Siempre Reformándose

El ADN vs. el libro de Mormon

2011-09-04T18:50:00.000-07:00

En este video se examina una de las controversias más recientes sobre la veracidad del libro de mormón: El ADN de los pueblos indígenas en el continente americano. Los resultados demuestran conclusivamente que los pobladores del continente americano no provienen en ninguna manera del pueblo hebreo, sino de los habitantes de Siberia y Mongolia en el norte de Asia.

The Bible vs. the book of Mormon

2011-09-04T18:44:00.001-07:00

En este video se hace una comparación entre lo que la Biblia dice y lo que dice el libro de Mormón y los resultados son devastadores para la veracidad del libro de Mormón.

¿Es bíblica la enseñanza del libre albedrío? Por: Daviel D'Paz

2011-06-23T21:56:00.000-07:00

Existe una enseñanza muy popular en la actualidad entre las iglesias evangélicas la cual no cuenta con apoyo bíblico. Es una enseñanza que tiene sus orígenes no en la Palabra de Dios, sino en las enseñanzas del humanismo anticristiano. Esa enseñanza afirma que el ser humano es “el arquitecto de su propio destino” (humanismo ateo anticristiano) y que el ser humano es quien “ultimadamente decide” (humanismo cristianizado) en que lugar pasará la eternidad: si en el cielo o en el infierno. Esa enseñanza antibíblica afirma que es la decisión del ser humano únicamente la que lo lleva al cielo o al infierno. En otras palabras, bajo este sistema de pensamiento Dios se convierte en un mero espectador sujeto a los caprichos y decisiones del ser humano, siempre frotándose las manos lleno de ansiedad y preocupación esperando que ésta o aquella persona DECIDAN aceptar a Cristo y sean salvos (aunque para lograr una decisión en la persona muchos creyentes bienintencionados tengan que usar cualquier cantidad de trucos de manipulación emocional y psicológica). Aunque Dios es soberano, afirman estos creyentes, Dios respeta las decisiones de cada persona y finalmente cada persona va estar en el lugar donde decida estar. A simple vista, esta forma de pensar paciera ser bíblica, pero cuando la examinamos mas de cerca, nos damos cuenta que es todo lo contrario. La enseñanza del libre albedrío no tiene su origen en la Palabra de Dios, sino en las enseñanzas filosóficas del humanismo anticristiano. Esta enseñanza presenta al ser humano como un ser completamente autónomo y totalmente independiente que no tiene que rendirle cuentas a nadie y que es libre para hacer lo que le dé la gana.

He analizado este tema lo suficiente como para llegar a la conclusión de que la enseñanza del libre albedrío tal como se enseña en la mayoría de las iglesias evangélicas, lejos de promover la responsabilidad personal, la destruye. A continuación, presento un intercambio de pensamientos que tuve en un foro de teología en el idioma inglés sobre el tema y en donde afirmo que la enseñanza del libre albedrío no solo es antibíblica, sino que además nos exime de toda responsabilidad por nuestras acciones y decisiones personales. Todos los que han entendido correctamente la responsabilidad humana, se han dado cuenta que el albedrío del ser humano se encuentra esclavizado por el pecado. Esto es lo que la Biblia afirma de manera consistente una y otra vez. Tanto Martín Lutero como Charles Spurgeon entendieron que la voluntad del ser humano caído se encuentra esclavizada por el pecado y que sus decisiones siempre serán en contra de Dios si es que Dios no interviene en su Gracia para liberar a esa voluntad esclavizada.

El diálogo se llevó a cabo de la siguiente manera:

Orthodoxdj escribió: “Primero que todo no soy un arminiano. En segundo lugar, mi posición es la del albedrío autónomo. Dios da a las personas un genuino libre albedrío, y ellos eligen libremente y literalmente entre el bien y el mal. Ya he dicho antes que Dios sabe lo que las personas harán libremente.”

Daviel D’Paz dijo: Orthodoxdj, Si quieres participar en un intercambio de ideas filosóficas, aquí vamos. Voy a examinar tus ideas para ver si son bíblicas o no.

Bueno, para comenzar me parece que te encuentras bastante confundido acerca de esto. El negar el inherente Arminianismo en tus postulados teológicos, simplemente no funciona. ¿Sabías que los arminianos también defienden una especie de “libre albedrío autónomo”? ¡Por supuesto que son inconsistentes a más no poder! Si fuesen consistentes con sus presupuestos, tendrían que aterrizar necesariamente sobre el terreno del “teísmo abierto” para poder tener VERDADERAMENTE un libre albedrío autónomo (lo cual, dicho sea de paso, esta filosofía implica que los seres humanos son completamente “autónomos”). Esta es la senda que algunos personajes se encuentran transitando, tales como Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, etc. Pero la mayoría de arminianos no están dispuestos a seguir ese camino y parecen estar satisfechos con su mezclada e inconsistente versión de “libre albedrio autónomo”, el cual no solo es criticado por los calvinistas, sino también por los teístas abiertos.

Tengo una pregunta: Si Dios sabe de manera perfecta y exhaustiva lo que esta o aquella persona van a hacer libremente, entonces, ¿Por qué procedió a crearlos después de todo si El sabe que van a blasfemar su nombre y libremente escogerán el Infierno en lugar del Cielo? ¿Crees que esto es más amoroso que la versión calvinista?

Orthodoxdj escribió: “El único mundo en el que TUAD (Truth Unites…And Divides) puede ir al infierno, es un mundo que realmente existe. Por lo tanto, el decir que Dios sabe lo que haríamos en un mundo que no existe, es un concepto sin sentido. Dios conoce lo que es”.

Daviel D’Paz dijo: “La única forma en la que puedes llegar a escapar al dilema de la omnisciencia de Dios es si aceptas el teísmo abierto. En este sistema, Dios no conoce de manera completa o exhaustiva lo que los seres humanos van a hacer y los creó “esperando” que ellos lo elijan a El. Si este es lo que crees, entonces sí eres consistente, pero tendrías un concepto antibíblico de quien es Dios. Tu última frase me indica que en realidad te inclinas fuertemente hacia el teísmo abierto. Greg Boyd en su libro “El Dios de lo posible”, argumenta que Dios no conoce nada que no está todavía en existencia. En otras palabras, Dios solo conoce lo que existe e incluso allí, El puede saber ALGO pero no TODO. Por ejemplo, debido a que cuentas con un libre albedrio autónomo (en la teoría del teísmo abierto), y porque eres realmente libre, Dios NO SABE (de manera infalible) LO QUE VAS A HACER el día de mañana. Si Dios sabe de manera exhaustiva y perfecta lo que vas a hacer no solo el día de mañana, sino también lo que vas a hacer dentro de un año, ¿serías realmente libre?

Pero si crees que Dios NO SABE de manera completa lo que vamos a hacer, entonces terminarías creyendo en un “dios” que no es muy diferente de nosotros los seres humanos: un dios limitado, falible e impotente, etc. El teísmo abierto niega la omnisciencia TOTAL de Dios, la cual afirma el Arminianismo, y aunque los arminianos son inconsistentes en este aspecto, el Teísta Abierto se lleva la peor parte porque terminan con un dios limitado”.

Orthodoxdj escribió: “Existir es mejor que no existir y el libre albedrío es mejor que el determinismo. Dios amorosamente ha creado un mundo donde el mal puede existir, pero no necesariamente tiene que ser así”.

Daviel D’Paz dijo: “Yo no veo cómo el libre albedrío autónomo sea mejor que la enseñanza calvinista del Compatibilismo bíblico. Y por favor, el “determinismo” NO ES lo que los calvinistas creemos. Tienes que ir a una librería y conseguir algunos libros que te expliquen la diferencia entre el “determinismo” y el “Compatibilismo” que es lo que en realidad creemos. Pero si no te interesas por conocer la verdad, no harás nada para mejorar tu conocimiento y vas a continuar con los mismos terribles errores.

Si Dios no tiene el control sobre el mal en el mundo que Él creó, tal como pareces sugerir, entonces ¿quién te garantiza que el mal no va a ganar la batalla? El teísmo abierto afirma que Dios es un Dios que cuenta con muchos recursos y que cuenta con muchas maneras de lidiar con esto. Pero si Dios “perdió” la batalla en el cielo cuando Satanás se rebeló contra El y si también perdió la batalla con la primera pareja en el Edén, ¿Quién puede asegurarte que El no perderá la batalla otra vez al final de la historia?”

Orthodoxdj escribió: “El otro día, alguien hizo un comentario aquí de que el mundo tal como está, es exactamente como Dios lo planeó. La Biblia que leo dice que Dios no está satisfecho con las cosas tal como están.”

Daviel D’Paz dijo: “Si no crees que el mundo es controlado por el Poder y la Providencia de Dios y que nada puede existir Si Él no lo permite que exista, entonces tendrías que creer que Dios es tan solo un “espectador impotente” que observa cómo las personas asesinan a los bebés y que El NO PUEDE hacer nada para evitarlo. ¿Es esto lo que crees? Pero nosotros creemos que aunque el mal es grandemente desagradable a los ojos de Dios, Él lo permite con un propósito, al igual que el asesinato de Jesucristo, por ejemplo. No ha existido nada más horrendo como la muerte del Hijo de Dios, pero ese horrible crimen trajo las bendiciones más sorprendentes para un incontable número de personas a través de la historia”.

Orthodoxdj escribió: “La postura libertaria es la única postura que afirma que Dios no es el autor del pecado, que el amor es real, que la gente elije si va a seguir a Dios o al mal, y la única que afirma que las declaraciones de la Biblia tales como “Escoged hoy a quién servir” tienen un significado real.”

Daviel D’Paz dijo: “Mas bien, la postura libertaria es la postura que ha sido sostenida principalmente por los pelagianos, los socinianos, los unitarios y toda clase de cristianismo desviado a través de la historia. No, la teoría del “libre albedrío autónomo” no es la mejor alternativa porque no responde satisfactoriamente al problema del mal. No sólo eso, sino que hace del soberano y omnipotente Dios, un “dios” que no puede controlar a Su propia creación como tampoco puede controlar las decisiones “Autónomas” de los seres humanos caídos”.

Robert escribió: “Daviel ha proporcionado un excelente ejemplo de la construcción de un muñeco de paja y luego lo ha golpeado creyendo que se ha eliminado a un punto de vista no deseado”

Daviel D’Paz dijo: “Robert, en ningún momento he construido ese muñeco de paja que mencionas. Tal vez no elaboré mi respuesta de manera más detallada citando a sus proponentes, pero la conclusión que quería dejar muy en claro es que la enseñanza del “libre albedrío autónomo” es una teoría totalmente antibíblica. Si tu crees que no lo es, te desafío a que lo demuestres con la Biblia y con argumentos sólidos. Además, también necesitas examinar la historia de la Iglesia a fin de establecer este debate en su perspectiva correcta, pues tiene su propia historia. Este debate no se originó en un vacío histórico. Si la teoría del “libre albedrio autónomo” fuese bíblica, por lo menos deberíamos esperar que algunos grandes defensores de la ortodoxia lo creyeran. Pero ¿quiénes fueron sus defensores y Promotores?

Robert escribió: “¿Acaso Daviel cita a algún proponente del Albedrio Libertario tales como Alvin Plantinga o J. P Moreland. . .?

Daviel D’Paz dijo: “Robert, tú sabes muy bien que en discusiones como esta NO ES POSIBLE citar lo que han escrito cada uno de los proponentes. También sabes que lo que escribimos es, por su mayor parte, lo que ya se encuentra en nuestra mente y no podemos elaborar en los detalles. Pero cuando escribí eso, tenía en mente por lo menos a un muy conocido proponente del libre albedrio autónomo: Clark Pinnock. Estoy asumiendo que tú estás familiarizado con su postura teológica, ¿no es cierto?”.

Robert escribió: “Noten que Daviel ha dicho que los que abogan por el albedrio libertario enseñan que el ser humano es AUTONOMO”.

Daviel D’Paz escribió: “He dicho que esto es lo que enseña la teoría del LIBRE ALBEDRIO secular. ¿Acaso esto no es cierto? Si te das cuenta, también hice hincapié en lo siguiente: “La versión cristianizada usada por los arminianos y teístas abiertos es más sutil.” Pero en lugar de aceptar la diferencia entre los cristianos que abogan por el albedrio libertario y los ateos libertarios, has saltado a la siguiente conclusión de manera precipitada:

“Así que, “autonomía” según lo define Daviel, significa que “las personas no son responsables ante nadie”. Ahora, ¿Cómo puede ser esto verdad cuando la Biblia dice que cada persona deberá estar delante de Dios y rendirle cuentas de su vida después de partir de este mundo?”

Daviel D’Paz escribió: “Robert, eso es lo que los libertarios seculares creen: que ellos son los arquitectos de su propio destino. Esa fue la razón por la que lo mencioné. Sé que la Biblia dice que todos tenemos que dar cuentas a Dios, pero pregúntale al ateo Christopher Hitchens si cree que tendrá que dar cuentas sobre su vida a Dios en el Día del Juicio Final y lo mas probable es que él se burle de tu pregunta. Eso es lo que quise decir cuando mencioné lo de la AUTONOMIA. Hitchens cree en el libre albedrio autónomo y es consistente con su filosofía porque cree que el ser humano es AUTONOMO y que no tiene que rendir cuentas a nadie. Tú crees en el libre albedrío autónomo pero eres inconsistente, pues crees que Dios también es soberano. Mi pregunta para ti sería la siguiente: Cuando la voluntad del hombre choca contra la voluntad de Dios, ¿Cuál es la voluntad que sale ganando?”.

Robert escribió: “Así que Daviel se encuentra creando en su imaginación algo que no tiene ninguna contraparte en la realidad. Y entonces, quiere que creamos que esa cosa imaginaria es lo que queremos decir aquellos que por abogamos por el Albedrio Libertario”.

Daviel D’Paz escribió: “Robert, puedes engañar a aquellos que no se encuentran familiarizados con la teoría del Albedrio Libertario, pero aquellos que sí lo estamos, tus argumentos simplemente no dan en el blanco. ¿Acaso no es cierto que la enseñanza del Albedrío Libertario enseña que “La voluntad humana tiene UN PODER INHERENTE para escoger con la misma facilidad entre varias alternativas?” ¿Acaso no es cierto que tu enseñanza afirma que la voluntad ES LIBRE de cualquier CAUSALIDAD? Si esto es así, entonces la voluntad ES AUTONOMA y libre de cualquier compulsión interna o externa, ¿No es cierto? Es por eso que tu postura se le conoce como LIBRE ALBEDRIO AUTONOMO para distinguirse del LIBRE ALBEDRIO DETERMINISTA, que enseña que la voluntad es determinada en sus decisiones por causas internas o externas”.

Robert escribió: “El problema con la retórica de Daviel acerca de la AUTONOMIA es que no existe tal cosa y nunca ha existido, e incluso cuando Adán y Eva pecaron tampoco existía.”

Daviel D’Paz escribió: “De acuerdo con lo que afirmas, no existe entonces tal cosa como la AUTONOMIA. Si esto es así, ¿Qué nos puedes decir de la “Autonomía metafísica”? (La libertad ontológica del control externo). ¿Qué tal de la “autonomía epistemológica”? (La capacidad para entender e interpretar la experiencia con uno mismo como el punto de partida), o ¿Qué puedes decir acerca de “autonomía moral”? (La capacidad de hacer decisiones morales partiendo de un sentido interno del bien y del mal, que implica una habilidad para suplir los propios estándares, o tal vez, la “Autonomía Teológica”? (La capacidad de determinar el PROPIO DESTINO por nuestras propias decisiones y establecer nuestras propias metas).

Tal como R. K McGregor Wright escribió acertadamente: “…autonomía simplemente significa el libre albedrío en el sentido comúnmente aceptado de este término. Alguien dijo una vez que las únicas personas que tienen problemas para definir el libre albedrío son los Filósofos. Cualquier persona normal sabe exactamente lo que eso significa. Significa simplemente que “puedo vivir mi propia vida haciendo mis propias decisiones sin interferencias externas, gracias.” (Wright R. K. McGregor, “No hay lugar para la Soberanía: ¿Qué es lo que está mal con la teoría del libre albedrío?, p. 45, IVP, 1996).

Como podemos ver, tu argumento simplemente no sostiene agua. AUTONOMIA=ALBEDRIO LIBERTARIO, te guste o no.

TUAD escribió: “Gracias Daviel. No acepto nada de esa basura sobre el ALBEDRIO LIBERTARIO, muchas gracias. Con la bendición de la soberanía de Dios, yo escojo libremente rechazar esa doctrina antibíblica centrada en el hombre y la arrojo al montón de excremento a donde pertenece….He apreciado tus comentarios en este tema. Si Roobert se atreve a responder tu desafío, es perfectamente normal que lo hagas tomar de su propia medicina retórica. Tu le dijiste a Roobert: “Tú crees en el libre albedrío autónomo pero eres inconsistente, pues crees que Dios también es soberano. Mi pregunta para ti sería la siguiente: Cuando la voluntad del hombre choca contra la voluntad de Dios, ¿Cuál es la voluntad que sale ganando?”. La inconsistencia de Roobert es muy obvia. Y si él se atreviera a contestar tu pregunta, quedaría más patentemente obvia todavía. “Como podemos ver, tu argumento simplemente no sostiene agua”. Así es, el cubo del albedrío libertario se encuentra lleno de agujeros por todos lados”.

Daviel D’Paz escribió: “De hecho, si Robert aceptara el desafío, no sólo tendría que enfrentarse a su propia inconsistencia, sino que también tendría que responder a las conclusiones lógicas de su propia teoría: que el albedrio libertario literalmente DESTRUYE LA RESPONSABILIDAD. Permítanme explicar lo que quiero decir:

Como calvinistas, creemos que los seres humanos somos responsables delante de Dios por nuestra propia conducta. Cristo dijo que las decisiones que hacemos todos los días brotan de nuestro corazón. Si nuestro corazón ha sido regenerado podemos dar buen fruto. Pero si nuestro corazón no ha sido regenerado, nuestro fruto por su mayor parte estará podrido:

“Guardaos de los falsos profetas, que vienen a vosotros con vestidos de ovejas, pero por dentro son lobos rapaces. Por sus frutos los conoceréis. ¿Acaso se recogen uvas de los espinos, o higos de los abrojos? Así, todo buen árbol da buenos frutos, pero el árbol malo da frutos malos. No puede el buen árbol dar malos frutos, ni el árbol malo dar frutos buenos. Todo árbol que no da buen fruto, es cortado y echado en el fuego. Así que, por sus frutos los conoceréis” (Mateo 7:15-20).

“No es buen árbol el que da malos frutos, ni árbol malo el que da buen fruto. Porque cada árbol se conoce por su fruto; pues no se cosechan higos de los espinos, ni de las zarzas se vendimian uvas. El hombre bueno, del buen tesoro de su corazón saca lo bueno; y el hombre malo, del mal tesoro de su corazón saca lo malo; porque de la abundancia del corazón habla la boca” (Lucas 6:43-45).

Cristo dijo que las decisiones que hacemos tienen que ver con el estado de nuestro corazón. Pero en el esquema del albedrío libertario, esto simplemente NO ES ASI. Los seres humanos pueden hacer cualquiera de estas cosas, buenas o malas con la misma facilidad. Pero esto es un verdadero disparate. Aún los jueces terrenales cuando van a juzgar a una persona por lo que hizo, examinan los motivos y las intenciones de los delincuentes.

Pero los que abogan por el albedrio libertario quieren hacernos creer que un ‘violador’ por ejemplo, cometió su delito ¡SIN NINGUNA INCLINACION O CAUSA PREVIA! Si esto es VERDAD, ¿cómo puede ser entonces culpable? Si lo que hizo fue algo que apareció en su mente sin ninguna causa o inclinación, ¿Podríamos responsabilizarlo si esa persona hizo lo hizo producto de una decisión salida de la nada? ¡No! Cada juez sabe que una persona es responsable por SUS ACCIONES debido a que tales acciones brotan de lo que es él o ella: de su CARÁCTER. Pero en el esquema del Albedrio libertario ESTO NO ES ASI.

Así que, la conclusión es obvia: la teoría del Albedrio Libertario DESTRUYE LA RESPONSABILIDAD y yo desafío a Robert o a cualquier otro a que me demuestre lo contrario.

Craig Payne escribió: “Tienes razón. Esa teoría es un disparate sin sentido”.

En esta respuesta que doy a continuación, contesto la objeción del mismo participante sobre su caricatura que hace de la fe reformada, argumentando que nosotros creemos en un “dios” que es el autor del pecado.

Orthodoxdj escribió: “Yo no lo haría. Cualquier Dios que haga lo malo no es digno de mi adoración “.

Daviel D’Paz escribió: “Orthodoxdj: ¿Por qué siempre te empeñas en hacer “caricaturas” de lo que enseñan los calvinistas? Como calvinistas, NO CREEMOS que Dios sea el autor del pecado. Este es un argumento irresponsable con el fin de distorsionar una verdad que la Biblia enseña claramente. Quiero pensar que no has estudiado seriamente lo que el calvinismo realmente enseña, sino que has estado aceptando las caricaturas que otros hacen respecto a este sistema teológico.

Te reto a que le des al calvinismo una audiencia justa. Si después de haber ponderado los argumentos de manera honesta, todavía crees que el calvinismo no es fiel a la enseñanza bíblica, entonces eres libre para descartarlo, pero no antes.

Santiago dice:

“Cuando alguno es tentado, no diga que es tentado de parte de Dios; porque Dios no puede ser tentado por el mal, ni él tienta a nadie; sino que cada uno es tentado, cuando de su propia concupiscencia es atraído y seducido. Entonces la concupiscencia, después que ha concebido, da a luz el pecado; y el pecado, siendo consumado, da a luz la muerte” (Santiago 1:13-15).

Si Dios no tienta a nadie a pecar, ¡menos puede ser el autor del pecado!. Pero el pecado existe ¿Cómo podemos explicar esto? Los teólogos reformados han estado reflexionando y tratando de explicar este problema durante mucho tiempo como bien lo sabes. Una de las explicaciones a las que ellos han arribado, es que Dios no solo usa causas primarias, sino también medios secundarios para lograr sus propósitos. Hay dos claros ejemplos de estas causas SECUNDARIAS sobre la existencia del mal que me gustaría mostrarte, esperando que puedas comprender el cómo la enseñanza COMPATIBILISTA adoptada por el calvinismo tienen mucho más sentido que la teoría del albedrio libertario.

