Category: Theology

Prophecy Conferences and Signs of the Times, Essay 14

For 150 years Signs of the Times Prophecy Conferences were popular in Dispensational circles.  These conferences were especially popular in the 1950s and 1960s.  Some of the best teachers were from Dallas Theological Seminary (J. Dwight Pentecost and others). The conferences were very exciting because they gave evidence that Jesus was coming soon, and the rapture would take place.  

The paradox was the dispensational teaching that Jesus could come any moment and nothing, no sign of the times or prophetic fulfillment, needed to happen before the return of Jesus.  If so, then why were the signs of the times important?

The answer was that though no sign or prophetic fulfillment was a prerequisite, the situation of the World and the lineup of the nations showed a fulfillment to prove to us that Jesus was really, really was coming soon.  The sense of this was so vivid.  The conferences were used to motivate evangelism, since if his coming was so soon, then there was little time left to evangelism and see people saved before the rapture.  I recall the famous Dr. Charles J. Woodbridge, of dear memory, at Word of Life Camp and Conference Center saying that he thought we did not have more than ten years till the rapture.  As a young person, 17 years old, I did not want the Lord to come until I experienced marriage though the teaching was still very exciting to me. 

What were the signs?  Here are some.  The European Common Market had six nations, and it was predicted that it would expand to ten nations.   This was seen as the reconstituted Roman Empire predicted in Daniel 2, the ten toes of the great image upon which the stone falls and the image crumbles and becomes a great mountain.  Yeshua is the stone that falls on the toes. The toes are also the ten heads or crowns in other chapters.  The Common Market then expanded to ten nations.  There was great excitement.  But then there were 11, 12, and then the European Union with many more.  Now ten looked more symbolic than literal,  but this was still seen as Rome renewed though the geography was not the same as the Roman Empire. 

The Jewish people being reconstituted in the Land was a major sign of the times since in the Tribulation, after the Church was gone, Israel would be the center of God’s working in the world and the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  

The power of Russia was key since they were seen as the invading nation of Ezekiel 38 and 39. 

China was another sign since the book of Revelation speaks of 200 million coming from the East and only China could have a 200 million men army.  I note that no supply line could provide for such an army.  The text is not about a literal army, but that is how it was taken. 

The apostasy of the main line Protestant Churches and the World Council of Churches was another sign of the great falling away.  

Some of these conferences presented detailed information about invasions during the Tribulation and the details of wars and alignments. 

How can we respond to all this?  Yes, there are signs of the times that look like the coming of the Lord is nearer.  Israel is certainly the most noteworthy fulfillment of prophecy.   However, the Bible does not orient us to speculating on detailed fulfillments as if prophecy gives us detailed writing of world history ahead of time, though there are great prophetic words about the coming of the Antichrist and the line-up of the nations against Israel, the tribulation and opposition to the Body of the Messiah. The emphasis in the Bible is much more about moving history to the climax of his coming through completing the work of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations and making Israel jealous. For that we need revival and unity in the Church (John 17:21).  Making Israel jealous is an eschatological (last days) task that leads to the return of Yeshua (Rom. 11:11-16)  

How do we deal with any moment return doctrine?  First, there is one text that is important among others.   It says, “You are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief.”  (I Thes. 4:5).   Does the Bible teach the any moment doctrine, or does it just teach the soon coming?   For the writers of the New Testament, His coming seemed soon.  It seems that God’s setup is such that every generation can point to enough things that it seems soon.  George Ladd argued in his classic The Blessed Hope, that any moment teaching is wrong and there can be fulfillments that come first. 

However, if one is still oriented to any moment coming, J. Barton Payne, the late and esteemed Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School, in his book The Imminent Appearing of Christ, argued that we will not see the prophetic prerequisites clearly until after the fact.  There is enough uncertainty always to think that there is yet prophecy to be fulfilled, and yet He can come any minute. Only after would we see that the fulfillment came.  

I am more oriented to Ladd’s view.  Prophecy or eschatology conferences could be a good thing if the emphasis is not on the details of the future events, but on the broad sweep of the teaching of the Bible on the preaching of the Gospel to the nations, revival, unity, and the lineup of the nations against Israel.  The issue is biblical balance. 

Backsliding and the Pre-Trib Rapture, Essay 13

As a youngster of 12 -and-a-half years old, I first heard the teaching of the pre-tribulation rapture from Dr. Charles J. Woodbridge, of dear memory.  He was most impressed with an air of authority in his person.  He presented the familiar chart of the course of world history and the future from eternity past to the end, eternity future.  Between them were the seven dispensations. At the end of the present dispensation, the Church Age, the rapture of the Church would take place, and then the 7-year tribulation.  After this, the Millennium would come and finally eternity, the New Heavens and New Earth. Dr. Woodbridge was a graduate of Princeton and had been a faculty member of Fuller Theological Seminary.  How could a Princeton graduate embrace this theology?  I never found out.  I was completely convinced.  His presentation was so certain and his credentials so solid, that it was certainly not to be doubted.  I looked forward to being raptured and escaping the tribulation.  It was a joyful thought that was with me for the next 6 ½ years. 

