How to Criticize those we disagree with

Michael Haykin has written an excellent post over at the Andrew Fuller Centre on the subject of criticizing Andrew Fuller. A quotation used by Dr. Haykin in the post struck us as particularly apt:

“Once for all, we must enter our protest against that system of wholesale condemnation, that will admit of nothing good in a man, if some part of his divinity system happen to be open to question.”

This is excellent advice, especially as it comes from a critic of Fuller. We have begun serious study of John Calvin in preparation for a lecture that we shall be giving in Surrey, God willing, some time next year, and if ever there was a man concerning whom the wise words of this old book review whom Haykin quotes were often broken, it is the Reformer of Geneva. From Jerome Bolsec through every sort of silly Arminian and Romanist, to Dave Hunt and Nelson Price (from the ridiculous to.. the ridiculous), Calvin has been besieged by all sorts of men who have decided that, because they do not agree with Calvin's theology, he must have been the greatest monster who ever lived.

It was therefore refreshing to receive by post this morning Volume 2 of the Cambridge Modern History (first published in 1903), which contains a delightful essay on Calvin and the Reformed Church by Principal A.M. Fairbairn of Mansfield College, Oxford (pictured). A lifelong Arminian and forthright critic of Calvin's theology (let it never be said we only read biographies of Calvin by Calvinists!), Fairbairn nevertheless refused to ignore the good that Calvin had done. Of Fairbairn's essay, his biographer, W.B. Selbie, writes:

"In Calvin Fairbairn had a subject altogether to his mind, and his study of him is among the best things he ever wrote. He always distinguished between the man and his system. Of the latter he had been a convinced and determined critic from the earliest days of his ministry. But he always recognised the great part it had played in the development of Christendom, and he would never suffer the good that was in it to be forgotten. For the man he had a genuine admiration. In describing him as one whose mind was the mind of Erasmus, while his faith and conscience were those of Luther, he struck a point of affinity with himself that could not fail to win his sympathy." (The Life of Andrew Martin Fairbairn [Hodder and Stoughton, 1914] Pp. 403-4)

Like Arminius himself, he lauded Calvin's work as a commentator to the skies. Indeed, We doubt that any Calvinist has been so immoderate in praise of Calvin:

"His services to the cause of sacred learning must not be forgotten. These it is hardly possible to exaggerate; he is the sanest of commentators, the most skilled of exegetes, the most reasonable of critics. He knows how to use an age to interpret a man, a man to interpret an age. His exegesis is never forced or fantastic; he is less rash and subjective in his judgments than Luther; more reverent to Scripture, more faithful to history, more modern in spirit. His work on the Psalms has much to make our most advanced scholars ashamed of the small progress we have made either in method or in conclusions. And his work is inspired by a noble belief; he thought that the one way to realise Christianity was by knowing the mind of Christ; that this mind was to be found in the Scriptures; and that to make them living and credible was to make indefinitely more possible its incorporation in the thoughts and Institutions of man." (Cambridge Modern history, Vol. 2 P. 376)

And what Calvinist can disagree with this Arminian? It warmed our heart to know that Calvin's personality and skill as a commentator had won the sincere admiration and regard of the Oxford scholar.

Tell the Minister!

Have you ever sat in a service and wanted to tell the minister afterwards that something he said confused you, or that you disagree with something he said? Probably. But have you actually done so? We do not mean in a mean-spirited, fault-finding way, but sincerely. If you have held back, we submit that you were wrong. Ministers need critics, not the nasty sort, but those who are genuinely concerned for the effectiveness of the Gospel ministry. We tend to develop bad habits over time, and it is only constructive criticism (we count personal remarks about the minister as out of court and unhelpful) that will allow us to spot these bad habits and correct them. So take care of your minister, and remember, unless he is completely self-centred and a fool, he will thank you for criticism. What he will not thank you for is holding back.

Despite rumours to the contrary, and claims by those who should know better, ministers are not pysychic. We do not know what you are thinking unless you tell us.

Servetus.

With the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth approaching, we have been asked to give a lecture some time next year on John Calvin. In preparation for this we are searching out the facts of Calvin's life, not only in our own extensive library (more than 2'000 volumes, plus electronic versions of other works, including the complete works of Arminius and Calvin), but also online. An interesting article on Servetus is to be found here.

A word on Calvin sources

W while ago we wrote a series defending John Calvin from the attacks of Nelson Price in an abominably badly-written and researched piece on his website (our series is here). Although our list of sources contained some fifteen books, it has come to our attention that in a discussion on another blog, we were charged with relying heavily on Calvinist sources. First of all, we shall say that simply because a book is written by someone who is favourable to its subject does not mean that it is to be discarded as reliable history. Were we to do that, we should have to reject the four Gospels, since they were written by men who worshipped the subject as God!

One of the few gains of Postmodernism is the realisation that there is no such thing as an unbiassed writer. We all have our biases, and this is certainly true with John Calvin. Yet we must here show our hand. Our main source in the writing of our defence of John Calvin was none other than the biography by R.N. Carew Hunt (R.N. Carew Hunt, Calvin [London, the Centenary Press, 1933]). Of this book T.H.L. Parker noted:

"whatever qualifications must be made about its interpretation of Calvin's theology, [it] is reliable and well-written history."

Robert Reymond wrote of it:

"As a biography it is unsurpassed, but Hunt is somewhat hard at times on Calvin because of his doctrine of predestination." ('John Calvin: His LIfe and Influence [Christian Focus, 2004] P. 146)

In other words, far from being heavily dependent on Calvinist sources, our main source was a scholarly biography by a non-Calvinist writer!

Our other non-Calvinist sources were:
Hugh Y. Reyburn, John Calvin (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1914) [Modernist Church of Scotland pastor who rejected Calvinism]
Williston Walker, History of the Church (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1960) [Modernist Yale historian]
John Laurence Von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. Trans. James Murdock (London, William Tegg, 1880) [Historic Lutheran]

In addition we quoted John Wesley, Richard Baxter and Jacobus Arminus himself to show that one need not agree theologically with Calvinism to speak well of Calvin as a man. We examined a number of the older and better non-Calvinist writers to see what they had to say about the man Nelson Price portrayed as an evil dictator. All of these men gave balanced and on the whole favourable accounts of Calvin. Why? Let us leave the last word to Carew Hunt:

"At this point what we may think of his doctrine or his system become of no importance. We are left in the presence of a man who followed what he believed to be the truth, and consecrated his life to its attainment, and for this he will be had in honour as long as courage and singleness of purpose are held as virtues among men."
R.N. Carew Hunt, Calvin (London, the Centenary Press, 1933) P. 316

How not to debate Theology. 1 -Begging the Question

Theological debate is a cut-and-thrust world. To get the best out of any debate, we have to understand some of the principles. Just as Don Carson's book 'Exegetical Fallacies' teaches good exegesis by bringing up examples of bad, so we shall make some remarks on how to conduct onesself in a debate by bringing up a few examples of how not to. We begin with the ever-popular fallacy of 'begging the question' consists in assuming one or more of the points to be proved in the debate. A wider application of this would be to attribute to your opponent a view that you hold, but that he does not.