1) La historia de José.

“No podía ya José contenerse delante de todos los que estaban al lado suyo, y clamó: Haced salir de mi presencia a todos. Y no quedó nadie con él, al darse a conocer José a sus hermanos. Entonces se dio a llorar a gritos; y oyeron los egipcios, y oyó también la casa de Faraón. Y dijo José a sus hermanos: Yo soy José; ¿vive aún mi padre? Y sus hermanos no pudieron responderle, porque estaban turbados delante de él. Entonces dijo José a sus hermanos: Acercaos ahora a mí. Y ellos se acercaron. Y él dijo: Yo soy José vuestro hermano, el que vendisteis para Egipto. Ahora, pues, no os entristezcáis, ni os pese de haberme vendido acá; porque para preservación de vida me envió Dios delante de vosotros. Pues ya ha habido dos años de hambre en medio de la tierra, y aún quedan cinco años en los cuales ni habrá arada ni siega. Y Dios me envió delante de vosotros, para preservaros posteridad sobre la tierra, y para daros vida por medio de gran liberación. Así, pues, no me enviasteis acá vosotros, sino Dios, que me ha puesto por padre de Faraón y por señor de toda su casa, y por gobernador en toda la tierra de Egipto”. (Génesis 45:1-8).

“Viendo los hermanos de José que su padre era muerto, dijeron: Quizá nos aborrecerá José, y nos dará el pago de todo el mal que le hicimos. Y enviaron a decir a José: Tu padre mandó antes de su muerte, diciendo: Así diréis a José: Te ruego que perdones ahora la maldad de tus hermanos y su pecado, porque mal te trataron; por tanto, ahora te rogamos que perdones la maldad de los siervos del Dios de tu padre. Y José lloró mientras hablaban. Vinieron también sus hermanos y se postraron delante de él, y dijeron: Henos aquí por siervos tuyos. Y les respondió José: No temáis; ¿acaso estoy yo en lugar de Dios? Vosotros pensasteis mal contra mí, mas Dios lo encaminó a bien, para hacer lo que vemos hoy, para mantener en vida a mucho pueblo. (Génesis 50:15-20).

Podemos ver aquí, cómo Dios USA MEDIOS para llevar a cabo sus propósitos, aun cuando los medios que usa sean pecaminosos. Los hermanos de José eran malos fueron y lo querían matar. Pero Dios usó el mal que había en ellos para un buen propósito: para que José pudiera ir a la tierra de Egipto y ser usado por Dios. José entendió esto muy bien cuando les dijo que no eran ellos los que lo habían enviado allá, sino Dios mismo. ¿Cómo podrías explicar que de algo malo y pecaminoso salió algo bueno? ¿Puedes comprender completamente estos caminos misteriosos de Dios? Yo no puedo. Dios usó la maldad de los hermanos de José a fin de lograr sus propósitos. Dios no originó la maldad en los corazones de ellos, ¡ellos ya tenían esa maldad! ¡Ellos nacieron con esa maldad!.

2) La crucifixión de Jesús

Pedro dijo:

“Varones israelitas, oíd estas palabras: Jesús nazareno, varón aprobado por Dios entre vosotros con las maravillas, prodigios y señales que Dios hizo entre vosotros por medio de él, como vosotros mismos sabéis; a éste, entregado por el determinado consejo y anticipado conocimiento de Dios, prendisteis y matasteis por manos de inicuos, crucificándole; al cual Dios levantó, sueltos los dolores de la muerte, por cuanto era imposible que fuese retenido por ella”. (Hechos 2:22-24)

“Porque verdaderamente se unieron en esta ciudad contra tu santo Hijo Jesús, a quien ungiste, Herodes y Poncio Pilato, con los gentiles y el pueblo de Israel, para hacer cuanto tu mano y tu consejo habían antes determinado que sucediera”. (Hechos 4:27,28).

Estos versículos nos muestran también que Jesús fue “entregado por el determinado consejo y anticipado conocimiento de Dios” para ser crucificado. Todos los que crucificaron a Cristo se encontraban cumpliendo los propósitos de Dios, pero lo que ellos hicieron lo hicieron LIBREMENTE de sus propios corazones perversos. Ellos estaban haciendo lo que Dios había decretado que sucediera: “Para hacer cuanto tu mano y tu consejo habían antes determinado que sucediera”, pero ellos no lo sabían. Lo único que ellos querían era el deshacerse de él, pero en el proceso, estaban cumpliendo con los propósitos de Dios. ¿Entonces ellos no son culpables debido a que estaban cumpliendo con el decreto de Dios? ¡Por supuesto que lo son! El mal que ellos hicieron brotó de sus impíos corazones y van a ser juzgados por ello.

Por lo tanto, lo más sabio que podemos hacer, es humillarnos con temor y reverencia a nuestro Soberano Dios e implorar por misericordia. No estamos en la posición de pedir explicaciones respecto a sus caminos. Cuando reconocemos esto, el tema de la soberanía de Dios se convierte en algo dulce, porque sabemos que nuestro buen Dios está en control de todo (incluidas las decisiones de los hombres), y esto nos asegura que nada ni nadie puede frustrar sus planes. Él hará todo lo que ha planeado hacer y Dios siempre hace lo que es bueno, porque Él mismo es BUENO.

Soli Deo Gloria

EL DIALOGO TAL COMO TUVO LUGAR EN SU ORIGINAL EN INGLES:

Orthodoxdj:

If you want to engage in some philosophical ideas, here we go. I am going to examine your ideas and see if they are biblical or not.

You wrote:

“First off, I’m not an Arminian. Second, my position is libertarian free will. God gives people genuine free will, and they literally and freely choose between good and evil. I’ve said before, God knows what people will freely do”.

Well, it seems that you are confused a great deal about this. To deny the inherently Arminianism in your theological presuppositions just doesn’t work. Did you know that Arminians also espouse a kind of “libertarian free will? Of course, they are as inconsistent as they can be, because if they were consistent with their presuppositions, they will have to embrace Open Theism in order to have a TRULY libertarian free will (which by the way, this philosophy implies that humans are “autonomous”). This is the path that fellows like Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, etc., are presently traveling. But most Arminians are not willing to follow that path, and they seem to be happy with their inconsistent mixed version of “libertarian free will”, which is not only criticized by Calvinists, but also by Open theists.

I have one question: If God knows perfectly and exhaustibly what this or that person is freely going to do, then, Why He proceeded to created them after all if He knows that they are going to blaspheme His name and freely will choose hell instead of Heaven? Do you think that is more loving than the Calvinist version?

“The only world in which TUAD can go to Hell is a world that ACTUALLY exists. So, to say God knows what we’ll do in world that doesn’t exist is nonsense concept. God knows what is”.

The only way you may escape of the dilemma of God’s omniscience is if you embrace open theism. In this system God DOESN’T KNOW exhaustible what human beings are going to do and He creates them “hoping” they may choose Him. If this is your case, then you are consistent, but you will have an unbiblical concept of who God is. Your last phrase indicates to me that in fact you lean heavily toward open theism. Greg Boyd in his book “God of the Possible” argues that God doesn’t know something that IS NOT YET IN EXISTENCE. In other words, God only knows what exists and even there, He MAY KNOW SOMETHING but not everything. For instance, because you have libertarian free will (in open theism theory), and because you are genuinely free, God doesn’t know WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO tomorrow. If God knows perfectly and exhaustibly what you are going to do not only tomorrow but in a year from now, Are you really free?

But if you believe that God DOES NOT KNOW exhaustible what you are going to do, then you end up believing in a “god” who is much like us: limited, fallible, impotent, etc. etc. Open theism deny God’s exhaustible Omniscience which Arminianism affirms, and while they are inconsistent about this, Open theists gets the worse part because they end up with a diminished god.

“Existing is better than not existing, and free will is better than determinism. God lovingly creates a world where evil can happen, but does not have to”.

I don’t see HOW libertarian free will is better than Calvinism. And please, you need to know that “determinism” IS NOT what Calvinists believe. You need to go to the bookstore and get some books who can explain to you THE DIFFERENCE between “determinism” and “Compatibilism”, which is what we believe. But, if you don’t care about truth, you won’t do anything to improve your knowledge and you will continue with the same grossly mistakes.

If God doesn’t have THE CONTROL over evil in the world He created, as you seem to suggest, then Who warrantee you that evil won’t WIN the battle? Open theism affirms that God is A RESOURCEFUL GOD, and that He has a lot of ways to deal with this. But if he “lost” the battle in heaven when Satan rebelled against Him and if He also “lost” the battle in Eden with the first couple, Who can assure you that He won’t loose the battle again at the end of history?

“Someone on here made the comment that the other day that the world as it is is EXACTLY how God planned it. The Bible I read says God is not pleased with the way things are”.

If you don’t believe the world is controlled by the power and the Providence of God and that NOTHING may exist if He doesn’t allow it to exist, then you will have to believe that God is ONLY an “impotent spectator” who watch how people murder babies and HE CANNOT do anything to STOP IT. Is this what you believe? But we believe that even though evil is greatly displeasing to God, He allows it with a purpose. Like the murder of Jesus for instance. There hasn’t been anything so horrendous like the killing of the Son of God, but this horrible crime brought the most astonishing blessings for uncountable millions of people trough history.

“The libertarian position is the only position that says God is not the author of evil, that love is real, that people choose whether or not they will follow God or evil, and says statements in the Bible such as “Choose this day whom you will serve” have actual meaning”.

The libertarian position is the position that has been held mainly by Pelagians, Socinians, Unitarians, and all kinds of deviant Christianity trough history. No, “libertarian free will” IS NOT the better alternative because it doesn’t answer the problem of evil satisfactorily. Not only that, but makes the Sovereign and omnipotent God, a “god” who cannot control his creation nor can interfere with the “autonomous” decisions of fallen human beings.

Soli Deo Gloria

Robert wrote:

“Daviel has provided an excellent example of building a straw man and then demolishing that straw man thinking you have eliminated a non-desired view”.

Robert, I didn’t build a straw man. Perhaps I was not able to elaborate my response enough by citing its proponents, but the conclusion that I wanted to make very clear is that “Libertarian Free Will” is an unbiblical theory. If you think it isn’t, I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with the Bible and sound arguments. Also, you need to go back on the history of the church in order to set this debate in its proper perspective, because it has its own history. It didn’t originate in an historical vacuum. If LFW were biblical, at least we should expect to have on its side some big defenders of the orthodoxy. But who were its defenders and promoters?

“Does Daviel cite any proponent of LFW such as Alvin Plantinga or J. P. Moreland or . . . . ?”

Robert, you know very well that in discussions such as this IT IS NOT possible to take the time to demonstrate what we say by citing other writers. You know that most of what we write is what already is on our mind and we don’t elaborate on the details. But I had in mind at least one very well known proponent of LFW: Clark Pinnock. I am assuming you are familiar with his position, Are you not?

“Note he says that advocates of LFW teach that humans are AUTONOMOUS”.

I said that this is what secular LFW teaches. Is this not true? Also I pointed out the following:

‘The christianized version used by Arminians and Open Theists is more subtle.’ But instead of accepting the difference between atheist Libertarians and Christian libertarians, you jumped quickly to the following conclusion:

“So AUTONOMY according to Daviel means people are “accountable to NOBODY”.

Now how could that be true if the bible says that each man will stand before God and give an account after his lifetime here?”

That is what the secular libertarians think: that they are the builders of their OWN DESTINY. That is why I mentioned it. I know the Bible says that we all have to give an account to God, but ask Christopher Hitchens if he thinks he will have to give an account about his life to God in the day of judgment and probably he will just laugh at your question. That’s what I meant. Hitchens believes in LFW and he is consistent with his philosophy because he thinks he is AUTONOMOUS. You believe in LFW but you are inconsistent because you believe that God is sovereign also. My question to you here is: when man’s will and God’s will collide, Who is the one who wins at the end?

“So Daviel is creating something in his imagination that has no counterpart in reality. And then he wants to claim that this imaginary thing is what advocates of LFW mean by free will”.

Robert, you may be able to mislead those who are not well acquainted with what LFW theory teaches, but those of us who are, your arguments don’t hit the target. Is it not true that “Libertarian Free Will” teaches that “the human will HAS AN INHERENT POWER to choose with equal ease between alternatives”? Is it not true that your teaching says that THE WILL IS FREE from ANY necessary CAUSATION? If this is so, then IT IS AUTONOMOUS from outside determination, isn’t?. That is why your view is called LIBERTARIAN Free Will to distinguish it from “Deterministic Free Will” which says that the will IS DETERMINED in its choices by EXTERNAL or INTERNAL CAUSES.

“The problem with his talk about AUTONOMY is that there is no such thing and there never has been any such thing and even when Adam and Eve sinned it still never existed”.

So, according to you there is no such thing as AUTONOMY. What can you say then of “Metaphysical Autonomy”? (The freedom from external ontological control). How about “Epistemological Autonomy”? (The capacity to understand and interpret experience with oneself as the starting point), or What can you say about “Moral Autonomy”? (the ability to make moral judgments from an interior sense of right and wrong, which implies an ability to supply one’s own standards, or perhaps “Theological Autonomy”? (the ability to determine ONE’S OWN DESTINY by our OWN CHOICES and to set one’s OWN GOALS).

As R. K McGregor Wright accurately wrote: “…autonomy just means free will in the commonly accepted sense of that term. Someone once said that the only people who have trouble defining free will are the philosophers. Any normal person knows exactly what it is. It simply means that “I can run my own life by my own choices without outside interferences, thank you”. (R. K. McGregor Wright “No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism, p. 45, IVP, 1996).

As we can see, your argument doesn’t hold water. AUTONOMY=LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL either you like it or not.

Hello Daviel,

I have appreciated your comments on this thread.

You wrote: “I wanted to make very clear is that “Libertarian Free Will” is an unbiblical theory. If you think it isn’t, I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with the Bible and sound arguments.”

If Roobert dares to take you up on this challenge, it’s perfectly okay to have him drink his own rhetorical medicine.

“You believe in LFW but you are inconsistent because you believe that God is sovereign also. My question to you here is: when man’s will and God’s will collide, Who is the one who wins at the end?”

Roobert’s inconsistency is rather obvious. And should he answer your question, it will make it even more plainly obvious.

“As we can see, your argument doesn’t hold water.”

Yes, the LFW bucket is leaky all over.

“AUTONOMY=LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL either you like it or not.”

Roobert doesn’t like it.

Truth Unites….and Divides: Thank you for your words.

Actually, if Robert accepts the challenge, he will not only has to face his own inconsistency, but also he has to answer the logical conclusions of his own theory: That Libertarian Free will literally DESTROYS RESPONSABILITY. Let me explain.

As Calvinists, we believe that human beings are responsible to God for our own behavior. Christ told us that the decisions we make every day spring out from our heart. If our heart is regenerated we will have GOOD FRUIT. But if our heart is UNREGENERATED we will have ROTTEN FRUIT:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. (Matthew 7:15-20).

43″No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks”. (Luke 6:43-45).

Christ said that the decisions we make have to do with the STATE OF OUR HEART. But in the Libertarian Free Will scheme, this simply CANNOT BE. Human beings can do EITHER thing: GOOD OR BAD with equal easiness. But, this is NONSENSE. Even the earthly judges when they are going to judge a person for what he did, THEY LOOK ALSO AT THE MOTIVES or the INTENTIONS of the offender.

But LFWiller’s want to makes believe that a ‘rapist’ for instance made his offense WITHOUT A PREVIOUS INCLINATION OR CAUSATION!!!!! If this is true, HOW THEN IS HE GUILTY? If what he did was something that popped up into his mind WITHOUT previous causation or inclinations, Can we hold him responsible if he did what he did out of nowhere? No! Every judge knows that a person is RESPONSIBLE for his/her actions because his/her actions FLOW from his/her CHARACTER. But in the libertarian free will scheme this is NOT SO.

So, the conclusion is obvious: Libertarian Free Will DESTROYS RESPONSIBILITY and I challenge Robert or anyone else to demonstrate otherwise.

Thank you.

Craig Payne wrote: You are correct. This is nonsense.

Esto es lo que el Calvinismo cree respecto a la relación entre la soberanía de Dios y la responsabilidad humana:

One of the favorite attacks to the Reformed faith by Libertarian Freewillers is the faulty argument that in the Calvinistic teaching, God must be the author of sin. Consider the following commentary by a participant in the forum and my subsequent response:

Orthodoxdj wrote:

“I wouldn’t. Any God who commits evil isn’t worth my worship”.

Orthodoxdj:

Why you always try to make a “caricature” of what Calvinist teach? As Calvinists, WE DO NOT believe that God is the author of evil. This is an irresponsible argument in order to repel the truth about which the Bible speaks plainly. My guessing is that you have not studied seriously what Calvinism really teaches, but instead, you have been accepting the caricatures that others draw about this theological system.

I challenge you to give Calvinism a fair hearing. If after pondered its arguments fairly, you still think that Calvinism IS NOT true to the Biblical teaching, then you are free to discard it. But not before. For several years I was in the same position you are now. But I did give Calvinism a serious hearing and I became what I feared the most: being a Calvinist.

James says:

“When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death”. (James 1:14,15).

If God doesn’t even tempt someone to sin, MUCH LESS is He the author of evil. But evil exists. How can we explain that? Reformed theologians have been pondering and addressing this problem for long time as you well know. One of the explanations that they arrived at, is that God not only uses primary means but also secondary means to accomplish His purposes. There are two clear examples of the SECONDARY MEANS of evil that I would like to show you, hoping that you can see how the “compatiblist” view espoused by Calvinism makes more sense than the Libertarian Free Will Theory:

1) The story of Joseph.

“Then Joseph could no longer control himself before all his attendants, and he cried out, “Have everyone leave my presence!” So there was no one with Joseph when he made himself known to his brothers. 2 And he wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard him, and Pharaoh’s household heard about it. 3 Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph! Is my father still living?” But his brothers were not able to answer him, because they were terrified at his presence. 4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! 5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. 6 For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. 7 But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. 8 “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt”. (Genesis 45:3-8).

“When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 ‘This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.” When their message came to him, Joseph wept. 18 “His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said. 19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives”. (Genesis 50:15-20).

We can see here how God USES MEANS to accomplish His purposes, even though the means He uses sometimes ARE EVIL. Joseph’s brothers were evil, and they wanted to kill Him. But God used the evil in them for a good purpose: that Joseph could go to the land of Egypt and be used by Him. Joseph understood this very well when he said to them that they were not the ones who sent him there, but God. How do you explain that out of something evil came something good? Can you grasp completely this mysterious ways of God? I cannot. God used the WICKEDNESS of Joseph’s brothers in order to accomplish His purposes. God DID NOT create that wickedness in their hearts, THEY ALREADY HAD IT! They were born with it.

2) The crucifixion of Jesus

Peter said:

22″Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him”. (Acts 2:22-24)

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen (Acts 2:27,28).

This also shows us that Jesus was “handed over” by “God’s set purpose and foreknowledge” to be crucified. Those who crucified Jesus were fulfilling God’s purposes, but what they did, they did it FREELY out of their own wicked heart. They were doing something God “had decided beforehand should happen”, and they didn’t know it. They wanted to get rid of Him, but in the process, they fulfilled God’s purpose. Are they not guilty because they fulfilled God’s decree? Of course they are! The evil they did, sprung up from their wicked heart and they are going to be judged for it.

So, the wisest thing we can do, is to bow down in fear and reverence to our Sovereign God and plea for His mercy. We are not in the position of ask Him explanations about His ways. When we recognize this, the sovereignty of God will become something sweet, because we will know that our good God is in CONTROL of everything (including the decisions of men) and that assures us that nothing and nobody can thwart His plans. He will do all that He has planned to do and God always do WHAT IS GOOD, because He Himself is GOOD.

Soli Deo Gloria

¡Materiales teológicos en español totalmente gratis!

2011-05-15T18:27:00.000-07:00

Richard L. Pratt es el presidente y fundador del ministerio THIRD MILL (Tercer Milenio) y uno de los objetivos de este ministerio es poner disponibles todos los materiales teológicos que más puedan de manera completamente gratuita en la red para que pastores y líderes que se encuentran involucrados en el ministerio de la iglesia y que no pueden asistir a un seminario teológico por una razón u otra, puedan estudiar temas teológicos a profundidad y capacitarse a través de estos materiales. Los materiales consisten en videos, audios y guías de estudio que pueden ser accedidas por medio del internet en cualquier parte del mundo.

Este es el enlace para la sección de VIDEOS:

www.old.thirdmill.org/seminary/spanish/catalog.asp/site/iiim/category/catalog

Este es el enlace para la sección de AUDIOS

www.old.thirdmill.org/spanish/audio.asp/category/audio

Este es el enlace para la sección de ESTUDIOS BIBLICOS

www.old.thirdmill.org/spanish/eb.asp/category/eb

Este es el enlace para la sección de TEOLOGIA

www.old.thirdmill.org/spanish/teo.asp/category/teo

Este es el enlace para le sección de TEOLOGIA PRACTICA

www.old.thirdmill.org/spanish/tp.asp/category/tp

Este es el enlace para la sección de CONSEJERIA

www.old.thirdmill.org/spanish/cons.asp/category/cons

Este es el enlace para la sección de CULTO

www.old.thirdmill.org/spanish/culto.asp/category/culto

Un breve análisis del Paedo-Bautismo (2ª Parte)

2011-05-08T19:01:00.000-07:00

La primera parte de este artículo consistió principalmente sobre el análisis del argumento hermenéutico respecto al bautismo de infantes. El argumento hermenéutico enfatiza la necesidad de examinar TODAS las Escrituras, tanto el Antiguo como el Nuevo Testamento cuando abordamos el tema del bautismo.

En esta segunda parte estaré examinando el segundo argumento usado para respaldar el bautismo de infantes el cual he titulado:

2. El argumento bíblico-teológico: ¿Cómo debemos interpretar la historia redentora?

A simple vista, pareciera ser que la postura Reformada no apela en primer lugar a las Escrituras para sustentar la práctica del bautismo de infantes. Pero esta conclusión solo puede ser sostenida si desconocemos o si no estamos familiarizados con los argumentos presentados sobre la historia de la redención la cual tuvo sus inicios no el Nuevo Testamento, sino en el Antiguo. Por lo tanto, para poder comprender las bases bíblicas y teológicas que sustentan al bautismo de infantes, debemos examinar la historia redentora no partiendo del Nuevo Testamento, sino comenzando donde las Escrituras comienzan: con la caída del hombre en pecado y la promesa de redención en Génesis 3:15.