At 19 years old, I gave up this doctrine. I could not find it in the texts of the New Testament when read in context. I explained this in an earlier essay.  I actually felt betrayed, though amazingly, I was confirmed under a Reformed pastor who did not believe this.  For all these years, in dispensational Bible Clubs, Word of Life Camp (which had a great and wonderful impact on my life), and dispensational churches, I was not only taught the pre-tribulation rapture but was taught that when one loses this belief, he or she is on the road to liberalism and backsliding.  It was considered a bullwork belief.  Why?  Because only this doctrine made sense of any moment possible return of Jesus.  How this fit with the signs of the times conferences is for another essay.  There is an explanation for them teaching these signs of His coming.  However, one reason for such passion for this doctrine was that any moment pre-trib rapture would keep us on our toes.  We would thus be ready so that the Lord would not come when we were involved in sin.  If we were sinning, how would we then feel?  How embarrassed would we be?   So, fear that He would come when we were not ready was a great motivator.  Yet there was a paradox. Since Dispensationalism taught that when someone accepted Yeshua, he or she could never lose salvation.  They would go up in the rapture even if backslidden.  Yet how many young people thought that they would miss the rapture due to sin.  For me, the issue was the joy of going up and not having to face the great tribulation.  We sang, “I’m going up, going up, going up to meet with Jesus, up to be with Jesus, up to be with Him, going up going up going up to be with Jesus in the sweet by and by.”

Then I found that this belief had no foundation.  I made an appointment with a beloved professor at The King’s College, Dr. Thomas McComiskey, who became a renowned Old Testament Professor.  He said that teaching at the time of the rapture was a tertiary matter.  Wow, I responded. I was taught this as a cardinal and foundational doctrine, equal to the resurrection.  This is why it was held so deeply and written in the doctrinal statements of denominations and churches. Acceptance of this doctrine was a condition of membership.  How did this happen?  It was because of the timing when the conservatives were pushing back against the liberals over 110 years ago and scholars wrote the Fundamentals, from which we got the term Fundamentalism.  It was at this time that Dispensationalism swept the American Evangelical world.  In this context, it became fundamental, but it is not.  I now see that this imbalanced teaching produced a conformity requirement, not in accord with Scripture.  In my view, it is not only tertiary but wrong and divisive. 

The New Covenant, Torah and Dispensationalism, Essay 12

Dispensationalism embraced a fundamentally wrong view of the Torah of Moses.  Exodus-Deuteronomy was looked at as a dispensation of law that offered salvation based on keeping the Law or works righteousness.  There were grace notes in the Torah that one could embrace, but the thrust of the Torah was a works righteous covenant that would lead to failure. This would then lead those who saw the failure to the grace covenant, the New Covenant.  Thus, statements in the New Covenant such as our being no longer under the Law were misinterpreted to mean that we were not to study the Law so as to keep it in a way that was applicable in the New Covenant.  Dispensationalism was correct that the Law does reveal our need for grace and atonement, but the grace of forgiveness and blood sacrifice was deeply part of the Mosaic Covenant material.  So many sermons have been preached about not being under the Law in this wrong interpretation that it has produced a popular anti-nomian Evangelicalism.  Dispensational interpretation failed in two primary ways.  First, it failed to appreciate the much more adequate understanding of the use of the Law in the best of classical Christian writers, both Calvinist and Arminian (Methodist) and Anglican.  Secondly, it did not pass the test as fitting our more recent and better understanding of the Mosaic Covenant material based on archeological studies which prove that their approach was wrong. 

Classical Protestantism as named above saw three uses of the Law. The first was true to show how far short we fall and to awaken us to the need met by the Gospel. The Law is thus part of preaching the Gospel.   This does track somewhat with classical Dispensationalism.  However, there is then the second use of the Law, which provides civil governments with standards of righteousness and justice for ordering societies.  The loss of the place of the Law made classic Dispensationalists very weak in social justice influence.   The third use of the Law was as a guide to discipleship, a discipleship tool of the Spirit, and especially as applied in the teaching of Yeshua.  Classical Protestantism saw that parts of the Torah were not applicable in the New Covenant, in contemporary societies, but fit Israel in its ancient context.  They generally did a good job in sorting and applying.  They did miss the continued validity of patterns of life that were part of Jewish calling and identity and could be maintained without a Temple. 

Recent studies of the Mosaic Covenant material have shown that Deuteronomy especially (bamidbar) and the Decalogue are in the form of Hittite Suzerain/Vassal treaties which teach that Israel’s salvation as a nation was by God’s grace and not works.  Obedience maintains the position of grace.  This is emphasized again and again.  The late Samuel Schultz, my renowned Professor at Wheaton College wrote two books emphasizing this, Deuteronomy, The Gospel of Love and The Gospel of Moses.  The late Professor Meredith Kline also so argued in Treaty of the Great King. Kline argues that Mosaic Covenant of Grace, not Mosaic Law is the broader and more correct name for the material.  These views are promoted to this day by Professor Dr. Walter Kaiser and Professor Dr. Kenneth Kitchen in England and many others.  This deeply changes negative attitudes to the Law (Torah) and now scholars interpret the New Covenant Scriptures with a more comprehensive view of all the texts that are relevant.  As such being no longer under the Law means not approaching the Law as a works-righteousness system which was never its intent or seeing that though we are not under the New Covenant, the Mosaic Law is applicable in important ways.  Classical Protestants were right.  J. N. Darby broke from the Anglicans’ teaching, but the Anglicans were correct!  Messianic Judaism is more aligned with the Classical Protestant position but adds the continued applicability of the pattern of life that preserves a distinct people of Israel, the Jewish people.   Hence, Messianic Judaism. 

