DR. RELUCTANT

This is the outline I used for a presentation at a Conference in 2005.

Let me begin this short study with a quotation from two former DTS graduates who have since abandoned and then rounded on dispensationalism:

The passage most commonly mentioned that presents great difficulty to dispensational literalism is Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). The dispensationalists are looking for a reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices in a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in this passage. Dispensationalists are careful to qualify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ’s death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord’s Supper. The problem with this is that Ezekiel’s vision refers to these sacrifices literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15, 17, 20; Hebrew: “kaphar,” to atone). Of course, a dispensationalist can go to the book of Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). When the Reformed theologian, however, goes to Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices were rescinded forever [no memorial sacrifice] by Christ’s once for all offering (Hebrews 10:10-18), then that is “theological interpretation” and “reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament” – two practices which dispensationalists routinely criticize. – Curtis I. Crenshaw & Grover E. Gunn, III, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow, (Memphis: Footstool Publications, 1989), 221. Emphasis added.

This is a representative criticism of dispensational writers from people who now find themselves on the other side of the theological fence. Keep reading →

Those in the progressive dispensationalist camp are comfortable with disposing of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, whereas normative dispensationalists align themselves closely with it. The fact that Darrell Bock could write a Forward commending William Webb’s controversial X-Y-Z approach shows that they are both influenced by modern hermeneutical theorizing. Bock himself emphasizes the supposed problem with saying that Scripture may be read in a consistently literal manner[1]; Schleiermacher’s warning about imposing a rigid set of rules upon the text before we actually read it[2]; the importance of “preunderstanding”[3]; and sensitivity to literary genres.[4] This is why he, along with his fellow Progressive Dispensationalists, has bid adieu to consistent grammatical-historical interpretation (G-H) and has adopted a “complementary hermeneutic” wherein the passage being read is helped by the rest of the Biblical Canon. The hermeneutical tool chosen to ground this approach is an adaptation of the “already-not yet” hermeneutic.

Keep reading →

This list of books is for those believers who wish to dig more deeply into their faith without getting bogged down in a load of footnotes and scholarly conjecture. Some of these works will make demands of the reader, but nothing is listed which will be beyond the average mature Christian reader.

Keep reading →

This booklist is meant to serve those believers who are either new to the faith or are not used to reading and may feel inhibited at the prospect of beginning to study or at a loss as to what pick up and read in a day when we are awash with Christian books.

I should say immediately that there must be a willingness to read good books. We live in a day when many Christians are reluctant to take advice on such matters. We also live in a day when many of God’s people underestimate themselves and their ability to comprehend so-called “serious” Christian literature. There is great release in realizing the truth that this is just not the case.

I have chosen those books which I think will both inform and encourage the reader while not leading them astray and not over-taxing them. This is not to say that these works are somehow inferior or of less value than “scholarly” tomes. On the contrary, any who read these books, whether new to the faith or seasoned student, will be blessed. Happy reading. Keep reading →

As I was doing my all-too-infrequent clearing up of my email messages I inadvertently removed a question I was asked about FF Bruce’s position on eschatology.  I place an answer of sorts here in the hope that Prof. Fred Hall’s eyes might fall on it.

As far as I can make out Prof. Bruce’s position was in line with the B. W. Newton stream of Plymouth Brethren interpretation.  That is to say, he was a historic premillennialist in the vein of C. H. Spurgeon (Baptist) and J. C. Ryle (Anglican).  I say this because I remember reading his Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians in the WBC Series and coming away with that opinion.  I don’t actually own that book, but my opinion is bolstered for the following reasons:

1. Bruce writes the Forward to the English translation of Erich Sauer’s The Dawn of World Redemption.  The Forward is very commendatory even though Sauer adopted what could be called a modified dispensational approach.