Sin lugar a dudas, uno de los aspectos más sorprendentes de la teología Reformada es su consistencia al abordar TODAS las Escrituras, tanto el Antiguo como el Nuevo Testamento. Por esa razón, la teología Reformada no apela a dos o tres versículos en el Nuevo Testamento para formular y defender tanto la doctrina como la práctica del bautismo. Tal sistema teológico ve una conexión orgánica entre el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento (tal como ya lo he demostrado en la primera parte) y una relación indivisible entre el pueblo de Dios del AT y el pueblo de Dios del NT. Tan solo estas características nos deberían impulsar a sentir un profundo respeto por dicha teología, independientemente de si estamos de acuerdo o no con las conclusiones a las que llegan los teólogos Reformados.

El Pacto con Adán en el jardín del Edén

La teología Reformada enseña que Dios hizo un pacto con Adán después de haberlo creado. Oseas 6:7 nos habla de ese pacto de la siguiente manera: “Pero ellos, como Adán, han transgredido el pacto; allí me han traicionado” (LBLA). Ese pacto conocido como “el pacto de obras” fue hecho también con la humanidad en general representada en Adán. Este Pacto de obras lo vemos establecido en Génesis 2:15-17. Aunque algunos teólogos reformados difieren sobre lo apropiado del título “el pacto de obras” y algunos prefieren llamarlo como “el periodo de prueba” y otros como “el pacto de vida”, sin embargo todos están de acuerdo en que Dios deja al descubierto con estas palabras la relación CONDICIONAL entre Él y la humanidad entera representada en Adán antes de la caída, prometiéndoles VIDA a cambio de su obediencia, pero MUERTE si ellos llegaban a desobedecerle.

No se puede negar el hecho de que Dios hizo un pacto con Adán cuando lo creó y lo puso en el huerto del Edén para que lo cuidara y lo labrara. Por medio de ese pacto el Señor puso de manifiesto su cuidado por la creación, dándole a Adán la responsabilidad de ser el líder de su familia y de la sociedad en la que vivía. Adán no solamente se representaba a sí mismo, sino que era el representante de su propia familia y de toda la raza humana. Como cabeza de la raza humana, Adán es nuestro representante en todo. Si él le obedecía a Dios nosotros le obedecíamos también, pero si él le desobedecía, también nosotros le desobedecíamos. Cuando él falló en cumplir con el mandamiento de Dios y quebrantó el pacto entre él y Dios, no solo él experimentó las consecuencias de esa desobediencia, sino también su familia y toda la raza humana.

John M. Frame nos da algunos importantes detalles del significado que tiene el pacto de obras:

“¿Por qué es importante este ‘pacto de obras’ para nosotros en la actualidad? Primero, porque podemos vernos a nosotros mismos como transgresores del Pacto con Adán (Isa. 24:5). En Adán, nosotros fallamos la prueba también y no tenemos cual ninguna esperanza de salvarnos por medio de nuestras obras. Pero en donde fallamos con Adán, Cristo gloriosamente obtuvo la victoria. El obedeció a Dios de manera perfecta y puso su vida como un sacrificio para compensar por nuestra desobediencia. Lo único que somos en nosotros mismos es transgresores del pacto, pero en Cristo somos cumplidores. Al pensar acerca del pacto de obras, podemos aprender que Dios demanda cierta perfección que no podemos obtener; que Jesús obtuvo esa perfección y que en él nuestra salvación es completa. Jesús hizo en nuestro lugar todo lo que el Padre le mandó. Así que, nada puede separarnos de él o del Padre” (John M. Frame, “Salvation Belongs to the Lord”, p. 119, P&R 2006).

Por lo tanto, Adán era por así decirlo, el representante federal de todos los que se encontraban bajo su autoridad en ese pacto con Dios. Y debido a que Adán se convirtió en un transgresor del pacto, Dios pronunció ciertas maldiciones sobre el orden creado (Génesis 3:14-19). Al violar el pacto con Dios, Adán quedó bajo las maldiciones de ese pacto. Adán no solo era el responsable de cuidar de su esposa, sino también era el representante oficial de TODA la humanidad. Si Adán obedecía a Dios, todos los seres humanos seríamos considerados obedientes, pero si Adán desobedecía, todos seríamos considerados desobedientes y transgresores. Cada día que Adán y Eva veían el árbol de la ciencia del bien y del mal, recordaban claramente las palabras de Dios sobre los resultados de la obediencia y la desobediencia. Pero Adán y Eva desobedecieron. La desobediencia de Adán como el representante federal, trajo como resultado la caída en pecado de TODA la humanidad y dejó al descubierto que el ser humano (aún en su estado prístino) no pudo cumplir con los mandamientos de Dios bajo ese pacto.

Sin embargo, aunque Adán lo único que merecía eran las maldiciones del pacto por su desobediencia, Dios mostró Su gracia al establecer un nuevo pacto con él y prometer un redentor (Génesis 3:15). Ese pacto de gracia fue puesto en operación inmediatamente después de la caída, el cual proveía redención a las criaturas pecadoras. No solo eso, sino que en ese pacto se encontraba incluida la promesa de que Jesucristo, quien es la simiente de la mujer, sería quien finalmente le aplastaría la cabeza a la serpiente y redimiría a los pecadores, a sus familias y a sus respectivas sociedades.

John M. Frame comenta que “Dios hizo dos pactos con Adán: el pacto de obras antes de la caída y el pacto de gracia después de ésta. Dios pronunció maldiciones sobre la serpiente, la mujer, el hombre y la tierra. Pero entre esas maldiciones pronunciadas, también había promesas de bendición. Dios no les quitó la vida inmediatamente a esa desobediente pareja, tal como era de esperarse, sino que les dio muchos años de vida….La gracia de Dios continuaba. Durante el resto de sus vidas y las de sus descendientes, ellos serían alimentados por medio de su trabajo en la tierra. Aún cuando el trabajo de Adán sería más laborioso debido a los cardos y espinos, de todas maneras sería exitoso. Cosecharía frutas, granos y aceite para su propio sustento y el de su familia. Y también tendrían hijos. Dios no solo les permitió vivir a Adán y Eva, sino que también los capacitó para tener hijos dándoles vida a sus hijos y a los hijos de sus hijos….Uno de esos hijos sería muy especial, quien le aplastaría la cabeza a la serpiente (Gen. 3:15). Él no solo viviría, sino que derrotaría a la muerte en su mismo origen. Esta es la promesa de Jesús, el Redentor y Mediador”. (John M. Frame, op.cit, p. 122).

El Pacto de Gracia: un solo Pacto, pero distintas administraciones

La fe Reformada enseña que después de la caída en pecado, Dios tuvo a bien el hacer un segundo pacto con Adán al que se le conoce como “el pacto de gracia”. Este “pacto de gracia” fue iniciado inmediatamente después de la caída y se extiende hasta las últimas páginas del Nuevo Testamento. La teología Reformada ha entendido correctamente que el principio gobernante tanto del Antiguo como del Nuevo Testamento, es la gracia de Dios en Cristo. La Confesión de Fe de Westminster dice que “no existen por lo tanto dos pactos de gracia, quienes difieren en sustancia, sino solo uno bajo distintas administraciones” (WCF 7.6 énfasis añadido).

Aunque en el Antiguo Testamento encontramos varios pactos realizados con distintas personas, la fe Reformada afirma que no son pactos distintos, sino un mismo pacto de gracia el cual vemos a través de todas las Escrituras y a través de la historia redentora. Lo único distinto en este pacto de gracia, son las diferentes administraciones. Estas diferentes administraciones pueden ser vistas en el pacto con Adán, con Noé, con Abraham, con Moisés, con David y con Jesucristo en el Nuevo Pacto.

Robert R. Booth explica este concepto de la siguiente manera:

“Cada una de esas administraciones fueron edificadas sobre y expandieron la revelación de la misma promesa de redención. En Efesios 2:12 se nos dice que los gentiles eran “ajenos a los pactos de la promesa”. Notemos que Pablo se refiere a solamente una promesa y a una pluralidad de pactos, los cuales administraban esa promesa. El pacto de la promesa es igual que la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, en el sentido que también debe ser administrada. Existe un pacto (o Constitución), pero existen varias administraciones a través del tiempo. Las administraciones del Pacto son similares a las distintas administraciones presidenciales, en donde cada una administra a la misma Constitución. La Constitución trasciende a las distintas administraciones presidenciales. Aunque cierta clase de enmiendas pueden ser legalmente realizadas a la Constitución bajo una administración en particular, la Constitución permanece en su legítimo lugar. No vemos una nueva Constitución cada vez que cambia la administración” (Robert R. Booth, op. cit. p.34, énfasis añadido).

El tema de si existe un solo pacto con distintas administraciones (tal como es sostenido por la teología Reformada), o si existen diferentes pactos independientes el uno del otro (tal como es sostenido por la teología Dispensacional), tiene que ver profundamente con la doctrina y práctica del bautismo. Una vez más, Robert Booth explica en qué consiste esto:

“La pregunta de si existe o no un solo pacto de gracia que se extiende a través de todo el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento, es central en el debate sobre el bautismo. Calvino observó que si el bautismo de infantes llegaba a ser anulado, entonces la continuidad del Antiguo Pacto con el Nuevo Pacto tendría que ser también anulada. John Gill el famoso Bautista inglés, se atrevió incluso a negar que el pacto con Abraham ¡fuera un pacto de gracia! Gill dijo: ‘Ahora, que este pacto [el pacto con Abraham] no fue un pacto de gracia en su pureza, distinto al pacto de obras, sino mas bien un pacto de obras, quedará patentemente demostrado; y si es así, entonces el principal fundamento para el bautismo de infantes es destruido’. Gill afirmaba que el pacto de gracia mencionado en Gálatas 3 se refiere al pacto de Dios con Abraham en Génesis 12, pero no a su “pacto de obras” de Génesis 17. La clara enseñanza sobre la continuidad entre el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento, ha llevado a algunos Dispensacionalistas y Bautistas a “inventar” un segundo pacto con Abraham, uno que confirme su sistema de pensamiento. Pero la Biblia está unida en su presentación respecto al plan redentor de Dios. El Señor ha sido fiel en cumplir con su plan de una manera inquebrantable, mostrando su preocupación redentora por los individuos, las familias y la sociedad. Ya que cada una de estas áreas de la vida humana fueron desastrosamente afectadas por la caída, Dios se propuso redimir a cada una de esas áreas de una manera gloriosa. Cada administración de los pactos desempeñó un papel esencial en llevar a su cumplimiento el plan magnificente de Dios de redimir a los pecadores” (Robert Booth, op. Cit. p. 34,35 énfasis añadido).

Dios no solo hizo una promesa de redimir a sus criaturas caídas, sino que además instituyó ciertas ceremonias las cuales simbolizaban esa redención que tendría lugar con el cumplimiento de la promesa la cual es Cristo. Dios no solo hizo un pacto con Adán, sino también con Noé, con Abraham, con Moisés y con David. Dios también proveyó ciertas “señales” las cuales les recordarían de Su promesa sobre un redentor quien finalmente sería revelado como el Mediador de ese Pacto. Cuando la promesa tuvo finalmente su cumplimiento en la Persona de Cristo, las “señales” previamente establecidas no fueron descartadas, sino que tomaron un nuevo uso y significado. Esas señales fueron la celebración de la Pascua y el rito de la circuncisión en el AT y el bautismo y la Cena del Señor en el NT.

Estaremos examinando esas “señales”, su respectivo significado y su estrecha relación en ambos Testamentos en la tercera parte de este artículo.

Daviel D’Paz

Un breve análisis del Paedo-Bautismo (1ª Parte)

2011-05-05T05:02:00.000-07:00

Introducción

Uno de los “slogans” que fue acuñado y popularizado por los Reformadores en el siglo XVI fue “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” (Iglesia Reformada, siempre reformándose). En el corazón de este “slogan” se encuentra la idea de que la obra de la Reforma no terminaba con ellos, ni mucho menos que dicha labor ya se encontraba concluida. Los Reformadores estaban en lo correcto al pensar que la obra de la reforma era algo que debía seguir, aún cuando ellos ya no estuvieran en esta tierra y no pudieran continuar con tan noble tarea.

Otro de los importantes “slogans” que ellos popularizaron fue: “sola scriptura, tota scriptura” (Solo las Escrituras y todas las Escrituras). Los Reformadores fueron creyentes que deseaban volver a las Escrituras como la única fuente de autoridad en cuestiones de fe y moral, contrario a las enseñanzas de Roma. Pero nunca desearon instituirse ellos mismos como una segunda fuente de autoridad a la par de las Escrituras, pues reconocían que eran seres humanos falibles, sujetos a errores y equivocaciones. Es debido a estos dos slogans que tuvieron su origen en la época de la Reforma, que todo creyente debe estar consciente que la iglesia militante seguirá reformándose. Esto no significa que la iglesia va a aceptar nuevas doctrinas y revelaciones que no fueron aceptadas por ellos, sino más bien, que la iglesia va a continuar reformándose al enfrentarse son nuevos retos y desafíos, pero tomando como base las doctrinas esenciales de la fe cristiana que ellos sostuvieron y defendieron de manera tan efectiva.

En esta serie de artículos me propongo examinar de manera breve pero concisa, uno de los temas más difíciles y controversiales del mundo cristiano evangélico: el bautismo de infantes. No es mi intención representar la postura sobre el bautismo de infantes de manera superficial y/o equivocada (tal como muchos lo han hecho y lo siguen haciendo) al recurrir a argumentos descuidados o irresponsables creando “muñecos de paja” o haciendo “caricaturas” de lo que otros creen, pues reconozco que tales acciones son prohibidas por las Escrituras ya que violan el noveno mandamiento que dice: “No hablarás contra tu prójimo falso testimonio” (Éxodo 20:16). Mi propósito es examinar los argumentos a favor del bautismo de infantes de la manera más acertadamente posible y permitir que los que defienden dicha postura presenten sus argumentos para poder evaluarlos a la luz de TODAS las Escrituras. Por otro lado, escribo este artículo no como un experto en el tema, sino como alguien que ha comenzado a examinar los argumentos usados para respaldar el bautismo de infantes por aquellos que lo defienden. Creo que esa es la única manera correcta de comprender y evaluar lo que otros creen. Debido a que ha crecido bajo una tradición distinta (el credo-bautismo), se requiere un doble esfuerzo de mi parte para no mal representar los argumentos de aquellos que abogan por el paedo-bautismo.

Reconozco que este tema no solo es difícil, sino que también despierta algunos sentimientos encontrados debido a los abusos cometidos en el pasado. Aventurarse a explorar este tema es, sin lugar a dudas, atreverse a incursionar en un terreno altamente minado. Paul K. Jewett expresa esta misma opinión de la siguiente manera:

“La complejidad de la discusión no es necesariamente culpa de los teólogos o el resultado de su supuesta propensidad a los argumentos complicados. La pregunta de si la iglesia debe bautizar infantes o no, es intrínsecamente compleja, pues es imposible contestarla adecuadamente sin tener que discutir también nuestro punto de vista sobre los sacramentos en general. Y nuestro punto de vista sobre los sacramentos, su naturaleza y eficacia, involucra la manera en la que vemos todo el tema de la salvación, entendida como el acto de gracia por parte de Dios en el perdón y la reconciliación, mediado al pecador en y a través de la comunidad de los redimidos, la iglesia cristiana” (Paul J. Jewett, “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace”, p. 2, Eerdmans 1978).

Debido a que el tema sobre el bautismo de infantes es muy variado (desde el catolicismo romano hasta la iglesia ortodoxa griega, sin pasar por alto el anglicanismo y el luteranismo, etc.), muchos creyentes bienintencionados tienden a poner todas estas posturas en un mismo saco, como si cada una de ellas fueran exactamente lo mismo. Pero la verdad es que no son lo mismo, aunque a simple vista parezcan serlo. Las razones bíblicas y teológicas de cada una de estas posturas difieren marcadamente entre sí. Mi enfoque principal en este análisis será en el bautismo de infantes tal como es expresado y defendido por las principales Confesiones de Fe de las iglesias Presbiterianas y Reformadas exclusivamente.

I. Argumentos a favor del bautismo de infantes

La pregunta número 74 del catecismo de Heidelberg dice:

Pregunta: ¿Deben ser bautizados también los infantes?

Respuesta: Si. Pues tanto ellos como los adultos pertenecen a la comunidad del Pacto (Gen. 17:7), y también a ellos se les promete el perdón de los pecados por medio de la sangre de Cristo (Mateo 19:14) y el Espíritu Santo quien produce la fe (Sal.22:10; Is. 44:1-3; Luc. 1:15; Hechos 2:39; 16:31).

Por lo tanto, ellos deben ser incorporados a la iglesia cristiana por medio del bautismo, que es la señal del Pacto y que los distingue de los hijos de los incrédulos (Hechos 10:47; 1Cor. 7:14). Esto era hecho bajo el Antiguo Testamento por medio de la circuncisión (Gen. 17:9-14), en cuyo lugar el bautismo fue instituido en el Nuevo testamento (Col. 2:11-13).

La Confesión de Fe de Westminster también afirma esto en el capítulo XXVIII, párrafo IV dice:

“No solo aquellos quienes de hecho profesan fe en y obediencia a Cristo, sino también los infantes de uno o ambos padres creyentes deben ser bautizados” (Alexander Whyte, “An Exposition on the shorter Catechism”, p. 311, Christian Focus Publications 2004).

Estas breves afirmaciones se encuentran llenas de contenido bíblico y teológico. Si no estamos familiarizados con dicho contenido, vamos a sentirnos impulsados a rechazar inmediatamente tales afirmaciones debido a que no estamos comprendiendo bien el trasfondo y las bases bíblicas para dichas afirmaciones. La mayoría de las confesiones de Fe en el mundo Reformado, permiten a los hijos (infantes) de padres creyentes el ser bautizados también. La razón para tal participación del bautismo, es debido a que los niños, al igual que sus padres creyentes, ambos se encuentran incluidos dentro del Pacto de Gracia. El catecismo de Heidelberg expone claramente la razón por la que los hijos de padres creyentes pueden ser bautizados: porque así como la circuncisión era hecha a los hijos de los Israelitas en el AT, así también el bautismo el cual ha reemplazado a la circuncisión en el NT, puede ser aplicado a los hijos de padres creyentes. Este acercamiento es, desde luego, algo inherente en la teología Reformada que ve en el Antiguo y en el Nuevo Testamento una estrecha relación y una continuidad tal, que divorciar el Nuevo Testamento del Antiguo no solo es algo que nunca debe hacerse, sino que cuando lo hacemos, tal acción nos conduce a errores bastante serios. Por eso, el primer argumento a favor del bautismo de infantes tiene que ver en cómo interpretamos las Escrituras.

1. El argumento hermenéutico: ¿Cómo debemos interpretar las Escrituras?

El argumento hermenéutico nos muestra la necesidad e importancia de interpretar adecuadamente TODAS las Escrituras, tanto el Antiguo como el Nuevo Testamento. Todo creyente que pide que se le muestre un solo versículo en el Nuevo Testamento en donde hable de manera explícita sobre el bautismo aplicado a los infantes, es porque tal vez no se encuentra familiarizado con la UNIDAD y la CONTINUIDAD que existe entre el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento. La unidad y continuidad que existe entre los dos Testamentos, es a veces ignorada o pasada por alto debido a una equivocada tendencia a ver al Antiguo Testamento como un libro independiente y completamente SEPARADO del Antiguo en el mejor de los casos, o como algo OBSOLETO que ha sido REEMPLAZADO casi en todo sentido por el Nuevo Testamento, en el peor de los casos.

Pero al estudiar detenidamente el Nuevo Testamento, nos damos cuenta que la mayoría de los escritores neo-testamentarios apelaron al Antiguo Testamento para fundamentar sus argumentos tanto históricos como teológicos y demostrar que este hablaba claramente sobre todas las cosas que estaban sucediendo: desde la llegada del Mesías prometido en varias porciones de las Escrituras, así como su muerte, sepultura y resurrección, hasta su ascensión al cielo y el sentarse en el trono a la diestra de Dios. De hecho, el Antiguo Testamento eran las únicas Escrituras que ellos tenían en el primer siglo. Cuando el apóstol Pablo le escribió al joven Timoteo que “Toda la Escritura es inspirada por Dios, y útil para enseñar, para redargüir, para corregir, para instruir en justicia” (2 Tim. 3:16), se estaba refiriendo principalmente al Antiguo Testamento ya que el Nuevo Testamento todavía no se había terminado de escribir y las únicas Escrituras que Timoteo conocía era el Antiguo Testamento. Por lo tanto, si deseamos entender la postura paedo-bautista con justicia, lo primero que debemos hacer, es esforzarnos por tener un entendimiento básico de la comprensión reformada sobre TODAS las Escrituras, tanto el Antiguo como el Nuevo Testamento.

La relación orgánica entre el AT y el NT

No cabe duda que existe una relación orgánica entre el AT y el NT. Esto se hace evidente por el hecho de que tanto Cristo como sus apóstoles citaban una y otra vez el Antiguo Testamento en sus discursos y apelaban al Antiguo Testamento como la Palabra de Dios la cual pesaba sobre sus conciencias. No se puede negar el hecho de que existe una estrecha relación e interdependencia entre el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento. Por lo tanto, el hacer una estricta división de los dos testamentos no cuenta con ningún apoyo Escritural. El querer separar el Nuevo Testamento del Antiguo, es como querer cortarle la raíz a un árbol y esperar que este sobreviva. Ambos Testamentos se necesitan mutuamente para poder ser entendidos e interpretados correctamente. Por esa razón, toda doctrina bíblica encontrada en el Nuevo Testamento, debe ser estudiada y considerada a la luz del Antiguo Testamento.