In the debate with our Dispensational brothers in Christ:

1. Dispensationalist: "If you interpreted Genesis the way you interpret Revelation you would make the Bible into silly putty." (But we don't, because we don't believe that there is a single hermeneutic for all of Scripture, but different genres should be interpreted differently. So apocalyptic should NEVER be interpreted in the same way as history)

2. Dispensationalist: "You believe the Church has replaced Israel." (No, we believe that the Church is an enlarged and reformed Israel. The Dispensationalist, on the other hand, views the Church as an exclusively Gentile body.)

3. Dispensationalist: "You believe that the centre of history is God's redemption of man. We believe it to be His own glory." When the Covenant Theologian replies that he thinks nothing of the sort, the Dispensationalist will declare that he does so, though not in those words. Thus theological debate will be stifled.

4. Roman Catholic: "The early Church was Catholic. They believed what I believe." (No, the word 'Catholic' then did not mean what it means in western culture today. It meant universal, as opposed to heretical)

NOTE: We do not think that the errors of Dispensationalism are one tenth as bad as those of Rome.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 5

We close our review with a few observations about other parts of Waldron's book.

Waldron shows that, despite the protestations of MacArthur to be speaking as a simple pre-mil, in fact Dr. MacArthur’s sermon presents a form of Dispensationalism, so that the sermon ought to have been entitled ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensational Premillennialist’. This is not to accuse Dr. MacArthur of dishonesty, it is to note that he has unconsciously confused Dispensationalism with historic premillennialism (unless he has, like Barry Horner, defined historic premillennialism with almost sole reference to Horatius Bonar). Church history, Waldron points out, shows that Calvinism and premillennialism have historically NOT been closely related. While J.N. Darby and other early Brethren leaders were Calvinistic, those who have come after (for example C.A. Coates) moved to a more Arminian position, making the claim that Dispensationalism is the natural Calvinistic position rather tenuous to say the least. To give one prominent example, C.I. Scofield in his ‘Reference Bible‘, P. 1203 refers Romans 9.11 to corporate election, not personal. This is really quite logical if you believe that the purpose of the Dispensation of grace is to test men in respect to obedience to the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. While Dr. MacArthur insists (rightly) that Dispensationalism teaches God’s gracious election of Israel, he fails to point out that even the most rabid Arminians teach corporate election. The thing is, that’s the only election that they DO teach.

Dr. Waldron points out that Dr. MacArthur and other Dispensationalists assume in their criticism of the non-Dispensational position the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, namely that the Church began at Pentecost and is an essentially Gentile institution, while those they criticise hold that there is a continuity between Israel and the Church, so that the Church does not replace Israel but is Israel reformed and expanded to embrace Gentiles who are engrafted into Israel by faith. Thus it is inaccurate to describe this alone as replacement theology. The trouble is that Dr. MacArthur is assuming that we agree with him on the nature of the Church and the relation between the Church and Israel. WE DON’T!!! This is one of the points at issue, not a point of agreement between us!

We teach, following what we understand the Bible to teach, that Christians are members by faith of a Jewish Church with a Jewish head and founded by Jewish Apostles, based on a Bible written by Jewish men (though some think that Luke was a Gentile, we tend to agree with those who think that he was a Jewish man like the other Biblical writers). In this book Dr. Waldron exegetes the key passages showing that the Apostle Paul identifies the Church and Israel. He points out that MacArthur is erroneous in supposing that non-Dispensationalists teach that God cast out Israel for disobedience and made a new people out of the Gentiles. No, He engrafted the elect Gentiles into the olive tree of Israel.

Other chapters deal with such important issues as “Must Israelites be ethnic Jews’ (No. By accepting circumcision those who were born Gentiles could become Israelites by law) and ‘If the Church is Israel, why doesn’t it inherit Israel’s curses?’ (because the true Church is made up of faithful people. As Cranmer put it, it is "the blessed company of all faithful people". The true Church can‘t apostatize, so it cannot receive the curses for disobedience).

This is an excellent response to Dr. MacArthur, presented in a loving, straightforward way. Waldron corrects from the Bible and does his utmost to present MacArthur’s true position. The whole of MacArthur’s offending message is printed as an appendix, allowing the reader to check Waldron’s use of MacArthur in the work. Like all works by men, it ought to be read with discernment, but it will be profitable for anyone who wants to understand more about the ongoing debates over eschatology and Dispensationalism.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 4

Last time we referred further to the common Dispensationalist argument that non-dispensationalistsinterpret the Bible 'allegorically' and showed it to be false. This argument is often stated as 'if you interpreted Genesis the way you interpret Revelation, you'd all be theistic evolutionists', or in the still more sweeping accusation 'if you interpreted the rest of the Bible the way you interpret Revelation, you'd all be raving liberals'. Unfortunately both of these accusations proceed on the mistaken assumption of a SINGLE, simple hermeneutic, which whist it is often assumed by Dispensationalists, is in fact one of the very things we deny. Instead we hold that each book of the Bible is to be interpreted according to its genre. Thus we CANNOT interpret Revelation (apocalypse) as if it were Genesis (history).

As a six-day, young-earth creationist, Dr. Waldron takes Chapter 14 to show that slippery-slope arguments about non-Dispensational hermeneutics leading to theistic evolution and ultimately liberalism are false, using exactly this argument, one which even Dr. MacArthur actually understands. Dr. MacArthur’s contention is further falsified by the difficult fact that it is not only a-millennialists and post-millennialists who hold and have held the various old-earth and theistic evolutionist positions. The 1917 Scofield Bible, the touchstone of early Dispensationalists (we have in our possession one that was literally read to pieces by an old Brethren lady) taught the Gap Theory, which is a form of old-earth creationism. Here is the quotation:

“The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geological ages.” (Scofield Reference Bible [Oxford University Press, 1917] P. 3, note 2, emphasis ours)

John Rendle-Short in his book Green Eye of the Storm (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1998) documents how his father, Arthur Rendle-Short, was a devoted member of the Brethren nevertheless embraced a form of theistic evolution (P. 133; 135). So far from this leading to his being put under discipline by the Fellowship, Dr. Rendle-Short was a popular Brethren preacher! The Brethren (we refer to the old Brethren, obviously) do not have a full-time ministry, and so a Brethren preacher cannot rest on his official position. If his theology is suspect he will simply not be invited to preach. The Brethren of Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short’s day did not HAVE liberals, they were thoroughly evangelical and Dispensationalist (we have met many of them, and our Scofield Bible comes from a member of the same Brethren grouping as Dr. Rendle-Short). Thus we must conclude that the Open Brethren of that age found theistic evolution to be within the pale of orthodoxy. We could add that Scofield’s embrace of the Gap Theory opened up the way for this, and we will. After all, the Bible says that God made the sun on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1.16: “and God made two great lights…” emphasis ours), yet Scofield says of the light of Genesis 3:

“The ‘light’ of course came from the sun.” (SRB P. 3)

And we would ask in passing, what happened to the literal reading of the Bible? Surely ‘if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense’. But the plain sense is that God created the sun on the fourth day! That makes sense, so why insert the idea of a pre-existing sun? Answer: because Scofield wants to fit long ages into the Bible!

