Pithy Sayings 1

It's not hypocrites that scare me, it's all those people who think they're not hypocrites that I'm afraid of.

?Luke - On Economic Injustice?

I make the greatest effort possible NOT to address issues that are exclusively political and subject to cultural preference, rather than the didactic commands of scripture, on this blog.  But I would like to point out an article where scripture was brought directly to bear on just such an issue.  You can read the article here.

Abstract Versus Real

There used to be a great deal of debate surrounding the legitimacy of certain forms of "Modern" art, particularly the reductionistic/deconstructionistic sort.  In sort of a neo-renaissance, artists and architects alike reacted to Victorianism in a way similar to the proponents of realism reacted to the idealism of ancient Greek and Roman aesthetics.  This debate was brought back to my mind when I walked into my oldest son, Jeffrey's room and asked him what he was up to.  The response I got was unexpected, "I'm doing abstract art, Dad".  Some involved in the debate over the legitimacy of abstract art (for the purpose of this article I will limit the term art to mean 2 dimensional expression) charged those artists with a lack of talent because the realistic rendering of figure was not present.  I for one would not make the same claim, but I will say this, forms of abstract art display the artist's talent for composition, harmony, positive versus negative space, and other fundamentals taught in "2D" classes.  But those same artists don't display in their abstract works, the same degree of talent in realism, even if they are capable of it.  On the other hand, the those artists involved in realistic portraiture or landscape rendering, assuming the posses the same handle on the fundamentals, display in their expressions of realism, the talent of realism in addition to a talent for the fundamentals.

 

Jeffrey's Art

The Disintegration of Political Argumentation

Lately, I've been considering the differences and similarities between the ways that political debate and dialogue and theological debate and dialogue (within the genuinely Christian camp) are handled.  Though I do make it a point not to discuss my party affiliation or specifically "political" topics which must be considered preferential in regards to the didactic teachings of scripture, from time to time I do feel compelled to address (in the category of sociology) certain issues facing the American political landscape.

I have become increasing discouraged and disgusted by the methods and tenor of the dialogue between the parties, which in general, is a contrast to theological debates.  Though I have seen a great deal of vitriol shared in the debate over Calvinism and eschatology, for the most part, these exchanges are at least considered to be between multiple schools of thought employing different means to the same end...the glory of God.  The similarity I have seen recently is the casual approach to truth with which each ticket has interpreted the opposing position.  Like many non-Calvinists I've read, they seem completely uninterested in the truthful exchange of ideas through the vehicle of an honest criticism of what an opponent has said.  Instead, we the public, are battered by fallacious argumentation like, "red herrings", "weak analogies", "slippery slope", "straw men", and "ad hominem".  Perhaps this is the result because, unlike theological debates, the study and practice of politics doesn't have a set of "solas" by which to govern their squabbling. 

The Place of Personal Testimony in Evangelism

I do believe that there is a place for testimony. But, evidenced by the continuing errors we make, contemporary American Evangelicalism is post-modern in that (however unintentional) we often replace the objective truths of the gospel, necessary to believe and be saved, with the utter subjectivity of personal testimony. I do believe that personal testimony has its place in the edification of believers, but because of the subjectivity of having ones quality of life improved, or being given the power to obey God's Law to a greater degree, those things really should have a minimal place in an evangelistic situation. The personal testimony that is useful in those cases is if we can point to a time when we once did not believe and repent, and contrast that with the times when we do, thus testifying to the power of God by highlighting His ability to recreate persons who see their sin in contrast to His holiness and believe the gospel. I think a lot of the times we want to substitute transformation for salvation, and this is symptomatic of our mistake of confusing sanctification with justification; confusing Law and Gospel. What eternal good is it if an unregenerate person is inspired in some way by the testimony of my personal transformation, to "change his life" by going to rehab so he can replace bad habits with good ones if he has not first had his heart changed from a heart of stone into a heart of flesh? I'm certain that most Christians would say that it is of no good, and that is the point I'm trying to make--the business of the Kingdom is that of calling persons to see their sinfulness in light of the holiness of God (as reflected in His Law) and to repent of those sins and believe that Christ, in history, lived the perfect life and died the perfect death on a Roman cross, and was raised to glorious life in the place of lowly sinners. Personal transformation (sanctification) will be a result of that continued repentance and belief.