Esta comprensión de la relación orgánica que existe entre el Antiguo y el Nuevo Testamento, fue lo que preservó a la iglesia primitiva de sucumbir ante una de las más peligrosas herejías que la amenazaron en los dos primeros siglos: las herejías de Marción. Marción rechazaba completamente el Antiguo Testamento y negaba toda posible relación con el Nuevo Testamento. Debido a la influencia de un maestro gnóstico llamado Cerdo, Marción había llegado a la conclusión que existían dos Dioses: el Dios creador del Antiguo Testamento quien era “un Dios legalista que se había involucrado en cursos de acción contradictorios y quien era débil, ignorante, déspota y cruel” y el Dios supremo, el cual, según Marción, “era un Dios de amor quien había permanecido completamente oculto hasta que finalmente fue revelado en la persona de Jesucristo” (Robert I. Bradshaw, “Marcion: Portrait of a Heretic”, www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_marcion.html).

Uno de los principales argumentos de Marción para rechazar el Antiguo Testamento, era que este no podía ser reconciliado con el Nuevo Testamento. Por ejemplo, Marción veía que el código de conducta bajo el Antiguo Testamento era el de “ojo por ojo y diente por diente”, mientras que Cristo hizo a un lado este precepto. Josué le ordenó al sol que se detuviera para poder continuar con la masacre de sus enemigos, mientras que Pablo exhortaba: “no se ponga el sol sobre vuestro enojo”. En el Antiguo Testamento se permitía el divorcio y la poligamia, pero en el Nuevo ninguno de los dos es permitido. Moisés había reforzado el Sábado y la Ley, mientras que Cristo había liberado a los creyentes de ambos.

Marción encontraba contradicciones aún en el Antiguo Testamento. Por ejemplo, Dios había ordenado que no se hiciera cual ningún trabajo en el día de reposo, sin embargo, les ordenó a los israelitas a cargar el arca alrededor de Jericó 7 veces en el día sábado. Dios había prohibido hacer imágenes de fundición, pero también le ordenó a Moisés a que hiciera una serpiente de bronce. La deidad revelada en el Antiguo Testamento no podía ser omnisciente, de otra manera no le hubiera preguntado a Adán “¿En donde estás tú?” (Génesis 3:9).

Este equivocado concepto sostenido por Marción lo llevó finalmente a mutilar las Escrituras, creando así su propio Canon de la Biblia. Marción rechazó completamente el Antiguo Testamento e incluyó únicamente en su Canon al evangelio de Lucas y diez epístolas del apóstol Pablo. Pero aún después de haber eliminado esas Escrituras, Marción se dedicó a la tarea de quitar todas las referencias que había en el evangelio de Lucas sobre el trasfondo judío de Cristo. También eliminó varios pasajes de las epístolas paulinas que hacían referencia a ejemplos y porciones del Antiguo Testamento. Cuando Marción terminó de editar y recortar las Escrituras, lo único que le había quedado era un pobre resumen incomprensible de lo que él consideraba era el evangelio puro. Interesantemente, el mutilado Canon de Marción fue lo que aceleró el proceso en la formación del Canon bíblico que ya había comenzado en la primera mitad del segundo siglo. Fue en su oposición al hereje Marción que la iglesia por primera vez hizo conciencia de su herencia sobre los escritos apostólicos y sobre la importancia del Antiguo Testamento para la fe cristiana.

Lamentablemente, el deseo por divorciar el Nuevo Testamento del Antiguo no terminó con la muerte de Marción. A lo largo de la historia de la iglesia se han podido ver estas mismas tendencias mostradas de diferentes formas. Geoffrey W. Bromiley comenta sobre esta misma tendencia mostrada en la actualidad de querer divorciar al Antiguo Testamento del Nuevo y de hacer a un lado toda clase de continuidad entre ambos Testamentos:

“Tanto nuestro Señor Jesucristo como los autores del Nuevo Testamento enseñaron la unidad de las Escrituras y la iglesia ha mantenido ese mismo testimonio a través de los siglos. Sin embargo, la presión siempre ha sido ejercida en este aspecto desde los días de Marción y los gnósticos. El testimonio del Antiguo Testamento puede ser minimizado de distintas maneras. Un cierto tipo de criticismo bíblico ignora o relativiza las enseñanzas y prácticas del Antiguo Testamento como una forma de desarrollo religioso ya pasado de moda. Por supuesto que en este caso, el Nuevo Testamento puede padecer el mismo problema cuando arrogantemente –e irónicamente- es comparado con los logros y la conducta del pensamiento moderno. Sin embargo, aquellos que resisten estos criticismos extremos pueden fácilmente caer víctimas de los Dispensacionalistas o de ciertas personas que abogan por una revelación progresiva, quienes ven en el Antiguo Testamento y a menudo en el Nuevo Testamento, palabras de Dios que no tienen una relevancia directa para la iglesia, o para el periodo final de revelación y consecuentemente, tampoco lo tienen para los creyentes de hoy. En esta conexión, es interesante ver que los Anabaptistas quienes fueron los precursores en el siglo XVI de los Bautistas modernos, tuvieron una marcada tendencia a menospreciar el Antiguo Testamento y a destruir la unidad apropiada de las Escrituras, excepto sobre la base de una espiritualización total. Aún algunos quienes no tienen cual ningún deseo de transitar por la senda del racionalismo, del Dispensacionalismo o de la revelación progresiva, pueden algunas veces poner tal énfasis en las diferencias entre la ley y el evangelio que pueden perder de vista la gran unidad de la Palabra y propósitos divinos”. (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Children of Promise”, p. 13, Eerdmans 1979).

¿Cómo debemos interpretar entonces el Nuevo Testamento?

Si tomamos el Nuevo Testamento como algo completamente separado del Antiguo, tal como muchos creyentes lo hacen, lo más probable es que caeremos en serios errores tal como Marción y muchos otros lo han hecho a lo largo de la historia. Por lo tanto, el Nuevo Testamento debe ser siempre interpretado tomando en cuenta la base sobre la cual éste descansa: el Antiguo Testamento. No debemos acercarnos al Nuevo Testamento como si fuera un libro completamente independiente del Antiguo, pues al hacerlo, podemos llegar a conclusiones completamente equivocadas. Robert R. Booth nos comenta en qué consiste esto:

“Debemos rechazar cualquier sugerencia de comenzar nuestro estudio de cualquier doctrina con el Nuevo Testamento por sí solo. Esto es verdad por dos importantes razones. Primero, El Nuevo Testamento puede ser interpretado apropiadamente solo en el contexto del Antiguo Testamento. Tanto el texto mismo del Antiguo Testamento como la cultura que lo produjo, proveen el fundamento para comprender cómo aquellos quienes recibieron por primera vez el Nuevo Testamento habrían entendido sus enseñanzas. Dios ha preservado un registro escrito e inspirado tanto de la historia de la redención como de las experiencias históricas de su pueblo. Estos no son puntos menores que pueden ser ignorados o dejados de lado si es que vamos a llegar a un entendimiento correcto de cualquier doctrina. Ningún relato (o versículo) de las Escrituras se encuentra aislado de todos los demás –todos ellos se encuentran relacionados y tienen un impacto el uno sobre el otro-. Por lo tanto, no debemos apresurarnos al Nuevo Testamento con una concordancia en mano y presumir que tenemos todas las herramientas y la información necesaria para llegar a una acertada conclusión acerca de cualquier doctrina.

Una segunda razón por la que no debemos comenzar con el Nuevo Testamento, es que las doctrinas del Nuevo Testamento tienen sus raíces en el Antiguo Testamento. Cuando leemos en Gálatas 3:29 que nosotros somos “hijos de Abraham” y “herederos según la promesa”, somos llevados inmediatamente al libro de Génesis para poder comprender lo que se afirma. Cuando leemos en Filipenses 3:3 que nosotros somos “la verdadera circuncisión” debemos ir al Antiguo Testamento para poder descubrir lo que era la circuncisión y la función que desempeñaba. Cuando leemos en Romanos 15:8 que Cristo vino para “confirmar las promesas hechas a los padres”, o cuando leemos en Efesios 2:12 que los gentiles “estaban alejados de la ciudadanía de Israel y ajenos a los pactos de la promesa” es solo en el Antiguo Testamento que podemos descubrir el fundamento para estas enseñanzas….El Nuevo Testamento nos conduce inmediatamente al Antiguo Testamento cuando intentamos entender las doctrinas de la creación, del pecado, de la redención, del sacrificio de Cristo; la expiación, el sacerdocio, la disciplina en la iglesia, la cena del Señor, el matrimonio, el divorcio, las familias, los pactos, el juicio, el cielo y muchos temas más”. (Robert R. Booth, “Children of the Promise”, ps. 20, 21; P&R 1995).

Resumiendo este primer argumento, podemos decir entonces que todas las doctrinas bíblicas tales como: el pecado original, la fe, la gracia, la justificación, la redención, la santificación, el bautismo, etc., no deben ser estudiadas únicamente en el Nuevo Testamento, sino tomando en cuenta también lo que el Antiguo Testamento nos enseña sobre dicha doctrina y las bases que establece para tales doctrinas. Esto debe ser algo en lo que todos deberíamos estar de acuerdo sin importar cual sea nuestra respectiva postura sobre el bautismo.

Daviel D'Paz

La simbología del bautismo

2011-05-01T20:17:00.000-07:00

Nota Introductoria:

Agradezco a nuestro hermano Felipe, propietario del Blog “IGLESIANDO” quien me ha otorgado el permiso para publicar este interesante artículo sobre la simbología del bautismo. Mis estudios recientes sobre este tema me han llevado también a las conclusiones que él ha llegado. Espero sea de bendición.

Daviel D’Paz

Los símbolos patrios. Están los oficiales (la bandera, el escudo, y el himno), y los no oficiales (el ave nacional, el árbol nacional, la flor nacional, el deporte nacional, el baile nacional). Es lo primero que nos enseñan en la escuela apenas comienza nuestra educación. Esta ave tan hermosa que ven en la foto es el Tocororo, ave nacional de Cuba, uno de los símbolos patrios no oficiales. El Tocororo debe su nombre a su propio canto, que se escucha “to-co-ro-ro”. Fue escogido como el ave nacional de Cuba por varios motivos: lleva en su plumaje los colores de la bandera cubana (blanco, azul, y rojo), es un ave que muere en cautiverio, y eso es símbolo de la libertad por la que siempre han luchado los cubanos. Es un ave endémica de Cuba, no se encuentra en ningún otro lugar del mundo. Está en veda perpetua por peligro de extinción.

El Escudo nacional cubano es uno de los símbolos oficiales patrios. Su estructura es todo un lenguaje simbólico. La llave representa que Cuba es la llave del Nuevo Mundo, porque fue la conexión entre Europa y las Américas. A su vez la llave esta entre dos masas de tierra que representan las dos Américas, y Cuba entre ellas. El sol naciente en el horizonte representa el nacimiento del nuevo estado libre e independiente. Las dos ramas a los lados (encina y laurel) representan la fortaleza y la victoria respectivamente. Las franjas azules y blancas se asocian con la bandera, y representan la división departamental que había en la isla en la época colonial. Aparece también un paisaje cubano donde se destaca la palma real que es el árbol nacional (otro símbolo), y el paisaje representa lo llano y montañoso del país. En la parte superior del escudo aparece un gorro frigio con una estrella blanca de 5 puntas. El gorro frigio se uso en la antigüedad para ser llevado por hombres que había obtenido la libertad, y la estrella blanca solitaria representa el estado libre e independiente.

Todo un mensaje. Es que los símbolos son para eso, para comunicar un mensaje, para representar un contenido superior. Un signo es algo físico que puede ser percibido por los sentidos, y que es usado para representar lo que los sentidos no puedan captar. Un signo es una cosa que mueve el entendimiento hacia lo representado. Un signo lo es porque tiene un significado, y el significado es lo que nos lleva a entender lo que se ha querido representar. Los símbolos son signos porque representan algo superior a ellos mismos.

El uniforme, la placa, las armas de reglamento que porta un policía representan la autoridad que el país le ha conferido a ese oficial. Sus atuendos son símbolos de la autoridad conferida.

La iglesia tiene dos sacramentos: el bautismo y la cena. Los sacramentos son señales y sellos porque contienen un simbolismo.

Son señales porque tienen un significado y representan algo superior que la mente humana puede captar y entender a través de la representación. En este caso, los sacramentos son signos externos, físicos, materiales, ceremoniales que contienen un mensaje espiritual. Llegamos a comprender el mensaje espiritual a través del simbolismo de los sacramentos. La señal representa, pero la señal misma no es la cosa representada. Los sacramentos señalan, muestran, anuncian la Gracia de Dios, pero los sacramentos NO son el instrumento por el cual viene la Gracia. El sacramento confirma, señala, anuncia la Gracia, pero no es la Gracia.

Ejemplos de señales:

La vara de Moisés fue una señal. La circuncisión dada a Abraham fue señal del Pacto de la Gracia. Los milagros de Jesús fueron señales de que El era quien decía ser, el Hijo de Dios. La destrucción de Jerusalén junto con el templo en el año 70 d.C por los ejércitos romanos fue una señal de que Jesús había iniciado ya su reinado en el cielo y su ministerio mediador.

Los sacramentos son sellos también. Un sello autoriza y autentica algo. Los sellos benefician a los que lo reciben.

Ejemplo de sello:

- Los niños desde Abraham eran sellados con la señal del Pacto, eso quería decir que esos bebes eran parte del pueblo o comunidad del Pacto. Que esos bebes eran vistos por Dios como santos, en diferente forma a los hijos de los impíos. Que esos bebes iban a recibir todos los beneficios, y las bendiciones del Pacto. Ellos eran parte del Pacto. Dios no los excluyo del Pacto y mando a poner en ellos la señal del mismo.

He venido comentando todo esto, porque mi propósito es escribir del simbolismo del bautismo por el mal entendimiento que hay del mismo. Si el simbolismo se mal interpreta entonces podemos comprender erróneamente lo que este significa, y estaremos dando una explicación errónea de la doctrina que este representa.

En el bautismo en agua interviene un solo elemento: el agua.

¿QUE SIMBOLIZA EL AGUA? el agua simboliza al Espíritu Santo. No existe en la Biblia ninguna confusión acerca de eso. El agua del bautismo representa a la tercera persona de la Trinidad. El agua del bautismo esta representando el lavamiento espiritual de los pecados por parte del Espíritu en la obra de la regeneración. El agua del bautismo esta representando el cumplimiento de lo que anunciaba la circuncisión: la verdadera circuncisión del corazón prometida por Dios (leer Deuteronomio 30:6). Dios cumplió esa promesa, y ahora el bautismo en agua esta representando al Espíritu Santo en el lavamiento de la regeneración, que es el cumplimiento de esa promesa hecha por Dios.

ERRORES DE INTERPRETACION

Existen varios errores de interpretación del simbolismo del bautismo, que han dado como resultante de una mala comprensión de la doctrina bautismal.

1.- DECIR QUE LA INMERSION ES LA FORMA BIBLICA DE BAUTIZAR. La inmersión no es el método correcto de aplicar el bautismo y no se puede buscar un precedente en los apóstoles y en los primeros cristianos por dos cosas: porque no existe ninguna justificación bíblica para ello, y porque una comprensión completa de la doctrina de lo que el bautismo representa no me parece que fue pasada por alto por los apóstoles. Que la persona se meta en el agua no es representativo de lo que ocurre espiritualmente. La persona nunca se mete dentro del Espíritu por si misma, sino que doctrinalmente el Espíritu se derrama sobre la persona. En el acto del bautismo se establece una igualdad representativa AGUA = ESPIRITU, por lo tanto, decir que la persona se mete dentro del Espíritu (representado por el agua) es ir contra la doctrina, y contaminar el signo del bautismo con la doctrina arminiana de la salvación, lo cual es un error. La doctrina arminiana de la salvación enseña incorrectamente que es la persona la que decide “meterse” dentro del Espíritu, y eso es lo que se esta representando en la inmersión.

Si el Espíritu se derrama, el agua debe derramarse también, porque AGUA = ESPIRITU. La Biblia no habla de que la persona va al Espíritu, sino que el Espíritu es derramado sobre la persona. Desde los profetas, esto fue anunciado, y cumplido en Pentecostés. Cito los textos, y le pido a los lectores que observen bien el verbo ‘DERRAMAR’ y sus conjugaciones.

Joel 2:28-29; Isaías 32:13-15; Ezequiel 39:29; Hechos 2:14-21; Hechos 2:33; Romanos 5:5 (La Biblia de las Américas)

2.- SEPULTADOS CON CRISTO, DENTRO DEL AGUA, RESUCITADOS CON CRISTO, FUERA DEL AGUA….¡ERROR!!! He visto a un pastor oficiar el bautismo por inmersión varias veces, y en el acto de sumergir a la persona en al agua y sacarla el dice en alta voz: “sepultado con Cristo (sumerge a la persona) resucitado a una nueva vida (saca a la persona del agua)”. Eso es un error de interpretación bíblica, y esta enseñando lo que el bautismo no representa. En 1er. lugar, se esta interpretando la sepultura de Cristo a la manera occidental, como nosotros acostumbramos a enterrar a los muertos, esto es, puestos horizontalmente en la tierra. Jesús no fue sepultado en tierra, ni era la costumbre de los hebreos. Jesús fue metido en un hueco en la piedra. Decir que el bautismo representa la sepultura de Cristo y la resurrección es confundir el simbolismo del bautismo. El agua no representa la tierra, el agua siempre representa al Espíritu Santo. SI DECIMOS QUE EL BAUTISMO POR INMERSION ES SEPULTADOS COMO CRISTO Y RESUCITADOS, ESTAMOS DICIENDO QUE JESUCRISTO FUE SEPULTADO EN EL ESPIRITU SANTO, PORQUE EL AGUA REPRESENTA AL ESPIRITU, NO A LA TIERRA Y MUCHO MENOS, A LA TUMBA DONDE CRISTO FUE SEPULTADO.

2do. lugar, el bautismo en agua NO representa la sepultura y resurrección de Cristo sino el lavamiento de los pecados, la regeneración espiritual obrada en la persona por el Espíritu Santo. Todo el problema viene a la hora de interpretar algunos textos bíblicos que se les ha entendido como diciendo eso, pero no es eso lo que dicen, veamos los textos:

“Pues hemos muerto y fuimos sepultados con Cristo mediante el bautismo; y tal como Cristo fue levantado de los muertos por el poder glorioso del Padre, ahora nosotros también podemos vivir una vida nueva. Dado que fuimos unidos a él en su muerte, también seremos resucitados como él. Sabemos que nuestro antiguo ser pecaminoso fue crucificado con Cristo para que el pecado perdiera su poder en nuestra vida. Ya no somos esclavos del pecado.” Romanos 6: 4-6 (Nueva Traducción Viviente)

“…en El también fuisteis circuncidados con una circuncisión no hecha por manos, al quitar el cuerpo de la carne mediante la circuncisión de Cristo; habiendo sido sepultados con El en el bautismo, en el cual también habéis resucitado con El por la fe en la acción del poder de Dios, que le resucitó de entre los muertos.” Colosenses 2: 11-12 (LBLA)

¿A que bautismo se refieren estos textos? AL BAUTISMO ESPIRITUAL, A LA REGENERACION, LLAMADA POR PABLO, “LA CIRCUNCISION DE CRISTO”. EN NINGUNA MANERA ESTOS TEXTOS ESTAN HABLANDO DEL BAUTISMO EN AGUA, SI ASI FUERA, ESTARIAMOS CREYENDO EN LA REGENERACION BAUTISMAL, Y DANDOLE PODER REGENERADOR AL AGUA. NOSOTROS HEMOS MUERTO EN EL BAUTISMO DEL ESPIRITU, PORQUE FUE AHI DONDE DIOS QUITA (corta nuestro prepucio del corazón – lava nuestros pecados) NUESTRO PECADO Y LO “METE” (bapto) EN LA SEPULTURA DE CRISTO.

Decir que el bautismo en agua esta representando la sepultura de Cristo y la resurrección es cambiar el significado del bautismo. Lo que dicen esos textos es que a través del bautismo del Espíritu, hemos sido circuncidados espiritualmente y eso es igual a que nuestro pecado MURIO CON CRISTO Y FUE SEPULTADO CON EL. ESOS TEXTOS ESTAN EXPLICANDO DOCTRINALMENTE LO QUE SUCEDE EN EL BAUTISMO DEL ESPIRITU, EN LA REGENERACION, PERO EL BAUTISMO EN AGUA REPRESENTA EL BAUTISMO DEL ESPIRITU, NUNCA LA MUERTE Y RESURRECCION DE CRISTO. No es el bautismo el sacramento que fue ordenado para recordar la muerte de Cristo, es la Cena. No se pueden confundir los simbolismos.

ALGUNAS OBJECIONES PARA NO BAUTIZAR POR AFUSION O ASPERSION.

Algunas objeciones se presentan para no bautizar por afusión o aspersión, siendo los métodos más correctos de administrar el bautismo en agua. Veamos algunas….

a.- “ESO ES UN METODO CATOLICO ROMANO”. Decir eso es hacer a la ICR (iglesia católica romana) dueña de esos métodos bautismales, lo cual no es cierto. La afusión (derramamiento) y la aspersión fueron usadas mucho antes que los católicos romanos, tanto como por el mismo Moisés, y por los primeros cristianos. Los católicos no inventaron el método, ellos lo tomaron de otros. El pueblo de Israel fue “bautizado” por aspersión por el mismo Moisés (leer Éxodo 24: 6-8 y Hebreos 9: 19-23). En una cueva de las catacumbas de Roma, donde los primeros cristianos se escondían de la persecución del imperio romano, encontraron varios dibujos en las paredes donde se ve a un creyente bautizándose, y esta metido dentro del agua de un rio, y el que oficia el bautismo esta derramando agua (afusión) sobre la cabeza del creyente. Por lo tanto, ni la afusión ni la aspersión son métodos católicos. En todo caso, ellos lo están haciendo correctamente.

b.- “EL METODO CORRECTO ES LA INMERSION, PORQUE ASI LO DICE LA BIBLIA.” La Biblia no dice eso. La palabra ‘baptizo’ no quiere decir sumergir en el agua. Un estudio de la gramática griega y del uso de dicha palabra en los textos nos dice que la palabra ‘baptizo’ o ‘bapto’ no quiere decir literalmente ‘sumergir’. El significado correcto de esta palabra es ‘lavar’. Por poner un ejemplo, veamos el texto de Marcos 7:14: “Y cuando regresan de la plaza, si no se lavan, no comen. Y otras muchas cosas hay que se aferran en guardar, como los LAVAMIENTOS de los vasos de beber, de los jarros, de los utensilios de metal y de las camas.” (RV-95). Escribí ‘LAVAMIENTOS’ en mayúscula con toda intención para hacer notar que esta palabra en el original griego es ‘BAPTISMOI”. No creo que los judíos sumergieran las camas dentro del agua para lavarlas, todas las veces que lo hacían.