No doubt there have been many other Dispensationalists who have embraced a form of Theistic Evolution, and many more who have held a form of the gap theory that requires the sort of hermeneutical wriggling that Scofield was forced to use. I might say that this was the inevitable result of a hermeneutic that imposed from without certain conclusions such as the pre-tribulation rapture, and therefore allowed its adherents to impose long ages and evolution on Genesis. But that would be unfair and silly. The fact of the matter is that men on both sides come to the Bible with our presuppositions and cultural influences. The Victorian age with its commitment to the dogma of development has affected us all, either positively or negatively. So men’s reasons for embracing the error of theistic evolution or long-age creationism are not related to their hermeneutic in Revelation, but to the influence of secular science. While we understand the reasons for Dr. MacArthur’s mistake, we wish that this misrepresentation would cease. For further study on this matter we strongly recommend the 2007 James Begg Society lecture.

We have spent so much time on this point because we hold it to be important. Just as the old Brethren idea of a ‘law of first use’ (namely that the meaning of a word in Scripture is to be defined by its meaning the first time that it is used) was an exegetical fallacy, so is this idea of a single ‘normal hermeneutic’. Now this is not (as some may think) to shut up the Bible to scholars alone, for we further maintain that the genres of Biblical literature are apparent to the ordinary reader on their face. Only a fool would mistake the Psalms for history, and as we have noted the Revelation carries in its first verse the declaration that it is a symbolical book. Furthermore, a man does not need to take some commentary to understand the meaning of the symbols of Revelation mean, but only to search the Scriptures diligently.

God willing, we shall conclude next time with some random observations on other parts of the book.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 3

Last time we made some remarks on what is and is not allegorical interpretation. Whilst we hold strongly that the Medieval method of finding symbolism everywhere and claiming that this symbolism was the true meaning of historical texts such as Genesis is utterly illegitimate, having no basis in the text, obviously there are times when a symbolical interpretation of Scripture is appropriate, for example in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 1.1 we read that the Revelation was ‘sent and signified’ to John. This word ‘signified’ is the Greek ‘eshmenon’ which is a form of shmeion, meaning (according to Thayer’, a sign or mark’. John Wesley says on this word (Notes on the New Testament),

“Sent and signified them - Showed them by signs or emblems; so the Greek word properly means.”

The brilliant Dr. Gill agrees with Mr. Wesley on this point (surely one of very few on which they did!!!) explaining the word as meaning:

“By various emblems, signs and visions, represented and set before John.” An Exposition of the New Testament [London, William Hill Collingridge, 1853] Vol. 2, P. 931).

To the testimony of these two great Englishmen we add that of the American Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes:

“Eshmanen. He indicated it by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in Jn. Xii.33; xviii.32; xxi.19; Ac. Xi.28; xxv.27, and in the passage before us, in all which places it is rendered signify, signifying, or signified. It properly refers to some sign, signal or token by which anything is made known, and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the events referred to were to be communicated to John, for nearly the whole book is made up of signs and symbols.” (‘Notes on the Revelation’ [London, Blackie, 1951] Pp.35-6)

Waldron quotes one of MacArthur’s associates, Michael Vlach, as saying

“The presence of symbols does not mean that symbolical or allegorical interpretation in necessary.” (P. 76).

As Waldron notes:

“One would have thought the presence of symbols would have exactly meant that some symbolical interpretation is necessary.” (P. 77)

Conversely the absence of symbols precludes the possibility of symbolic interpretation! Poetical books require a poetical hermeneutic, historical books an historical and symbolical a symbolical. This is the contention of the non-Dispensational teachers. Different genres of literature require different hermeneutics. In practice we all recognise this. Let us take up the writings of John Bunyan. Do we approach the Pilgrim’s Progress the same way that we approach Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners? No! We recognise that the one is an allegory, the other a spiritual autobiography. One is to have an allegorical hermeneutic applied, the other an historical.

The idea of a single simple hermeneutic for every part of the Bible is actually so blatantly wrong that dispensationalists don’t believe it. We take as an example the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation 2.1-3.22. Dr. John MacArthur, like all historic non-dispensational protestant theologians, holds these to be letters to seven literal historic Churches then existing in Asia Minor. But dispensational writers such as C.I. Scofield find a fourfold application to these letters:

“1. Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) Personal, in the exhortations to him “that hath an ear”, and in the promises “to him that overcometh; (4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the Church from, say, AD 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the Church period there be no such fore view. These messages must contain that for view if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after 3.22.” (SRB p. 1331 Note 3)

This is certainly spiritualizing if there is such a thing, and even Dr. MacArthur does not escape its influence, for he says of Revelation 3.10,

“this verse promises that the church will be delivered from the tribulation, thus supporting a pretribulation rapture.” (‘Because the Time is Near’, [Moody, 2007] P. 92)

. For Dr. MacArthur then to fault those with whom he disagrees for employing spiritualizing interpretation therefore reminds us of an old saying about pots and kettles. What Revelation 3.10 says is: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” It is directed to the Church at Philadelphia, which Dr. John MacArthur tells us,

“The Christians in Philadelphia stood firm even after the region was overrun by the Muslims, until finally disappearing sometime during the fourteenth century.” (P. 89).

Thus, even if we take the passage as applying to the Church at Philadelphia throughout its history, the stubborn fact remains that there is no church there, though there would have to be to support MacArthur’s interpretation unless he is in fact spiritualizing the passage, so that ‘Church at Philadelphia’ really means ‘faithful Christians alive at the time of the Great Tribulation’. Unless we come to this text with a pre-existing idea (like that to which Scofield confesses in the quotation above), we would suppose that the passage refers to a great empire-wide persecution in the first or second centuries. The phrase ‘the whole world’ is the same one found in Luke 2.1 and Acts 11.28, so unless you want to insist that Caesar Augustus wanted to tax the whole globe, and that the famine affected the whole globe, you have to admit that it means ‘the whole empire’ in those places, and therefore there is no reason to take it as meaning anything else here. The ’plain sense’ of Revelation 3.10 is that the church at Philadelphia would be kept from an imminent empire-wide persecution. This makes sense, so why must Scofield and MacArthur seek another sense? If you will pardon the pun, that does not make sense.

Mr. Andrew Fuller, in his commentary on Revelation, writes:

“Some have considered these churches as prophetically representing the different states of the Church at large under the Gospel dispensation. There is no doubt that analogies may be found between them, but it appears to me that the hypothesis is unfounded… Instead of considering the epistles to the seven churches either as prophetic or as descriptive of the church at large as it then was, I should rather consider them as descriptive of the state of those seven churches as they then were.” (Works of Andrew Fuller [Sprinkle, 1988] Vol. 3 P. 210)

. The Puritan Matthew Poole agrees:

“The epistles concerning matters of faith and manners are written plainly, not in mysterious expressions.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Banner of Truth, 1963] Vol. 3. P. 953)

. And Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, is extremely strong in expressing his opinion of those who spiritualize the seven churches:

“I do not perceive any metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the epistles to these churches. I consider the churches as real; and that their spiritual state is here really and literally pointed out; and that they have no reference to the state of the church of Christ in all ages, as has been imagined, and that the notion… is unfounded, absurd and dangerous; and such expositions should not be entertained by any who wish to arrive at a sober and rational knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Thomas Tegg, 1837] P.2028)

All three of these commentators, following their insistence on a literal interpretation, take the view that we do, that the ‘hour of temptation’ was some empire-wide persecution in the immediate future when the Revelation was written. Let us repeat, ANY OTHER VIEW IS ILLEGITIMATE SPIRITUALIZATION. Now we would not be as pungent as Dr. Clarke, who effectively declares Scofield and MacArthur to be extravagant and irrational in their interpretations, but we agree with the good doctor’s point. In fact let us add that we find Dr. Clarke an excellent commentator except when he is blinded by his own Arminianism. He certainly has a horror of spiritualizing that would make Dr. MacArthur look like Origen’s second cousin!