2.  In some of his commentaries Bruce seems to hold out for a “renovation” of this earth after the appearance of the final (and personal) Antichrist.  On the latter, see especially his remarks in Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 233.  On a future hope for the planet, see his Romans (Tyndale series), 174  where he refers to a “worldwide regeneration” after all Israel has been “reincorporated…among the people of God.”  (Ibid. 205).

3. It is easy enough to prove that Bruce believed that Israel (i.e. the ‘Remnant’) will be saved by believing the Gospel and so brought into the fold of the Church (See above).  In his Romans, 208 he maintains that there will be no restoration of an “earthly Davidic kingdom.”  I take him to mean that even though there will be a future millennium of some sort, this will not have OT characteristics but “Churchly” ones.

4.  Finally, in his commentary on the Greek text of Galatians Bruce allows that the kai of 6:16 ought to translated “and” thus drawing a distinction between “all them who walk according to this rule” and “the Israel of God,” but he then refers “the Israel of God” to the “all Israel” of Rom. 11:26 (275).

My interpretation is hardly incontrovertible, but when one considers his Brethren affiliation and his endorsement of Sauer I think it bears up quite well.

I should say that Bruce wrote the entry on the Apocalypse in the old one volume International Bible Commentary.  Perhaps this would help put the matter to rest.  But as I do not have access to a copy, that will have to be the work of another.

The Rationale Behind Dispensational Hermeneutics

Without a doubt, the issue of hermeneutics is one of the hottest issues in theology today. The word comes from the Greek hermeneia which basically means “interpretation.”[1] How do we interpret the Bible, and, in particular, those relatively few, yet significant parts of it which cause puzzlement or debate?

No one can enter upon the task of theology without confronting this question. Yet the answer to it is not as straightforward as it may appear at first sight. Take for an example this quote from an important work on biblical ethics:

The church dares to articulate fresh and audacious readings of Scripture only because it relies upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the community – as promised in the New Testament texts themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16; John 16:12-15). The Spirit reshapes the community into unexpected metaphorical reflections of the biblical stories and thereby casts new light back onto the texts. Such illuminative conjunctions are impossible to predict and difficult to discern, but the church that seeks to deny or preclude them will find itself locked into the stifling grip of “the letter” (gramma, 2 Cor. 3:6), unable to hear the Word of God. Another way to put this point is to say that it is finally God who writes the metaphors.[2]

The quotation is reproduced to show that there are a lot of scholars out there whose idea of how to interpret the Bible is wildly different than dispensationalists. The writer wants the broad church to explore interpretive possibilities and discover novel new interpretations of well-worn texts. In this way, he says, the church avoids getting cemented in a particular time and culture. More importantly, God is not similarly confined.

The trouble with this kind of view is that is violates the Golden Rule.[3] It treats the passages of the Bible differently than its own passages. That is to say, the writer of the above statement wants to be taken literally, at face value. He employs numerous figures of speech; “The church dares”; “The Spirit reshapes the community” and “casts new light back onto the texts”; a church that denies this risks becoming one that is “unable to hear the Word of God”; “God…writes the metaphors.” But he does this without giving a second thought as to whether his language will be misunderstood by literalistic interpreters. Moreover, he cites certain texts of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:6-16; John 16:12-15; 2 Cor.3:6), presumably with the intent that the reader will turn to those verses and read them in their plain sense – figures and all. Keep reading →

Chapter 1:15-23. Paul’s Prayer

Verse 15 is supposed to be proof that Paul did not write this letter to the Ephesians. But as Paul had been away from Ephesus for a number of years, it is not unusual that he writes of having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints.

Faith in Jesus as Lord produces love between Christians. The fruit that God most desires to see His adopted children bearing is love (cf. v. 4; 1 Jn. 4:7, 8). From the subjective angle, the sign that a person is under the Lordship of Christ is the love they have for the saints. The news of the Ephesians’ love, not only among themselves, but unto all the saints, encouraged the apostle to give thanks (v. 16), and to pray for them. We might ask ourselves, how often do we thank God for faithful saints, and intercede for them?