SIMBOLISMO CORRECTO DEL BAUTISMO

Ya hemos explicado el simbolismo del agua, el simbolismo del bautismo en agua como sacramento, es representar el lavamiento de nuestros pecados efectuado por el Espíritu en los escogidos del Padre y nuestra unión con El. El bautismo es un inicio, un comienzo, por eso las iglesias venidas desde la Reforma, bautizan a sus hijos. Ellos comienzan su vida dentro de la comunidad del Pacto. El bautismo es el inicio, el comienzo, el sacramento de entrada al Pacto, se hace una sola vez. La Cena es el sacramento de la permanencia en el Pacto, por eso se hace repetidamente cada cierto tiempo y demanda autoanálisis del creyente.

En el NT vemos que se habla de ‘dos bautizos’ dados a la iglesia. Uno en agua y uno en el Espíritu. No son dos diferentes, son dos aspectos del mismo bautismo, yo diría que es lo mismo, uno es externo y el otro interno. El externo representa al interno, y externamente debe hacerse lo mas representativo posible de acuerdo a lo que ocurre internamente. Veamos las características de cada uno, a fin de ver lo real y lo representativo.

BAUTISMO EN AGUA

Naturaleza: externo, corporal.

Tipo: simbólico, representativo.

Elemento: agua

El que oficia: un ministro ordenado

Hecho en virtud de: la confesión de arrepentimiento y fe.

Método: afusión (derramamiento del agua) o aspersión (rociamiento del agua)

El bautizado es: recibido en la membrecía oficial de la iglesia visible.

BAUTISMO EN EL ESPIRITU SANTO.

Naturaleza: interno, espiritual.

Tipo: real, verdadero.

Elemento: el Espíritu Santo.

El que oficia: Jesucristo.

Hecho en virtud de: la elección de Gracia, el llamamiento interno eficaz.

Método: el Espíritu Santo es derramado sobre la persona.

El bautizado es: adoptado en la familia de Dios, la Iglesia Invisible de Jesucristo.

DIFERENCIA ENTRE SACRAMENTO Y ORDENANZA SIMBOLICA.

La interpretación de Ulrico Zwinglio del bautismo y la cena es que fueron solo ordenanzas simbólicas. En cambio Juan Calvino y otros protagonistas de la Reforma entendieron que el bautismo y la cena son más que solo ordenanzas simbólicas. Ellos comprendieron y enseñaron que el bautismo y la cena son SACRAMENTOS, en los cuales los hombres nos hacemos participes de los misterios divinos, aun sin entenderlos, y sin darle a los elementos ningún poder mágico o supersticioso. La palabra ‘SACRAMENTO’ no esta en la Biblia. Esta palabra nos viene de la traducción al latín que hizo Jerónimo de Estridon a fines del siglo IV d.C a la cual se le llamo “Vulgata Latina”, tomando ese nombre de la expresión latina ‘vulgata editio’ (edición para el pueblo). En esta traducción de la Biblia, Jerónimo uso la palabra ‘sacramentun’ en los textos donde el griego usa ‘misterion’ refiriéndose a los misterios divinos. SACRAMENTO viene de la raíz ‘SACR’ = perteneciente a lo divino, y ‘MENTUN’ = medio o instrumento. La idea es algo que sirve de instrumento o medio de mostrarnos, llevarnos hacia, indicarnos que hemos sido hecho participes del misterio divino. Los teólogos reformados decidieron usar esta palabra para referirse al bautismo y a la cena, porque encierra en si misma la idea doctrinal que la Reforma adopto. Por eso se entiende reformadamente que en el bautismo y en la cena hay una unión sacramental con el misterio divino. Es la razón por la cual la doctrina reformada tiene a los dos sacramentos de la iglesia (el bautismo y la cena) como medios de gracia. Otros sectores de la iglesia siguen la idea ‘zwingliana’ de que son solo símbolos.

UNA PALABRA FINAL.

Esta vez no quiero hacer alusiones denominacionales, iglesias, o posturas doctrinales. He aprendido que la susceptibilidad es una de las enemigas mas poderosas en contra del análisis y la reflexión. Si un albañil termina de levantar una pared y asegura que esta quedo totalmente vertical, basta con que el Maestro de Obras traiga su plomada en la mano y la extienda en la pared. La plomada por sí sola revelara lo que hizo ese albañil. No hacen falta palabras. Muchas veces nos paramos encima de la pared que estamos levantando y nos creemos seguros que esta vertical, que no tiene ningún fallo, pero solo basta con extender la plomada y no hacen falta alusiones. Somos albañiles y estamos sobreedificando sobre el Fundamento. Cada uno debe revisar como sobreedifica. (leer 1Corintios 3:10). No importa que la pared sea de 5, 15, 20, 30, 40 años, la plomada del Maestro revela todo lo que esta fuera de lugar.

No es mi propósito comenzar a lamentar el que hayamos sido bautizados por un método u otro, o si esta conforme a la Escritura o no, o si nos fue mal enseñado. Los que hemos sido bautizados, estamos bautizados. Para Dios lo estamos. Nuestros pecados de error e ignorancia son parte de los pecados que han sido lavados por el Espíritu, representado en el agua del bautismo. Pero al menos reconocer honestamente nuestros fallos de interpretación, y donde hemos confundido el simbolismo del bautismo. Ese es mi propósito. Todas las iglesias reformadas históricas bautizan por afusión, y bautizan a los hijos de los creyentes……. ¡y no son católicos romanos!!!!

Cualquiera sea la reacción a mis palabras, no importa, la plomada ha sido extendida sobre la pared de cada uno. No hacen falta palabras, ni alusiones, solo basta con mirar la plomada.

¡SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Publicado originalmente en:

http://iglesiando.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/la-simbologia-del-bautismo/#comments

SUBLIME GRACIA: Historia y Teología del Calvinismo (1ª Parte)

2011-03-16T20:35:00.003-07:00

SUBLIME GRACIA: Historia y Teología del Calvinismo (2a Parte)

2011-03-16T20:35:00.001-07:00

El uso CIVIL de la Ley de Dios, Por: Daviel D'Paz

2011-03-14T21:31:00.000-07:00

¿Podríamos imaginar un mundo en donde cada persona sea la responsable de tomar la ley en sus propias manos? Tal situación no solo sería intolerable para la vida diaria –pues la anarquía reinaría por todos lados-, sino que la seguridad sería tan solo una mera ilusión. Esta clase de “mundo” lo hemos visto representado en las revistas sobre el viejo Oeste y en algunas de las películas de ficción.

Nos sentimos agradecidos que en el mundo real, las cosas no sean iguales al mundo imaginario creado por las películas de Hollywood y que nuestros gobiernos todavía puedan mantener –en cierto grado-, el orden y la paz social.

La Ley civil (la cual es tomada de la Ley de Dios tal como es expresada en los Diez Mandamientos), es uno de los resultados de la gracia común de Dios. La gracia común es entendida como todas aquellas bendiciones de Dios que no involucran necesariamente la salvación de una persona. Por ejemplo, en Mateo 5:44,45 Cristo dijo:

“Pero yo os digo: Amad a vuestros enemigos, bendecid a los que os maldicen, haced bien a los que os aborrecen, y orad por los que os ultrajan y os persiguen; para que seáis hijos de vuestro Padre que está en los cielos, que hace salir su sol sobre malos y buenos, y que hace llover sobre justos e injustos”.

En estos versículos podemos ver las bendiciones de Dios (producto de su gracia común), siendo concedidas a todas las personas sin distinción de nadie: malos y buenos, justos e injustos. Por lo tanto, la ley civil es también una bendición de Dios para el bienestar social de la humanidad en general.

¿Cuál es el propósito de la Ley civil? El apóstol Pablo nos da la respuesta a esta pregunta:

“Sométase toda persona a las autoridades superiores; porque no hay autoridad sino de parte de Dios, y las que hay, por Dios han sido establecidas. De modo que quien se opone a la autoridad, a lo establecido por Dios resiste; y los que resisten, acarrean condenación para sí mismos. Porque los magistrados no están para infundir temor al que hace el bien, sino al malo. ¿Quieres, pues, no temer la autoridad? Haz lo bueno, y tendrás alabanza de ella; porque es servidor de Dios para tu bien. Pero si haces lo malo, teme; porque no en vano lleva la espada, pues es servidor de Dios, vengador para castigar al que hace lo malo. Por lo cual es necesario estarle sujetos, no solamente por razón del castigo, sino también por causa de la conciencia” (Romanos 13:1-5).

El apóstol Pablo entendía muy bien que los gobernantes son siervos de Dios para castigar a los que hacen lo malo. Existen por lo menos dos clases de interpretaciones respecto a estos versículos escritos por el inspirado apóstol. Una de estas interpretaciones se le conoce como descriptiva, mientras que la segunda interpretación se le conoce como prescriptiva. (Para una explicación más detallada sobre estas dos interpretaciones del significado de las palabras del apóstol Pablo en Romanos 13, ver el capítulo 25 titulado “Law and Politics in the New Testament” del excelente libro de Greg L. Bahnsen “By This Standard”).

Es evidente que el uso de la ley civil no puede transformar el corazón, ni tampoco puede proveer la justicia que es indispensable para poder agradar a Dios. Lo único que hace la ley civil es restringir a los malhechores por medio del temor al castigo y promover la paz en la sociedad por medio de la obediencia externa a ciertos estándares morales. Muchos creyentes creen que la ley civil no tiene nada que ver con la Ley de Dios o que Dios tenga algo que ver con los gobernantes y los gobiernos de este mundo. Pero la Biblia enfatiza más de una vez que Dios es el que tiene el control de todas las cosas y que El es quien pone reyes y quita reyes:

“Tú, oh rey, eres rey de reyes; porque el Dios del cielo te ha dado reino, poder, fuerza y majestad” (Daniel 2:37).

“Aún estaba la palabra en la boca del rey, cuando vino una voz del cielo: A ti se te dice, rey Nabucodonosor: El reino ha sido quitado de ti; y de entre los hombres te arrojarán, y con las bestias del campo será tu habitación, y como a los bueyes te apacentarán; y siete tiempos pasarán sobre ti, hasta que reconozcas que el Altísimo tiene el dominio en el reino de los hombres, y lo da a quien él quiere” (Daniel 4:31,32).

Debemos estar agradecidos por el uso de la ley civil, pues si no fuera por ella no podríamos:

• Conducir con seguridad hasta nuestros trabajos día tras día.

• Mantener nuestras pertenencias con seguridad.

• Defendernos de alguna acusación que nos hagan de manera injusta.

• Reunirnos pacíficamente los domingos para adorar a Dios.

Carl F. H. Henry escribió lo siguiente respecto a la importancia de la Ley de Dios en su uso civil:

“Aún en donde no existe una fe salvadora, la Ley sirve para restringir el pecado y para preservar el orden de la creación por medio de proclamar la voluntad de Dios…Por medio de sus juicios y amenazas de castigo y condenación, la ley escrita junto a la ley de la conciencia restringen el pecado entre los no regenerados….Por lo tanto, ella cumple con una función política por medio de su influencia restrictiva en el mundo no regenerado (Christian Personal Ethics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, p. 355).

Esta función civil de la ley de Dios se encuentra claramente establecida en el Antiguo Testamento en donde Dios expresa importantes principios para que su pueblo pudiera solucionar los problemas legales que enfrentarían. Por esa razón, la ley de Dios continúa teniendo una importante función política dentro del orden del Nuevo Testamento. Donald Guthrie lo expresa de la siguiente manera:

“En el Nuevo Testamento se asume un estándar de justicia y existe una clara diferencia entre lo correcto y lo incorrecto. Existen ciertos ecos del Antiguo Testamento respecto al punto de vista social justo…El acercamiento a la ley en general en el Nuevo Testamento se encuentra intricadamente entrelazada con la ley de Moisés, la cual hace una provisión extensa para la justicia social….La importancia de esta evidencia de la santidad de la ley, es que ella provee una base sana para la acción social. La ley es indispensable para una sociedad estable” (Donald Guthrie, “The New Testament Approach to Social Responsability”, p. 53,54).

El uso civil de la ley es un regalo de Dios que no debe ser menospreciado pues ella nos permite vivir “quieta y reposadamente en toda piedad y honestidad” (2 Timoteo 2:2).

Greg Bahnsen acertadamente comenta que “el uso político de la ley es admisiblemente negativo y meramente disuasivo en carácter. No hace nada para regenerar al pecador o para justificarlo delante de Dios. No toca su corazón ni tampoco lo acerca al Salvador. Sin embargo, esta función de la ley es crucial para la sociedad humana. Cuando los mandamientos de la ley de Dios son rechazados por cualquier cultura, el resultado inevitable es una ruptura progresiva del orden social y de la decencia moral, tal como es manifestado en Romanos 1”.

Francis Schaeffer: LA REFORMA PROTESTANTE

2011-01-14T20:20:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 4. La Reforma from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: LA ERA REVOLUCIONARIA

2011-01-14T20:19:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 5. La Era Revolucionaria from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: LA ERA CIENTIFICA

2011-01-14T20:18:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 6. La Era Científica from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: LA ERA DE LA SIN RAZON

2011-01-14T20:17:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 7. La Era de la sin Razón from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: LA ERA DE LA FRAGMENTACION

2011-01-14T20:16:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 8. La Era de la Fragmentación from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: LA ERA DE LA PAZ Y LA AFLUENCIA PERSONAL

2011-01-14T20:14:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 9. La Era de la Paz Personal y la Afluencia from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: ÚLTIMAS ALTERNATIVAS

2011-01-14T20:13:00.001-08:00

¿Cómo debemos vivir entonces?: 10. Últimas Alternativas from Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano on Vimeo.

Francis Schaeffer: ¿Cómo debemos entonces vivir? (La Era Romana 1ª Parte)

2010-12-04T19:39:00.001-08:00

Francis Schaeffer: ¿Cómo debemos entonces vivir? (La Era Romana 2ª Parte)

2010-12-04T19:38:00.001-08:00

Francis Schaeffer: ¿Cómo debemos entonces vivir? (La Era Romana 3ª Parte)

2010-12-04T19:37:00.001-08:00

Francis Schaeffer: ¿Cómo debemos entonces vivir? (La Edad Media 1ª Parte)

2010-12-04T19:36:00.000-08:00

Francis Schaeffer: ¿Cómo debemos entonces vivir? (La Edad Media 2ª Parte)

2010-12-04T19:35:00.000-08:00

Francis Schaeffer: ¿Cómo debemos entonces vivir? (La Edad Media 3ª Parte)

2010-12-04T19:24:00.000-08:00

UNA VISIÓN PARA EL MUNDO HISPANO: Bojidar Marinov

2010-11-16T17:10:00.000-08:00

“América es ingobernable. Los que han servido a la revolución han arado en el mar. La única cosa que se puede hacer en América es emigrar”.

Estas palabras fueron escritas por Simón Bolívar, el Libertador de Latinoamérica, un mes antes de que él muriera a los 47 años de edad. Por el tiempo en que escribía esta carta, él estaba enviado varias cajas con sus pertenencias a Europa, preparándose par a emigrar. Sus planes se vieron frustrados por su batalla final contra la tuberculosis. Uno de los revolucionarios más exitosos del mundo, el único hombre en la historia cuyo nombre llevan dos naciones, incluso mientras aún vivía, murió amargado contra su propio pueblo y declaró que sus éxitos políticos y militares eran como "arando en el mar." Bolívar comenzó su carrera de revolucionario teniendo el ideal político de los Estados Unidos que recién se había fundado. Él mismo era un admirador de Thomas Jefferson. Sin embargo, más tarde Bolívar declaró que los ideales Jeffersonianos no pueden funcionar en América Latina. La razón, dijo, fue que la América hispana está sujeta al "triple yugo de la ignorancia, la tiranía y el vicio". Rara vez vemos a los políticos modernos tan honestos sobre el verdadero estado de sus propios electores.

Dos generaciones más tarde, el Presidente de México Porfirio Díaz, después de haber convertido a México en una nación moderna a la par de los Estados Unidos y de las naciones europeas, pronunció sus famosas palabras: "Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca a los Estados Unidos." Díaz no fue un político moral de imaginación preclara, pero su franqueza por expresar su verdadera opinión sobre el problema de México merece admiración. Ambos hombres, Bolívar y Díaz, conocieron el verdadero problema de América Latina – su cosmovisión fundamental. Díaz entendió que "lejos de Dios" México se hizo "pobre". Bolívar supo que su país estaba bajo el yugo de la ignorancia y el vicio. Ellos entendieron muy bien que América Latina tenía un problema de visión del mundo y, por lo tanto, que tenía un problema moral; y por lo tanto, tenía problemas políticos, económicos y sociales. No se dejaron engañar ni por sus propias ideologías liberales. Ninguno de ellos esperaba ver mejores tiempos para la América hispana a menos que su cosmovisión cambiara. Y ninguno de ellos hizo nada al respecto.

Tanto Bolívar como Díaz prefirieron medios políticos, militares y administrativos para lograr sus objetivos. Tampoco invirtieron tiempo ni esfuerzos para cambiar la cosmovisión básica de sus pueblos; ambos prefirieron tratar los síntomas en lugar de curar la enfermedad. Mientras que ambos produjeron importantes cambios en sus respectivas naciones, la cosmovisión básica de la población siguió siendo la misma, y por lo tanto, el legado político y los ideales de ambos perecieron, para ser reemplazados por ideologías y prácticas hostiles a ese legado.

Y no estaban solos. Desde su liberación en la década de 1820, América Latina ha visto numerosos intentos de reformas sociales que sólo buscan el cambio institucional. La región ha visto revoluciones sangrientas, golpes de estado, rivalidades políticas e intentos de reformas económicas. Se establecieron sistemas escolares, la infraestructura fue edificada. Se adoptaron nuevas consignas, o las viejas consignas se reciclaron para un nuevo uso. Se invitó a expertos de los Estados Unidos y Europa para enseñar nuevos métodos de administración e implementar estructuras jurídicas. Nada funcionó. En el análisis final, América Latina se mantiene en las garras de la pobreza generalizada y la corrupción. El sueño de Simón Bolívar de ver a sus compatriotas construir una sociedad como la británica o la norteamericana nunca se hizo realidad.

Y hay una razón para ello. La razón es que Gran Bretaña y América no se construyeron sobre las acciones de los políticos y revolucionarios, sino sobre los escritos de pensadores. Thomas Jefferson no creó la libertad en los Estados Unidos, Juan Calvino sí lo hizo. Las victorias militares de George Washington no fueron las que establecieron a la nación norteamericana, sino que fueron los sermones de John Witherspoon. Tanto en Gran Bretaña como en Estados Unidos fue la cosmovisión integral subyacente del cristianismo reformado la que creó y sustenta la cultura. Sin ella, tanto Estados Unidos como Gran Bretaña hubieran sido sólo otro México. Si los escritores reformados y puritanos no hubieran realizado sus trabajos de cambiar su cosmovisión del mundo de habla inglesa, si no hubieran sentado las bases intelectuales de la civilización cristiana de libertad y justicia para todos, no hubiera existido un Washington, ni un Jefferson ni una América. El fracaso del mundo hispano para producir una sociedad justa y próspera se debe al hecho de que ha carecido de reformadores – y me refiero a los reformadores Lutero, Calvino y su herencia intelectual y espiritual de hoy. Sin su fundamento intelectual nada puede ser cambiado en América Latina – no importa cuántos golpes sangrientos, revoluciones y medidas administrativas sucedan.

Por desgracia, las iglesias protestantes en América Latina han seguido el ejemplo de los políticos. La mayor parte de la actividad evangélica han sido sólo esfuerzos institucionales, como la plantación de iglesias, con muy poca enseñanza de la visión del mundo. De hecho, la mayoría de los misioneros de la región no ha tenido ninguna idea de una cosmovisión bíblica completa. Sus esfuerzos han sido orientados a corto plazo, y su mensaje se ha limitado sólo para la salvación del individuo, como lo señaló hace tiempo un artículo de la revista Christianity Today: "Si los viajes misioneros a corto plazo produjeran resultados a largo plazo, México sería el país más cristianizado del mundo". Los nuevos métodos de "evangelismo de negocios” o" evangelismo comunitario" pueden producir frutos a corto plazo, pero, en esencia, es sólo otro ejercicio de cambio institucional sin un cambio de visión del mundo real. En la medida en que América Latina sigua siendo cautivo de la alianza de paganismo – para las masas – y el humanismo secular – para las élites educadas – habrá pocas esperanzas de un cambio real y duradero. Y la Iglesia no está haciendo mucho por desafiar ese dominio de la cosmovisión pagana y del humanismo secular. Una vez más, sin un cambio completo en la cosmovisión del pueblo, hay pocas esperanzas de un cambio duradero en todas las áreas de la vida.

Pero hay un mejor camino. Como todo mejor camino, es un camino largo. Puede tomar generaciones. Sin duda que tomó varios siglos en Europa antes de que la reforma produjera sociedades con libertad y justicia para todos. Una cultura que esté "lejos de Dios" necesita generaciones para regresar a Él, como una cultura. Pero esto no sucederá con reformas políticas, ni con la plantación de más iglesias; y no se dará por más viajes de evangelización a corto plazo. Una cultura está "lejos de Dios" sólo porque tiene una cosmovisión que es hostil a Dios. Y, a menos que esa cosmovisión sea desafiada y destruida, y reemplazada con una cosmovisión basada en la Biblia, nada va a cambiar. ¿Pero, dónde pueden encontrar una cosmovisión alternativa los pueblos de América Latina?