So long as passages like the above quotations from MacArthur and Scofield exist in Dispensationalist writings, it is most unwise for them to accuse non-dispensational writers of spiritualizing. What they mean really is that they think that the non-dispensational writers spiritualize in the wrong places. They are at liberty to think that, but be it known that we think that they spiritualize in the wrong places!!! How is the above quote from MacArthur on Revelation 3.10 the ‘plain sense’ or ‘literal meaning’ of the passage? Scofield admits that the reason he must find a prophecy of the ‘Church Age’ in these two chapters is that “these messages must contain that’. It is not exegetical, it is in fact the eisegetical imposition of an a priori upon the text. We are so bold in fact as to say that no-one can find a pre-tribulation Rapture in any of MacArthur’s proof texts given on page 92 of Because the Time is Near who does not come looking for evidence of one. But we have written at great length on that subject elsewhere and would refer readers interested in the deficiencies to that.

God willing, we shall continue this series next time.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 2

Another dispensationalist error is identified by Waldron in MacArthur’s use of the common accusation of allegorical interpretation leveled against amillennial and postmillennial interpreters of the Revelation and the prophets. He points out that this is a mistake, and in fact the dispensationalist is guilty of an error himself in not acknowledging, though he does in practice recognise, the existence of different genres of literature in the Bible, which require to be interpreted in distinct ways. For example, no-one interprets the poetical language of the Psalms as they do the historical narratives found in, for example, the Former Prophets. Indeed, the error of true allegorists is that they DO interpret the Kings as though it were the same as Psalms. The dispensational statement that ‘if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense’ is quite inadequate and fails to take into account the analogy of faith. The old Brethren writers and preachers were certainly guilty of a large number of exegetical fallacies, and we think this idea of a single ‘normal hermeneutic’ for the whole Bible is one of them.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as allegorizing, plainly there is. We would however emphasise that there is a difference between those things that are expressly presented as signs and making historical passages into allegories. We have in our possession a copy of Emmanuel Swedenborg’s ‘Heaven and Hell’. Swedenborg was a genuine allegorizer. We give a random example:

“The members, organs and viscera of man, when mentioned in the Word, denote similar things, for every expression in the Word has a signification derived from correspondence; by the head, therefore, is signified intelligence and wisdom; by the breast, charity; by the loins, conjugal love; by the arms and hands, the power of truth; by the feet the natural [principle]; by the eyes, understanding; by the nostrils, perception; by the ears, obedience; by the kidneys, the purification of truth; and so forth.” (‘The Future Life’, [London, the Missionary and Tract Society of the New Church, 1879] P. 31)

This is true allegorizing, affixing a symbolic meaning to every word of Scripture and interpreting the Bible (especially the historical portions) according to these symbolic meanings. So, for example, taking Swedenborg for our example, we might say that when the Scripture says ‘Stretch out your hand’, what it really means is that we should exalt the power of Truth. That is allegory. But when The Apostle Paul speaks in Romans 11 of the one olive tree, that is symbolism, for he makes it clear that this olive tree is not a literal tree but a symbol of the people of God. So the ‘Beyond Creationism’ people who make the early chapters of Genesis a picture of Israel’s judgment are allegorizing, but those who say that the Harlot of the Revelation is symbolic of the antichristian apostate Church are simply seeking to understand a symbol. This loose use of the term ‘allegorical’ is something that we confess that we dislike. Particularly as it would be a brave man who compared William Hendriksen with Swedenborg!!! Allegorical is not a synonym for symbolic. The two are different, at least in modern English usage. We would prefer to reserve the term 'allegorical' interpretation for the illegitimate application of a symbolical hermeneutic. the book of Revelation is explicitly symbolic, and only makes sense interpreted in this way.


Of which more, God willing, next time.

Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman - Review

Cornelius Van Til:
Reformed Apologist and Churchman

John R. Muether

We were suprised to find that Muether's book is the first biography of Van Til since William White's 'authorized biography' of 1979. Cornelius Van Til, whilst never the easiest of men to read (he writes in Dutch American, which is equally difficult for those of us not used to it to follow when it is spoken), is by far the most influential Reformed apologist of the 20th century. Yet Muether has not simply taken that part of VAn Til, he has presented, as his subtitle shows, Van Til as both thinker and churchman. Indeed, as Muether contends, you cannot truly understand Van Til except in both of these capacities. We need, as it were, a stereoscopic picture of Van Til, the man in the Church as well as the professor in his study.

Muether has an obvious sympathy for his subject, always a good thing in a biographer. Whatever anyone else may think, we prefer our biographies to be written by those who actually like their subject. And Van Til, though inclined to fierce rhetoric, and the last man to back away from a fight, comes across as a genuinely likeable man, the man that we recognise from listening to recordings of his lectures (a word to those who find Van Til difficult to read, listen to him first. Sermonaudio.com has a number of excellent Van Til lectures). Here is Van Til in context, not some disembodied voice floating in the ether, but the Dutch Reformed man in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the outsider trying to forge a place in America for his adopted denomination, and the champion of Reformed theology.

Like Dr. Van Til, we regard the Reformed Faith as simply Biblical Christianity in its purest form, and that theology needs a consistent defence. We believe that Van Til, both practically and in his writings, offered and still offers that defence. Meuther gives us food for thought, showing how Van Til was one of the first to raise concern about the direction of the New Evangelicalism, and how he was the strongest voice of warning when Karl Barth came on the scene. This is a gripping read. In one sitting it would probably take about three and a half hours to read properly. We read most of it on a three-hour coach journey, and it certainly shortened the journey time.

Highly, HIGHLY recommended to all who want to know something about the man whose apologetic methodology still casts a long shadow (and, we think, a welcome shadow) over the Church today.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 1

We have now read Samuel Waldron's book 'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto'

Dr. John MacArthur is no stranger to controversy- quite the reverse, in fact. His works against modern-day antinomianism such as ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’ sparked a healthy debate about the connection of repentance and saving faith. And, on the whole, we have agreed with MacArthur in these controversies. Yet, as readers of this blog will know, we have been compelled to register our objections to the eschatology promoted by Dr. MacArthur.