"Having Kids Makes You Happy"

In the July 7-14, 2008 issue of Newsweek magazine, Lorraine Ali wrote an article with the same title as this post. The major premise was this: people who have kids are not statistically happier than those who remain childless. She purports that this American cultural expectation has confused (and even in some cases) mislead young "marrieds" regarding the issue of child-rearing. While I don't intend here to try to dispute the conclusions drawn by the statistical studies cited in her article, or to investigate the groups who funded that research, I do feel obligated to challenge them on the surface.

At least one of the studies concluded that most parents are not happier ,having had children, because they end up "lament their lack of sleep, hectic schedules, and difficulty dealing with their surly teens." Though the studies seem to support findings that conclude that people who never had children typically report "significantly greater emotional well-being", apparently demonstrating that, simply having children is not the key to happiness and a healthy life, as so espoused by modern American culture.

I believe that a great deal of the article does contain sociological truths, truths not challenged by biblical propositions. The bible gives several historical accounts where the children brought great pain to their parents. Take Adam, Isaac and David for instance, regarding the actions of their sons: Adam's son Cain and both of Isaac's sons, Jacob and Esau, and David's son Absolom; surely Adam, Isaac and David would say that their children, sad as it is, made their lives very difficult. So I don't think the biblical expectation of married couples is to find their ultimate happiness in their progeny, nor is finding happiness in them the reason for having children; the embedded cultural expectation that they are statistically shown to increase health and happiness in a qualitative manner is not true. Which leads to the disagreement I do have with the article, that, because children cannot guarantee those expectation, it's just another reason not to have them. The biblical mandate is to love God and enjoy Him forever. God is supposed to be the ultimate and greatest (not the only) source of our happiness; all other things are idols.

Furniture Market

Well, I've taken a brief sabbatical from posting due to the High Point Furniture Market this week.  Busy, busy, busy!

...to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 19:14b

 

On Saturday, I shared a very interesting and rewarding conversation  with my soon-to-be five year old.  Just to give a bit of background to set up the story, one week ago today I tore up my right hand pretty bad in a soccer match.  Though it is healing quickly (praise the Lord) I remain in a brace.  I took my son, Spencer with me to my brother Jon's house to pick some grape leaves so my wife Melissa could can some pickles.  On the way there, Spencer said that he was sorry my hand was hurting.  I (in my usual manly way) told him not to worry about it, that I would be fine.  He said it was hard for him not to worry about me.  Bear in mind, this is the same son who told me, as I was leaving for work one day 2-3 months ago, to be careful and not to get run over by a car.  Anyway, by the ensuing silence, I gathered that he was thinking about it for a few moments.  Then suddenly he said, "Dad, God could make your hand hurt so that He can show you mercy."  If my jaw didn't drop, I'd be surprised.  And I'd be lying if I said that it didn't bring a tear to my eye.  To think, though it may not have been a perfectly sound statement of God's providence, and it may need some qualification, that statement means that Spencer (at least in his mind) understands (even if only for that moment) that God works all things together for our good.

Romans 8:28-30 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Romans 9:22-24 "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - IX

Below is a copy of the most recent comment regarding this discussion, compliments to my friend Kerry Lewis over at, Hymnus Deo.  I thought it was significant enough to reproduce here.

"To quote the Mad Hatter, "I'm late! I'm late!" Here, in a few words, is what I had intended to post last week.

According to Brethren biographer Robert Baylis, Darby traveled through Continental Europe between 1839 and 1845. He was fluent in French, German, and Italian, and so he was able to travel and move among the various countries fairly easily. According to Wikipedia, he translated the Bible into French and German. Whether or not he wrote in any language other than English, however, I still don't know.

In Darby's tract, as I remember, he did mention "pastors" in a favourable way, but I would guess that he was using the term as synonymous with "elder", which for him would carry the idea of lay offices only.