The Gospel of the Kingdom, and Salvation by Allegiance Alone, Essay 11

Michael Bates has written a very important book entitled Salvation by Allegiance Alone.  This is a presentation that is very counter to classical Dispensationalism.  Bate’s thesis is simple.  It is that the word range of the Greek word for faith used in the texts on salvation by faith includes the meaning of allegiance, a trusting allegiance.  If this is so, then the response to the Gospel is a decision of total allegiance.  

If we translate the familiar verses with the word allegiance, then we get a very different picture than usual  For example, “For by grace you are saved through allegiance, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8)   Some have sought to overcome “easy believism” by translating faith as trust.  One enters a trusting relationship with Yeshua which implies obedience.  This is a good and possible translation.  Allegiance seems to be part of the word definition.  We can also translate, that “Wherefore being justified by allegiance, we have peace with God.”  When we are in allegiance with God we are saved and have peace.  Even John 3:16 which is sometimes translated as “trusts in Him” in Bates includes allegiance.  “For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son so whosoever “comes into allegiance with him” should not perish but have everlasting life.”  The kind of trust implied in John 3:16 is a trusting relationship that implies real allegiance. 

If Michael Bates is correct, this shatters the classic Dispensationalist view that one can be saved by believing while yet not living in obedience to Yeshua.   Such a person is not really in allegiance with Yeshua and is not saved.  Allegiance means obedience.  One may fall short, but when one’s heart is really to live in allegiance to Yeshua, that one is saved.  So, who is saved?  Those who are in allegiance with Yeshua and live in allegiance. Who is not saved?  Those who are not.  One’s denominational affiliation is not the issue.  One can believe things that Protestants find troubling.  However, Catholics or Orthodox Christians who are in allegiance to Yeshua are saved.  This is a simple and refreshing approach. 

The Gospel of the Kingdom and Discipleship, Essay 10    

George Ladd and Dallas Willard

When the Gospel is wrongly preached, there is often difficulty in motivating people to enter into discipleship.  Because J. N. Darby and Classical Dispensationalism separated the Gospel from discipleship, the idea of “cheap grace” in Bonhoeffer’s words is a serious problem.  People can be lulled into complacency thinking they will not come into judgment because there is no required repentance and no requirement to submit to Yeshua as Lord.  Is the Gospel a gospel of free grace that offers this kind of salvation?  Or is the grace offered a grace that enables a choice to submit to Jesus as Savior and Lord. 

In 1951, George Ladd’s book, Crucial Questions and the Kingdom of God was published.  Ladd broke from Dispensationalism and received intense criticism for doing so.  In subsequent writings, he established that the New Testament does not present two Gospels, the first is the Gospel of the Kingdom which was the good news of the offer of the Millennial Kingdom to Israel.  Because Israel refused this offer, it was said that this Gospel of the Kingdom is not now preached. It will again be offered to Israel during the tribulation after the Church is gone (raptured to heaven).  The second Gospel is the Gospel of Grace where salvation is offered to all people without works, repentance, or the Lordship of Jesus.  Ladd’s subsequent writings more powerfully refuted these wrong ideas.  Today we can say that Ladd’s theology or something similar is today the consensus of the Evangelical scholarly world. 

However, Ladd’s views and others that are similar are crucial for discipleship.  As we noted in an earlier article, the synoptic Gospels present the Kingdom as having come in an already but not yet way.  It is here and real and people are invited into it.  However, it is in a partial way.  The Kingdom will only come in fullness when Yeshua returns.  As such, one very powerful way to present the Gospel is to offer people the invitation to enter the Kingdom through the death and resurrection of Yeshua.  In so doing, they embrace being part of Kingdom community where everything in their lives is put in the right order. 

In Dallas Willard’s great book, The Divine Conspiracy, the Gospel of the Kingdom is presented as a powerful invitation for transformation.  The invitation is into the Kingdom under the Lordship of Yeshua and includes everlasting life. As such the disciple can now attain to living out the commandments of Yeshua.  Teaching to observe all of Yeshua’s commands is the course of discipleship that Yeshua commands in the last verses of Matthew.  For Darby, the commands of Yeshua and the Sermon on the Mount were part of the Dispensation of Law and are not the focus for believers today, but rather today the focus is on the teaching of the epistles.  This is very confusing in my view.  

When the Gospel is rightly preached, the person is oriented to be baptized and to enter into a course of discipleship.  This is very important.  The right presentation of the Gospel saves much pain and failure.  We don’t have to undo false ideas that can be embedded in the mind. 

I note again that Progressive Dispensationalists are getting past these distinctions.  However, we present the classical positions so one can pick up on where there is still an unfortunate influence of bad theology and recognize this influence in preaching, articles, videos, and books.  