The content of this prayer is most instructive. First, it is addressed, as all prayers should be, to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 17). But Paul adds another title, the Father of glory, to this. It is no coincidence to find this new title here. God’s glory is the overarching intent of His purpose in redeeming us (vv. 6, 12, 14). The job of the saints is to bring glory to God in the midst of a thankless age. We do this when we train ourselves to “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31), by living by Christ (Jn. 15:5-7; Gal. 2:20). Keep reading →

John Owen, Communion with the Triune God, edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor, Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2007.
The great English Puritan author John Owen would not make it onto many people’s lists of devotional writers. Alongside the common fare today Owen stands like an imposing yet stately variegated oak rudely protruding a functional white plastic fence. He is not easy reading. He is not easy reading even in his most readable moments, as in his books on The Person of Christ or his Exposition of Psalm 130. And his Communion with God, here presented in a carefully edited format by Kelly Kapic and Justin Taylor, is not as comfortable to navigate as those works.

Why, then, this new edition? There are many sound reasons that could be given. One might say that Owen’s profundity and theological balance make this work required reading for anyone who is serious about researching the glories of trinitarianism in our day. Certainly, Owen made important contributions to our understanding of the Trinity which ought to be heard again. Or it could be explained that he was a theologian of the heart, a master at bringing God into the quandaries of facing life in a fallen world, and so making it less formal and impersonal. For John Owen, as for the Puritans generally, theology was the most human expression of Truth. Not primarily for the academy but for the Church – for the congregation. Communion with the Triune God is an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity for the children of the Triune God.

This edition is enhanced by an admirable essay by Kapic on Owen’s conception of the saint’s worship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Kapic really sets the stage for the feast to come. A very thorough analytical outline, (an improved version of the one found in Owen’s Works, vol. II), with page numbers relating to the treatise, encourages the wary to sample parts of the book before taking the plunge. Keep reading →

Chapter 1:1-2: Salutation.

The apostle Paul, now a prisoner in Rome, addresses the assembly of Christians at Ephesus, whom he had last seen about six years previously.¹ In the opening verse, he states his apostleship as being by the will (thelema) of God. No one could take to himself the title and authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ without the special call unique to an apostle. This calling included sign-gifts (2 Cor. 12:12) and witnessing the resurrected Lord (cf. Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). In 2:20, the apostles and New Testament prophets are called the foundation upon which the household of God rests.

In some of his epistles (e.g. Phil.; 1 & 2 Thess.), Paul does not feel the need to state his apostleship at the head of the letter. Here however, where deep teaching about the plan and purpose of God for the Church is being put across, he perhaps saw a need to stamp it with apostolic authority from the start.

Paul writes to, the saints (hagiois - separated [holy] ones), and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. Ephesians is written to all Christians; those at Ephesus, but also, we think, to churches around that city² and, because of its universal character (see esp. 3:15), to all God’s people.

Grace be to you, and peace…(v. 2). Both the words, grace and peace, are important words within this letter.³ The reason we can know peace is because of God’s grace (cf. Rom. 5:1-2).

In the ancient world, letters usually began with a short salutation, not unlike the ones that Paul uses for his epistles. The author’s name and that of the addressee, and a short greeting was the usual way for letters to begin (e.g. Acts 15:23ff, 23:26). However, Paul makes of this characteristic greeting an address from God, the Bestower of a Christian’s blessings.

Chapter 1:3-14: Paul’s Thanksgiving.

This magnificent flood of praise to the Father⁴ comes from the wellspring of joy Paul feels when trying to communicate to the Ephesians what God has done for them. It is important for Christians to see that all of their many spiritual blessings—past, present, and future—are theirs because they are Christ’s: or, to use Paul’s own language, because they are in Christ. In the far reaches of eternity, God blessed us with all spiritual blessings. There is no reason to think that this equates to immaterial blessings only. We must be careful not to too strongly associate the spiritual with the non-substantial (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:42-49). These blessings are spiritual (not spiritualized!) because God is [a] Spirit, and all His children are fundamentally spiritual as well as corporeal creatures (cf. Phil. 3:3).