Dr. MacArthur’s opening sermon at the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is Premillennial’, sparked off quite a debate at the time, a debate that has finally reached the United Kingdom, if a recent letter in the British Church Newspaper is anything to go by. Therefore the appearance of Dr. Samuel E. Waldron’s book ‘MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto’ is most welcome. This is, as the subtitle states, ‘A Friendly Response’, certainly its tone is far more irenic than that of MacArthur’s sermon that is herein critiqued.
We are not in total agreement with Dr. Waldron. He holds to a form of Augustinian amillennialism that sees no future conversion of the Jewish nation as a nation to Christ, we hold to a Puritan postmillennialism that sees, on the basis of Romans 11, a future restoration of the people of Israel to the Land and to faith in the true Messiah. Those wishing to read a commentary on Romans 11 from that perspective will find it in David Brown’s contribution to the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary. We find David Brown’s writings on this point every bit as convincing as we find his book on the Second Advent of Christ.

Having made these necessary critical remarks, we find much to appreciate in Waldron’s book. He demonstrates that an unconscious dispensational tradition has distorted MacArthur’s understanding of Amillennialism, so that when MacArthur says that all Calvinists ought to be pre-mil, in fact what he is saying is that they ought to hold one particular brand of pre-mil teaching. Certainly he would not consider the teaching of Justin Martyr to be preferable to Amillennialism on this point. In fact, he would reject all the pre-mil teaching that existed before the Reformation, as there was a consensus at that time that the purpose of God for the Jewish nation had ceased. Those who wish to examine the veracity of this statement should consult David Brown’s ‘The Restoration of the Jews’, Iain Murray’s ‘The Puritan Hope’, and Peter Toon’s 1968 Puritan Conference paper ‘Puritan Eschatology: 1600 to 1648’. Unfortunately, like Dr. Barry Horner, MacArthur considers his brand of pre-millennial Dispensational teaching to be just ‘pre-mil’ on this point, when it is not. Waldron shows this clearly by appeals to history.

More, God willing, next time.

Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 4

We conclude our remarks with some little defence of what we have said.

The question will be asked “what then about Roman Catholic claims that they believe in salvation through grace? Do you believe them?” In one sense, yes. You see, the Reformers never claimed that Rome taught salvation apart from grace. The Council of Trent is explicit that men are never saved apart from grace. But there is a word missing from Rome that the Reformers affirmed: ALONE. Rome has never claimed to teach salvation by grace ALONE, or by faith ALONE. Rome is actually quite open and honest.

The ‘cults’ are another matter. They redefine words, and that is why they can make statements that sound quite protestant and sound, but are in fact anything but - because words like ‘grace’ and ‘works’ have been redefined.

Let us emphasise that we know it is very possible for a person to unconsciously deny that which they consciously affirm, but we are always very reluctant to consider this and to charge people with holding positions that they explicitly deny. We Particular Baptists are historically very reluctant to accept inferences from Scripture. WE are still more reluctant to accept inferences from people’s writings as definitions of what they believe, particularly inferences that they themselves would deny. This was an unwarranted and tyrannical procedure when the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland used it to condemn the Marrow of Modern Divinity for teaching antinomianism (it actually teaches against it), it is just as unwarranted today. Again, when men accused J.C. Philpot of antinomianism ’by inference’ though he preached against it, that was uncharitable. We believe that it is always uncharitable to accuse a man by inference alone, particularly when he denies the charge inferred. Let us give the example of the ‘Marrow’. A Moderate minister might say to Thomas Boston: “You high-flyers are antinomians! Look at that book, it teaches rank antinomianism.”
Boston: “Indeed, sir, it does not. Look, one of the characters in the book is an antinomian, and his views are roundly condemned.”
Moderate: “It may do so, but nevertheless, as I read it I find that throughout it tends towards the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to live a holy life.”
Boston: “I deny that inference. Antinomianism is a horrible doctrine that both I and that book stand against.”

Or Mr. Philpot:
A Wesleyan: “Mr. Philpot, you are an antinomian.”
Mr. Philpot: “No, sir, I am not. Indeed, I believe that should a man teach that a Christian may live as he will without reference to God’s demands, that man is a false teacher.”
Wesleyan: “You may say so, but by teaching that believers are not under the law, your teaching tends to antinomianism.”
Philpot: “I deny that inference, I think antinomianism to be the most pernicious of teaching, and have stood against it ever since I was called by God’s grace.”

There is a direct parallel, in our opinion, between the argument of our hypothetical Moderate and Wesleyan and that of Mr. Phillips. We think both are unfair and could be used in a devastating fashion against Mr. Phillips’ own side, just as Mr. Boston could have used it to argue that the Moderate was a legalist. But we prefer to act as Mr. Boston did and act according to that famous dictum:

“In all things Charity.”

Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 3

The question may be asked: "Why spend so long replying to a minor point in a post? Our answer is that the minor point opened up a Dispensationalist straw man that we are honour-bound to demolish, firstly to defend the great non-Dispensational theologians of the past and secondly to ensure that dispensationalists do not continue to repeat this false claim in future.

Not only is Mr. Phillips' argument that it is possible to claim that making the glory of God the centre of human history is a dispensationalist distinctive because non-dispensational writers appear at times in their writings to deny what they explicitly claim to believe elsewhere backed up by a non-sequitur, it is also an argument that could be used with devasting force against his own position. We could use Mr. Phillips’ reasoning to prove that C.I. Scofield did not believe that the centre of history was the glory of God. Let us quote the august editor:

“From beginning to end the Bible testifies to one redemption. From beginning to end the Bible has one great theme - the person and work of Christ.” (SRB 1917, introduction [not paginated])

Now we could say: “Look, Mr. Scofield says that the central theme of the Bible is the person and work of Christ. That work was the redemption of man, therefore, despite what Scofield may say elsewhere, he really believes that the centre of history is the redemption of man.” But that would be to miss the point and to misrepresent Scofield.

Or we could use the same argument to prove that the insistence on a single ‘literal’ or ‘normal’ hermeneutic without spiritualizing is not a dispensational distinctive because Dr. John MacArthur and CI Scofield are guilty of spiritualizing in Revelation 2 and 3 (3.10 in MacArthur’s case). Dr. John MacArthur, like all historic non-dispensational protestant theologians, holds these to be letters to seven literal historic Churches then existing in Asia Minor. But dispensational writers such as C.I. Scofield find a fourfold application to these letters: “1. Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) Personal, in the exhortations to him “that hath an ear”, and in the promises “to him that overcometh; (4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the Church from, say, AD 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the Church period there be no such fore view. These messages must contain that for view if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after 3.22.” (SRB p. 1331 Note 3)

This is certainly spiritualizing if there is such a thing, and even Dr. MacArthur does not escape its influence, for he says of Revelation 3.10, “this verse promises that the church will be delivered from the tribulation, thus supporting a pretribulation rapture.” (‘Because the Time is Near’, [Moody, 2007] P. 92). For Dr. MacArthur then to fault those with whom he disagrees for employing spiritualizing interpretation therefore reminds us of an old saying about pots and kettles. What Revelation 3.10 says is: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” It is directed to the Church at Philadelphia, which Dr. John MacArthur tells us, “The Christians in Philadelphia stood firm even after the region was overrun by the Muslims, until finally disappearing sometime during the fourteenth century.” (P. 89). Thus, even if we take the passage as applying to the Church at Philadelphia throughout its history, the stubborn fact remains that there is no church there, though there would have to be to support MacArthur’s interpretation unless he is in fact spiritualizing the passage, so that ‘Church at Philadelphia’ really means ‘faithful Christians alive at the time of the Great Tribulation’. Unless we come to this text with a pre-existing idea (like that to which Scofield confesses in the quotation above), we would suppose that the passage refers to a great empire-wide persecution in the first or second centuries. The phrase translated ‘the whole world’ is the same one found in Luke 2.1 and Acts 11.28, so unless you want to insist that Caesar Augustus wanted to tax the whole globe, and that the famine affected the whole globe, you have to admit that it means ‘the whole empire’ in those places, and therefore there is no reason to take it as meaning anything else here. The ’plain sense’ of Revelation 3.10 is that the church at Philadelphia would be kept from an imminent empire-wide persecution. This makes sense, so why must Scofield and MacArthur seek another sense? If you will pardon the pun, that does not make sense.