The Mosaic Covenant: Grace or Law, Essay 9

Theologians in the history of Christianity came up with many different approaches to the Mosaic Covenant.  Sometimes with Antisemitic tropes the Mosaic Covenant, often called only the Mosaic Law, was presented as a punishment for the Jewish people because of their sin after leaving Egypt.  There was a negativity to this part of the Bible.  Yet, a rejection of the Mosaic writings as Scripture was defined as heresy.  Marcion represented this view in the second century and rejected the Old Testament as presenting a false God.  Yet, a negativity to the Mosaic Law was not uncommon though it was accepted as inspired Scripture. Thankfully, according to my reading of Church history, the basic thrust of the Church was to see the Mosaic Law as applicable in the New Covenant.  For example, Canon Law in the Catholic Church was informed by the Mosaic Law on many matters of morality and on standards for civil society.  Calvin was the clearest on this idea of application.  While teaching that the ceremonial part of the Law was now fulfilled and no longer applicable for our practice, he yet taught that the Law provided three crucial functions in the New Covenant Age.  Firstly, it provided a standard whereby people would be convicted of sin and see their need for salvation.  Secondly, it would be a guide for civil law.  Thirdly, it would be a tool of discipleship through the Spirit that would enable or empower obedience to its righteous standards. This general approach became common with Anglicans, Methodists, and many other streams.   As we noted in an earlier essay, J. N. Darby believed this approach was wrong – that the Church had confused Law and Grace.   

For Darby, the Mosaic Law provided Israel with a Dispensation of Law that was in profound contrast to the New Covenant Dispensation of Grace.  As such, the Mosaic Law presented Israel with the challenge to seek to be saved by living by or obeying the Law.  Of course, Israel would fail and hence would be prepared for salvation by grace over against the quest of salvation by law.  Darby was right that no one could be saved by striving to keep the Law by our fleshy efforts.  However, was that what the Mosaic writings really were fostering?  Darby’s negative approach to the Mosaic writings was close to Marcion in some ways while yet seeing the Hebrew Bible as Scripture and the God of Israel as the one true God.  Some Dispensationalists still have Darby’s view today and negativity is very common as well in popular Christianity due to Darby’s influence to this day. 

However, we now know that Darby was wrong.  Studies on the cultural context for the Mosaic writings have revolutionized our understanding.  In 1969 when studying under Dr. Samuel Schultz at Wheaton College, I was presented with his book Deuteronomy, the Gospel of Love.  In 1974 Dr. Schultz published The Gospel of Moses in the year I graduated from McCormick Seminary.  I was quite astonished as Dr. Schultz presented the evidence that the Mosaic Covenant material was to be seen first as Gospel and not Law. After accepting God’s offer of grace and love, Israel was to live in obedient gratitude.  This was the same as the pattern of the New Covenant.  Moses was Gospel in pre-New Covenant form.  Dr. Schultz was able to draw from earlier studies, George Mendenhall of the University of Michigan and Meredith Kline of Westminster Seminary and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.  Kline summarized Mendenhall’s work in his Treaty of the Great King (1963).   So, what did they show?

It was that the Mosaic Covenant material was in the form of ancient Middle Eastern or Near Eastern treaties that presented a treaty from the ruling king to a vassal nation as covenants of grace, not deserved, with great benefits, but which required submission to the rule of the King and his law.  Of course, all nations have civil law, and the Mosaic Covenant provides that civil law under God as the King.  Kline and now confirmed more recently in the 21st century by  Kenneth Kitchen, show that the book of Deuteronomy especially fits the exact pattern of the Hittite Vassal treaties discovered in the late 1940s.  This pattern is a covenant of grace and constantly affirms in the content that Israel’s salvation was not due to their self-righteousness or good works but only due to God’s grace and love.  The Ten Commandments as well are a mini Covenant of Grace beginning with the announcement of God’s salvation by grace. The first words are not the first command.  Blood sacrifices show that Israel could not be perfect according to law-keeping.  That was never an option. Rather, God required a basic faithfulness and a heart toward God and provided for Israel’s shortcomings including providing for each individual. 

So why did Israel fail?  There are many reasons.  Despite being a covenant of grace, the Mosaic order was not powerful enough to overcome the sinful tendencies of the nation, though there were some periods of obedience.  The New Covenant is a covenant of greater grace and power.  It also requires higher obedience (Matthew 5-7).  The universal standards from Moses apply in the New Covenant.  Also, the pattern of life in Sabbath and Feasts also applies since they recount God’s gracious history with Israel and provide a cultural and national identity for Israel. 

Much of what we today call social justice can only be well dealt with through the Mosaic writings.  The New Covenant Scriptures do not address all these issues but assume the applicability of the Mosaic writings.  It is clear again that we must get beyond Dispensationalism. 

 

 

Grace and Law: Classical Christianity and Dispensationalism, Essay 8 in Beyond Dispensationalism

How the Law of God relates to the message of salvation by grace and the invitation to enter the Kingdom has been a source of much debate in the history of the Church.  I will speak about the Protestant history and response of Classic Dispensationalists.  This essay is an extension of the last article, number 7 on hyper-grace.  

Interpreting the letter of Galatians has been a source of difficulty and challenge in the Church. I will not speak to the Catholic and Orthodox responses.  Suffice it to say that for Catholics canon law in the Church does embrace an application of Torah law in the New Covenant though there are negative statements about the Jewish people and the Law. 

The great recovery of truth in the Reformation was justification by faith.  This unified Lutherans, Calvinist Reformed, Anabaptists (peace churches), and Baptists, and from there almost all Protestants.  The Anglicans also embraced it.  Luther made statements that appeared to be against the Law (antinomian-a classically defined heresy).  When Luther responded to those who wanted holiness standards for Sunday keeping, he railed against any such legalism, even to supporting games.  However, Luther was not consistent, and in his, Catechism Lutheranism discipled in obedience to the ten commandments.  The Catechism is a good interpretation and application.  As the dust settled, the Churches from the Reformation developed a positive view of the Law.  I John 3:4 states that “Sin is the transgression of law,” and believers are not to practice lawlessness. 

