Further Questions for Dispensationalists - VII

To continue with one of my observations of the theology and practice of the Plymouth Brethren, I do want to point out that their apparent disregard for historical theology (the thoughts and work that the Spirit had done through the comments of men who had gone before them) is, at least in part, due to the over-emphasis that they placed on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer.  It seems to have led to the "no creed but the Bible" mentality that appears prominent in American Christianity today.  The idea that, if one were simply not to allow himself to be eschewed by the theologies of the past, then his interpretation is more likely to remain acute because he has not developed any presuppositions that he use to bend the meaning of the text to his desires.

I think that it is this sort of mindset that acts as a Pietre dish for heresies and cultism, feed by arrogance.  This to me seems naive for a number of reasons.  First, the person generally speaking, is not going to be reading the text in its original languages, so his interpretation will already be influenced "from the outside" by the editors of whatever English translation he is using.  Second, and now let's just take for granted that this man is reading his bible in the original languages, this idea has to assumes that the Spirit, if the would-be interpreter of the Word has no historical influences, would teach him every right thing that He had taught all other interpreters from the past.  Lastly, it would do us well to consider this: the primary means God uses today to physically heal our bodies is not having the infirm sit alone in prayer (though God can certainly heal this way if He pleased), our healing is more likely to come from God, through the means (means which He has ordained and of which He is in control) of medications and the common wisdom He has given to medical professionals.  Likewise, the primary means God uses today (and for the past 4-5 millennia) to heal our minds of sickly and deficient theologies is not having the infants or mature in the faith, sit alone in prayer with their bible (though God does teach us the right ways of scripture in our personal bible studies), our theological healing is much more likely to come from God, through the means (means which He has ordained and of which He is in control) of the preaching and teaching of the Word that we hear from live men, and the preaching/teaching and comments men of old, with which we have been blessed.  I don't mean to suggest that historical theology is authoritative, nor inerrant, just that (along with the preaching/teaching of men today, which by the way as soon as it has been spoken or published, it has become part of the total of historical theology) it is a.  I also don't mean to suggest that we should consume every word of our favorite theologian (live or dead) without question, as though it was mother's milk, but neither should we act as though we are lactose intolerant--Historical theology is a vital part of our rightly understanding the Word of God, and we balance that with the Berean principle.

I believe that we can observe one of the methodologies/practices that logical result from "anti-confessionalism" (a term which I believe also encompasses a disregard for historical theology) in the Brethren movement.  Their misinterpretation of and over-emphasis on the priesthood of the believer was not balanced by the teaching of scripture on the offices of local church leaders, and their God-given capacity to teach and shepherd the flock God has given them, thus the anti-clerical aspect of the movement.  This is the conclusion that must  fnally be drawn from a disregard of historical theology, and too high a regard for my ability to rightly interpret God's Word void of outside influences.

Just a word of personal application, I've learned lots of things in my personal bible study, while meditating on it in prayer, but some of it I later learned was heresy, and I allowed myself to be corrected by smarter men, and the interpretations granted them by the Spirit.  Take for instance, the formulation of the way we talk about the Triune nature of God.  As a young Christian, I easily could have come away from my preliminary readings of the New Testament as a convinced "modalist", but only when confronted by the historical theology of the Trinity, was my understanding set straight

I wonder if the aversion to historical theology, and its importance in the development of our understandings of scripture, is in some degree due to a Protestant reaction to the Magisterium (teaching authority) of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.  But as a survey of the history of the Reformation would quickly show, the doctrine of sola scriptura was never set in opposition to the importance of the guidance we are to receive from our pastors/elders/teachers, nor was it intended to excuse a disdain for the importance historical theology.  The formulation of the doctrine of sola scriptura was to define authority not importance or resourcefulness.  So, perhaps anti-confessionalism and anti-clericalism is an overreaction to the final authority that the Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops taunted over their parishioners.

It's a Boy! - Part 3

Below are some potential combinations of the names previously mentioned.  No particular order, just listed as "conceived".