Between what is called the Open Brethren and what is called the Closed or Exclusive Brethren, however, there have been differences. (There are even differences between the Closed and the Exclusive Brethren for some - at least, in the way they use the terms. Generally, however, my understanding is that the terms "Closed" and "Exclusive" refer to the same type of Brethren. So that is how I'm using them here.) If I showed up at an Open Brethren assembly this Sunday (such as Shannon Hills in Greensboro, which I attended growing up), I could partake of worship and the Lord's Supper, so long as I professed faith in Jesus Christ, whether or not I held to the principles uniquely held by the Brethren. With the Exclusives, however, you not only have to be in fellowship with a Brethren assembly in order to participate in worship, you have to be in fellowship with an accepted Closed Brethren assembly. They actually have two sets of chairs set up in an Exclusive Brethren meeting hall. The inner circle is for those who are Exclusives and able to participate (not under church discipline, etc.). The outer circle is for those who, for whatever reason, aren't allowed to participate. They are allowed to observe only. (There was a great low-budget film put out this past Spring by Paramount Vantage called Son of Rambow. It's about an Exclusive Brethren boy in England and the trials he has trying to balance his life with the Brethren and his life with those outside of the Brethren. The treatment of the Exclusives is slightly exaggerated, but not much, and it captures the spirit of the movement - the Opens, but especially the Exclusives - very well. It was my favourite movie this year. See it, if you get a chance. It's on dvd now. I saw it at the Carousel Grande when it was playing.)

The Exclusive or Closed Brethren usually utilize the phrase "Gospel Hall" in their assembly names (such as "Hickory Gospel Hall", which actually exists in Hickory, N. C.). The Open Brethren usually utilize the phrase "Chapel" or "Bible Chapel" in their assembly names (as in "Shannon Hills Bible Chapel").

The Closed Brethren descend from Darby. The Open Brethren descend from leaders like George Mueller and Anthony Norris Groves. Of course, there have been splits and variations since then, and these started within just a few years of the movement, the first split being between the Open and the Closed Brethren.

Among the Open Brethren, the form of church government is Independency for each assembly, and each assembly is ruled by a body of elders and deacons, whose roles operate largely after the manner of Presbyterianism. But there was a variation on this that happened among the Exclusives. In 1838, they began holding a meeting every Saturday night composed of leaders from the various Closed assemblies in and around London. The stated intention was to help smaller assemblies in matters of policy and administration. But the practical effect was the creation of a central ruling body, that claimed for itself enough power to discipline members and bar them from the Lord's Table. We would call that a Presbytery, though they wouldn't appreciate us using such a label for them, and their meeting assumed more power to itself than any well-working Presbytery would in Reformed churches. Also, Darby ended up being a sort of default leader for the group, and so they ended up with what we would call a Bishopric or Episcopacy, though they once again wouldn't appreciate us accusing them of this. So Darby went full circle, leaving Episcopacy and ending up there again. The end results of this screwy system is legend, and I couldn't begin to talk about them here.

If you want some other interesting thoughts on the Brethren view of church government, you might check out my brief post from a couple of years ago here:

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2006/12/exclusive-brethren-elders.html "

Immutability & the Incarnation

I have been listening to mp3s of a Systematic Theology I class from Reformed Theological Seminary, taught by Dr. Douglas Kelly. Though I have never attended such a class in person, nor have I taken one for credit, I have a great interest in systematics of all sorts, and in theology in particular. In many systematic theologies, one begins with the topic of The Bible, its nature, and transmission. You would then discuss Theology Proper, God as one Essence and three Persons, His attributes and relation to His creation. It is in this section that I want to linger for the purposes of this article. One of the characteristics attributed to God is that of immutability, or un-change-ability. The word itself comes from the Latin, in, meaning "not", and mutare, meaning "to change". Regarding the definition and intentions of systematic theology, B.B. Warfield is helpful:

"The task of systematic theology is not to validate the reality, or to define the nature, or to determine the method of revelation; nor, indeed, even to ascertain the truths communicated by revelation; but to systematize these truths when placed in its hands by the precedent disciplines of apologetical, exegetical, and historical theology. Systematic theology is thus, in essence, an attempt to reflect in the mirror of the human consciousness the God who reveals Himself in His works and word, and as He has revealed Himself."

