the older uniformitarian rules.
Dispensationalism, then, differs from covenant theology in that it works from this side of the post-Reformation crisis. Its new model ties theological order inseparably to historical order and requires a universal history encompassing both. In terms of our seven propositions we have:
1. The terminal state, ST, is characterized only insofar as specific prophecies are projected forward. Its "unity" will be that of the universe itself, a network
involving redeemed and non-redeemed creatures.
2. God sovereignly moves history from S0 to the fulfillment of all His specific prophecies and any as yet unrevealed counsels in a discontinuous fashion.
3. Therefore, ST, expresses the most complete revelation of the ultimate will of God for mortal existence.
4, Therefore, all preceding states, S0, . . . , ST-1 express less complete revelation of God's will, including SNT.
5. Therefore, ST is the vantage point from which to interpret the historical meaning of any single or group of antecedent states, S0, . . . ,ST-1. No retrospective interpretation is attempted from earlier states.
6. God is eternal and immutable in such a way that He can genuinely reveal Himself through changing historic situations.
7. Therefore, the plan of God for ST existed in the mind of God "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), viz., S0. Actual creature existence of His plan, however, unfolds through historical pathways at the boundary of "present" time, not before.
The new model has a self-limiting chronology with time scales on the order of thousands of years based upon genealogies, the millennial reign length, and its universal history claim. In natural history this feature forces historical change explanations to include punctuated power intervals that show more general forms of presently-observable laws and systems. In anthropology it compels serious attention to the high longevity, low-chronology data of Genesis 11.
CONCLUSION
Covenant and dispensational theology compete for allegiance within Reformed circles. Surface differences over specific texts conceal the deeper differences at the presuppositional level. In fact the two theologies belong to two different eras of Church history. Covenant theology is a modern survival of Reformation style thinking about heavenly matters (soteriology) which kept theological order separate from historical details. In its classical form, it fundamentally ignores the post-Reformation crisis over reconciling general and special revelation. As a result it finds itself reductionist in hermeneutics, vulnerable to abstract logic, and weak in reading the Bible and the book of nature together.
Dispensationalism is the completed theological portion of a universal history still being written that ties together theological and historical order in response to post- Reformation problems. Its hermeneutic searches for historical order to validate the faithfulness of God as well as to feed on the more heavenly traditional doctrines. It establishes the Church in relation to the rest of creation and therefore involves ecclesiology and eschatology. It awaits completion of the non theological portion of its universal history by godly work in the arts and sciences.
Dispensationalism's offense to covenant theology is that of a supplanter. As a new paradigm it calls believers to give up an old model that didn't work and come help confront unbelief with a new total answer. Today is not the time for its friends to look backward as Lot's wife did.
ENDNOTES
1 Charles A. Clough, “A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture,” Biblical Perspectives, IV:6 (Nov-Dec 91).
2 For those not familiar with these terms: christology means the study or doctrine of Christ; soteriology means doctrine of salvation; ecclesiology means doctrine of the church; eschatology means doctrine of the “last things.”
3 Clough, “A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture”:2.
4 Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXLIX, 579 (July-Sept 1988):266-279.
5 David L. Turner, “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology: Key Hermeneutical Issues,” Grace Theological Journal, VI:2 (1985):276.
6 I will not attempt to discuss the varying modifications introduced into both positions by the Dispensational Study Group and its covenant theologian participants because these are part of ongoing dialogue and remain in a state of flux.
7 Charles A. Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1872), II:354-373.
8 Two good discussions are: (from the dispensational perspective) H. Wayne House & Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, OR.: Multnomah Press, 1988); and (from the covenant perspective) Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed., William S. Barker & W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1990).
9 Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. C., 1972):83-84.
10 For an insightful summary of this debate, see John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1987):21-40.
11 Blaising:267.
12 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980):46, 60.
13 Ibid., 54, 63.
14 It’s instructive to notice that God “initializes” Adam’s vocabulary and hence his presuppositions about naming things by doing the first naming Himself in Genesis 1:5, 8; the rest is left to Adam.
15 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965):71-74.
16 This research was done by Floyd S. Elmore at Dallas Theological Seminary and is discussed by the Biblical Perspectives editor in Dispensational Distinctives, Vol I, No. 2 (Mar-Apr, 1991).
17 Material taken from Charles A. Clough, “A Calm Appraisal of The Genesis Flood”, Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968. The part of this work crucial to my point here was subsequently republished as “Biblical Presuppositions and Historical Geology: A Case Study” in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. I, No. 1 (Summer 1974):35-48.
18 Clough, “Biblical Presuppositions. . . ,”:38f.
19 See the approving discussion of R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972):114-124.
20 John Pilkey, Origin of the Nations (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984):268f.
21 See the way he opposes “spiritual” (non-historical) views of Christ’s Second Advent in Rightly Dividing

the Word of Truth (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1896):14.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)