John Calvin in his great Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, section 7 put forth a view that mostly was accepted in the Protestant world.  Justification was by faith and not by doing good works.  However, works done by the Spirit, not by fleshy efforts, were fully embraced and promoted.  Calvin presented three uses of the Law.  The first was that the Law reveals sin, brings conviction, and thus shows us our need for grace and forgiveness.  Second, the Law provides principles for civil governments.  Then third, the Law is a tool of discipleship by the Holy Spirit. In this last application Calvin applied II Timothy 3:16, 17, that as part of Scripture, it is used in training in righteousness.  Romans 8:4 states that the righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit.  

In history, this led to the Laws of Moses having great influence on societies’ civil laws.  There were different approaches to the Law.  Most thought that the people of the New Covenant were no longer under the Mosaic Covenant, but that the universal parts of the Law of God still applied in the New Covenant.  There was too easy separation between moral/civic law and ceremonial law (Sabbath, Feasts, circumcision) that promoted replacement theology, that Jewish identity was no longer desirable in the New Covenant, and Israel was replaced.  But not all rejected the election of Israel, and a growing number did see a future destiny for Israel.   

In regard to personal discipleship, there were different approaches.  Some rejoiced in studying the Law and seeking to apply it and live it out by the power of the Spirit. They could say with the Psalmist, “Oh, how I love your Law.” (Calvinists)  Others saw the Law as a background check to make sure one really was walking in the Spirit.  A focus on being in Yeshua and walking in the Spirit would naturally lead to a life in fulfillment of the Law.  In New England, Puritans sought to strictly apply the civil penalties of the Law. Anglicans thought that the New Covenant and the mercy shown on the cross called governments to a more merciful application of civil law.  

The great revivalist Methodist Charles Finney stated that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New was that the New empowered us to do what the Old required but did not give them the power to fulfill. This was quite in line with John Wesley.  The Methodist founder of Wheaton College stated that his vision was that the Law of God would become the Law of the Land (on his memorial plaque in Blanchard Hall tower.)  This was close to the statement of Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper of Holland at the turn of the century 120 years ago. How much to focus on the Law revealed differences in approach.  Peace churches emphasized the application of the Law in the teaching of Jesus. 

Classic dispensationalism radically upended the overlap of Protestant consensus.  It stated that the ten comments were not incumbent and that even the Sermon on the Mount was part of the Dispensation of Law that was canceled in the cross.  Not only could one be saved and continue in sin, but if a person did dedicate their lives to Yeshua, then they were not to seek obedience to the Law, even as taught by Yeshua, but to be instructed in a holy life by the teaching of the epistles since they were post-Pentecost. Only the epistles were incumbent.  Of course, this contradicted II Tim. 3:16 and other texts.  The discipleship function of the Law, Calvin’s third use, was lost.  

However, one of the real losses was the loss of the quest for social justice as seen in Calvin, Wesley, Wilburforce, Finney, and Blanchard.  This undercut the social progress in the world that resulted from Christian influence.  Instead, the world was a sinking ship, and our job was to get people into the lifeboats.  Seeing improvement and reformation in society was a foolish endeavor.  Dr. Arthur Holmes at Wheaton, the most famous philosopher in Wheaton’s history, said in 1967.  “We have lost 100 years.”  Carl F. H. Henry, the theologian to Billy Graham, began to address this in his 1947 book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.  It partly explains why Evangelicals in America were mostly absent in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  

The Classic Dispensationalist approach to God’s Law was wrong. Thankfully Progressive Dispensationalists are changing and coming out from these orientations.  However, these essays are on the classic views so that one may more easily recognize what still lingers.  When one knows the errors of Classic Dispensationalists one can better understand the changes in the Progressive Dispensationalist views.  There are views in the Progressive Dispensationalist teaching that we still need to get beyond. 

Hyper-Grace and Carnal Christians, Essay 7 in Beyond Dispensationalism

I spent my teen summers at a famous Camp at a beautiful lake in the mountains.  I eventually became a counselor.  The pattern for the meetings, especially in the evenings was the same every week.  On Saturday through Tuesday, there was preaching and an invitation to receive Jesus.  All were encouraged to come forward and be saved. It was clearly stated that nothing was required, just to accept the forgiveness of sins by accepting God’s free gift. Why would anyone refuse?  No life change was required. What have you got to lose?  In the cabin counseling before bedtime, we taught that they were now saved if they believed or received, could know that they had eternal life (I John 5:13), and could never be lost no matter what they did after. 

From Wednesday through Friday evening the preaching changed.  All were exhorted to dedicate their lives to the Lord.  This was not required but if you wanted to live a truly meaningful life, if you wanted rewards in heaven, you needed to dedicate your life.  After all, Jesus did, how can you refuse to dedicate your life?  Many did, but many did not.  They accepted salvation without dedication.  I did not realize it, but this pattern was based on classic Dispensationalism and its hyper-grace theology.  

Years later, I read an article by a famous Hebrew Christian.  He argued that nothing was required for salvation, no repentance or dedication, but only belief or faith that Jesus died for our sins and rose again so that by faith we accept that salvation.  Salvation is by believing alone. I wrote about his article.  A Messianic Jewish colleague wrote back and said I had slandered this leader.  He did not understand the hyper-grace view of classic Dispensationalism.  I sent him the article. He was amazed.  He did not realize such things were taught. He admitted that I accurately repented to him. There are famous hyper-grace teachers today.  Peter’s words in Acts 2, “Repent, be baptized and you will be filled with the Spirit” were claimed to not be a pattern required for salvation or desired for preaching salvation.  

