In todays news from Israel is an amazingly clear illustration of the impact of one's interpretation of the Bible on world politics.
Those of us who acknowledge the importance of agreeing with the author's intent for a Bible passage as a principle of assessing validity in interpretation (as in E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, Yale, 1967) just took a major hit today from some Palestinians who think of themselves as Christians. These Palestinians do not consider it acceptable to allow the Old Testament to speak for itself with its own intent.
Note their position on hermeneutics, clearly stated in the article " 'Christians' of the Holy Land Denounce Israel " (found at http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=79) . . . "The (Palestinian "Christian') leaders then took aim at Evangelical Christians around the world that support Israel based on biblical precepts. 'Jesus came with a new teaching (Mk.1:27), casting a new light on the Old Testament on the themes that relate to our Christian faith and our daily lives, themes such as the promises, the election, the people of God, and the land. For this reason it is unacceptable to transform the Word of God into letters of stone. This is the precise error in fundamentalist biblical interpretation that brings us death and destruction when the Word of God is petrified and transmitted from generation to generation as a dead letter. This dead letter is used as a weapon in our present history in order to deprive us of our rights in our own land."
Observe that Mark 1:27 does not illustrate, support, or teach the concept that they seem to be trying to derive from it.
The hermeneutical approach they use to justify denouncing Israel is this - Jesus cast "a new light on the Old Testament". This is the same dangerous hermeneutic as proposed by George Eldon Ladd years ago within evangelical, "covenant" premillenialism, namely, "But precisely here is our basic hermeneutic. Jesus, and the apostles after Him, REINTERPRETED the Old Testament prophecies in light of Jesus' person and mission" (see Ladd, "The Last Things", Eerdmans, 1978, p.17).
Those of us who have the principle of authorial intent/single intent in our hermeneutical understanding of the Old Testament find the notion of the New Testament "reinterpreting" the Old to be inaccurate and dangerous. Does the New Testament give further information and clarity of Old Testament passages in light of the progress of divine revelation? Of course. But does the New Testament change the intended meaning of any Old Testament passage into a different meaning, i.e. "reinterpretation"? Absolutely not. For New Testament writers to do so would be to deny or contradict the intended meaning of the Old Testament, which is to say that they would have gotten it wrong, because they would have been using an invalid hermeneutic. Such would, by the model of New Testament writers, set all meaning in any text into a sea of interpretive relativity.
In the Israel Today news article, the result of this "reinterpretation" is for Palestinians to change the meaning of "Israel" to something else (or someone else, namely themselves), and to change the meaning of the land of Israel into something else (namely, "our rights in our own land"). Such "reinterpretation" of the meaning of Israel is the same thing that Ladd designed his hermeneutic to do (see chapter of "The Last Things" entitled "What About Israel?").
Do sound hermeneutics matter? In the world scene of today, more than ever. For both Jews and Christians in Israel today, their lives depend on it.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
BATTLE INTENSIFIES TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM
This news just came in from Joel Rosenberg, and I thought readers should see it and pray.
(WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2009) -- The battle to divide Jerusalem is intensifying this week. Sweden is pushing hard to pass an initiative this coming Sunday to persuade 27 foreign ministers of European Union states to endorse a plan to recognize unilaterally East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian State. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is doing everything he can to counter the Swedish effort.
The Bible teaches that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob loves Israel's neighbors, but has specifically chosen Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish people and His own prized possession. It is not to be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey.
In Psalm 132:13-16, we read, "For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. 'This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her with bread."
The Bible also teaches that the Lord will judge the nations who seek to divide Israel and Jerusalem. In Joel 3:1-2, we read, "When I restore the fortunes of Jerusalem [in the last days] I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance Israel whom they have scattered among the nations and they have divided up My land."
(WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2009) -- The battle to divide Jerusalem is intensifying this week. Sweden is pushing hard to pass an initiative this coming Sunday to persuade 27 foreign ministers of European Union states to endorse a plan to recognize unilaterally East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian State. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is doing everything he can to counter the Swedish effort.
The Bible teaches that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob loves Israel's neighbors, but has specifically chosen Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish people and His own prized possession. It is not to be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey.
In Psalm 132:13-16, we read, "For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. 'This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her with bread."
The Bible also teaches that the Lord will judge the nations who seek to divide Israel and Jerusalem. In Joel 3:1-2, we read, "When I restore the fortunes of Jerusalem [in the last days] I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance Israel whom they have scattered among the nations and they have divided up My land."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State
***********************************************************************************
Join us for one hour of prayer on Thursday, November 26,2009 from 11am until 12 noon at the building of the New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church, Myerstown, PA.
