No covenanters allowed: A Question for Dispensationalists

[Benefactor]

I think your understanding of the Greek is a bit off. No 'mounds of theological jargon' need be used to demonstrate the proper grammatical understanding of this word. I'm working on it. Please be patient -- but, people are ready to pounce, so it's all good .

Emphasis mine (Red, bold black and underline)

Really! now is your chance to explain the following, if you can. I have made it easy for you by laying out each word, now you can have at it.

kai outwV paV israhl swqhsetai kaqwV gegraptai hxei ek siwn o ruomenoV apostreyei asebeiaV apo iakwb

-------------------------------- )-----
(kai)= Conjunction translated "And"; (outwV) = a helping word used as an adjective or adverb. In this case it is a helping adjective pared with "ALL" which is next in the sentence; (paV)= All = adjective -nominative , masculine, singular; (israhl)= Israel -Nour, nominative , masculine, singular; (swqhsetai)= will be saved- verb, indicative, future, passive, third person, singular; (kaqwV)= as - subordinating conjunction; (gegraptai)=it has been written -verb, indicative, perfect, passive, third person, singular; (hxei)=will come - verb, indicative, future, active, third person, singular; (ek)= out of - preposition, genitive; (siwn)= Sion or Zion -nour, genitive, femiine, singular; (o)= the one - definite article, nominative, masculine, singular; (ruomenoV)=delivering- verb, participle, present, middle or passive, nominative, masculine, singular; (apostreyei)= he will turn away - verb, indicative, future, passive, third person, singular; (asebeiaV)=impiety - noun, accusative, feminine, plural; (apo)= from - preposition, genitive; (iakwb)= Jacob - noum, genitive, masculine, singular.

 

[skullkrusher]

Emphasis mine (Red, bold black and underline)

Really!

According to your previous post, yes... really. Although, please note that I said "a bit." I wasn't trying to be provocative, although I see that my post could have come across that way.

 

[Benefactor]

SK,

Because you are Presbyterian I assume you hold to the view that OT saints and NT saints are all considered as in the Body of Christ.

There are some Presbyterians that are not Covenant and A-millennial in interpretation, but most are.

Out of necessity anyone that is A-millennial in belief cannot hold that Israel, the Gentiles, and the Church of God are separate. God has his plan for the nations, for Israel and for the Church, and it is understood that others do not accept his view.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Any dissenters within the camp? I don't want to overlook any particular interpretation, so do all the variant forms of dispensationalism essentialy treat this passage the same way?

You mean Romans 11? All dispensationalists interpret the references to Israel as ethnic Israel. Benefactor's contextual arguments are similar to what I've argued here in past years. In fact, the scholarly consensus from the top Romans commentaries - Dunn, Cranfield, Moo, Schreiner - conclude that "all Israel" refers to ethnic Israel. They also state that to understand "all Israel" as a reference elect Jews and Gentiles is unlikely, that the context argues against it.

Regarding the Greek of Rom 11:26, kai houtos is emphatic. Grammatically, kai houtos can be taken in a modal sense (and in this way) or a temporal sense (and in the end) - or both.

Charles Hodge in his commentary also understood 11:26 to be ethnic Israel in an eschatological sense. Hodge wasn't a dispensationalist - and neither are the commentators I listed above. So its possible to take the same exegetical option as dispensationalists do in this passage, and yet not be a dispensationalist.


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

There are some Presbyterians that are not Covenant and A-millennial in interpretation, but most are.

You are right, not many Presbyterians are premillennial. Dispensationalism though has had its Presbyterian supporters. Chafer and John Walvoord were Presbyterians, as also was Dwight Pentecost and Vernon McGee. Dallas Theological Seminary was supported by and launched by Presbyterians, and in fact the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary prior to 1950s was predominately Presbyterian.


LDG

 

[skullkrusher]

SK,

Because you are Presbyterian I assume you hold to the view that OT saints and NT saints are all considered as in the Body of Christ.

There are some Presbyterians that are not Covenant and A-millennial in interpretation, but most are.

Out of necessity anyone that is A-millennial in belief cannot hold that Israel, the Gentiles, and the Church of God are separate. God has his plan for the nations, for Israel and for the Church, and it is understood that others do not accept his view.

Yes, I hold the view youo mentioned regarding OT & NT saints. I suppose there may be some Presbyterians who are not covenantal, but I neither know any, nor do I think it consistent with Scripture (which we are currently debating wave, and it most certainly is out of sinc with the traditionally held doctrinal standards (WCF, WSC, WLS).