Alastair Boone

Tanner Bryson

Carson Brach

Porter Knoll

Finnegan Anderson

Bryson Cooper

Broderick Cooper

Caedmon Sawyer

Anderson Boone

Finnegan Addison

Asher Brach

Lincoln Beckley

Cooper Knoll

Alastair Braighton

Bryson Carter

It's a Boy! - Part 2

Though our youngest son, Spencer has already decided that the baby boy we are expecting in February will be named "Frisbee", Melissa and I are thinking of some back-up names just in case that one doesn't work out.  Of course, Spencer does have good reason for his wanting to name the baby Frisbee.  He figures that if we name the baby Frisbee, then he will have someone to throw the frisbee with when the baby grows up.

All that being said, below are a list of names that we've come up with.  It will be interesting to see if we get any feedback.

Addison

Alastair

Anderson/Anders

Ashur

Beckley/Beck

Berkley/Berk

Boone

Brach

Braighton

Bretton

Broderick

Bryson

Caedmon

Camden

Carson

Carter

Cooper

Finnegan/Finn

Gibson

Gilmour

Harmon

Kamden

Knoll

Lincoln

Loche

Porter

Sawyer

Simon

Slate

Smith

Tanner

Townsend

Trevor

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - VI

Below are some supposed "quotes" that I came across, which were attributed to Chafer.  I am now trying to confirm there validity.  If anyone can help identify these, I would be very appreciative.

“With respect to regeneration, the Old testament saints were evidently renewed; but as there is no definite doctrinal teaching relative to the extent character of that renewal, no positive declaration can be made”—Chafer from ?????

“The silence of God must be respected relative to what constituted one a just man according to the Mosaic demands…The Old Testament will be searched in vain for a record of Jews passing from an unsaved state to a saved state, or for any declaration about the terms upon which such a change would be secured.  In other words, their national covenant standing was a tremendous spiritual advantage; but it cannot rightfully be compared with the estate of the believer today who is justified and perfected forever, having received the pleroma of the Godhead through vital union with Christ.”—Chafer from ???

(Revision Note) Further Questions for Dispensationalists - V a

I just adjusted a couple sentences in my previous post due to their confusing sentence structure.  Here are the two revised sentences.

"This, in part, may explain the reason for the vast majority of dispensationalists in our day who reject Calvinistic theology.  Perhaps that rejection is not an historical association alone, but I think it may be one of the fundamental causes for the development of Dispensationalism. "

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - V

In my recent project where I've been attempting to understand the birth of Dispensational Theology in the Brethren movement, I have seen more evidence that seems to connect it with a distinctly non-Calvinistic soteriology.  For a while now, I have been suspicious of the influence of Arminianism on that movement, and as I read through some of Darby's and Macintosh's writings posted on the "Stem Publishing" website, I have found that the way they speak about justification, sanctification, regeneration, propitiation, sin, etc, is symptomatic of that influence.  This, in part, may explain the reason for the vast majority of dispensationalists in our day who reject Calvinistic theology.  Perhaps that rejection is not an historical association alone, but I think it may be one of the fundamental causes for the development of Dispensationalism.  I also see a general disregard for historical theology and its categories, whether it be conscious or not, I don't know.  This too would contribute to the rejection of Calvinistic theology among the Brethren in Darby's day, and the overemphasis among Dispensationalists in our day, on the priesthood of the believer.  Which, coupled with a basic misunderstanding of the reasons why they are "Protestant",  has inevitably resulted in the disdain that many American Evangelicals have for creeds and confessions. 

So, I am wondering if anyone with more time invested in their writings would have some insight to share.

It's a Boy!