A Proclamation
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State
***********************************************************************************
Join us for one hour of prayer on Thursday, November 26,2009 from 11am until 12 noon at the building of the New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church, Myerstown, PA.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Some Reflections
The previous two articles on Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 attracted considerable interest, both via blog comments and private emails. Permit me, please, just two reflections.
When it is all evaluated, there was no disagreement over the two pertinent verses themselves. All of the disagreement related to the application of those verses, especially regarding Revelation 6. While not wanting to minimize at all the importance of the Revelation 6 discussion (there are real issues involved), I do want to point out that the discussion only strengthened the concept that the use of Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 in the FGBC Statement of Faith is valid. Further, the discussion proved that the conclusions are not arrived at by the imposition of a pre-supposed system upon the biblical text, but through an honest attempt to understand the verses themselves. I do still wish that the FGBC Statement did not use the word "tribulation", but instead used "the 70th Week of Daniel", but that is another discussion.
I want to thank David Mohler for his extended explanation of the sovereign grace of God in Revelation 6. I agree that Revelation 6 is a vivid display of the grace of God. There will be a great number of people saved (at first primarily Gentiles, Rev.7:9, Mt.24:14) during the time of the first six seals - some of them will be martyred (Rev.6:9-11) and others will be raptured as part of the 6th seal (Rev.7:14). David applies this to the past and present age, while I put it in the future, so we would have interpretive differences on the meaning of the six seals, but we agree that there is great grace. I would further say that this does not negate the beginning of wrath, sovereign wrath, in the first six seals, but is fulfilling Habakkuk 3:2, "In wrath remember mercy". I trust that I will never be found disagreeing with the sovereign grace of God whenever or wherever it is displayed.
When it is all evaluated, there was no disagreement over the two pertinent verses themselves. All of the disagreement related to the application of those verses, especially regarding Revelation 6. While not wanting to minimize at all the importance of the Revelation 6 discussion (there are real issues involved), I do want to point out that the discussion only strengthened the concept that the use of Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 in the FGBC Statement of Faith is valid. Further, the discussion proved that the conclusions are not arrived at by the imposition of a pre-supposed system upon the biblical text, but through an honest attempt to understand the verses themselves. I do still wish that the FGBC Statement did not use the word "tribulation", but instead used "the 70th Week of Daniel", but that is another discussion.
I want to thank David Mohler for his extended explanation of the sovereign grace of God in Revelation 6. I agree that Revelation 6 is a vivid display of the grace of God. There will be a great number of people saved (at first primarily Gentiles, Rev.7:9, Mt.24:14) during the time of the first six seals - some of them will be martyred (Rev.6:9-11) and others will be raptured as part of the 6th seal (Rev.7:14). David applies this to the past and present age, while I put it in the future, so we would have interpretive differences on the meaning of the six seals, but we agree that there is great grace. I would further say that this does not negate the beginning of wrath, sovereign wrath, in the first six seals, but is fulfilling Habakkuk 3:2, "In wrath remember mercy". I trust that I will never be found disagreeing with the sovereign grace of God whenever or wherever it is displayed.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
1 Thessalonians 1:10
In the previous article I sought to defend the use of Revelation 3:10 as exegetically valid in the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith. The other verse in the Statement which has been challenged is First Thessalonians 1:10 - "and to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, Who rescues us from the wrath to come."
Granted, genuine believers from varying eschatological viewpoints will either claim this verse as a proof-text or at least a text that fits within their approach. The critical discussion pivots around the extent of the meaning of the phrase "the wrath to come".
Is "the wrath to come" the "second death/lake of fire" poured out on unbelievers at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:12-15)? Probably all believers would say "Yes", that Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath of Hell. Those who are amillennial, postmillennial, or non-"tribulational"-premillennial would probably limit the extent of the meaning of "the wrath to come" to that. Of course, believers are already rescued from any present experience of God's wrath (John 3:36, Romans 8:1), but the issue in First Thessalonians 1:10 is future wrath, not present.