As to my millenial view, I am only certain that I am not dispensational --I studied eschatology a lot leading up to my departure from the dispensational camp, but have had very little time for further study on the issue since that time (young families take up A LOT of time, you know?) Part of the reason I started this thread was in order to sort of force the issue. I thrive on the (hopefulle brotherly) competition; it pushes me & makes me think carefully through issues, kind of like seminary does (though not always at the same level -- but I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of debate I have seen on some of the threads).

Off topic -- anyway, I lean more toward a post-mil view, for some reasons I think most disapensationalists would appreciate. I do hold (and will present a defense for) replacement theology, I the don't see strict one-for-one replacement theology as a defensible postion (I think I mentioned this in a previous post, but it might have been on a different thread); I do agree that the OT prophets cannot simply be spiritualized away, as tends to happen with a straight-up relacement view; and, while I believe much of the A-mil interpretation regarding the millenial reign is correct, it often gets burried by other aspects that are not as carefully exegeted or argued.

Whoops -- family emergency! Gotta go.

Grace, brother.

SK

 

[Benefactor]

You are right, not many Presbyterians are premillennial. Dispensationalism though has had its Presbyterian supporters. Chafer and John Walvoord were Presbyterians, as also was Dwight Pentecost and Vernon McGee. Dallas Theological Seminary was supported by and launched by Presbyterians, and in fact the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary prior to 1950s was predominately Presbyterian.


LDG

As a graduate of William Tyndale College formerly Detroit Bible College, no longer in existence, they were firmly a Dallas MODE college. Some names that are prominent from DBC are Jack Van Impe, Norman Giesler, Gary Habermass, and Ed Hindson. Also three of these have had and still do have an affiliation with Liberty University of which I do too.

I have stacks of Grace Theological Journals and Bibliotheca Sacra Journals. All thought I gave my friend's son a sizable number of them him. He is presently at SBCs "Southern Theological Seminary" in Kentucky.

 

[skullkrusher]

LDG:

A few posts back you mentioned the background of the debate turning 'acrimonious' -- do you have any good links you could post on that aspect of the issue? I'd be really interested in learning more about the confilct as it developed.

And, your reference to Hodge in your last post -- were you referring to his Systematic Theology? I have it on hand (got it w/ Christmas cash a couple years ago), but haven't dug into it too much yet. I will be arguing the 'gentile/jewish remnant' view, but I'm not going to be referencing anyone, except perhaps in a very general way; thought it might even be helpful to argue against Hodge. And, you all can use anyone and everyone against me (fun times!) and force me to address even those from my own theological camp. Anyway, my family crises from the last few days seem (?) to be abating, so hopefully I can put a little more time into this little project.

 

[JDS]

As to my millenial view, I am only certain that I am not dispensational --I studied eschatology a lot leading up to my departure from the dispensational camp, but have had very little time for further study on the issue since that time (young families take up A LOT of time, you know?) Part of the reason I started this thread was in order to sort of force the issue. I thrive on the (hopefulle brotherly) competition; it pushes me & makes me think carefully through issues, kind of like seminary does (though not always at the same level -- but I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of debate I have seen on some of the threads).

It seems to me that discussion with you on any subject in scripture would be an exercise in futility simpy because of the differences in interpretation. These men who have offered comments so far are literalists, especially on the subject of biblical prophecy and salvation. You, on the other hand, follow a rule that allows two or more hermeneutics, sometimes in the same verse. This can be proven by the fact that history and already fulfilled prophecy demands that a literalist view be taken. I doubt that anyone who claims to be saved, including you, would doubt that all prophecies in the OT concerning the first coming of Jesus Christ were literally and exactly fulfilled at his incarnation. This is one of the most important proofs to the Jews to which he came that he was the promised Messiah. The gospel writers regularly referred to OT passages as being fulfilled by his person and events surrounding it.

Therefore, I am guessing that you accept the already fulfilled prophecies concerning His first coming as literal and it seems strange to me that one who would do that would accept an allegorical view for at least most of the prophecies concerning his next coming. Simeon and Anna were Israelite literalists who were examples of those who were expecting the Messiah before he came because of the method of interpretation. The allegorists never accepted the prophecies as being fulfilled and so they did not accept the Messiah when he came though they were in charge of the worship services. Since then, Israel has been taught that the NT is a gentile book and many are in hell today as a result.

For these reasons you would not accept the arguments that a dispensationalist would offer to comply with your requests that we present a defense of our position that a dispensation is a period of testing under a particular principle of his divine dealing with mankind in his unfolding drama of redemption and restoration to the sinless state with perfect harmony between God and his creation.