Mr. Andrew Fuller, in his commentary on Revelation, writes: “Some have considered these churches as prophetically representing the different states of the Church at large under the Gospel dispensation. There is no doubt that analogies may be found between them, but it appears to me that the hypothesis is unfounded… Instead of considering the epistles to the seven churches either as prophetic or as descriptive of the church at large as it then was, I should rather consider them as descriptive of the state of those seven churches as they then were.” (Works of Andrew Fuller [Sprinkle, 1988] Vol. 3 P. 210). The Puritan Matthew Poole agrees: “The epistles concerning matters of faith and manners are written plainly, not in mysterious expressions.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Banner of Truth, 1963] Vol. 3. P. 953). And Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, is extremely strong in expressing his opinion of those who spiritualize the seven churches: “I do not perceive any metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the epistles to these churches. I consider the churches as real; and that their spiritual state is here really and literally pointed out; and that they have no reference to the state of the church of Christ in all ages, as has been imagined, and that the notion… is unfounded, absurd and dangerous; and such expositions should not be entertained by any who wish to arrive at a sober and rational knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Thomas Tegg, 1837] P.2028) All three of these commentators, following their insistence on a literal interpretation, take the view that we do, that the ‘hour of temptation’ was some empire-wide persecution in the immediate future when the Revelation was written. Let us repeat, ANY OTHER VIEW IS ILLEGITIMATE SPIRITUALIZATION. Now we would not be as pungent as Dr. Clarke, who effectively declares Scofield and MacArthur to be extravagant and irrational in their interpretations, but we agree with the good doctor’s point. In fact let us add that we find Dr. Clarke an excellent commentator except when he is blinded by his own Arminianism. He certainly has a horror of spiritualizing that would make Dr. MacArthur look like Origen’s second cousin!

How is the above quote from MacArthur on Revelation 3.10 the ‘plain sense’ or ‘literal meaning’ of the passage? Scofield admits that the reason he must find a prophecy of the ‘Church Age’ in these two chapters is that “these messages must contain that’. It is not exegetical, it is in fact the eisegetical imposition of an a priori upon the text. We are so bold in fact as to say that no-one can find a pre-tribulation Rapture in any of MacArthur’s proof texts given on page 92 of Because the Time is Near who does not come looking for evidence of one. But we have written at great length on that subject elsewhere and would refer readers interested in the deficiencies to that series of articles.

God willing, we will conclude next time.

Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 2

The long response to a few words in a comment thread contines.

Mr. Phillips asks:

“Are you unable to grant that someone can say "Oh yes, it's all about the glory of God," but then while he handles the actual details of the text, he hammers everything down to what (it emerges is) his real theme — for instance, a putative single, textually-questionable covenant of redemption? If massive amounts of uncongenial details are made subservient to this theory, is one not allowed to observe that the theory has overwhelmed the evidence? Is someone's stated belief or priority always his actual belief or priority?”

Oh, certainly we do. We also however think it is a sin, namely lying, to say that you hold to a position when you know that you do not. Therefore we are very reluctant to charge anyone with disingenuous behaviour unless there is plain evidence of it, that is unless there is an obvious and real contradiction. We have read many books by many writers of different schools, Arminian, Calvinistic, Amillennial, post-millennial, pre-millennial, even dispensationalist, protestant and Roman Catholic, and in each case we have approached the work in a an attitude of charity, that is, while someone may define terms differently from us, we shall assume that he means what he says.

Secondly, there is an error here. Our subject was this: Does dispensationalism alone teach that God's end in all His dealings with men is His own glory. Yet Mr. Phillips' argument actually comes down to "Covenant Theologians teach that there is only one covenant, the covenant of redemption, therefore they do not make the glory of God the centre of all His dealings with man." This is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Using the same argument wecould say that Dispensationalists do not believe that God's end in His dealings with men is His own glory, but to test mankind. Only we think it to be a lousy argument, so we'd never use it.

And it is possible for a person's language to be misunderstood, so that they appear to be teaching what they do not. Let us give an example that is germane to this debate: Dispensationalists say that they believe there is only one way of salvation in all the dispensations. I believe them when they say that. So, when I read C.I. Scofield saying as he contrasts the dispensations of law and grace:

“The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ.” (SRB [Oxford University Press, 1917] P. 1115 note 2)

I assume that he is using the term ‘condition of salvation’ in a loose way, because he says that there is only one way of salvation through all dispensations - that is charity. If I read in Lewis Sperry Chafer:

“The essential elements of a grace administration - faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God, unmerited acceptance through a perfect standing in Christ, the present possession of eternal life, an absolute security from all condemnation, and the enabling power of the indwelling Spirit - are not found in the kingdom administration.” (Dispensationalism [Dallas Seminary Press, 1951], P. 416)

I assume again that he is speaking loosely, and does not think that people in the Kingdom dispensation will be saved through their own merit apart from or in addition to the perfect righteousness of Christ. That is charity.

Or I could take another example. When we recall that Dr. Barry Horner is a dispensationalist, and therefore would agree with Ryrie that the centre of history is the glory of God, we do not say “Well, in ‘Future Israel’ (his only major work that we are aware of) it sounds like he really makes a distinction between Israel and the Church the centre of history. No, we say ‘he believes that the reason behind this distinction is the glory of God’, even if he does not explicitly say that. It is the same when we read or hear Dr. MacArthur’s controversial sermon, we do no say “Well, whatever he might say, he obviously really thinks that the centre of history is a distinction between Israel and the Church’. No, I say “he says that the centre of history is the glory of God, and obviously he thinks that this Israel-Church distinction is for that glory.” That is charity. To act otherwise would be uncharitable for us. We prefer the clear statements of writers to anyone’s inferences from what they say. Sin has affected our minds as well as the rest of us, and that means that we can make mistaken inferences. I doubt that any Covenant Theologian has made such apparently contradictory statements as those we have quoted from Scofield and Chafer, but we are quite prepared to believe that both men believed that salvation in all dispensations is, was and shall be through Christ and never through human merit.

More, God willing, next time.

Dispensational men of straw demolished: 1.

We continue to respond to points made in this post, and in Mr. Phillips' comments in the thread.