But, does the "wrath to come" only refer to the believer's rescue from Hell (and perhaps some pre-realized deliverance from present wrath), or does "wrath to come" include more? Those who understand Revelation chs 6-18 as describing a yet future sequence of events, see Revelation 6:17 as a crucial verse for this discussion - "the great day of their wrath has come". There will be a future time of God's wrath on earth, and it will happen during the six seals of Revelation 6 and extend beyond that. The verb "has come" (elthen) is aorist indicative, "referring to the previous arrival of the wrath, not something that is about to take place" (from Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary, Moody, 1992, p.457). Any attempts to make elthen into a futuristic aorist, draining any wrath out of the first six seals of Revelation 6, does so quite unnaturally, unusually, and incorrectly.
Thus, the entirety of the seven years of Revelation 6-18 contains the wrath of God. The "pre-wrath" deliverance from future wrath promised in First Thessalonians 1:10 includes deliverance from the wrath of God that will come within the first six seals of Revelation 6. Comparing this discussion with the one in the previous article indicates that what is being spoken of in Revelation 3:10 is also being spoken of in First Thessalonians 1:10.
Therefore, the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith has used First Thessalonians 1:10 properly, as it has Revelation 3:10.
Granted, genuine believers from varying eschatological viewpoints will either claim this verse as a proof-text or at least a text that fits within their approach. The critical discussion pivots around the extent of the meaning of the phrase "the wrath to come".
Is "the wrath to come" the "second death/lake of fire" poured out on unbelievers at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:12-15)? Probably all believers would say "Yes", that Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath of Hell. Those who are amillennial, postmillennial, or non-"tribulational"-premillennial would probably limit the extent of the meaning of "the wrath to come" to that. Of course, believers are already rescued from any present experience of God's wrath (John 3:36, Romans 8:1), but the issue in First Thessalonians 1:10 is future wrath, not present.
But, does the "wrath to come" only refer to the believer's rescue from Hell (and perhaps some pre-realized deliverance from present wrath), or does "wrath to come" include more? Those who understand Revelation chs 6-18 as describing a yet future sequence of events, see Revelation 6:17 as a crucial verse for this discussion - "the great day of their wrath has come". There will be a future time of God's wrath on earth, and it will happen during the six seals of Revelation 6 and extend beyond that. The verb "has come" (elthen) is aorist indicative, "referring to the previous arrival of the wrath, not something that is about to take place" (from Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary, Moody, 1992, p.457). Any attempts to make elthen into a futuristic aorist, draining any wrath out of the first six seals of Revelation 6, does so quite unnaturally, unusually, and incorrectly.
Thus, the entirety of the seven years of Revelation 6-18 contains the wrath of God. The "pre-wrath" deliverance from future wrath promised in First Thessalonians 1:10 includes deliverance from the wrath of God that will come within the first six seals of Revelation 6. Comparing this discussion with the one in the previous article indicates that what is being spoken of in Revelation 3:10 is also being spoken of in First Thessalonians 1:10.
Therefore, the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith has used First Thessalonians 1:10 properly, as it has Revelation 3:10.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Revelation 3:10
Before I took a much needed blogging break, I was asked to deal with the passages that are listed in the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith concerning the Rapture of the Church. I had made a comment to the effect that these are valid passages to use, even though they may not be the only or even strongest ones. (As an aside, I am in favor of a revision of the Statement of Faith if the revision strengthens or adds to what is already there in order to communicate more clearly to our present generation, but not if it reduces the content or intent of the Statement of Faith.) Those who raised questions about my statement were suggesting that one could not infer a Pre-Tribulational Rapture view from these verses.
What I am trying to do in this article is to demonstrate what one may know from a few exegetical observations of Revelation 3:10 and how such knowledge applies to the Statement of Faith. By no means am I attempting to be exhaustive in this brief article.
SOME OBSERVATIONS
- The Philadelphia church is recognized as a solidarity, as are the other churches of Revelation 2-3. The "you" of verse 10 is singular.
- The statement "have kept the word of My perseverance" is a beautiful statement of the eternal security of the believer. The church had kept/preserved/guarded/protected this word, a description of her continuance in faith. The word she believed was concerning Christ's perseverance in keeping His own. Both the "perseverance of the saints" and the "perseverance of the Savior" are here, and you do not have one without the other.
- The promise of Christ to "keep" the Philadelphia church cannot be separated from the church's faith, she having "kept" the truth of His perseverance.
- The promise that the church will be kept "from" this time of trial does not mean kept "through" the time of trial. See John A. Sproule, "In Defense of Pre-Tribulationism" (BMH Books, 1980).
- The verse predicts a specific time of testing that was yet future to the Philadelphia church. The definite article with the word "hour" indicates that this is not trial or testing as a generalization or principle, but rather a specific, coming time of trial.