The church is a perfect example of one of his dispensations where grace is the highlighted principle. Man is restored under grace to his trinitarian pattern in the garden through the cleansing properties of the blood of Christ that washes the sin away and his regeneration by the Spirit of God. The church of Jesus Christ that is thus formed answers to the bride of the man, a bride taken from his side while he slept and formed as his helpmeet and companion, (and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Th 4:17). When this bride is finally formed, she will be presented to the man as his wife. There has not been a time in history before the cross when God, the Holy Spirit, has been creating this body, this bride on the earth and the most wonderful thing is that everyone on the earth is extended the invitation to come and partake and participate in this most marvelous work of God and recieve his Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ and become part of this body. Time is running out and men have only until the body is complete to come. Time of grace will end and give way to the principle of righteousness when Christ himself will rule on the earth with a rod of iron and sin will not be tolerated. The principle will change!

 

[skullkrusher]

It seems to me that discussion with you on any subject in scripture would be an exercise in futility simpy because of the differences in interpretation.

It seems pretty counterproductive and rather un-brotherly statement, particularly given that fact that the current discussion has been very much limited to eschatology. LDG has referenced the acrimonious nature this controversy has had in the past, and my foremeost hope is that we can be reasonably civil on this thread. Your statement above is out of line.

You, on the other hand, follow a rule that allows two or more hermeneutics, sometimes in the same verse. This can be proven by the fact that history and already fulfilled prophecy demands that a literalist view be taken.

This is a non-sequitur -- you claim to be able to prove what my hermeneutic is by pointing to literal fulfilment of prohphecy? I'd really like to see you try to pull that rabbit out of your hat.

1) I doubt that anyone who claims to be saved, including you, would doubt that all prophecies in the OT concerning the first coming of Jesus Christ were literally and exactly fulfilled at his incarnation.
This is one of the most important proofs to the Jews to which he came that he was the promised Messiah. The gospel writers regularly referred to OT passages as being fulfilled by his person and events surrounding it.

2) Therefore, I am guessing that you accept the already fulfilled prophecies concerning His first coming as literal and it seems strange to me that one who would do that would accept an allegorical view for at least most of the prophecies concerning his next coming.

1)Thank you for the grace you display in this.
2) I have never argued for an allegorical hermeneutic; in fact, one of my last posts stated precisely the opposite -- though not in detail, I suggested that many in the Amil/Postmil camp have taked spiriualizing way too far, and I at least inferred that dispensationalism has valid criticism of that with which I agree.
Perhaps you are using a broader difinition of 'allegorical' than I am, so it may help if we clear it up a bit.

The church is a perfect example of one of his dispensations where grace is the highlighted principle. Man is restored under grace to his trinitarian pattern in the garden through the cleansing properties of the blood of Christ that washes the sin away and his regeneration by the Spirit of God. The church of Jesus Christ that is thus formed answers to the bride of the man, a bride taken from his side while he slept and formed as his helpmeet and companion, (and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Th 4:17). When this bride is finally formed, she will be presented to the man as his wife. There has not been a time in history before the cross when God, the Holy Spirit, has been creating this body, this bride on the earth and the most wonderful thing is that everyone on the earth is extended the invitation to come and partake and participate in this most marvelous work of God and recieve his Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ and become part of this body.

Amen! We disagree as to the broader understanding of this -- i.e., I would argue that this is in fact an indisputable proof for and undeniable realization of the prophetic promises, beginning at Gensis 3: 15; that of this glorious vision of the Church much is forfeited by not seeing the fullness of the literal fulfillment of promises to Israel though the Church. To divorce the prophetically promised calling in of the gentiles from the millenial concept in general, and specifically from the land promise is not justifiable, as those two concepts are frequently treated together in the prophets, as well as in many Apostolic references to the prophets; and the separation of them can be well-argued as being an arbitrary isolation of concepts treated together throughout Scripture.

The link posted to Blanchard's summary critique of replacement theology (I believe by Benefactor) demonstrates what I mean -- he claims replacement theology 'produces an unrealistic hope'. What a claim this is! For a right understanding of replacement theology does certainly bring hope -- hope in the Gospel to displace the Lie; hope in the power of the Spirit to restore and transform lives; hope in the unfailing love and unyeilding power of Father, Son and Holy Spirit to crush the head of the Serpent. This he (Blanchard) calls unrealistic. I call it the hope of the Gospel. Certainly if we look with fleshly eyes upon the devastation of this fallen world, we will lose heart. But we are not called to look on anything with fleshly eyes; we are rather admonished from doing exactly that, and exhorted to look on all things with the eyes of faith.