En su discurso al Congreso de Angostura en 1819, Simón Bolívar amonestó a los delegados a "establecer este Areópago de velar por la educación de los niños, de supervisar la educación nacional, de purificar todo lo que puede estar dañando a la República, denunciar la ingratitud, la frialdad en el servicio del país, el egocentrismo, la pereza, la ociosidad, y denunciar los primeros signos de corrupción y ejemplo pernicioso." Su llamado fue sincero pero él pudo haber fijado estándares para explicar lo que es "corrupto" y lo que es puro, lo que es "ejemplo pernicioso", y no tuvo ninguna forma de explicar por qué el "egocentrismo, la pereza y el ocio" son malos.

El mismo Simón Bolívar aprendió de autores británicos y estadounidenses cuyas obras no estaban disponibles en español. El grueso de la literatura que impregnaba el mundo de habla inglesa no estaba disponible para sus compatriotas. No hubo ningún fundamento intelectual. Todavía no lo hay.

Y aquí es donde se encuentra la oportunidad para un misionero cristiano. Él puede suministrar ese fundamento intelectual que desafíe el reinado del paganismo y el humanismo secular y que enseñe en América Latina lo que es corrupto y lo que es puro. Él puede suministrar la cosmovisión que acerque la región a Dios. Él puede confrontar la ignorancia, la tiranía y el vicio con las ideas del conocimiento, la libertad y la justicia.

Él debe empezar a traducir al español libros que expliquen la cosmovisión bíblica completa para todos los ámbitos de la vida. Debe hacerlos disponibles en un lenguaje que entiendan las más de 400 millones de personas. También puede utilizar el Internet para trascender las fronteras nacionales. La fragmentación política de América Latina es una bendición de Dios – esto detiene a los tiranos. (Imagínense a un Hugo Chávez sobre toda América Latina). La unidad del idioma también es una bendición – las ideas pueden viajar tan lejos como los servidores de Internet lo permitan. Un libro traducido al español y publicado en el sistema online posiblemente llegará a decenas de millones de personas – más de lo que cualquier misionero pueda hacer, en proporción al costo. No puede prohibirse, no se puede detener por ningún dictador. Se puede enseñar a personas las 24 horas del día, 7 días a la semana, 52 semanas al año, durante cientos de años. Un libro es un misionero de tiempo completo, mejor que un misionero de carne y hueso.

Hay libros disponibles: desde Chalcedon Fundation, American Visión y otras organizaciones que en las últimas décadas han trabajado para crear dicha base intelectual en América. El mundo hispano no necesita reinventar la rueda. Sólo tiene que tomar lo que se ha creado y aplicarla a sus propias condiciones.

Este proyecto tomará mucho tiempo. Puede ser un proyecto para toda una generación de cristianos, para construir el "libro base" del cristianismo. Tomará el proceso lento y minucioso de traducir una palabra tras otra, una frase tras otra, una página tras otra, miles de páginas. Tomará el compromiso que la América hispana no ha tomado. Las soluciones que se han probado hasta el momento han sido rápidas, a corto plazo e infructuosas. Si un misionero cristiano quiere desafiar al sistema mundial, él debe mirar más allá de su propia generación, y debe negarse a sucumbir a la tentación de buscar resultados rápidos. Los libros de cosmovisión bíblica traducidos al español deben ser su objetivo, incluso si sólo tiene como resultado tenerlos en un sitio Web. Los libros traducidos deben cubrir todos los ámbitos de la vida desde una perspectiva cristiana: vida personal, familia, iglesia, educación, gobierno, economía, ciencia, relaciones internacionales, ética empresarial, finanzas, dinero, transacciones bancarias, etc. Nada debe estar fuera del alcance de la civilización cristiana. Cada solución debe presentarse de acuerdo a la Ley de Dios como está establecida en la Biblia.

Cuando se crea una fundación semejante, no habrá otro lugar a donde los pueblos y los líderes de América Latina vayan en busca de respuestas. Cuando surja un problema, habrá sólo un lugar que va a tener soluciones lógicas dentro de un marco coherente. Ninguna otra religión o filosofía tiene un marco coherente de este tipo. Cualquiera que rechace las soluciones bíblicas no tendrá nada más que ofrecer. El cristianismo triunfará por la sola incapacidad de sus enemigos de no ofrecer algo más valioso.

Ya hay algo comenzado. Cinco títulos de la visión norteamericana han sido traducidos al español, y han producido frutos en muchos lugares.

Quiero concluir con un llamado a los cristianos hispanos quienes leen la visión norteamericana: tienen una oportunidad única para cambiar un hemisferio entero y llevarlo a Cristo. Hagan el compromiso de traducir unas pocas horas a la semana. Tomen unos pocos artículos al principio. Aprendan a escribir y a traducir rápido. Aprendan a tener paciencia para sentarse frente a la pantalla de sus computadoras y a escribir letra por letra. Cada letra que escriban permanecerá allí durante décadas, mucho tiempo después de que ustedes se hayan ido e instruirá a gente en la fe que probablemente nunca conocerán. Ustedes tienen la oportunidad de hacer historia.

Hay un hombre que comenzó a traducir hace varios años. Su nombre es Donald Herrera Terán, y él es un pastor de una iglesia reformada en Costa Rica. Pónganse en contacto con Donald, él tiene mucho trabajo por delante, y pregúntenle qué más necesita ser traducido. Coordínense con él y comprométanse a contribuir con su sitio web. Tienen por lo menos unas 100,000 páginas de libros de cosmovisión bíblica que deben ser traducidos. Un solo hombre no puede hacerlo en toda su vida, pero diez hombres comprometidos sí lo pueden hacer. Un centenar de hombres comprometidos pueden lograr el objetivo dentro de dos o tres años sin comprometerse mucho. Cuando tengan todo esto en online, se sorprenderán de los resultados.

Y mi llamado es también para los cristianos norteamericanos: ya pasó el tiempo de las costosas misiones a corto plazo orientadas sólo a salvar almas. Ya Dios no honrará esos esfuerzos, no importa cuánto dinero se invierta. Europa, en las últimas décadas, ha demostrado el fracaso de esta clase de proyectos truncados y limitados. Ha llegado el momento en que el campo de la misión se ha convirtiendo en un campo de batalla de cosmovisiones más que de una lucha por salvar unas pocas almas. Si les interesa América Latina, tomen decisiones sabias de cómo pueden apoyar. Inviertan en fundaciones para el futuro, ¿y qué mejor fundación que tener libros en español con soluciones bíblicas reales par a los problemas del mundo real?

Simón Bolívar estaba equivocado. La emigración no es lo único que queda por hacer en la América española.

Por: Bojidar Marinov

Bojidar Marinov es un Misionero Reformado proveniente de Bulgaria. El Prof. Marinov es un reconocido autor y pensador de mucho peso, tanto por sus escritos en varios idiomas, como por sus conferencias y muchas traducciones de libros y artículos a su lengua natal; puede ser contactado al http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/.

Esta traducción al español es hecha por el Dr. Guzmán Reyna, pastor, traductor, escritor y Director de la Facultad de Historia Eclesiástica en ETS; puede pedir su último libro, Rasgos Históricos del Protestantismo en México, escribiendo a: el_faro@hotmail.com

–Dr. JP Roberts H. 11/15/2010

E.T.S. http://www.edinburgseminary.org/

Una Visión para el Mundo Hispano (A Vision for the Hispanic World) By: Bojidar Marinov

2010-10-14T21:37:00.000-07:00

“America is ungovernable. Those who served the revolution have plowed the sea. The only thing to do in America is to emigrate.” (Simon Bolivar)

These words were written by Simón Bolívar, the Liberator of Latin America, a month before he died at the age of 47. At the time he was writing this letter he had sent several crates with his belongings to Europe in preparation to emigrate. His plans were thwarted by his final battle with tuberculosis. One of the most successful revolutionaries of the world, the only man in history who had two nations named after him even while he was still living, died embittered against his own people, and declared his political and military successes “plowing the sea.” Bolívar started his career of a revolutionary having the political ideal of the newly founded United States. He was himself an admirer of Thomas Jefferson. However, later in life Bolívar declared that the Jeffersonian ideals cannot work in Latin America. The reason, he said, was that Hispanic America is subject to the “triple yoke of ignorance, tyranny, and vice.” Seldom do we see modern politicians so honest about the true state of their own constituents.

Two generations later, the Mexican President Porfirio Díaz, after succeeding in turning Mexico into a modern nation at par with the United States and the European nations, uttered his famous words: “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” Díaz was not a moral politician by any stretch of imagination; but his frankness in expressing his true opinion about Mexico’s problem deserves admiration.

Both men, Bolívar and Díaz, knew the real problem of Latin America – its fundamental worldview. Díaz understood that “far from God” made Mexico “poor.” Bolívar knew that his country was under the yoke of ignorance and vice. They understood very well that Latin America had a worldview problem, and therefore it had a moral problem, and therefore it had political, economic, and social problems. They were not fooled even by their own liberal ideologies. Neither of them expected Hispanic America to see better times until that worldview changed.

And neither of them did anything about it.

Both Bolívar and Díaz preferred political, military, and administrative means to achieve their goals. Neither invested time or efforts in changing the basic worldview of their peoples; both preferred to treat the symptoms instead of cure the sickness. While both produced outstanding institutional changes in their respective nations, the basic worldview of the population remained the same, and therefore the political legacy and ideals of both perished, to be replaced by ideologies and practices hostile to that legacy.

And they are not alone. Since its liberation in the 1820s, Latin America has seen numbers of attempts at social reforms that only sought institutional change. The region has seen bloody revolutions, coups, political rivalries, and attempts at economic reforms. School systems were established, infrastructure was built. New slogans were adopted, or old slogans were warmed up for a new use. Experts were invited from the United States and Europe, to teach new methods of administration and implement legal structures. Nothing worked. In the final analysis, Latin America remained in the grip of widespread poverty and corruption. Simón Bolívar’s dream to see his countrymen build a society like British or Americans never came true.

And there is a reason for it. The reason is that Britain and America were not built on the actions of politicians and revolutionaries but on the writings of thinkers. Thomas Jefferson didn’t create the liberty in America; John Calvin did. The military victories of George Washington didn’t establish the United States; the sermons of John Witherspoon did. In both Britain and America, it was the underlying comprehensive worldview of Reformed Christianity that created and sustained the culture. Without it, both the United States and Britain would have been only another Mexico. If Reformed and Puritan writers didn’t do their job in changing the very worldview of the English-speaking world, if they didn’t lay the intellectual foundation for the Christian civilization with liberty and justice for all, there would be no Washington, no Jefferson, and no America. The failure of the Hispanic world to produce a just and prosperous society can be traced to the fact that it lacked Reformers – and I mean the Reformers, Luther, Calvin, and their intellectual and spiritual heirs today. Without their intellectual foundation, nothing can ever be changed in Latin America – no matter how many bloody coups and revolutions and administrative measures.

Unfortunately, the Protestant churches in Latin America have been following the example of politicians. Most of the evangelical activity has been only institutional effort – planting churches, with very little worldview teaching. In fact, most of the missionaries to the region have had no idea of a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Their efforts have been short-term oriented, and their message has been truncated only to the salvation of the individual. As an article in Christianity Today noted a while ago: “If short-term mission trips produced long-term results, Mexico would be the most Christianized country in the world.” The new methods of “business evangelism or “community evangelism” may produce a few short-term fruits; but in essence, they are just another exercise in institutional change without real worldview change. As long as Latin America remains captive to the alliance of paganism – for the masses – and secular humanism – for the educated elites – there will be little hope for any real and lasting change. And the church isn’t doing much to challenge that worldview dominance of paganism and secular humanism. Again, without a comprehensive change in the worldview of the people, there is little hope for any lasting change in any other area of life.

But there is a better way. Like every better way it is the longer way. It may take generations. It certainly took several centuries in Europe before the Reformation could produce societies with liberty and justice for all. A culture that is “far from God” needs generations to come back to him, as a culture. But it won’t happen by political reforms, nor by planting more churches; and it won’t happen by more short-term evangelistic trips. A culture is “far from God” only because it has a worldview that is hostile to God. And unless that worldview is challenged and destroyed, and replaced with a worldview based on the Bible, nothing else is going to change.

But where can the peoples of Latin America find an alternative worldview?

Addressing the Congress of Angostura in 1819, Simón Bolívar admonished the delegates to “establish this Areopagus to watch over the education of the children, to supervise national education, to purify whatever may be corrupt in the republic, to denounce ingratitude, coldness in the country’s service, egotism, sloth, idleness, and to pass judgment upon the first signs of corruption and pernicious example.” His call was earnest but he could point to no standard to tell them what is “corrupt” and what is pure, what is “pernicious example,” and he had no way to explain why “egotism, sloth, and idleness” were necessarily evil. Simón Bolívar himself learned from British and American authors. They weren’t available in Spanish. The whole body of literature that permeated the English-speaking world wasn’t available to his countrymen. There was no intellectual foundation.

There still isn’t.

And herein lies the opportunity for a Christian missionary. He can supply that intellectual foundation that will challenge the reign of paganism and secular humanism, and teach Latin America what is corrupt and what is pure. He can supply the worldview that will bring the region near to God. He can confront the ignorance, tyranny and vice with the ideas of knowledge, liberty, and righteousness.

He must start translating to Spanish books explaining the comprehensive Biblical worldview, for every area of life. Make them available in a language that is native to over 400 million people. And use the Internet to transcend the national borders. The political fragmentation of Latin America is a blessing from God – it restraints tyrants. (Imagine a Hugo Chavez over all Latin America.) The unity of language is a blessing too – ideas can travel as far the Internet servers go. A book translated in Spanish and posted online will possibly reach tens of millions of people – more than any missionary can do, at the portion of the cost. It can’t be banned, it can’t be stopped by any dictator. It can teach people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks in a year, for hundreds of years. A book is a full-time missionary – better than a human missionary.

There are such books available: from Chalcedon Foundation, American Vision, and other organizations that in the last decades have worked to create such intellectual foundation in America. The Hispanic world doesn’t need to re-invent the wheel. It only needs to take what has been created and apply it to its own conditions.

Such a project will take long time. It may be a project for a whole generation of Christians – to build the “book base” of Christianity. It will take the slow and painstaking process of translating one word after another, one sentence after another, one page after another, thousands of pages. It will take commitment that Spanish America is not used to. The solutions that have been tried so far have been quick, short-term – and unsuccessful. If a Christian missionary is to challenge the world system, he must look beyond his own generation, and he must refuse to succumb to the temptation to look for quick results. Biblical worldview books translated in Spanish must be his goal, even if he sees no other results than just having them on a website. The books translated must cover every area of life from a Christian perspective – personal life, family, church, education, government, economics, science, international relations, business ethics, taxation, money and banking, etc. Nothing should be outside of the scope of the Christian civilization. Every solution must be presented according to the Law of God, as laid down in the Bible.

When such a foundation is created, there will be no other place to which the peoples and the leaders of Latin America could look for answers. When a problem arises, there will be only one place that will have logical solutions within a consistent framework. No other religion or philosophy has such a consistent framework. Anyone who rejects the Biblical solutions will be left with nothing to offer. Christianity will triumph by default – for the sheer inability of its enemies to offer anything of value.

There are some beginnings. Five titles of American Vision are translated in Spanish. They have already born fruit in many places.

There is a man who started translating several years ago. His name is Donald Herrera Terán, and he is the Pastor of a Reformed church in Costa Rica. He has a web-site with several books and many articles translated: http://www.contra-mundum.org/. He is the fruit of the Spanish translation of Gary North’s Unconditional Surrender. His translations will produce more fruit.

Unconditional Surrender

I want to conclude with a call to the Hispanic Christians who read American Vision: You have a unique opportunity to change a whole hemisphere and bring it to Christ. Make a commitment to translate a few hours a week. Take a few articles at the beginning. Learn to type fast and translate fast. Learn the patience of sitting in front of that screen and type the letters one by one. Every letter you type will stay there for decades, long after you are gone, and will instruct people in the faith that you will probably never meet. You have the chance to make history.

Contact Donald Herrera Terán at domadar@yahoo.com – he is far ahead in the job – and ask him what must be translated. Coordinate with him, and commit to contribute to his web-site. You have at least 100,000 pages of Biblical worldview books that must be translated. One man cannot do it in his life-time but 10 committed men can. One hundred committed men can achieve the goal within two or three years without any major commitment. When you have it all online, you will be surprised at the results.

And my call is to American Christians: The time of expensive, short-term oriented, saving-souls-only missions is over. God will not honor such efforts anymore, no matter how much money we pour into them. Europe in the last decades has shown the failure of that truncated, limited approach. The time has come when the mission field is becoming a battlefield of worldviews more than it is a fight for a few souls. If you care for Latin America, make wise decisions as to what you support. Invest in foundations for the future – and what better foundation than having books in Spanish with real Biblical solutions to real world problems?

Simón Bolívar was wrong. Emigration is not the only thing to do in Spanish America.

Original source of this article:

http://americanvision.org/3613/una-vision-para-el-mundo-hispano-a-vision-for-the-hispanic-world/

Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, By: Crenshaw and Grover Gunn

2010-10-05T19:05:00.000-07:00

A BRIEF BUT HELPFUL REVIEW:

This helpful book is a must for those interested in understanding or evaluating Dispensationalism. The authors were raised within this system and trained at its leading seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary. Not only is it a straightforward and accurate presentation and critique of this approach to the Bible, it accomplishes these goals without being arrogant and boastful. As the preface contends, it is not the purpose of the book to attack or ridicule Dispensationalism, “I ask my dispensational brethren to receive this books in love, for it was prompted in a desire to be true to God’s Word.

This book is divided into two sections, each written by one of the authors. Part one focuses on the principles of interpretation that arise from the Bible and that differ from the “literal” hermeneutic of Dispensationalism. It also highlights the theological and practical tendencies of this system. Part two is an in-depth critique of the major components, interacting with actual references of leading proponents of this approach. Covering many issues, including the relationship of Israel and the Church as well as Christian Zionism, this part of the book is saturated with a multitude of verses, some of which I did not know existed! There are also three useful appendices.

Crenshaw and Gunn’s book is important, not simply for its incisive analysis but because it is an accessible read for laymen and ministers alike. It is not technical, yet its insight into the weakness of this uniquely American system is profound. For those on the edge of leaving Dispensationalism it will benefit greatly.

MY OWN ASSESSMENT OF THIS BOOK:

This is a very dangerous book. Dangerous for the Dispensational school because it demolishes the eschatological presuppositions of this system. But on the other hand, it is truly liberating because it doesn't hesitate to tell the truth as it is.

This book is the responsible that many Dispensationalists have said after reading it: "I will never call myself a Dispensationalist again". If you are a person who is afraid of seeing your long cherished eschatological system shaken and in peril of being demolished, then DO NOT READ this book. But, if you are not afraid of that, then ENJOY IT and welcome to the CLUB.

Daviel D'Paz

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow: Part (1)

2010-10-05T18:50:00.000-07:00

Dispensationalism: Defining the Basic System

Part of our church’s antiquated cooling system is a water tower that uses a float mechanism to regulate the water level. Unhappily, this exposed float presents an inviting diversion for children who happen by. A few of the men in the church have commented periodically for several years that we need to install a protective screen over the float but no one has yet gotten around to doing it. This year someone completely broke off the float, and I had to go by the hardware store to get a new one. There by the plumbing supplies stood Rommy, a good Christian friend and the leader of an influential community Bible study. A few years before, Rommy and his family had left a theologically liberal church and had joined a newly forming dispensational Bible church. I had had opportunities to try to explain to Rommy why I had come to disagree with dispensationalism but had had little success. I remember well the time Rommy had looked me straight in the eye and had said with deliberate seriousness, “Grover, I am a dispensationalist.”

I greeted Rommy, and he looked up from the faucet parts. Immediately he thanked me for the copy of my little self- published book on dispensationalism that I had mailed him. And then Rommy made another statement that burned itself indelibly upon my consciousness: “Grover, I want you to know that after reading your book, I am never again going to call myself a dispensationalist.” The Lord had established the work of my hand in a way far beyond my expectations, and I was grateful.

I wondered exactly what in the little book had been used of God to help effect this dramatic reversal. Was it the exegesis of some verse? Was it the logical force of some theological argumentation? Rommy soon answered my question. It was the list of the seven dispensational teachings that I find most objectionable. There in the hardware store, Rommy told me repeatedly that he did not hold to a single one of those teachings.

I do not believe that Rommy’s situation is all that unusual.

Today there are many Bible believing Christians who have to some degree been influenced in their understanding of prophecy and the church by dispensationalism. And yet many, if not most, of these do not have a clear understanding of dispensationalism as it has been classically defined by writers such as Dr. C.I. Scofield and Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. They have not consistently thought through dispensationalism as a system or even become familiar with its controlling presuppositions. They are largely unaware of many of the theological and exegetical conclusions to which this system naturally and logically leads.

My own conviction is that many people who are now favorably disposed toward dispensationalism would not be if they were only better exposed to the dispensational theological system.

A person’s theological system is his basic understanding of what the overall teachings of Scripture are and how they interrelate. A verse of Scripture taken strictly alone can often have more than one meaning. One important characteristic of the correct meaning of any verse is that the correct meaning must harmonize with the overall teaching of Scripture, which is summarized in the theological system. The interpreter’s job is, on the one hand, to interpret Scripture with the help of his theological system, and on the other hand to constantly evaluate and adjust his system in the light of Scripture. The interpreter must ever seek to insure that his theological system is indeed consistent with all the teachings of Scripture and also logically consistent within itself. This is a lifelong process for the interpreter. Really it is a life’ long process since the interpreter always builds on the work of previous interpreters and since the job is never completely finished.

The first step in arguing against the dispensational system is to define and document what I mean by the dispensational system.

Dispensationalism is today the reigning system in many Christian circles, and the task of proclaiming that the king is naked is never pleasant or popular. Before I assume this unpopular task, I want to try to make sure that people understand what I am talking about when I refer to dispensationalism. In this chapter I will be discussing the recent development of dispensational theology, the fundamental Christian teaching which dispensationalism contradicts, and the three foundational presuppositions of dispensationalism.

The dispensationalists themselves have said that their system, which first began to be taught in the early nineteenth century, is a rediscovery of truths lost since the early days of Christianity.