- The predicted time of trial is said to be global, upon the "whole world". No global trial like this happened during the first century experience of the Philadelphia church. The statement does not compare to the one in Revelation 2:10 concerning the church at Smyrna where the language indicates something localized and limited. Any attempts to fit this verse into an "already" model of fulfillment fail before the term "whole world". There is no history to substantiate that there has been any such time of trial like this since Jesus gave this prediction to John. Localized experiences of trial (Roman persecution, AD 70, some unknown persecution upon Philadelphia, etc.) cannot qualify as fulfillment of Jesus' prediction in this verse. Therefore, Jesus' intent of this statement to John could not have been been limited in scope of application of the promise or the prediction merely to the Philadelphia church. The fulfillment is not "already" but "not yet".
- The description of predicted future global events in Revelation chapter 6 and beyond does match the description of the global trial predicted by Christ in Revelation 3:10. Context would determine for the reader that the events of chapter 6 are what Jesus intended by His prediction in 3:10.
APPLICATION
- It is therefore valid to conclude that those who read and believe the Book of Revelation, and meet the condition of faith described in Revelation 3:10, may also appropriate the promise of Revelation 3:10.
- It is therefore also valid for the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith to use this verse in the manner it has.
What I am trying to do in this article is to demonstrate what one may know from a few exegetical observations of Revelation 3:10 and how such knowledge applies to the Statement of Faith. By no means am I attempting to be exhaustive in this brief article.
SOME OBSERVATIONS
- The Philadelphia church is recognized as a solidarity, as are the other churches of Revelation 2-3. The "you" of verse 10 is singular.
- The statement "have kept the word of My perseverance" is a beautiful statement of the eternal security of the believer. The church had kept/preserved/guarded/protected this word, a description of her continuance in faith. The word she believed was concerning Christ's perseverance in keeping His own. Both the "perseverance of the saints" and the "perseverance of the Savior" are here, and you do not have one without the other.
- The promise of Christ to "keep" the Philadelphia church cannot be separated from the church's faith, she having "kept" the truth of His perseverance.
- The promise that the church will be kept "from" this time of trial does not mean kept "through" the time of trial. See John A. Sproule, "In Defense of Pre-Tribulationism" (BMH Books, 1980).
- The verse predicts a specific time of testing that was yet future to the Philadelphia church. The definite article with the word "hour" indicates that this is not trial or testing as a generalization or principle, but rather a specific, coming time of trial.
- The predicted time of trial is said to be global, upon the "whole world". No global trial like this happened during the first century experience of the Philadelphia church. The statement does not compare to the one in Revelation 2:10 concerning the church at Smyrna where the language indicates something localized and limited. Any attempts to fit this verse into an "already" model of fulfillment fail before the term "whole world". There is no history to substantiate that there has been any such time of trial like this since Jesus gave this prediction to John. Localized experiences of trial (Roman persecution, AD 70, some unknown persecution upon Philadelphia, etc.) cannot qualify as fulfillment of Jesus' prediction in this verse. Therefore, Jesus' intent of this statement to John could not have been been limited in scope of application of the promise or the prediction merely to the Philadelphia church. The fulfillment is not "already" but "not yet".
- The description of predicted future global events in Revelation chapter 6 and beyond does match the description of the global trial predicted by Christ in Revelation 3:10. Context would determine for the reader that the events of chapter 6 are what Jesus intended by His prediction in 3:10.
APPLICATION
- It is therefore valid to conclude that those who read and believe the Book of Revelation, and meet the condition of faith described in Revelation 3:10, may also appropriate the promise of Revelation 3:10.
- It is therefore also valid for the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith to use this verse in the manner it has.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Systematic Theology or Theological System?
Should we, in fact must we, seek to organize the results of our Bible study into a form that provides answers for the culture in which we live? Yes!! We should and must systematize our biblical theology. But, should we assume or impose a theological system over our Bible study, which then makes verses read in a particular way that fits the system? No!! We must allow each passage in its context to speak for itself. This must always come first. I hope we can all see and appreciate the difference in these two approaches.
One way some superimpose systems onto our Bibles, on ourselves, and on others, is by turning otherwise helpful tools or observations into "isms". So adherence to biblical fundamentals gets expanded into "fundamentalism" (which historically I thought was a very good thing, but now it is a liable to have the label). Utilization of the observation of historical divine stewardships or dispensations throughout Scripture gets expanded into "dispensationalism" by both friends and foes. This becomes something some feel the need to attack and others feel the need to propagate. The observation that the Bible operates in a covenantal framework gets expanded into "covenantalism", or "covenant theology".