Time is running out and men have only until the body is complete to come. Time of grace will end and give way to the principle of righteousness when Christ himself will rule on the earth with a rod of iron and sin will not be tolerated. The principle will change!

Amen and Amen! I woud call this Judgment Day.

Thanks for the post.

Grace,

SK

 

[JDS]

It seems pretty counterproductive and rather un-brotherly statement, particularly given that fact that the current discussion has been very much limited to eschatology. LDG has referenced the acrimonious nature this controversy has had in the past, and my foremeost hope is that we can be reasonably civil on this thread. Your statement above is out of line.

I am sorry if you took that as a provocative statement when I meant it just as a statement of fact. You had previously stated that you leaned to replacement theology which necessitates that you do not accept the prophetic statements concerning Jesus Christ ruling from Jerusalem for a thousand years over the nations with the 12 tribes of Israel back in her land. I think you would probably agree that those who begin with two different methods of interpretation, especially if they have little in common, will not likely agree on much in the rest of scripture.

This is a non-sequitur -- you claim to be able to prove what my hermeneutic is by pointing to literal fulfilment of prohphecy? I'd really like to see you try to pull that rabbit out of your hat.

How do you view Ze 14?

 

[skullkrusher]

I am sorry if you took that as a provocative statement when I meant it just as a statement of fact. You had previously stated that you leaned to replacement theology which necessitates that you do not accept the prophetic statements concerning Jesus Christ ruling from Jerusalem for a thousand years over the nations with the 12 tribes of Israel back in her land. I think you would probably agree that those who begin with two different methods of interpretation, especially if they have little in common, will not likely agree on much in the rest of scripture.



How do you view Ze 14?

Thanks again... I'll have to pick this up later -- it's quitin' time & gotta get home. I'll look at that tonight if I get a chance. Any luck with that rabbit?

 

[skullkrusher]

I think you would probably agree that those who begin with two different methods of interpretation, especially if they have little in common, will not likely agree on much in the rest of scripture.

Granting there is much truth in your statement, holding different views on the best approach to the interpretation of prophetic works, apocalyptic ones in particular, does not necessarily mean people would disagree on most of Scripture. I would submit that, e.g., John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is through-and-through literalism -- I doubt one could find a more literal treatment of the atonement than hard-nosed, five-point infralapsarianism, which may account for the fact that (to my knowledge, and in the opinion of J.I. Packer, who may hold slightly more sway ) there has been no adequate, direct response to Owen in the three hundred twenty-five years since The Death of Death was written. But our disagreement is not about the validity or importance of literalism; it is about the nature of literalism, its limits and relation to language and literary form, etc. In my opinion, there is too much wooden literalism used in the dispensational approach to prophetic writings; as I mentioned in an earlier post, much thanks is owed to Dispensational scholars and pastors for their faithful work in holding the line against liberalism and higher criticism; what is not now, nor ever was, helpful is the polarization of two groups equally insistant upon the inspiration and authority of Scripture and equally committed to historical orthodoxy. We ought to be able and willing to have thoughtful, engaging dialog as brothers in Christ and brothers in arms. So, I truly and deeply appreciate the thoughtful posts.

How do you view Ze 14?

I hadn't read Zechariah for a while; read through 14 this evening, and may not be quite ready to address it (I need to finish up my post for the Romans 11 discussion we were having the last couple days). But, is it fair to ask if you see this as a text in which I might need to resort to multiple hermeneutic approaches, assuming I hold to some form of replacement theology?

'First' impressions -- what jumps out to me is the repeated reference to the Feast of Tabernacles (Ingathering) and its fulfillment in Christ: John 7 relates Jesus' claims (during the Feast of Tabernacles) to being the light of the world (the four-fold lamp), the living water (the stream from Jerusalem/pool of Siloam) to which all should come. And I can't help but wonder at the significance of the fact that this is recorded in John's gospel -- the gospel that presents Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World. That's about all I've had time for this evening.

I would like it if you could specify your understanding of allegorical interpretation; personally, I think allegorical interpretation leaves very much to be desired -- while it may tend to be useful in application of Scriptural principles, I don't find it a generally helpful exegetical approach. But, the interpretation of Biblical symbolism, while having some things in common with the allegorical method, is inherently different.

Late. Need some Z's.