When I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary, Alan Boyd, an unusually gifted student, studied in the original Greek the early church writings up to the death of Justin Martyr to gather evidence that dispensationalism was indeed the system of early Christianity. Specifically, he was historically evaluating in a master’s thesis Dr. Charles C. Ryrie’s claim: “Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church.” [1] Alan’s conclusion was that Dr. Ryrie’s statement was invalid, [2] and he stated “based on classroom and private discussion,” that Dr. Ryrie had “clarified his position on these matters.” [3] Alan found the prophetic “beliefs of the period studied” to be “generally inimical to those of the modern system.” [4]

He concluded that there is no evidence that several of the church fathers who are routinely claimed by dispensationalists as fellow premillennialists were even premillennial, that the premillennialists in the early church “were a rather limited number.” [5] He concluded that those church fathers who were premillennial, such as Papias and Justin Martyr, had little in common with modern day dispensationalists. [6] Alan, as a dispensationalist, explained his findings as an example of the rapid loss of New Testament truth in the early church. [7] In other words, there is no extant concrete evidence that dispensationalism or anything significantly resembling it was ever taught in the church any time until the nineteenth century. [8]

Dispensationalists like to contrast themselves with covenant theologians because they can claim that covenant theology is almost as recent a theological innovation as is dispensationalism. [9] What they appear to be referring to is covenant theology as a highly structured system that involves the doctrine of the covenant of works and which explains God’s dealings with Adam in the garden of Eden in covenantal terms. Covenant theology so defined is, like dispensationalism, a recent development in the history of doctrine, [10] but I personally do not believe this is a valid comparison. Dispensationalism is a foundational system that offered a new and different paradigm for understanding the church and prophecy. The covenant of works is a relatively minor doctrine that built on a previously accepted doctrinal foundation and that is not universally accepted among opponents of dispensationalism.

My purpose is to contrast dispensationalism, not with the covenant of works or with a highly structured covenant theology, but with the general teaching that God has had one basic plan of salvation through the ages that has resulted in one salvifically united people of God through the ages. This teaching that in the midst of the dispensational changes of covenant administration throughout redemptive history, there has always been one basic plan of salvation and one people of God has in general been the historic position of the church and is specifically the position found in Reformed theology.

God’s plan of salvation as administered through the ages has found its unity in Christ, the one Mediator between God and man and the one who is the same yesterday, today and forever. God’s eternal covenant of grace from eternity past to eternity future has always been based upon the historical work of the incarnate Christ, whether that work was historically future or past. And God’s covenant of grace has always been administered through faith in Christ, whether Christ was the one to come or the one who has come. This position finds eloquent expression in the words of the Reformer John Calvin:

… since God cannot without the Mediator be propitious toward the human race, under the law Christ was always set before the holy fathers as the end to which they should direct their faith. [11]

… apart from Christ the saving knowledge of God does not stand. From the beginning of the world he had consequently been set before all the elect that they should look unto him and put their trust in him. [12]

… all men adopted by God into the company of his people since the beginning of the world were covenanted to him by the same law and by the bond of the same doctrine as obtains among us. … [the patriarchs] participated in the same inheritance and hoped for a common salvation with us by the grace of the same Mediator. … God’s people have never had any other rule of reverence and piety. [13]

The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation: [14]

….The Lord held to this orderly plan in administering the covenant of his mercy: as the day of full revelation approached with the passing of time, the more he increased each day the brightness of its manifestation. Accordingly, at the beginning when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam, it glowed like a feeble spark. Then, as it was added to, the light grew in fullness, breaking forth increasingly and shedding its radiance more widely. At last — when all the clouds were dispersed — Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, fully illumined the whole earth. [15]

The Reformed faith holds that the Bible contains a unified progression of revelation in which God has one basic people who form the universal church. While acknowledging that God’s final purpose in every detail of history is His own glory, the Reformed faith teaches that God’s plan to save a people through the death of Christ is the unifying purpose that runs like a scarlet thread throughout redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation and ties it all together. There is an essential unity to God’s people throughout the ages and a basic continuity in God’s program throughout the ages.

This teaching on the unity of God’s people and the continuity of God’s program is the fundamental teaching with which dispensationalists disagree.

Dispensationalists hold Biblical revelation to be an interrupted progression in which God has two basic peoples: the earthly seed, Israel, and the heavenly seed, the church. Dispensationalists tend, in various degrees, to deny that redemption through Christ is the basic unifying purpose in Scripture and to deny the basic continuity of God’s plan of salvation in the Old and New Testaments. This two-people view of redemptive history can also lead to strong theorized dichotomies between law and grace, between conditional and unconditional covenants, between earthly and heavenly purposes, and between Jewish and Christian end-time prophetic events.

As dispensationalist Dr. John F. Walvoord explains, dispensationalism “maintains sharply the distinctions between law and grace, between Israel and the church, between earthly and heavenly, and between prophecies being fulfilled and those which will be fulfilled in the millennium.” [16]

When one examines in more detail the basics of the dispensational system, one finds three bedrock concepts.

The first of these is a literalistic and Jewish understanding of Old Testament prophecy and the Messianic kingdom such that these require a future fulfillment in terms of a resurrected Old Testament order with certain enhancements and variations. The dispensationalist argues that the nature of the kingdom announced by John the Baptist and offered by Jesus Christ should be understood in terms of the popular Jewish understanding of the kingdom at that time, and that the Jews at that time were expecting a literal restoration of Davidic political rule. [17] Similarly, the dispensationalist views the Messianic kingdom as a glorified extension of the Mosaic ceremonial law [18] and the Davidic political kingdom.

In reality, there is no strong evidence of a unified Jewish view of the kingdom at the time of Christ. The Jewish understanding of the Messiah and the coming kingdom was varied. [19] What we do know is that among the various understandings of the Messianic kingdom at the time of Christ, there was a national and political hope that expected the earthly restoration of an idealized Davidic kingdom with deliverance from national enemies and the national exaltation of Israel. The disciples at times gave possible evidence of being influenced by such a view of the kingdom (Matthew 20:21; Acts 1:6). The dispensationalist assumes that this national, Jewish understanding of the kingdom was the correct view.

The dispensationalist defends his view of the Messianic kingdom with a literalistic interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. An easy way to explain the dispensational system of interpretation (i.e., hermeneutic) is to illustrate it with a general description of the millennial situation expected by respected dispensational authorities based on their general interpretation of prophecy.

Dispensationalists are expecting literal and cataclysmic topographical changes in the land of Palestine. The Mount of Olives will be split in two to form a new valley running east and west. Mount Zion will be elevated above all the surrounding hills and the rest of Palestine will be transformed from a mountainous terrain to a great fertile plain. [20] There will be an earthly Jerusalem from which Jesus will exercise his earthly Davidic rule and a heavenly Jerusalem hovering over Palestine from which Christ will co-reign with the church. The heavenly city will have a foundation 1500 miles square and will be either a cube or a pyramid that is 1500 miles high. [21] The land in general and the temple area will be enlarged. The land will be redistributed to the twelve Jewish tribes, and the temple described in Ezekiel’s temple vision will be built. The Old Testament priestly and levitical orders will be reestablished under the sons of Zadok, and the offering of bloody sacrifices will be reinstituted. From the temple, a small flow of water will come forth whose volume will progressively increase with distance from the temple, becoming a mighty river within a little over a mile from the temple. The river will flow south through Jerusalem and divide to flow west into the Mediterranean Sea and east into the Dead Sea, which will be transformed into a fresh water body full of fish and surrounded by vegetation. [22] Jerusalem will be the center of a world government system, national Israel will be exalted, and the Gentile nations will be subordinated as Israel’s servants. [23] This is the basic millennial situation as described by Dr. John F. Walvoord and Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, who are influential and respected dispensational authorities.

The interpretation of prophecy with the degree of literalism necessary to produce the above view of the Messianic kingdom is the first foundation stone of dispensationalism.

The second foundation stone is the parenthesis theory.

According to this theory, the church age is an unforeseen parenthesis or interjection in the Jewish program prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. If the Jews had not rejected Jesus, the Jewish kingdom age would have begun at Christ’s first coming, according to this theory. But since the Jews did reject Christ, the prophetic program was supposedly interrupted, and the church age, totally unforeseen by the Old Testament prophets, was interjected. The kingdom program is to resume where it left off in the future in the dispensational tribulation and millennium after the church age.

According to dispensationalism, no Old Testament prophecy can refer directly to the parenthetical church age. These prophesies must be fulfilled literally in the context of a recontinued Old Testament Jewish economy. This parenthesis theory is the logical implication of the dispensation literalistic hermeneutic. If the dispensational interpretation of the Old Testament prophets is correct, then these prophecies are not pointing to the church age and there must be a future Jewish age if these prophecies are going to be fulfilled.

This parenthesis doctrine is dogmatically asserted by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, in the following statement about the beginning of the church age:

“Up to that time Judaism had not only occupied the field, but had been engendered, promoted and blessed of God. It was God’s will for his people in the world. The beneficiaries of Judaism were as intrenched in their religious position and convictions and as much sustained by divine sanctions as are the most orthodox believers today. The new divine program had intentionally been unrevealed before its inauguration. It came, therefore, not only with great suddenness, but wholly without Old Testament revelation. The case would be nearly parallel if a new and unpredicted project were to be forced in at this time to supersede Christianity. The unyielding prejudice and violent resistance which arose in the Jewish mind was in direct ratio to the sincerity with which the individual Jew cherished his agelong privileges. Added to all this and calculated to make the new divine enterprise many-fold more difficult was its bold announcement that the despised Gentiles would be placed on equal footing with the Jew. …

… In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the out-calling of a heavenly people from the Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age is not thus related and therefore is more precisely termed an intercalation. The appropriateness of this word will be seen in the fact that, as an interpolation is formed by inserting a word or phrase into a context, so an intercalation is formed by introducing a day or a period of time into the calendar. The present age of the Church is an intercalation into the revealed calendar or program of God as that program was foreseen by the prophets of old. Such, indeed, is the precise character of the present age.” [24]

Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, a more recent dispensationalist, has said:

The Church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel. … The church age is not seen in God’s program for Israel. It is an intercalation. … The Church is a mystery in the sense that it was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament and now revealed in the New Testament. [25]

This parenthesis view can also be vividly seen in the dispensational interpretation of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy. According to the dispensationalists, the church age is a prophetically unforeseen parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week of Daniel’s seventy weeks (Daniel 9:20-27). The seventieth week is identified with a future seven year tribulation period that precedes the millennium and during which God’s program for Israel will be resumed.

The third foundation stone of the dispensational system is the dichotomy between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church.

According to dispensationalism, the Old Testament saints are not in the church universal, which is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. The New Testament church is God’s heavenly people while Old Testament and millennial Israel is God’s earthly people. According to Dr. C.I. Scofield and Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, leading dispensationalists in an earlier generation, the earthly seed Israel is to spend eternity on the new earth, and the heavenly seed, the church, is to spend eternity in heaven. In other words, the dichotomy between Israel and the church even lasts throughout eternity.

More recent dispensationalists have put the saints of all ages together on the new earth in eternity but maintain their dichotomy throughout eternity by eternally excluding Old Testament saints, tribulation saints and millennial saints from the Body and Bride of Christ.

This dispensational teaching on the dichotomy between Israel and the church is found in the following quotations:

Israel’s distinction, glory and destiny will always be earthly. They will also be a spiritual people, Jehovah’s possession. There is no division, however, between the saved Jew and the saved Gentile of this dispensation, both being in the Church. But after the Church is complete, at the end of this dispensation, there will of necessity be a division. The “holy Jerusalem” of Revelation 21 is the “bride, the Lamb’s wife,” for whom is the “new heaven,” while the “new earth” will be for Israel, the tabernacle of God is to be with them, and “God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” The distinctive New Testament spiritual and heavenly blessings are for the Church; those blessings of and on the earth, for Israel. [26]

Judaism is not the bud which has blossomed into Christianity. These systems do have features which are common to both — God, holiness, Satan, man, sin, redemption, human responsibility, and the issues of eternity — yet they introduce differences so vast that they cannot coalesce. Each sets up its ground of relationship between God and man — the Jew by physical birth, the Christian by spiritual birth; each provides its instructions on the life of its adherents — the law for Israel, the teachings of grace for the Church; each has its sphere of existence — Israel in the earth for all ages to come, the Church in heaven. To the end that the Church might be called out from both Jews and Gentiles, a peculiar, unrelated age has been thrust into the one consistent ongoing of the divine program for the earth. It is in this sense that Judaism, which is the abiding portion of the nation Israel, has ceased. With the completion and departure of the Church from earth, Judaism will be again the embodiment of all the divine purpose in the world. [27]

The fact that revelation concerning both Israel and the Church includes truth about God, holiness, sin and redemption by blood, does not eliminate a far greater body of truth in which it is disclosed that Israelites become such by natural birth while Christians become such by a spiritual birth; that Israelites were appointed to live and serve under a meritorious, legal system, while Christians live and serve under a gracious system; that Israelites, as a nation, have their citizenship now and their future destiny centered only in the earth, reaching on to the new earth which is yet to be, while Christians have their citizenship and future destiny centered only in heaven, extending on into the new heavens that are yet to be . … [28]

That God is continuing His work of redemption in calling out a people for His name in the Church the Body of Christ we gladly affirm, but we also insist that this Body of Christ is distinct from any previous body of redeemed people in its nature, characteristics, time, and promises. [29]

… the Church in a technical sense is strictly limited to those who have accepted Christ in this age. Therefore, the Church is a distinct body of saints in this age. [30]

The marriage of the Lamb is an event which evidently involves only Christ and the church. … While it would be impossible to eliminate [Old Testament saints and tribulation saints] from the place of observers, they can not be in the position of participants in the event itself. [31]

Reformed theology disagrees with all three of these dispensational foundation stones. According to Reformed theology, the people of God from all ages will together be members of the Body and Bride of Christ and will enjoy eternity together on the new earth. Old Testament Israel is seen as organically related to the New Testament church like childhood is related to adulthood in the life of a man (Galatians 4:1-7).

Many of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel — even Old Testament prophecies that refer to ceremonial law, the tribes, the ancient enemies of Israel, and so on — are seen as being fulfilled in and through the church in this age. Obviously, there is a clear and even dramatic contrast between the Reformed and the dispensational understandings of the church and prophecy.

The thesis of this book is that the Reformed understanding of prophecy and the church is Biblically sound and the dispensational understanding is an artificial imposition upon Scripture.

****
End Notes:

1 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), page 17, compare page 33.

2 Alan Patrick Boyd, “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (until the Death of Justin Martyr)” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977), page 89.

3 Ibid., unnumbered preface.

4 Ibid., pages 90-91.

5 Ibid., page 92, footnote 1.

6 Ibid., page 89.

7 Ibid., page 91, footnote 2.

8 “. . . until brought to the fore through the writings and preaching and teaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr. J.N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon through a period of sixteen hundred years! If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in a measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre- and post-Nicene; the theological treatises of the scholastic divines; Roman Catholic writers of all shades of thought; the literature of the Reformation; the sermons and expositions of the Puritans; the general theological works of the day.”

Harry A. Ironside, The Mysteries of God (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1908), pages 50-51. Quoted in Daniel Payton Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (dissertation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957) page 29.

9 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), pages 178-183.

10 “It is difficult to discover the genealogy of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works which appeared in fully developed form in the last decade of the 16th century.”

John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Four: Studies in Theology, Reviews (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), page 219.

11 John T. McNeill, editor and Ford Lewis Battles, translator, The Library of Christian Classics, Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), pages 344-345 (II.VI.2.).

12 Ibid., page 347 (II.VI.4.).

13 Ibid., pages 428-429 (II.X.1.).

14 Ibid., page 429 (II.X.2.).

15 Ibid., page 446 (II.X.20.).

16 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), page 224.

17 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), pages 446-447; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 213; Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Rockville, Maryland: Assurance Publishers, 1974), pages 300-301.

18 Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost objects to the association of the dispensational millennium with the Mosaic system:

“The kingdom expectation is based on the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the Palestinic covenant, but is no way based on the Mosaic covenant. It is insisted that the covenants will be fulfilled in the kingdom age. This does not, however, link the Mosaic covenant with the kingdom necessarily. It is therefore fallacious to reason that because one believes in the fulfillment of the determinative covenants he must also believe in the restoration of the Mosaic order, which was a conditional covenant, non-determinative and non-eschatological in intent, but given rather to govern the life of the people in their relation to God in the old economy. One great stumbling block that hinders the acceptance of literal sacrifices in the millennium is removed by observing that, while there are many similarities between the Aaronic and millennial systems, there are also many differences between them that make it impossible that they should be equated.”

Dr. Pentecost, however, goes on to argue:

“It can thus be seen that the form of worship in the millennium will bear a strong similarity to the old Aaronic order.”

“The very fact that God has instituted an order strangely like the old Aaronic order is one of the best arguments that the millennium is not being fulfilled in the church, composed of Gentiles and Jew, in the present age.”

J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 518-519.

19 “As to the contents of the future expectation thus indicated, there was a great diversity of conceptions. For a knowledge of what was actually believed in some circles prior to and at the time of the birth of Christ, the pseudoepigraphic and apocryphal writings of the period are especially important. But they are far from unanimous in their eschatological outlook. It is, consequently, very difficult to state accurately what the future outlook of the Jews actually was at the beginning of the Christian era. Alongside of utterances that start from the prophecies of the restoration of the people of Israel and of the house of David, other writings lay more emphasis on the supernatural-transcendent character of the great time of salvation.”

Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962), page 10.

20 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 320-321; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 509-510; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pages 147-148.

21 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 578,580; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 327-328, 334.

22 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 309-315,320; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 509-511.

23 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 495-507; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 299-304.

24 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:40-41.

25 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, page 136.

26 C.I. Scofield with Ella E. Pohle, compiler, Dr. C.I. Scofield’s Question Box (Chicago: Moody Press, 1917), page 70.

27 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:248-249

28 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:30.

29 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, page 144.

30 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, page 138.

31 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 227.

“From these Scriptures the evidence is conclusive that the Church is the Bride of Christ and that Israel will have her place of honor in the kingdom as companions of the Bride.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:133.

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow: Part (2)

2010-10-05T18:37:00.000-07:00

Dispensationalism: Israel and the Church

The consistent dispensationalist is a theologian in the grip of an idea — the idea that there is a strong dichotomy between Israel and the church. This idea is a relatively modern theory in the history of doctrine that was initially developed and popularized by J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the father of dispensational thought. During a period of convalescence in 1827, Darby meditated on the fact that the true Christian through the baptizing work of the Spirit is in union with Christ and therefore is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:4-7). With this on his mind, Darby read in Isaiah 32:15-20 about a prophesied outpouring of the Spirit upon Israel that would bring earthly blessings upon the people of God. Darby took this Scriptural data and concluded it to imply a strong contrast between earthly blessings prophesied for Israel and heavenly blessings promised to the Christian in the New Testament.

From this Darby developed his theory that God has two peoples, an earthly people and a heavenly people. [1]

In 1840, Darby gave the following summary of his new ideas on prophecy:

Prophecy applies itself properly to the earth; its object is not heaven. It was about things that were to happen on the earth; and the not seeing this has misled the Church. We have thought that we ourselves had within us the accomplishments of these earthly blessings, whereas we are called to heavenly blessings. The privilege of the Church is to have its portion in the heavenly places; and later blessings will be shed forth upon the earthly people. The Church is something altogether apart — a kind of heavenly economy, during the rejection of the earthly people, who are put aside on account of their sins, and driven out among the nations, out of the midst of which nations God chooses a people for the enjoyment of heavenly glory with Jesus Himself. The Lord, having been rejected by the Jewish people, is become wholly a heavenly person. This is the doctrine which we find peculiarly in the apostle Paul. It is no longer the Messiah for the Jews, but a Christ exalted, glorified; and it is for want of taking hold of this exhilarating truth, that the Church has become so weak. [2]

This summary statement demonstrates that Darby had come to interpret Scripture in terms of the dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis theories. He had come to view the Jews as the earthly people of God with an earthly purpose, destiny and hope, the Christians as the heavenly people of God with a heavenly purpose, destiny and hope, and the church age as the heavenly parenthesis in the earthly program.

Reformed theology, of course, strongly disagrees with this radical dichotomy between Israel and the church. Reformed theologians do recognize Biblical distinctions between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church but not a strong dichotomy. The Biblical distinctions between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church involve an organic progression analogous to the development of a child into an adult (Galatians 4:3-4). The organic development brought about during the time of the New Testament includes the unprecedentedly clear revelation through the Incarnate Word and His apostles, the historical accomplishment of the prophesied Messianic atonement, the outpouring of the Spirit in unprecedented fullness, the cessation of the burdensome Mosaic ceremonial laws, and the universalization of the kingdom previously limited to the Jewish nation.

In the midst of these developmental changes, there was also a strong continuity with the Old Testament program. Although God often dealt with Old Testament Israel in terms of earthly institutions and promises, these were pictures of the same heavenly realities later spoken of in the New Testament and there was a genuine spiritual dimension in the lives of the Old Testament saints. And although the New Testament often speaks in terms of heavenly and spiritual realities, the Christian is still in the world and has been given the earthly task of being the light of the world, the salt of the earth and the discipler of the nations.

Here are two antithetically opposed systems in regard to the relationship between Israel and the church. To determine which system is correct, we must go to Scripture. A New Testament passage that speaks to this issue is Ephesians 2:12-21, a passage in which the Apostle Paul contrasts the covenant status of Gentiles in general under the old covenant with that of Gentile Christians under the new covenant. In this passage, Paul first reminds the Ephesian Christians of their former spiritual poverty before their coming to faith in Christ in the new covenant age.

As “Gentiles in the flesh,” they were uncircumcised and were therefore without what had been in former times the sign and seal of God’s covenant (verse 11). Paul then in verse 12 summarizes what had once been these Ephesian Gentiles’ covenant status:

… at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.

As the uncircumcised, they had been “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” (verse 12). Outward membership in God’s covenant community does not guarantee inward membership and salvation, but it is important. Outward membership in Old Testament Israel had not been without its advantages, to say the least:

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2

… Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Romans 9:4-5

... salvation is of the Jews. John 4:22

The “Gentiles in the flesh” under the old covenant had been without these advantages due to their alienation from Israel. The word here translated “being aliens” is a strong term used at times to speak of estrangement from God due to moral abominations (Ezekiel 14:5,7-8 LXX; Hosea 9:10 LXX). After the formation of the nations at the tower of Babel, God had chosen one man, Abraham, to father the one nation, Israel, through which He would exclusively administer His covenants until the universalism of the new covenant age when His people would be from every tribe, nation and tongue. During that period of Jewish particularism, God had “suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14:16), allowing them to remain in their bondage to demonic paganism and therefore in a state of alienation from God and His people.