The same can happen with the contributions of individuals, which are then turned into systems or creedal groups. Such is evidenced when a group is named after a person. I appreciate a very significant amount of the work of John Calvin (much celebrated in this memorial year), but far from all (especially considering the implications of his eschatology on his failed Geneva experiment, and the imposition of theocracy even to the point of murder), so I could not be considered a "Calvinist" (even though my "Arminian" friends persist in calling me one anyway). I appreciate Martin Luther's work on justification by faith alone and his theology of the cross (catching up with some of our pre-Reformation primitive Church brethren who believed it all along and were never part of the Catholic system), but certainly disdain Luther's hatred of the Jews, so I could not be a "Lutheran". While I enjoy some of the influence of Menno Simons on the anabaptist development of the believers' church concept, I point out the error in his Christology as it relates to the humanity of Christ, so I could not be a "Mennonite". I am "soteriologically reformed", but not "reformed" in my ecclesiology nor my eschatology, so the "reformed" won't let me use the name "reformed" because I don't believe they "reformed" enough (whew!).
Or, a doctrine can be elevated to an entire system or denomination. I believe in baptism, but I cannot be a "Baptist", elevating that one doctrine into the central one. I believe in the rule of the local church by Elders, but I cannot make that the main identifier of the Church and become a "Presbyterian" or "Episcopalian". Emerging has become "emergent".
The truly sad part of all of this is that it is almost impossible anymore to have a genuinely biblical, spiritual conversation or even do some significant Bible teaching without a high number of people assuming that they already know where you are coming from, because they have already put you into a "system" in their minds.
Let's get back to "living in the world of the Bible" and bringing it to bear on our culture. Brethren, "we have the mind of Christ" (First Corinthians 2:16). Let's keep going back to the Word of God afresh and finding the answers we need to systematize in order to defend the Gospel in our day.
One way some superimpose systems onto our Bibles, on ourselves, and on others, is by turning otherwise helpful tools or observations into "isms". So adherence to biblical fundamentals gets expanded into "fundamentalism" (which historically I thought was a very good thing, but now it is a liable to have the label). Utilization of the observation of historical divine stewardships or dispensations throughout Scripture gets expanded into "dispensationalism" by both friends and foes. This becomes something some feel the need to attack and others feel the need to propagate. The observation that the Bible operates in a covenantal framework gets expanded into "covenantalism", or "covenant theology".
The same can happen with the contributions of individuals, which are then turned into systems or creedal groups. Such is evidenced when a group is named after a person. I appreciate a very significant amount of the work of John Calvin (much celebrated in this memorial year), but far from all (especially considering the implications of his eschatology on his failed Geneva experiment, and the imposition of theocracy even to the point of murder), so I could not be considered a "Calvinist" (even though my "Arminian" friends persist in calling me one anyway). I appreciate Martin Luther's work on justification by faith alone and his theology of the cross (catching up with some of our pre-Reformation primitive Church brethren who believed it all along and were never part of the Catholic system), but certainly disdain Luther's hatred of the Jews, so I could not be a "Lutheran". While I enjoy some of the influence of Menno Simons on the anabaptist development of the believers' church concept, I point out the error in his Christology as it relates to the humanity of Christ, so I could not be a "Mennonite". I am "soteriologically reformed", but not "reformed" in my ecclesiology nor my eschatology, so the "reformed" won't let me use the name "reformed" because I don't believe they "reformed" enough (whew!).
Or, a doctrine can be elevated to an entire system or denomination. I believe in baptism, but I cannot be a "Baptist", elevating that one doctrine into the central one. I believe in the rule of the local church by Elders, but I cannot make that the main identifier of the Church and become a "Presbyterian" or "Episcopalian". Emerging has become "emergent".
The truly sad part of all of this is that it is almost impossible anymore to have a genuinely biblical, spiritual conversation or even do some significant Bible teaching without a high number of people assuming that they already know where you are coming from, because they have already put you into a "system" in their minds.
Let's get back to "living in the world of the Bible" and bringing it to bear on our culture. Brethren, "we have the mind of Christ" (First Corinthians 2:16). Let's keep going back to the Word of God afresh and finding the answers we need to systematize in order to defend the Gospel in our day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