Grace & Peace,

SK

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

As a graduate of William Tyndale College formerly Detroit Bible College, no longer in existence, they were firmly a Dallas MODE college. Some names that are prominent from DBC are Jack Van Impe, Norman Giesler, Gary Habermass, and Ed Hindson. Also three of these have had and still do have an affiliation with Liberty University of which I do too.

I have stacks of Grace Theological Journals and Bibliotheca Sacra Journals. All thought I gave my friend's son a sizable number of them him. He is presently at SBCs "Southern Theological Seminary" in Kentucky.

Glad to know a little bit more about you, Benefactor!


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

LDG:

A few posts back you mentioned the background of the debate turning 'acrimonious' -- do you have any good links you could post on that aspect of the issue? I'd be really interested in learning more about the confilct as it developed.

I'm not sure about any specific web links, but I can list books and other academic sources for this. Parts of these may be available through google scholar:

Mangum, R. Todd. The Falling Out Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Historical and Theological Analysis of Controversies Between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians from 1936 to 1944. 2002.

Waldrep, B. Dwain. Lewis Sperry Chafer and the Development of Interdenominational Fundamentalism in the South, 1900-1950. 2001.

DeWitt, Dale Sumner. Dispensational Theology in America During the Twentieth Century: Theological Development and Cultural Context. Grace Bible College, 2002.

Feinberg, John S. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments; Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988.


Mangum's book covers the issues in detail. Waldrep explores the controversies concerning dispensationalism in both the Southern Presbyterian and Southern Baptist denoms. DeWitt gives a decent summary. Feinberg's book covers some of the issues here and there, but the book itself is written by both dispensationalists and Reformed theologians who regard one another with respect.

And, your reference to Hodge in your last post -- were you referring to his Systematic Theology?

Its actually from his commentary on Romans. I don't think its in his Systematic Theology but I could be wrong. Steve Schlissel is a pastor in the Reformed community (a postmil) who holds to a very similar position as Hodge.


LDG

 

[skullkrusher]

Its actually from his commentary on Romans. I don't think its in his Systematic Theology but I could be wrong. Steve Schlissel is a pastor in the Reformed community (a postmil) who holds to a very similar position as Hodge.

After I made that post, I was checking out Hodge's Systematic Theology, and he treated the Romans 11 'salvation of all Israel' passage as questionable -- listed arguments on both sides, so I assumed he must have taken that view in another work, since you seem to be pretty well-informed on the topic.

Thanks for the resource suggestions.

SK

 

[glen55]

Seems to me your a partial preterist, or mighty close to it.
If we could just erase all those I Wills of God to these people! Paul understood the distinction was clearly there, Romans 15:10-And again he saith, Rejoice ye Gentiles, with "his people"
Also in Luke 2:32-A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of "thy people Israel."


Glen.

 

[skullkrusher]

Seems to me your a partial preterist, or mighty close to it.
If we could just erase all those I Wills of God to these people! Paul understood the distinction was clearly there, Romans 15:10-And again he saith, Rejoice ye Gentiles, with "his people"
Also in Luke 2:32-A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of "thy people Israel."


Glen.

Depending, I suppose, on how one applies the term, I would probably say that I am. Several of my posts on this thread have indicated that I don't argue against a future blessing of Israel, so the recognition of an abiding covenantal distinction to ethnic Israel doesn't necessarily resolve anything in terms of the debate between dispensationalism and covenantalism -- some forms of a-mil eschatology, yes, but that still leaves the issue unresolved.

 

[glen55]

Depending, I suppose, on how one applies the term, I would probably say that I am. Several of my posts on this thread have indicated that I don't argue against a future blessing of Israel, so the recognition of an abiding covenantal distinction to ethnic Israel doesn't necessarily resolve anything in terms of the debate between dispensationalism and covenantalism -- some forms of a-mil eschatology, yes, but that still leaves the issue unresolved.

I do think there is room for both views without the exclusion of the other both can be found taking place, its when one crosses over into a replacement outlook that problems arise, and both sides do it.



Glen.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Depending, I suppose, on how one applies the term, I would probably say that I am. Several of my posts on this thread have indicated that I don't argue against a future blessing of Israel, so the recognition of an abiding covenantal distinction to ethnic Israel doesn't necessarily resolve anything in terms of the debate between dispensationalism and covenantalism -- some forms of a-mil eschatology, yes, but that still leaves the issue unresolved.

Gal 3:15-16,28-29

yet dispensationalism is also working side by side

Dispensationalism is teaching man about man
covenants are promises that God will fulfill to the given party