Well, it's official, we are having our 3rd boy! He should arrive sometime between February 4th and 10th, but with our history, he's likely to be a New Year's baby. Some of you who visit this blog from time to time,may be friends of ours in "the real world" (as opposed to this virtual one). You will know that we may have hoped for a little girl, but another boy is, without a doubt, no disappointment! As a man subject to our culture, and heir to the majority of cultures preceding ours, I am proud to pass on my name and the name of my physical forefathers. So in that respect, I would much rather be in the position of already having been blessed with male heirs and hoping for a girl, than already having been blessed with girls and hoping for a male heir to carry on my family name. Don't get me wrong, someday we would love a little girl with all our hearts, if God blessed us with one. Perhaps the means of that blessing would be through adoption...who knows what the Lord of Creation has in store?

Those of you who know us, probably know some of our family histories which have provided a great number of boys, on both mine and Melissa's side of the family. Melissa's dad, a Spencer, is the oldest of five boys, and I am the oldest of three. So whether or not those statistics factor into the Punit Square and make it more probable for us to have boys, I can't say with any scientific certainly. One thing is for sure, neither my wife nor our parents expected the baby to be girl.

We are now in the process of choosing a name. At least we only have to make one list, boy names. I may post some of our ideas in later articles; with our first two, we tried to choose names that would be significant. Our first, was named after a friend of mine from college who died about eight years ago. His mother is, of course, the adopted grandmother of all our children and we greatly appreciate her generous spirit. We gave our second, Melissa's maiden name, my middle name (which, by the way was my father's and his father's middle name) and Levi for purely aesthetic reasons. At the time of his birth,we thought he would be our last for sure, so we tried to get all the names in we could.

Prayers are always appreciated, and especially during our pregnancies. They always seem to be particularly difficult on her physically, but I won't go into detail about that...some of you already know . And after the baby is born, we will renew our concern for raising all our children in covenant with God. Fully aware of how imperfectly we do it, we are very grateful for the great influences God had in place for us just before our oldest was born (now 6); and for all the subsequent help provided to us from our parents and families; the encouragement provided by our friends; and most of all, God's gracious mercy to show us our sin through the Law, and to make us His sons and daughters by faith, through the power of Christ's Spirit in the proclamation of the gospel. May Melissa and I correct our children (and ourselves) with the Law of God and quickly proclaim the gospel of God's grace to them, for His glory and for our joy, Amen!

Regarding the Continuity of the Role of the Holy Spirit in All Ages

One of the first passages mentioned in this discussion is Acts 2 and its reference to Joel 2.  The first thing I would say is that the purpose of the Pentecost event recorded in Acts 2 was to show the Jews that the Holy Spirit was going to be poured out on all nations, not just the Jewish nation.  It was a scandal to the Jews in Peter's day to think that someone could receive covenant blessings without first becoming a Jew, being circumcised.  The category they had for Holy Spirit indwelling had nothing to do with persons outside of the covenant.  So when they saw that individuals on the day of Pentecost were being filled with the Spirit, Peter had to explain that this day was prophesied by Joel; Peter told them the meaning of Joel chapter 2, and that (at least in part) it was fulfilled on that day when God poured out His Spirit, not just on believing Jews, but even on  uncircumcised believers from other nations.  The role of the Spirit in the New Covenant is primarily different in His scope, and only secondarily in extent.  In other words, the difference is primarily one of  a quantity of participants and secondarily one of a quality of experience.

Covenant Theology does affirm a measure of discontinuity between the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments.  Read this quote from D.A. Carson below,

"...the pulsating New Testament stance, especially strong in Paul, that sees the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian and the church as the decisive evidence that the new age has dawned and the messianic reign has begun. The structure of New Testament eschatology is jeopardized by the failure to discern such distinctions."

But, Covenant Theology also submits that unless one has been translated from death to life by the Holy Spirit's work, he is not saved, regenerated, made right before God. 

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - III

Two posts ago I included a quote from Charles Ryrie in which he uses Acts 13:39 as an example of a major shift in the responsibility of man, and this indicates a change in administration, a change from one dispensation to another.