Mr. Phillips may reply that he has read dozens of Covenant Theologians, and he thinks that his analysis is fair. Well, Dave Hunt says that he has read hundreds of Calvinist books and still horribly misrepresents Calvinism. Dave Hunt has read them through the lenses of his own prejudice. In the same way Mr. Phillips has read Covenant Theologians through the lenses of his Dispensationalist prejudices. It is always more important for us to give credence to men’s express statements than what we ‘feel’ them to be teaching. The objective rather than the subjective must rule in this, otherwise what Mr. Phillips is simply knocking down a straw man set up be his Dispensationalist teachers.

We are sorry to have had to spend so much time pressing this point, but we believe that it is essential that we, as Christians, do not misrepresent our opponents. You see, if we come to a debate and immediately misrepresent the other side, we in effect say ‘I have not bothered to find out what you actually believe, I don’t care about that.’ At once we have alienated the other side. Speaking for ourselves, when we read Mr. Phillips’ declaration that non-Dispensational Reformed theologians believe that God’s ultimate end in His dealings with man is the redemption of the elect, we were extremely annoyed. And then when he came back to say, in effect, ‘you’re wrong, you don’t understand your own writers’, he gives the impression that he is more concerned to keep hold of his Dispensationalist straw man than he is to take our denials at face value.

C.I. Scofield defines a dispensation as:

“a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some Specific revelation of the will of God.” (Scofield Reference Bible [1917 Oxford University Press] P. 5 note 4)

If dispensationalists still accept this definition, we would humbly suggest that a better ‘third distinctive’ would be

“The division of history into a series dispensations, which are defined as periods in which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”

This would have the advantage of actually being a distinctive. Obviously it could be better worded, but we leave that to the Dispensationalists themselves.

I beg to differ!

Fred Butler has written a blog article in which he seems to suggest that non-dispensational hermeneutics are the cause (or something) of theistic evolution and other such compromises with naturalistic science. We beg to differ. Mr. Butler says:

"My point along these lines is simple: It has been my experience that those who are prone to use hermeneutics which spiritualize, allegorize, and utilize excessive typology in understanding eschatology, tend toward using the same method when dealing with Genesis and what is wrongly perceived as conflicts with modern, secular, scientific paradigms."

No, Mr. Butler. It is simply a lack of faith that leads to men compromising with naturalistic and unbelieving science. Otherwise we would not have examples of leading Dispensationalists who committed the same acts of compromise. None other than C.I. Scofield (see picture) in his far-famed Reference Bible taught the Gap Theory, which is a method for reconciling Genesis with long ages. G.H. Pember, in Earth's Earliest Ages advocated the same theory, and he too was a Dispensationalist. Indeed, many of the early Dispensationalist writers held to some version of the Gap theory. One website cites J.N. Darby, Sir Robert Anderson and Lewis Sperry Chafer "all major pioneers in the dispensational movement" as proponents of this theory. Note that this website is itself dispensationalist, and in favour of the Gap theory. We warn our readers that the theology here is NOT sound. Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short, a surgeon and a preacher among the English Open Brethren in the mid-twentieth century (and therefore by definition a Dispensationalist), actually held to a form of theistic evolution (see J. Rendle-Short: Green Eye of the Storm [Edinburgh, Banner of Truth]). Darby, Scofield, Chafer... it's practically a hall of fame for leading Dispensationalists. These are the men who developed the system, and they all taught versions of the Gap Theory! There must be something about Dispensationalism that makes its teachers tend towards that particular compromise... No, except that it was developed during a period when many Christians thought that the conclusions of naturalistic science were unassailable, and therefore they had to develop some method to accommodate long ages with the Biblical creation account. That is why the non-dispensational Thomas Chalmers also taught the Gap Theory. The real cause is something other than the Dispensational or non-dispensational theologies of these men.

Mr. Butler, we fear, is gulity of the fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc (after it, so because of it). The truth is more complicated, as is all too often the case with nice easy arguments.

Simon Padbury's 2007 James Begg Society lecture 'Creationism and the Reformed Faith' is an excellent treatment of the subject historically.

We reserve our remarks about Dispensationalist use of the term 'allegorizing' for a future date.

The Archbishop and Yoda.

Dr. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, further evidenced the state of the Church of England by, in an address dealing with knife crime and a perception of increasing violence among young people in Britain's inner cities, quoting not the Bible but the Star Wars films:

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side."

This sentiment may be true as far as it goes, it may be noble, but quite simply, anybody could have said that. The Church's place is NOT to quote nuggets of pop-spirituality from the movies in answer to the problems of the world. Anyone can do that. And should anyone think that this is an isolated case, it isn't, he's done it before. Read this.

We are NOT saying that Dr. Sentamu does not have the right to watch Star Wars in the privacy of his own home, or at the Cinema, or in any other location where it's legal. Rather we are saying that if all the Church of England has to say in the face of a society slipping into anarchy is quotations from popular entertainment, it's doomed. If all the Church, any Church, can do is parrot the culture, even if it is the better part of the culture, it's doomed. Without a 'thus saith the Lord', the Church is doomed to irrelevance. Yet the crowning irony is that the very reason that we have Archbishops quoting Star Wars in public pronouncements and pastors preaching sermon series' on Spider-Man is that they are attempting to be 'relevant'!

And what are they preaching? What is the message of Yoda and Spider-Man? It is simply morality. Now we have no problem with morality in its right place, nor with Moral teaching. But the Church does not exist for the purpose of imparting moral teaching. No, our motto is 'But we preach Christ crucified.' The Gospel is not a way to live a better life, it is not 'do this and live', it is this: it is Christ crucified for sinners, it is the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, hung upon a cross, suffering and dying in the place of perishing sinners. It is a declaration that we are not in need of a mere renovation, but 'ye must be born again'. The problem is not that men are not living up to their full potential, it is that we are all sinners, hateful and hating one another, and that were it not for God's withholding hand, we should make this world a hell, and go from it into another hell of eternal torment. Yet 'This is a true saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.' That 'God so loved the world', not a world of men who fell into occasional mistakes, but a world of evil, rebellious and hell-deserving sinners who did not love God, but hated Him. 'That He gave His only-begotten Son', gave Him up to suffering and to death, 'that whosoever believeth in Him', EVERY ONE who believes in Him, 'might not perish' everlastingly, 'but have everlasting life.' Unless we are preaching that, we are truly irrelevant.

But what does the modern Church preach? all too often morality. Brothers, if a Church only preaches morality, it may claim to be evangelical, but it looks just like a liberal church. We have some experience of liberal Churches - we were brought up in one. Not one of these mad liberal churches where all manner of sin is approved, but an old-fashioned liberal church where the pulpit sounded morality. Christian morality, the morality of the 1950s. And what does moral preaching produce? It produces on the one hand pharisees and on the other those who, disgusted, cast off the heavy yoke of the Law. The Law CANNOT change lives. It has no power, it can only condemn. But the Gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation'. What we need is not Archbishops spouting pop-spirituality, we need faithful men of God to PREACH THE GOSPEL!!!

Oh may we give God no rest as we cry out for His mercy.