The blessings include joy, peace, faith, love, strength for the day, hope, and fellowship, in this life. These are perfected and conjoined with glorification, sinlessness, and as yet undefined ‘treasures’ in the future. The heavenly places (Gk. “Heavenlies” -1:20, 2:6, etc.) probably refer to the spiritual realm of the kingdom of Christ (cf. Col. 1:13), and not just to Heaven. If the phrase referred only to Heaven, it would mean one could not know any of these blessings while still on earth.

Just as our blessings were held in store for us, even so our very choosing and destination were enacted in Christ before the foundation of the world (v.4). That is to say, we were chosen in Christ in eternity past to be holy, blameless, and loving, in imitation of our Divine Father. This implies that the creation was one in which service was integral to the perfecting of God’s world. The fall did not catch God unawares. It was within the Plan from the very beginning. The corruption and profanation of the original creation was no less evil because foreknown by God. God did not make man disobedient. And God did not forsake man in disobedience. Creation was a project from the start (Gen. 1:26-30), and the intrusion of sin has not altered God’s purpose. In line with this the verse clearly shows that God does not save simply to rescue, but to use (cf. 2:10; Tit. 2:14).

We cannot accede to the view that the phrase, “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world” be construed in the Arminian sense of God simply foreseeing who would believe. Of course, that is part of it, but it is not the whole story, and cannot be. The Lord God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. That is, He knows all things, He empowers and upholds all things, and He observes all things. God knows all true states of affairs. If He predicts the naming of Cyrus, or the date and place of Jesus’ birth, or the demise of Satan; all of which were or are future events, these things must be utterly certain. They are not probabilities but pre-planned eventualities, designated by the mere will of the Almighty. God must never be thought of as One who must exert Himself in an impressive effort at keeping a universe full of plates spinning. They spin by the collusion of God’s will and power. We may say that the power of God is ‘pre-informed’ by the decision of God (though they are really one).

Nothing in creation operates outside the constraints of God’s power (i.e. His providence), since “He upholds all things by His powerful word” (Heb.1:2-3). There are no rogue facts out there, which have not been fully known about by Him. And since where God’s power is, He is, it stands to reason that whatever occurs happens because he wills it to happen, and that includes many things He hates!

Paul can elsewhere teach that, “whom He did foreknow (proegno), He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29), and these same individuals, “He also glorified.” (Rom. 8:30). If the end result of foreknowledge is a still future glorification, then the Greek word prognosis means more than “to know beforehand.” It carries with it the connotation of involvement or relationship with what is foreknown; a meaning which is carried over from the Hebrew term yada. This, indeed, is its theological usage in the NT. Thus, I do not see how it cannot refer to God’s fore-choosing of individuals. And we do not feel compelled, either by Scripture or by reason, to back away from the fact that God’s omniscience is expressed in time in His Decree^5,

In this passage (1:4-5), God’s children then, are to be holy and without blame before Him in love, because we have been ‘chosen’ (v.4) and ‘adopted’ (v. 5) into His family. In adopting us, the Father has taken on the responsibility of bringing us up as sons within His household, a responsibility He will not shirk (Heb. 12:5‑10), nor give up upon (cf. Phil. 1:6, 1 Cor. 1:8).

It is useless to argue that because the apostle employs a plural pronoun (humas – ‘us’) to define the objects of election he had to have been referring only to corporate election. As Hoehner points out, “The recipients of the choice, “us,” comprise a body or group of believers. Still, chosen make up this group. As individuals receive the blessings of verse 3 and individually are sealed in verse 13, so individuals are the objects of God’s election.” (H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, 176). Keep reading →

Over on Triablogue there was posted this excellent article on the spiritual depth (or lack thereof) of many professors in our churches.  It is well worth the short time it takes to read it.