The false assumption that he seems to be making, one that is likely enforced by his hermeneutic, is that this statement in the book of Acts indicates that the saints in "The Age of Law" were required to obey the covenant law of Moses in order to be justified. In the very verse itself is the idea that this was never the case...it never was possible that the Law of Moses could justify. Covenant Theology would submit that the practice of those Old Covenant rituals were a part of the sanctification of the saints under that covenant, but never their justification.

Another, and related, outworking of the Dispensational hermenetical structure is that major shifts in what God has revealed to mankind are emphasized and are either caused by or the effect of the change from one dispensation to another. On the other hand, Covenant Theology places emphasis on the subtle shift of what God has reveled to mankind, not as indicators of a change in administration or dispensation, but rather, these shifts show that God cumulatively reveals knowledge about His relation to His creation and creatures.

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - II

There seems to be an historic Protestant way in which we have referred to the theological concept of justification. And if anyone reading this article can correct or expand my understanding here, particularly with a written source specifically on this subject, please do.

The ground of justification is the Passion of Christ; His life for our righteousness imputed, and His death for our sins atoned. The instrument of justification is faith.. The means of justification is the proclamation of the gospel and the Holy Spirit applying it.

Covenant Theology affirms that the entire formula above applies to justification in all ages. I believe that all types of Dispensationalism, generally speaking, would affirm this formula for what they call the "Age of Grace", or the "Church Age", and they too would affirm that the ground and instrument are the same in every age. The disagreement I believe would arise when we talk about the means in every age. It is here that I believe we get the reason for the oft heard claim that Dispensationalism teaches two "ways" of salvation. Though it seems to be clear that Darby, Scofield, Chafer and Ryrie would all deny this claim but, even if they would say that the means of justification in the "Age of Law" was the proclamation of the gospel, would they agree that the content of the gospel was the same? I think the answer is no. This begs the question, what is the content of the gospel?

According to Covenant Theology, the content of the gospel is always at least this, that God will (or already did depending on the perspective) provide the ultimate sacrifice to satisfy the demands of His Holiness. It is in the distinct expression of this promise that we find a difference as revelation progresses, but the shifts in the knowledge of the content of this promise are most often gradual: from the proto-evangel in the garden, to the salvation of Noah's family in the ark, to the substitute ram provided in the place of Isaac on Mount Moria, to the Suffering Servant desribed by Isaiah, on up to the culmination of all of those shadows in the revelation of Jesus on the cross.

On the other hand, Dispensationalism says (at least according to Ryrie, and this is where I need more information about other forms of Dispensationalism) that the content of that promise prior to the Church Age was not that specific, and that Old Testament saints did not necessarily have to see a coming Messiah/Redeemer in the shadows of the Old Covenant sacrifices, or that Abraham really only believed that God would bless him with many decendants and a physical land. Granted, these promises to Abraham, in their limited historical expression were very great promises which challenged the faith of Abraham, but to limit the content of his faith to just those things ignores the revelation previously provided for us. Though Abraham did not have a written copy of the pentetuch as the Jews later did, he would have had the stories of the garden and Noah to consider, and those types of Christ that would expand the content of his faith past what I believe Dispensationalism generally allows.

Further Questions for Dispensationalists

Another question for my dispensational friends is regarding Ryrie's distinction between the object of faith and the content of faith. In my assessment, this distinction is novel yet demanded as a consequence of a focus on the discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants (between the dispensations as they would say), but I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Below are two quotes from Charles Ryrie concerning this issue,

‘Through Him everyone who believes is freed [justified] from all things, from which you could not be freed [justified] through the Law of Moses’ (Acts 13:39). Here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world regarding man's responsibility in relation to the most important area of justification. Whatever his responsibility was under the Mosaic Law may be left unspecified at present (see chapter 6), but with the coming of Christ the requirement for justification became faith in Him. This, too, is obviously a distinctive stage in the progress of revelation. Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated, since the economy and responsibility changed and the new revelation was given.”- Dispensationalism Today

"The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation." - Dispensationalism Today

I now am wondering if this is consistent with the current form of argumentation regarding the "way" saints from previous ages were saved.