Is Dispensationalism more Theocentric than Covenant Theology? [updated]

Daniel Phillips has a post on his blog dealing with what he considers to be a fairly faulty (though good in parts) definition of dispensationalism. We took issue with one of his points:

Probably Ryrie's third distinctive is a better one: seeing the glory of God as the center of history, rather than man's redemption.

We take it that he refers to the following paragraph:

"The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalists' consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in dealing with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."
(Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [ Moody, 1965], P.44 , cited in Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995] P.5)

Note that for something to be a 'distinctive' of a theological system, it must be unique to that system. Thus a belief in the Trinity cannot be said to be a distinctive of Calvinism, since non-Calvinistic systems also hold to it. On the other hand we can say that reading all of Scripture in the light of Justification by Faith alone and a hard-and-fast Law-Gospel distinction is a distinctive of Lutheranism.

This paragraph defines what is meant by Mr. Phillips' phrase 'centre of history'. It means "God's basic purpose", His goal or, to use the old-fashioned word, His end. Note that Mr. Phillips also defines what he thinks Covenant Theologians think God's chief purpose is, "Man's redemption." It seems, then, that the accusation is that everyone other than the Dispensationalist is more or less anthropocentric, they view man's redemption as God's chief purpose. Now we are of the opinion that this is a fantastic claim. It is in effect saying that everybody until the early nineteenth century held a theology that was man-centred, and that the centre of Calvin's theology was man. Really? What did the Westminster Divines say? We pick the Westminster Confession because, as the basis for the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration, it is the most representative of the Reformed confessions, and its date means that it was drawn up at the height of the Puritan age. If any document can speak for the Calvinistic world, it is this one, the basis of the Scottish and American Presbyterian Churches.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Chapter 3: of God's Eternal Decree, section 3)

"It pleased God the Father, son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, widsom and goodness, in the beginning to create, or make of nothing, the world and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good" (Chapter 4. Of Creation, section 1.)

" God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (Chapter 5: of Providence, section 1)

Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. (Chapter 6: of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof)

And lest we forget:

"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever." (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1)

Now, we may be incredibly dense, but it sounds to us as though the Westminster Divines intended to say that the "basic purpose" of all God's actions is His own glory, not just in His dealings with men, but in all things.
Or let us examine some of the more influential Reformed theologians:

"The final aim is the glory of God. Even the salvation of man is subordinate to this." (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Banner of Truth 1958) P. 115. Emphasis ours)

"It is explicitly taught that the glory of God, the manifestation of His perfections, is the last end of all His works... God, as infinitely wise and good, seeks the highest end; and as all creatures are as the dust of the balance compared to Him, it follows that His glory is an infinitely higher end than anything that concerns them exclusively." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology [Thomas Nelson, 1871] Vol. 1 P. 567, emphasis ours again)

Here are two great Reformed and non-Dispensational theologians from the last two centuries, two systematic theologies that are standards in the studies of Reformed theologians, and both say that God's chief end, his ultimate goal, is His own glory. Yet Mr. Phillips insists that only Dispensationalists teach that God's ultimate purpose is His own glory! We had thought that such a silly and counter-factual idea would be dismissed by Mr. Phillips, but no, he actually thinks that this is true! Keith Mathison has written:

"Until recently , dispensationalists maintained that they alone understood God's ultimate purpose to be His own glory. Other theological systems, especially Reformed theology, were accused of teaching that God's ultimate purpose is the redemption of man." (Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, P. 5)

On the strength of Mathison's declaration, we actually thought that this old canard had been given a decent funeral, and here we find it alive and kicking on the blog of such an intelligent man as Mr. Phillips!

We have given quotations from the Westminster Confession, Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof, not because we could not find the same sentiments expressed elsewhere but because these three sources may be regarded as representative. Although we have followed the Biblical requirement for two or three witnesses, we could easily give quotations from dozens of Reformed writers expressing the same sentiments. Can Mr. Phillips give two quotations from representative Reformed writers to substantiate the claim that teaching that all of God's dealings with man are for His own glory is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. We want two representative Reformed writers who expressly state that God's end in all His dealings with man goes no higher than the redemption of the elect. Not the agreement of other internet dispensationalists, but real quotations from our side. If the accusation is true, let it be sustantiated by two or three witnesses.

It will not do to provide quotations saying that the intent of the covenant of redemption is the redemption of the elect. That is the way we often speak, but recall that this is really a rather loose way of talking. What we mean is that the covenant of redemption glorifies God by redeeming the elect. The redemption of the elect is a proximate goal, not a final one. That's why it's called the covenant of redemption. No, what we ask for is two or three quotations that expressly state that there is no higher purpose than the redemption of the elect in God's dealings with men.

Note what we are NOT saying. We are not saying that Dispensationalism does not see God's end in all His works as his own glory, but just saying that it is not, properly speaking, a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Whilst it may distinguish Disepnsationalism from certain forms of Arminian theology, it does not distinguish it from historic Calvinism. Any attempts to say that it does betray a fundamental misunderstanding of historic Calvinism. Indeed, one of the consistent accusations against the historic Calvinist position is that it makes God's glory, not the salvation of men, His final end in His dealings with men. That's why Calvinists are always accused of being mean horrible people who say that God condemned people to hell to glorify Himself.

So we have really TWO distinctives in the Ryrie quote: 1. A distinction between Israel and the Church; 2. The use of a single 'consistently literal' or 'normal' hermeneutic for the whole Bible. According to Mr. Phillips, all attempts to add a distinctive involving different economies or dispensations (though you would think that would have to be in a list of distinctives) are doomed to failure, and we hope that we have blown the old canard about teaching that all God's actions are to His glory being a distinctive out of the water.

Mr. Phillips, we know that you dislike your theology being misrepresented. SO DO WE. It is time for this old canard to be given the decent burial that it deserves.

Inclusivism!!!

Ingrid Schlueter at Slice of Laodicea has posted an article entitled "TIME: More Evangelicals Believe All Paths Lead to God". Of course, TIME here has got it wrong. Very few evangelicals (self-described, I mean) believe that. What they DO believe, however, is that people can be saved by Christ without knowing the first thing about Him, and all the time living in their paganism.

This idea has a long and dishonourable history. It is directly linked with Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. For if it is true that all men are born good and able by their own free-will to respond to God, does it not follow that there are, or might be, those in other cultures who do in fact do good? Despite its being explicitly declared to be heresy in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England No less a man that W.H. Griffith-Thomas, once of Dallas Seminary, in his 'Principles of Theology', at least allowed for the idea, and C.S. Lewis teaches it in 'The Last Battle', the last of the Narnia books chronologically. Dr. Hywel Jones of Westminster Seminary California has written an excellent work against it entitled 'Only One Way'.

"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." (Aticle XVIII of the Church of England)

This error is increasing among evangelicals, no doubt, because it sounds nice and loving, but has only one problem - it kills mission. Because if the hypothetical ;'good pagan' HEARS and REJECTS the Gospel, then he would otherwise have been saved will be damned for ever. Far kinder to leave him in his error. But the Bible holds out no 'wider hope', for:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10.14

Let others go with philosophical speculations. We shall remain standing on the all-sufficient Word of God.