This wrong theology came from John Nelson Darby, the founder of Dispensationalism.  He was not the first to teach it.  The Puritans of Massachusetts condemned Ann Hutchinson for heresy for teaching such a theology or so they claimed.  Darby believed he discovered this in the New Testament, especially in Eph. 2:8, 9. “For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.”  If a change of life was required before or after believing or if repentance was required before believing, then there would be works required for salvation.  Believing was not considered a work.  One could sometimes read Luther as teaching such a doctrine, but other writings in Luther did not teach this.  All of the passages that spoke of salvation by grace were so interpreted by Darby.  Grace was undeserved favor that gives us salvation without any pre-requisites or post-requisites.  This was contrary to the greatest historical theologies, both as taught by Arminians (who emphasized human choice in being saved and who were mostly represented by Wesley and the Methodists) and Calvinists who emphasized predestination to salvation.  Anglicans in the 39 Articles also embraced quite a different view than Darby.  For all these folks, grace is a power of God at work that leads to repentance and transformation in a dedicated life.  It is more than just unmerited favor.  For Wesley, the grace that comes before salvation enables us to make a choice and gives us the ability for a faith response. Such a response includes repentance and dedication.   For Calvinists, God’s grace determines both repentance and dedication.  The converted will persevere or live their lives more and more conformed to the image of Yeshua. 

Why did Darby break from historic theology?  He really believed that he discovered a key to Church renewal in his grace doctrine.  He saw dead Anglican Churches in the United Kingdom. Many were going to Church as a requirement for salvation, but they really were not on fire for God. They took the bread and wine, the eucharist, to maintain salvation.  However, Darby believed that once free grace was known, he could build a church where only those who freely dedicated their lives would come. Those who only wanted mere salvation would leave but would still be saved if they believed.  It did not work out that way. Actually, there were many carnal Christians in the Dispensational churches, a category of saved people in Darbyite theology. 

The famous non-Charismatic Evangelical, John McArthur from California, broke from this teaching and stated that the decision for salvation is inseparable from the decision to be a disciple.  One cannot be saved without such an intention.  The great Dietrich Bonhoeffer agreed and called any view less than this, “cheap grace.” Hyper-grace Dispensationalist Zane Hodges wrote a response to McArthur entitled Lordship Salvation.   He sought to refute McArthur and the idea popularized by Bill Bright of Campus Crusade, that one must accept Jesus as Savior and Lord.  The famous revivalist Leonard Ravenhill responded to Hodges’s book and called him, “insane Hodges.”  

Outside of the classic Dispensationalists, this hyper-grace view is rejected by almost all biblical scholars.  Yet, hyper-grace views are still common.  There are famous media preachers who proclaim it today.  The response to this is found in two major presentations.   The first presents an understanding of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  We will have to cover the Dispensational idea of the Gospel of the Kingdom in a future essay.  Suffice it to say here that classic Dispensationalism does not believe that the Church is to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom today, but the Gospel of the Grace of God. However, as summarized by George Ladd in The Gospel of the Kingdom, the preaching of Yeshua proclaimed that the Kingdom of God had broken into this age in a partial but real way, though it would come in fullness when He would return.  People were called to experience the Kingdom in the present time, and this was the Good News.  Dallas Willard in his great book on discipleship, the Divine Conspiracy, presents the fact that the basic Gospel is an offer to enter into and live from the Kingdom of God. One enters that Kingdom through the Door, Yeshua, through his death and resurrection and by being filled with the Spirit.  As one lives in and from the Kingdom, Jesus is Lord and everything in one’s life comes into the right order.  A disciple is then one who obeys the commands of Yeshua.  Matthew 28 sends the disciples to disciple the nations and to teach them to obey all that Yeshua commanded.  Embracing the Gospel is embracing, through the power of God’s grace, the Lordship of Yeshua, and his power for obedience.  

The second approach where Yeshua must be received as Lord is represented by Matthew Bates in his great book, Salvation by Allegiance Alone. He exhaustively studies the word faith and the texts on faith and concludes that faith means allegiance in most passages.   Salvation by faith means pledging allegiance to Yeshua as Lord, and yes, accepting his atonement and empowerment.  There is no salvation except by this pledge of allegiance.  By this pledge, a person commits to discipleship or obeying all His commandments.  One is saved by allegiance to Yeshua.

Hyper-grace is a false doctrine.  It did not deliver the churches from carnal Christians.  Persecution might accomplish that.  Revival preaching that brings conviction and deep repentance can help accomplish this.  We are thankful for the many hyper-grace Christians who dedicated their lives and had a great and good impact on the Gospel, but the error did produce great harm. 

Let us be aware or be sensitive and discern when the wrong teaching of hyper-grace is put forth.  Let us return to the true Gospel of grace which is also the Gospel of the Kingdom. 