The other topic I want to intersect with the doctrine of the immutability of God, is His incarnation.As far as systematic go, this topic might be introduced under the category of Trinity, and others develop a separate tmajor topic titled, "Christology", and they may include under that category, the doctrine of incarnation. In any case, the question that begs to be asked when considering the Bible's teaching of God's unchangeable character and the Christ becoming a man is this, if God never changes, yet before the incarnation He did not have a permanent body as we do, then how does He maintain a character of immutability after Christ came to Earth, died as a human man, was raised bodily, ascended to Glory, and now exists with a glorified body?

One mention of this supposed paradox or tension is in George Lawson's book of 1813, "Discourses on the Condition and Duty of Unconverted Sinners...". Dr. Dennis Johnson of Westminster Theological Seminary in California covers this topic in his writing, "Immutability ans Incarnation". Unfortunately, I have not read this work, but I do intend to. Calvin touched on the subject briefly during his controversial dealing with Servetus. I'd just like to open this topic up for discussion.

The Theology of Art

I guess its because most Christians are not forced to think about it formally day to day, but the question of beauty is neglected in our "world-view".  If anyone knows of a published systematic theology that includes a treatment on beauty, please let me know.  I am aware of several theologians who have written on the subject, Edwards, Sproul, and Kuyper (regarding the theology of art), who I have quoted below.

"And all these because the beautiful is not the product of our own fantasy, nor of our subjective perception, but has an objective existence, being itself the expression of a Divine perfection."  Abraham Kuyper from, "Lectures on Calvinism"

It seems important to me, not only because I am confronted with ideas of aesthetics on a daily basis due to my vocation, but also (and perhaps more importantly) because Americans are constantly , through all sorts of mediums, being told what is beautiful by untrustworthy sources.  Ultimately, that which is true is that which is beautiful.  So, beauty directly corresponds to truth; the degree to which something is true is the degree to which it is also beautiful.  And now for a bit of sarcasm...

"Don't teach me about truth and beauty, just label my music"  Derek Web from his song, "New Law".

The Importance of Past Theological Opinions

Below is are a couple quotes I took from a recent post on the blog, Between Two Worlds.

Michael Horton: "The best way to guard a true interpretation of Scripture, the Reformers insisted, was neither to naively embrace the infallibility of tradition, or the infallibility of the individual, but to recognize the communal interpretation of Scripture. The best way to ensure faithfulness to the text is to read it together, not only with the churches of our own time and place, but with the wider 'communion of saints' down through the age."

Larry Woiwode: "There is rugged terrain ahead for those who are constitutionally incapable of referring to the paths marked out by wise and spirit-filled cartographers over the centuries."

What is Reformed Theology?

Restricting one's self to the internet alone as a resource, it is actually quite difficult to find a concise definition of Reformed Theology.  It is not hard to find definitions of it that are either, partial in their scope (like the 5 points of Calvinism or "the doctrines of grace"), or voluminous (like the entire Westminster Confession of Faith. When referring to "Reformed" theology, one could also be expressing the tenets of Covenant Theology, of which Reformed Theology is actually a function, because there are those who are Covenant Theologians but who would not consider themselves "Reformed".

Perhaps one of the most helpful ways to define Reformed Theology  is also its broadest description; Reformed theology is the theology (arguably the theology presented in the Bible) regained by the 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers.  But, by using this definition, all those who do not consider themselves "Reformed" also could not technically consider themselves "Protestant", but would more likely adopt a label such as, "non-Roman Catholic".

One also must observe that there is some debate within the "Reformed" community,as to what "Reformed" theology actually is and how it should be defined, though there are a set of fundamentals that one cannot deny and still be considered Reformed, for instance, the doctrines of grace, Covenant Theology, and a view of the sacraments as a means of grace rather than just a memorial.