 

Bible Haters and their Humanistic Love Paradox

We are living in an age that is unusual for its hatred for the Bible and Christianity.  The apologists for hating biblical faith make two major claims among others.  One is that the Bible is full of violence and vengeance and should be rejected.  The other is that the Bible is intolerant and fosters hatred and the rejection of alternative lifestyles.  It fosters homophobia, transphobia, bi-sexual phobia, and more.  How much hate for the Bible is due to its teaching on marriage and sexuality, especially in the New Testament since polygamy was allowed in the Hebrew Bible.  Strict monogamy is a New Testament teaching.  In summary, the biblical haters profess to hate all violence, all non-acceptance, and hence Biblical and historic Western morality. 

The answer to the Bible faith haters is not difficult to find or express.  As I noted in past writings, the British atheist historian Tom Holland chides the anti-Christians by noting that the whole idea of compassionate human rights is only known in societies influenced by the Bible.  Search the rest of the world and you will not find it.  A few years back I read two very large volumes; a history of India and a history of China.  The carnage and the slaughter recounted in these histories were the way of the world.  Holland hopes that human rights will be maintained without biblical faith, but he has no grounds to believe this.  The late Quaker philosopher spoke of the West as a cut flower civilization and that by rejecting the roots, the flower of human civilization will die. 

When one deals with ancient Israel, fairness means that one must compare Israel to the other peoples of the ancient world.  This comparison is reflected in a book by the late Harvard professor G. Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against its Environment.  Very recently the late Reuven Hammer wrote The Torah Revolution which updates the same themes.  My esteemed professor of dear memory, the renowned Samuel Schultz of Wheaton, a Harvard graduate, wrote that in the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s offer of mercy always precedes judgment.  In the case of Canaan, there were over 400 years of mercy and patience.  You will never find such ideas in other cultures.  The demonic control of the whole culture in Canaan is a key to understanding.  The Torah actually enjoins Israel to not seek to conquer other nations outside their borders.  God cares about the nations and seeks that Israel is a light to the nations (Deut. 4).  This is astonishing.  Only a terrible lack of historical sense and proportion despises the Hebrew Bible.  When we get to the Psalms and prophets, the hope for the salvation of the nations, universal redemption, and world peace, astonishes us.  Isaiah 2 is a case in point, world peace, and no more war. The nations come to the light of God (Isaiah 60).  Other cultures sought the slaughter of the nations, to build empires and a system of domination.   Enslaving the conquered was the way of the world.  When one reads the 13 attributes of God in Exodus 34 and the idea of God being first of all, merciful, compassionate, and forgiving, one is amazed that this is spoken though God does bring hard judgments on evil. 

However, the pages of the New Covenant Scriptures do go beyond the Hebrew Bible. Yes, one can find great moral foundations like “Love your neighbor as yourself,” in the Hebrew Bible. But the neighbor was a fellow Israelite.  Helping your enemy’s ox (a fellow Israelite) does move us toward the ideal.  Loving the stranger in your midst and God’s repeated concern voiced by the prophets for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger is also a powerful testimony.  They are to be treated with love and justice.  But again, the New Covenant goes beyond this.  

The sermon on the Mount reveals a higher level of ethics than ever before revealed.  It says we are to love our enemies in the very context of Roman occupation and oppression.  In the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25 ff., Yeshua includes the enemy in the very meaning of the concept of neighbor. The despised enemy, the Samarian, proves to be a neighbor.  For the Samarian, the Jew was the enemy.  The love of the enemy is not only commanded as in the Sermon but the enemy is raised to neighbor status.  Wow!   (Scholars call this progressive revelation- we see best from the fullness of New Covenant revelation).  The writings of the epistles enjoin to love our persecutors, to endure without bitterness, to forgive, with patience and willingness to suffer.  We are not to avenge.  Yes, God so loved the whole world, all humanity, that He gave his Son to die for us. Does any other religion come close to teaching such a thing?  Passivism has been an understandable conclusion from reading the New Testament.  Though I now disagree, in my young adult years, I read Mennonite literature and was convinced.  The Anabaptist peace Churches that came out of the Reformation are a testimony to the level of love and forgiveness promoted in the New Testament. 

In the Bible, all humans are created in God’s image.  This is the absolute foundation of anti-racism and prejudice that drove the abolitionists.  Without biblical faith, slavery would still be with us.  Reading the books of the great scholar, Rodney Stark, shows the amazing effect of Biblical faith.  The Roman Empire was conquered by biblical faith because of how Christians lived. They adopted the babies given up for death, nursed the sick in the plagues when friends and relatives fled, and lived in such love that paganism was overcome.  Overcoming slavery as well as the effect of biblical faith. 

The Bible is love with standards.  The standards for marriage, sexuality, and treatment of the poor all are weaved together.  The Bible warns of Hell but councils us to get a broken heart for sinners so fewer will be lost.  Moral choice is serious and has eternal consequences.   One of the main reasons for the hatred is the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality.  Our sexuality is one of the greatest gifts from God and yet fraught with danger.  The Bible, in love, for the best fulfillment of human beings and the prosperity of the whole society, enjoins us to order our sex lives such that sexual expression is to be only in an exclusive relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.  When a society departs from this, it will unloose passion that will lead to terrible abuses. Such teaching is declared by Bible haters as hatred and phobia.  The Bible teaching and the LGBTQ movement’s values are profoundly in opposition.  Bible believers, however, declare their love for LGBTQ people and a desire to see them come into their true destiny and fulfillment.  Our belief that God can and did declare himself on the organization of our human sexuality versus autonomous human choices based on whatever the individual desires, is a foundational reason for Bible hatred.  In our culture, people want their sexual choices and want no one to question their orientations.  If the Bible is true, there is great guilt and suppressed guilty knowledge that can only be solved by the atonement of Yeshua. 