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - VIII

In light of some of the content of my past few posts, I would like to present a few quotes from J. N. Darby.  Not the only voice hailing from what we refer to as the "brethren" movement, but likely the most known.  The following quotes are all taken from "The Notion of a Clergyman, dispensationally the sin against the Holy Spirit".  We must note here that, in large measure, his definition of "clergyman" was made in the historical context of a battle against "Puseyism", or "Tractarianism", which was, according to the definition given the term by Merriam-Webster, "a system of High Church principles set forth in a series of tracts at Oxford (1833-41)".  Even so, Darby is helpful in manifesting his distaste really for any form of ecclesiastical authority.

Again (to use a couple metaphors with sharp tools) I'm not trying to "grind an axe", or "bury the hatchet", but in my attempt to understand Dispensationalism more fully, I am trying to step into the shoes of those who took part in its historical development and evolution.  In the process of this research, I have seen several tangential theologies, philosophies, and practices that have caught my attention: a neglect of historical theology and its categories, a rejection of Calvinistic & and Reformed theology, and as we shall see, a general disregard for the distinction between layman and elder/pastor (to put it in the categories we recognize today).  So, if there are any dispensationalists reading this article, the questions are, what do you make of these quotes, do you think that Dispensationalism is inherently non-Calvinistic, individualistic in its polity, and largely uninterested in historical theology and its bearing on how we form our own theology?

"It is a question of the dispensational standing of the church in the world - a statement that that depends wholly on the power and presence of the Holy Ghost, and that the notion of a clergyman contradicts His title and power, on which the standing of the church down here depends. It is the habitation of God through the Spirit. Scripture is clear, that if the Gentiles do not abide in God's goodness, they will be cut off like the Jews. It equally predicts a falling away, which is not continuing in God's goodness. I believe these times are hasting greatly."

"I must be observed here to say nothing whatever against offices in the church of Christ, and the exercise of authority in them, whether episcopal or evangelical in character. It were a vain and unnecessary work here to prove the recognition of that on which scripture is so plain. But they are spoken of in Scripture as gifts derived from on high: "He gave some apostles" (Eph. 4: 5, 7, 11); so in 1 Corinthians 12, they are known only as gifts. My objection to the notion of a Clergyman is, that it substitutes something in the place of all these, which cannot be said to be of God at all, and is not found in Scripture. Now, I believe the whole principle of this to be contained in this dispensation in the word clergyman, and that this is the necessary root of that denial of the Holy Ghost which must, from the nature of the dispensation, end in its dissolution… But if clergymen have the exclusive privilege of preaching, teaching, and ministering communion, which they claim, and which is the very sense and meaning of their distinctive title, then must it be all evil. That is, the notion of a Clergyman necessarily involves the charge of evil on the work of the Holy Ghost, and therefore, I say, that the notion of a Clergyman involves the dispensation, where insisted upon, in the sin against the Holy Ghost."

"Sinners are converted to God, souls called out of darkness, the truth preached with energy and love to souls, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, in the constraint and constancy (in whatever weakness) of the Redeemer's love: men are gathered from evil and wickedness (for I will put the fullest case my adversaries could wish) into the communion of the Lord's love, to bear witness to their sole dependence on His dying love; and this is producing confusion and schism - of which God is not the author, but Satan - because they are not, nor are brought together by, clergymen! What is this but to charge the work of divine grace with proceeding from, and having the character of, the author of evil, which is blasphemy? and this is the immediate and direct effect, the necessary effect, of the notion - the exclusive notion of a Clergyman."