The Bible hater saws off the limb on which he or she sits. Unknowingly he or she supports some values that would never be part of western civilization but for the Bible but then opposes the Bible with these biblical values.  It is the paradox.  One part of the Bible is chosen to reject the Bible, and the part chosen is wrongly interpreted and applied.  What is the basis for the values of the secularist without the Bible but his or her own subjective preferences or the preferences of the fleeting consensus of the contemporary culture?  There is no foundation.  

The advance of civilization, despite the backsliding and horrors of history, is rooted in the Bible.  The advance of the values we most treasure, even the best of human rights is rooted in the Bible.  Hospitals care for the poor and the fight against prejudice all came about due to Bible believers.  That the Universal Declaration of Human rights, whose primary authority was a godly Christian, Charles Habib Malek, should give us pause.  It is an amazing document that is inspired by Biblical values. 

 

A Literal Hermeneutic, Essay 6

Dispensationalists have done a service for the Body of Believers in raising the awareness of subjective methods of hermeneutics (the science of text interpretation).  After so many centuries of domination by those whose approach to the Hebrew Bible especially, was spiritualization, allegorizing, and interpretation by analogies, the dispensationalist cries halt.  He or she shows that these approaches to the text are subjective and cannot be derived from the original author intended for the text in context.  The Dispensationalist is a champion of the original intent of the human author whose writing also shows us God’s intent.  They are not the only ones who defend the author’s intent in context.  19th Century Pre-Dispensationalists who defended the election of the Jewish people and their return to their Land also embraced a straightforward approach to the text. However, the Dispensationalists for the last century have been the most prominent and outspoken proponents of literal interpretation.   What do they mean by this?  They do not mean that there are no symbols, types, and analogies intended in Scripture.  Rather they are clear on one rule. Where the text can be interpreted literally it should be interpreted literally.  Literal is the preferred choice when there is doubt.  This approach leads to embracing the destiny of Israel, the Jewish people, its future, the wars in the future over the Land, and Israel’s ultimate deliverance and destiny in the Millennial Age.  I mostly share these distinctive.  Dispensationalists are, often due to their view of Israel, passionate Christian Zionists.  I greatly appreciate the very strong repudiation of replacement theology.  However, I do speak a caution because Dispensationalism did not in its classic expression see the importance of Jewish followers of Yeshua continuing to identify and live as Jews.  Some were very much against this as a confusion of law and grace and Israel and the Church. 

The Strange Departure From Literal Interpretation 

There are two major interpretations where Dispensationalism departs from its literal hermeneutic.  The first is regarding the pretribulation rapture.  I spoke about that in an earlier essay.  For example, in Revelation 4:1 the Apostle is called up to heaven.  This is held by some to indicate the rapture of the Church before the tribulation.  The tribulation follows in subsequent chapters.   

The second is regarding the interpretation of the seven churches in Asia Minor in Revelation 2, 3.  This also is connected to the pre-tribulation rapture view.  There is nothing in the text to indicate that the seven churches are not literal churches in Asia Minor, today’s western Turkey.  However, seven ages of the church view is imposed on the chapters so that they briefly describe Church history.  The sixth age of the church comes out best, the Philadelphia Church. They are kept from the hour of trial that is coming in 3:10. This is understood as the rapture before the tribulation.  As noted before, Dispensationalists find many hints of the rapture in other texts but not from literal interpretation.  

A third example is more of a strange reading of a text, II Thes 2.  The text says that the day of the Second Coming and the rapture will not happen until after the Antichrist is revealed.  It even says that Paul wrote this so they would not be deceived by some who would claim that the day had come.  Yet in a strange twist, it is argued that Paul was saying that you can know that the rapture has not happened because if it had happened, the Antichrist would have been revealed.  The rapture must come first, then the Antichrist.  But this is not at all what the text says.  It is actually saying the opposite.

Hyperliteralism  

Above I said I partially shared the distinction of a more literal hermeneutic.  However, I do not think the rule should not be to take a text literally if it is possible to do so, but rather to take it literally if the balance of the evidence is that it was the intent of the author.  One can overpress literalism.  One example is from the book of Revelation where we read that 200 million marched from China to the Middle East. (Rev. 9:16-18).  I well recall one of the most famous dispensational teachers of his time during my teen years teaching that Revelation 9 is an amazing prophecy since it predicted the Chinese Army and only China could send such a large army?  Really?  Supply lines for 200 million.  Or is this section continuing in the theme of demonic hosts as with the locusts who had hair like women.  

Ezekiel describes the final or a next to the final war in Israel.  The armies are described in the terms of horses and weapons of that day.  Does this mean that we are to expect the end of high-tech weapons and vehicles and a return to horses, spears, and bows and arrows? Some have taught just that.  Or is Ezekiel describing last days’ wars in terms his listeners could understand without committing us to a hyper-literal approach to fulfillment?

Conclusion

Yes, Dispensationalism gets some things right.  A return to a more literal reading of prophecy is good if not taken too far.  Seeing a great destiny for Israel is also right, though this was not the invention of Dispensationalism.   Yet, we should avoid hyperliteralism and also recognize that some dispensational beliefs go against their very profession of a more literal hermeneutic.