"And let us for a moment look at what the word means, and we shall very remarkably find the same great characteristic mark of apostasy upon it: the substitution of a privileged order whom man owned for the Church which God owned, and the consequent depression of the Church and the despisal of the Holy Ghost in it, or blasphemy against it. What does clergy mean? It means in scripture the elect body, or rather bodies, of believers, as God's heritage, as contrasted with those who were instructors, or had spiritual oversight over them; and it is used in the place where the apostle warns such against ever assuming the place in which - in much worse than which - the ministers have now put themselves; for they are not merely lords over, but the whole cleroi themselves. The present use of the word is precisely the sign of the substitution of ministers in the place of the Church of God: as men are accustomed to speak of "going into the church." Now, all this is of the essence of apostasy: power attached to ministry, and its becoming the church in the eye of the world, so that the world can save itself the trouble of being religious by throwing it on the clergy, and so the church and the world be all one thing, and irreligious people do for the church as laity, because religion is the clergy's business, and, if theirs, nobody's (for they do not want it for irreligious laymen); and thus that which has the name of the church, being really the world, serves to exclude and set aside the operations of the Spirit of God in His children as schism and evil; and who is to decide? The church; but they are the world: and will the world ever receive the Spirit of God? It cannot. What then? They hold themselves, of course, the church; they have the clergy, which is God's church in their estimation; and the Spirit of God and His work is voted schismatic. Such is the real and simple meaning of the word clergy so used. But to produce the passage in Scripture - "Be not lords," says Peter, "over God's heritage," to the elders or instructors. That is, over God's Clergy - to give it in its English form of letters, cleroi. The bodies of Christian believers were called God's "lots" (the meaning of the original word cleros) answering to Deuteronomy 9: 29. Now the clergy have assumed to themselves to be God's lot only, but the only use of clergy in Scripture is, as applied to the laity if you please, contrasted with ministers: charging these to assume no lordship."

"The operation of the Reformation was to introduce a statement of individual faith, and to break off, generally, all without the limits of the Roman Empire, from the immediate power of Rome and Popery. It in no way separated the church from the world, but the contrary; and, while it changed the relations, left the principle of the structure just where it was. The King's Arms took the place, in the rood-loft, of the image of Christ. Christ and His Spirit ruled in neither case, save in honour. I verily believe, that the principle of a clergyman, as it is part and parcel of the structure of Popery, will reintroduce the power of Popery as far as the name of religion remains; for as it hangs on the doctrine and principle of succession, not on the presence of the Spirit, there is no ground on which a Protestant minister, as a clergyman, can prove his title, which does not validate the title of the Pope and his followers more even than his own."

Outline for Hermeneutical Structures

Below is an outline for the two major, Christian hermeneutical systems existing after the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.  Being that this excerpt begins the "Systematic Theology" portion of an essay I am composing, I have included a preamble to set up context for the outlines.  Note that the Dispensational outline is, as best as I can tell, representative of the sort of Dispensationalism subscribed to by Ryrie, and other "Post-Dallas" dispensationalists.  The outline representing Covenant Theology is, like the dispensational one, not exhaustive, but descriptive.  So, covenant theologians and dispensationalists alike, will probably look at these outlines and have something to add or subtract, due to the fact that neither of these systems of theology and hermeneutical approaches is monolithic.  I am asking for help from both sides to try and make these outlines profitable for as many persons as possible.

Hermeneutical Structures

It seems most appropriate to begin the section on systematic theology with a description of the different hermeneutical structures under which Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology operate.  I understand that these two lists are not exhaustive, neither are they likely to represent everyone in the respective camps.  There are two basic assumptions shared by the two major hermeneutical schools of thought, Deism and sola scriptura, these are starting points that shape all forms of what can be considered a Christian interpretation of reality.  The assumption of Deism and that God has clearly spoken in time, leads to Christian theism after being confronted by the truths revealed in God’s Word.  As a consequence of God having spoken, it is revealed to His creatures that they are accountable to the knowledge of His existence by the testimony of nature alone, thus persons never having been exposed to the special revelation of Himself found in the canon of holy scriptures, are still culpable for their unbelief and under the just penalty of His wrath on them because of Adam’s sin.

Dispensational Hermeneutical Presuppositions & Immediate Consequences

I.        Theism—any Christian epistemological system must begin with the assumption that a Creator-god exists.

a.       Immanence—the Creator-god has spoken; He has revealed a “Word” that His creatures have the capacity of receiving through their physical senses.

                           i.      Primo Regnum—as a function of God having spoken, the Christian Theist must also assume that His special Word is revealed in the canonized scriptures alone.  Not that the scriptures are the only authority in the life of the believer, but that their right interpretations are the primary and final authority.  Not that every physically audible word of God, or vision or dream sent by God has been included in this collection of “Words”, but all of those Words necessary for  the life and godliness of believer is therein revealed.

II.     Literalism—the primary guiding principle in Dispensational Theology is the view that states that, unless otherwise expressly told differently within the immediate context of a passage, the grammatical/historical understanding of a prophesy/promise given, is its only possible fulfillment; the object of promise and the object of fulfillment are always the same.  If an Old Testament prophesy is ever “expanded” in the New Testament that expansion can never negate, trump or “explain away” the grammatical/historical understanding of those prophesies.

a.       Israel/Church Distinction—Spiritual Israel and the Church are now and always viewed as two separate peoples of God.

                           i.      The promises God made to Abraham (and subsequently to ethnic Israel) are only ever meant to be fulfilled by ethnic, believing Israel in some future age and can never be applied to believers saved in the "Church Age".

                         ii.      Millennial Israel and their future activity are the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies.

1.       Semiti-centric Eschatology—God’s primary purpose in redemptive history is the salvation of His chosen people, Israel. And these people are the ethnic Jewish people He has sustained throughout the history of the world.

a.       A contrast between the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven.

b.       Two eternally distinct peoples of God—His earthly people Israel, and His heavenly people, the Church.

c.       Jesus will be made King in the Millennium—He has not yet assumed His Kingly office or duties.

2.       The Church is unknown prior to Pentecost--The concept of "Church" as a people is a mystery not spoken of prophetically at all in the Old Testament.

3.       The Church Age is parenthetical to God's dealings with ethnic Israel—The "Church Age" is a result of Israel's rejection of Christ's offer of the Kingdom, now.

a.       Paul's Primary Apostolic Purpose—was to teach the "new age" of believer his distinction in redemptive history from the previous, old age believer, and the future Jewish believer.

Covenantal Hermeneutical Presuppositions

I.        Theism—any Christian epistemological system must begin with the assumption that a Creator-god exists.

a.       Immanence—the Creator-god has spoken; He has revealed a “Word” that His creatures have the capacity of receiving through their physical senses.

                           i.      Primo Regnum—as a function of God having spoken, the Christian Theist must also assume that His special Word is revealed in the canonized scriptures alone.  Not that the scriptures are the only authority in the life of the believer, but that their right interpretations are the primary and final authority.  Not that every physically audible word of God, or vision or dream sent by God has been included in this collection of “Words”, but all of those Words necessary for  the life and godliness of believer is therein revealed.

II.     The Analogy of Faith - Let easily interpreted passages guide our interpretation of difficult passages.

a.       Let the interpretation of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies/promises found in the New Testament amplify/expand the grammatical/historical understanding of a particular prophesy when it was given.

b.       When a promise is made, the object of promise is always, to some degree, a shadow or type of the object of fulfillment; so if the fulfillment of a promise is limited to its "literal" or grammatical/historical manifestation, then it isn't as illustrative of God's goodness. But if the quality of the object of fulfillment is to be accurately represented by the object of promise, it cannot always be limited to its grammatical/historical manifestation.

                                       i.      Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the types and shadows pictured in the Old Testament, so in that way, all the Old Testament points forward to Christ and not to a future manifestation of ethnic Israel, but Christ is the true Israel and those found “in Him” are true Israelites.

c.       Let our understanding of the immediate context of a passage be interpreted under the larger umbrella of the entire context of Revelation; the "meta-narrative" or "big picture" perspective of redemptive history should be used to tailor our understanding of the immediate contexts of passages, such as the context provided by their human authorship, chronology in respect to other writings of Revelation, and literary genre.

d.       Let the literary genre of a passage guide our understanding of symbols, types/shadows, parables, numbers, and prophesies (either their giving or fulfillment) i.e., historical narratives such as the gospel accounts of resurrection should be taken at face value, but apocalyptic literature when it presents visions such as dragons, lamp stands, 24 elders, etc, they may be symbols which represent something greater. The objects they represent either, could not have been understood if their future manifestation had been presented, or God has decided that the objects being represented are meant to be kept a mystery in part, until such a time when He sees fit to reveal their identity. Note that the object being symbolized is normally a literal and real object.