As “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,” the “Gentiles in the flesh” had been, most significantly, “without Christ.” Under the old covenant, the Jews, of course, had not known the historically manifested Jesus of Nazareth, but they had known the Messiah yet to come through the “covenants of promise” (verse 12). Paul in a sermon addressed to physical Jews stated that;

… the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; … Acts 13:32b-33

The uncircumcised Gentile’s relationship to these promises had been that of the “stranger,” a general term for the foreigner or alien who was without the rights associated with citizenship in the covenant community.

Paul then contrasts this former position of spiritual poverty with the covenant status in this age of Gentiles who believe in Christ. Contrary to their former status, they are now “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (verse 19). Each major word in this statement is worthy of close examination. According to verse 12, the “Gentiles in the flesh” had been “strangers from the covenants of promise,” but now the Gentiles in Christ are “no more strangers or foreigners” (verse 19). The Greek word here translated foreigners is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to the resident aliens who lived in Israel and had certain legal rights but who were not citizens in Israel and could not partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:45 LXX). This word literally means “the one beside the house,” and Paul states that to be no longer a foreigner is to be “of the household of God,” a symbolic expression for membership in God’s people under both the old and the new covenants (Numbers 12:7; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 3:5-6). The Gentiles in Christ are also now “fellow-citizens with the saints.” In the Greek, the word translated fellow- citizen in verse 19 is closely related to the word in verse 12 translated commonwealth in the King James Version. In the New International Version, this word from verse 12 is translated citizenship, a translation which better shows the close affinity of this word with the one translated fellow-citizen. The Gentile in the flesh had been alienated “from the commonwealth of Israel,” but the Gentile Christian is now a “fellow-citizen with the saints.” The “saints” are God’s holy people, the people of the covenant. The Christian is a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26; Philippians 3:20; Revelation 3:12) and therefore a fellow-citizen with with the saints of all ages (Hebrews 12:22-23).

Verses 13 and 17 also relate to our discussion. In verse 13, the Gentile Christians at Ephesus are referred to as “ye who sometimes were far off.” Then in verse 17, the apostle says,

And (Christ) came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

As we have seen from verse 13, those who are referred to as “afar off” are the pagan Gentiles who had lived as “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.” Who then are those referred to as “them that were nigh.” Many believe that this term has reference here to the Jews at Ephesus who had heard the Gospel message. [3] Peter used some similar terminology in his Pentecost sermon to the Jews at Jerusalem:

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The Jew as a member of God’s covenant people was already provisionally near to the Gospel since the Gospel was the fulfillment of the covenants of promise that had been made with Old Testament Israel. Of course, if the Jew persisted in rejecting the Messiah, he was cut off from the true covenant people, but the Gospel was offered to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (Romans 1:16). In verse 13 of Ephesians 2, Paul says,

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Let us assume that the terms “near” and “far” do refer to the respective relationships of the Jew and the pagan Gentile to the Old Testament covenants of promise at the time of the transition between the old and new covenants when the new covenant Gospel was first being offered. Then Paul in verse 13 is teaching that the pagan Gentile who believed in Christ had been made an heir in new covenant fullness of those Old Testament covenants of promise which formerly had exclusively belonged to Old Testament Israel.

This passage is not teaching that the Gentile Christian has become a member of Old Testament Israel. Ephesians two teaches that the Gentile believer has become a member of the church of Messianic fullness, which Paul calls “the new man” (verse 15) and which Paul speaks of as a building built upon the foundation of the New Testament apostles and prophets (verse 20). The importance of this passage is that it stresses both the newness of the church and the continuity of the church with God’s previous covenant program. The answer to Gentile alienation from Israel and her covenants is membership in the new man, which makes one a fellow-citizen with God’s covenant people and a member of God’s house. These terms have roots in the Old Testament, and this passage fits in well with the Reformed teaching that the New Testament church is Old Testament Israel come to new covenant maturity. The dispensational interpretation of this Ephesians passage puts all its emphasis on the teaching in this passage that the New Testament church is a “new man.” [4] True, there is a significant newness to the New Testament church, but that fact does not nullify the equally valid teaching in Ephesians 2 that the New Testament church has a strong relationship of organic continuity with Old Testament Israel.

Is the newness of the new covenant church the newness of maturity that occurs in a context of organic continuity with the past? Or is the newness of the new covenant church best explained by the rigid dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis theories? For the dispensationalist to assume automatically and dogmatically that the “new man” has no organic continuity with the Old Testament covenant people is to commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Under the Mosaic covenant, only practicing Jews were members of God’s covenant people. In this age of the new covenant, however, believing Jews and Gentiles are together full members of God’s holy people (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:14) and unbelieving individual Jews and Gentiles are together outside the camp of covenant blessings.

There are two ways this equalization of spiritual status between Jew and Gentile could have been effected. In line with the dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis theories, the Old Testament covenants could have parenthetically become inoperative.

According to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “… the Jew has been removed from the place of special privilege which was his in the past age and leveled to the same standing as the Gentile …” [5]

According to Dr. John F. Walvoord, “In the present age, Israel has been set aside, her promises held in abeyance, with no progress in the fulfillment of her program.” [6]

And the new and distinct privileges of the church could have been introduced for believing Jews and Gentiles alike. Or, in line with the Reformed teaching that the church age is an exalted continuation of the Old Testament covenant program, believing Gentiles could have been elevated to the privileged position of spiritual Israel by being made full heirs of the Old Testament covenants in new covenant fullness. Believing Jews would have remained in spiritual Israel during the transition between the old and new covenants, and unbelieving Jews would have been cut off from the covenant people in judgment (Romans 11:20). To be cut off from the church in judgment was to be reduced in the eyes of the covenant people to the religious status of a pagan (Matthew 18:17).

Ephesians 2 supports this second suggestion through its teaching that believing Gentiles today participate in the covenants of promise that formerly had been limited to the commonwealth of Israel.

Another relevant passage is Romans 11, in which Paul discusses the status of Jews in the church age. The olive tree of Romans 11 stands for the privileged position of blessing that belonged to Old Testament Israel (compare Jeremiah 11:16; Hosea 14:6). It is an olive tree whose roots are firmly established in the Old Testament covenants made with the Jewish patriarchs.

Before looking at Paul’s use of the figure, let us examine how we should expect Paul to use the figure if he really were a dispensationalist.

Since, according to dispensationalism, all the Jews in this parenthetical age are cut off from their Old Testament privileges, we should expect Paul to teach that all the branches on the olive tree of Israel were broken off at the beginning of the church age. Like the clock of the Jewish prophetic program that supposedly stopped ticking at the beginning of the church age, the old Jewish olive tree would have to stand dormant during the church age until that future tribulation period and millennium when God again resumes the Jewish prophetic program. It would be like the Jewish train that is waiting on the side track until the church train passes by on the track of history, to use another illustration popular with dispensationalists.

Also, since according to dispensationalism, God’s program for the church is totally distinct from God’s program for Israel, we should expect Paul to teach that at the beginning of the church age a new olive tree representing the church was divinely planted. And all the believing Jews who were broken off from the olive tree of dormant Israel and all the believing Gentiles who were formerly in the wild olive tree of paganism are in this age grafted into the olive tree of church blessings. But this, of course, is not what Paul teaches. Paul instead teaches that only unbelieving Jews were broken off from the olive tree of Israel. Jews who accepted Christ remained where they always had been — in the olive tree of Israel. And believing Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree of Israel. This Romans 11 explanation of the status of Jews in the church age strongly implies that the church is spiritual Israel in this new covenant age.

Another passage which shows the strong continuity between Israel and the church is Hebrews 3:5-6. This passage refers to both Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church as God’s house, which demonstrates their unity as the one people of God. This passage builds upon Numbers 12:7, where the term God’s house definitely does refer to Israel. [7] This passage also demonstrates the organic progression between the testaments with its message that the Christ of the new covenant era, who is a Son over God’s house, is superior to Moses of the old covenant era, who was a servant in God’s house.

Another passage that speaks to the issue of the Biblical relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church is Revelation 21. Revelation 21 reveals that the New Jerusalem is symbolic for the saints of all the ages. The city’s twelve foundation stones, having the names of the twelve apostles written upon them, represent the New Testament saints. And the city’s twelve gates, having the names of the twelve tribes of Israel written on them, represent the Old Testament saints (Revelation 21:12,14). The New Jerusalem, a city whose citizenship includes the saints of all the ages, is in this passage called the Bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2,9-10). The Bride of Christ is elsewhere defined as the church universal, the Body of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33). This means that both Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are together in the Body of Christ.

The conclusion that Old Testament saints are included in the New Jerusalem is further confirmed by Hebrews 11 and 12. Hebrews 11 sets forth examples of faith in the lives of Old Testament saints and ends with the following comment on the salvific status of the Old Testament saints:

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Following this, in Hebrews 12:22-24, the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem are described as follows:

But you have come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

A comparison of the above verses can leave little doubt that both Old Testament and New Testament saints are citizens of the heavenly city. Hebrews 12:22-23 teaches that “the spirits of just men made perfect,” are included among the New Jerusalem inhabitants, and Hebrews 11:39-40 gives evidence that this designation is inclusive of the Old Testament saints.

Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost attempts to explain away the implications of the above reference to the New Jerusalem as the Bride of Christ by arguing that though the New Jerusalem does contain all the saints of all the ages, the city takes its “chief characterization” from the New Testament church, which alone is the Bride of Christ. [8]

Dr. C.I. Scofield has a different explanation:

The “Lamb’s wife” here [Revelation 19:7] is the “bride” (Rev. 21.9), the Church, identified with the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12.22,23), and to be distinguished from Israel, the adulterous and repudiated “wife” of Jehovah, yet to be restored (Isa. 54.1-10; Hos. 2.1-17), who is identified with the earth (Hos. 2.23). A forgiven and restored wife could not be called either a virgin (2 Cor. 11.2,3), or a bride. [9]

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer suggests the following:

It is named for the Bride of Christ and probably because she has some superior right to it; yet other peoples and beings enter her gates. [10]

And Dr. John F. Walvoord says the following:

The New Jerusalem is given detailed revelation and is described in general “as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2). The figure of marriage is used for the church, for Israel, and here for the city in which the saints of all ages will dwell. The fact that the marriage figure is used for more than one entity in Scripture should not be considered confusing, nor should the city be identified specifically with the church. It is rather that the New Jerusalem has all the beauty and freshness of a bride adorned for her husband. [11]

Another significant passage that speaks directly to this issue is Matthew 21:43, a statement which Christ made to the Jewish leaders near the end of His earthly ministry: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof.”

The question that this statement raises is, What is this nation that was given the kingdom of God?

The obvious answer is the church, which is elsewhere designated a nation (1 Peter 2:9). If the church was given the kingdom program that God had first administered through Old Testament Israel and had previously rooted in the Old Testament covenants, then there is a strong continuity between Israel and the church. If the church assumes the Old Testament kingdom program begun with Old Testament Israel, then the church truly is the Israel of the new covenant.

A common dispensational answer to the above question is that the kingdom will be given “to the nation Israel when she shall turn to the Lord and be saved before entering the millennial kingdom.” [12]

This means that the whole church age must intervene between the first clause of the verse in which the kingdom is taken away from physical Israel and the second clause in which the kingdom is given to another nation!

Some dispensationalists do admit that this verse is teaching that the kingdom in some sense has been transferred in this age from Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church or to the believing Gentiles of this age. [13] Those who make this admission must define away through qualifications the significance and meaning of this transfer if they are to maintain their dichotomy between Israel and the church with their two separate and distinct programs. Whenever dispensationalists admit that the kingdom is related to the church, they usually interpret it as either the kingdom in mystery form of Matthew 13 or as God’s non-theocratic rule of providence.

Additional insight into the transition of the kingdom from Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church can be found in the Biblical teaching on the Messianic Good Shepherd. The Messianic Good Shepherd was both to dispossess the “bad shepherd” leaders of Israel and to judge between members of the flock of Israel (Ezekiel 34:7-31). Jesus Christ took the kingdom away from the leaders of Israel who had opposed Him and gave the kingdom to the “poor of the flock” (Zechariah 11:7,11), the righteous remnant within the nation who were His disciples. In Luke 12:32, Jesus said to His disciples: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” His disciples were the true sheep in Israel, for the true sheep within the flock of Israel were those who recognized the Messianic Shepherd, listened to His teachings, and obediently followed Him (John 10:14,27). Those Jews who rejected Christ did not believe because they were not true sheep (John 10:26).

Jesus also taught that He also had sheep outside of the fold of His Jewish disciples (John 10:16). Jesus was here speaking of the Gentiles who would later believe and be incorporated into His church. Though these had not yet believed, Christ spoke of them as those chosen and predestined to be His from before the foundation of the world. This statement parallels the Lord’s later visionary commandment that instructed Paul to continue preaching in Corinth because “I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:10).

In John 10:16, Christ said that these Gentile sheep were at that time outside of His present fold of disciples and that He would lead them into His one flock. [14] The word translated fold in John 10:16 literally refers to a walled court (compare John 10:1) and brings to mind a picture of Israel walled off from the Gentile nations by her ceremonial laws. Jesus was to lead these Gentile sheep into His one flock, “for He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Ephesians 2:14).

The new covenant people of God are one flock with no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

The use of the flock metaphor in John 10 demonstrates the relationship of continuity between old covenant Israel and the new covenant church. Both old covenant Israel and the new covenant church are spoken of as God’s flock. [15] Christ’s sheep are those for whom He savingly died (John 10:11) and to whom He has given eternal life (John 10:28). Since salvation is found in Christ alone, God’s true sheep are the saints of all ages.

Taken together, this data on the Good Shepherd teaches that Jesus took the kingdom away from the leaders and members of old covenant Israel who rejected Him, gave this kingdom to the righteous remnant within the nation who received Him in faith, and then added to this one flock the believing Gentiles.

This message given under the figure of the one flock is similar to the message that Paul teaches in Romans 11 under the figure of the one olive tree. Both John 10 and Romans 11 teach the essential unity of the people of God through the ages as one flock and one olive tree and illustrate the organic progression and the developmental continuity in the transition between the old and new covenants.

Another group of passages that are relevant to our discussion of the continuity question consists of passages which give the church a Jewish name. The most commonly discussed of these is Galatians 6:16, where Paul refers to the church as the Israel of God.

Dispensationalists argue that Paul here was referring exclusively to the Jews in the early church and not to the church as a whole. [16]

But one must remember that one of Paul’s main themes in Galatians is the teaching that the Jews have no special privileges over the Gentiles in this age (Galatians 3:28). Christ has broken down the religious dividing wall between Jew and Gentile in the Christian church (Ephesians 2:14). If Paul then gives the Jews in the church a special status or recognition by referring to them exclusively as the Israel of God, then Paul would have destroyed his own argument. He would have played into the hands of the Judaizers by giving them a valid reason for arguing that Gentile Christians could improve their covenant status by becoming Jewish proselytes as well as Christians.

According to dispensationalists, believing Jews and Gentiles in the church are together heirs of spiritual promises, but Jews, believing and unbelieving, are exclusive heirs of national promises. [17]

Since Paul taught that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ (Galatians 3:28), he must have been referring to the whole church when he spoke of the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16.

If this interpretation is correct, then this verse would be best translated “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God” as in the New International Version, and the true Israel of God in this age would be defined as all those who walk by the rule of not boasting except in the cross of Christ.

Elsewhere the church is called the diaspora, a technical term for Jews living in Gentile nations (1 Peter 1:1; James 1:1); the twelve tribes (James 1:1; Revelation 7:4; Luke 22:30); a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession (1 Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 1:6; Titus 2:14; compare Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 7:6); Jews who are Jews inwardly (Romans 2:28-29); the circumcision (Philippians 3:3; compare Colossians 2:11, Romans 2:29); comers unto Mount Zion (Hebrews 12:22); citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26); children of promise like Isaac (Galatians 4:28); Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).

Typically, dispensationalists argue that these Jewish names given to the church refer only to believing Jews in the church.

There are some cases where the New Testament does make a limited reference to believing Jews, as in Romans 9:6: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” That verse is contrasting believing Jews and unbelieving Jews.There, however, are many other cases where Paul is clearly referring to the whole church when he uses a Jewish title. For example, Paul defined the circumcision as those “which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Philippians 3:3). The circumcision is a title for Israel (Ephesians 2:11), and this description of the true circumcision in this age is inclusive of all true believers, both Jew and Gentile. All Christians are spiritually circumcised (Colossians 2:11-12), and “he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:29).

It is also relevant that Jesus in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 called the Jews who were then persecuting the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia, those “which say they are Jews, and are not” and “the synagogue of Satan.” These verses clearly show that those ethnic Jews who rejected Christ were no longer considered a part of the true Israel. Paul said in Romans 3:28: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh” (Romans 3:28).

The relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church is not one of strong dichotomy but one of organic, developmental continuity. If the Bible presents any group as being in a dichotomous relationship with spiritual Israel, it is not the New Testament church but New Testament Phariseeism, which developed into what is today called normative Judaism. The New Testament age differs from the Old Testament period in its non-bloody rituals and its greater spiritual fullness, but the saints of both ages constitute the one people of God who are together the Body and Bride of Christ.

*****
End Notes

1 Daniel Payton Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (dissertation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957), pages 38-41.

2 Ibid., page 45; quoting from J.N. Darby, “The Hopes of the Church of God,” Collected Writings (William Kelly, editor; 35 volumes; second edition; London: G. Morrish, n.d.), 2:571-572.

3 “In Eph. 2:13 Gentile Christians are reminded of God’s gift that those who were once far from God, …, have been brought near to Him by Christ and become His children. In Eph. 2:17, which sets Is. 57:19 in the context of salvation history …, the Gentiles are told that to them, who are far from God …, Christ brought peace and salvation no less than to the Jews, so that the distant and the near, Gentile and Jewish Christians, experience as the great mystery of God through Christ their union into the new people of God.”Gerhard Kittel, editor; Geoffrey W. Bromily, editor and translator, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 4:374.

See also Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:74; John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (reprint: Minneapolis: James and Klock Christian Publishing Co., 1977; original: Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1883), pages 169-170; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), pages 213-214; T.K. Abbott, The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clerk, 1897), page 60.

4 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), page 165.

5 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:248.”The Gentile was not elevated to the level of Jewish privilege; but the Jew was lowered to the level of the hopeless Gentile, from which position either Jew or Gentile might be saved through grace alone into a heavenly position and glory.”

Ibid., 4:75.

6 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 136. Yet on page 165, Dr. Walvoord argues that “Israel is not reduced to the bankruptcy of Gentiles–to become ‘strangers from the covenants of promise’ …” Dr. Walvoord’s point may be that although unbelieving individual Jews are not heirs of spiritual blessings, all Jews, believing and unbelieving, remain heirs of the national promises, in dispensational theory (page 169). On page 136, he says, “Promises may be delayed in fulfillment but not cancelled.”

7 Compare Exodus 16:31; 2 Samuel 1:12; Jeremiah 31:31; Matthew 10:6; 15:24; Acts 2:36.

8 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), page 576; compare page 227.

9 C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), page 1348 (note on Revelation 19:7).

10 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 5:367.

11 Dr. John F. Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964), page 161.

12 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, page 71.

13 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible: The New Testament, note on Matthew 21:43; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 465-466.

14 This distinction between the flock and the fold in John 10:16 is not made clear in the King James Version where both Greek words are translated fold.

15 Israel: Psalm 74:1; 78:52; 79:13; 95:7; 100:3; Isaiah 40:11; 63:11; Jeremiah 13:17; 23:1; 50:6; Ezekiel 34:31; Micah 7:14; Zechariah 10:3; 13:7; Matthew 10:6; 15:24. Church: Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:2-3.

16 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pages 139-140. According to Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, there is no spiritual Israel in this age:

“There is a distinction between the true church and true or spiritual Israel. Prior to Pentecost there were saved individuals, but there was no church, and they were a part of spiritual Israel, not the church. After the day of Pentecost and until the rapture we find the church which is His body, but no spiritual Israel. After the rapture we find no church, but a true or spiritual Israel again. These distinctions must be kept clearly in mind.”

J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 199.

Dr. Pentecost defines Jewish Christians as those “who would be a part of spiritual Israel” (Ibid, page 89). I assume him to mean by this that Jewish Christians are those Jews who, because of their faith, would be a part of spiritual Israel if this were not the parenthetical church age.

17 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 169.

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow: Part (3)

2010-10-05T18:24:00.000-07:00

The Parenthesis Theory and the Church in Prophecy

The most basic disagreement between dispensationalism and Reformed theology centers around the relationship between the New Testament church and Old Testament Israel. According to dispensationalism, the church age is a parenthesis in the Jewish kingdom program prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament church at Pentecost, they teach, was an absolutely new entity, a mystery to which no Old Testament prophecy had directly referred. They teach that all the Jewish kingdom prophecies referred to a Jewish millennial kingdom that was postponed until after the unexpected church age because of the Jewish rejection of Jesus.

Of course, Reformed theology disagrees with this teaching. Reformed theology recognizes both that the church at Pentecost was something new in a relative sense and that the church is built upon and continues the Old Testament kingdom. Just because the butterfly (the heavenly people) emerging from the cocoon is new on the scene does not mean that it has no direct relationship to the caterpillar (the earthly people) that built the cocoon. Also, the kingdom program’s being taken from the Jewish leadership because they rejected Jesus does not mean that the kingdom program itself was postponed. According to Reformed theology, the church is spiritual Israel come to dispensational maturity and is the fulfillment of many prophecies made about Israel in the Old Testament.

Which of these two opposing views of the relationship between Israel and the church is correct? From the nature of the question, one should expect to find some clues to the correct answer by studying the New Testament’s use of Old Testament prophecy. If the New Testament ever quotes any Old Testament prophecy as referring directly to the New Testament church, then a basic element of the dispensational system is thereby discredited. Unfortunately for the dispensationalists, there are such quotations in the New Testament.

Probably the best known such Old Testament prophecy is Joel 2:28.

Now take note: this prophecy comes from the Jewish Old Testament. According to dispensationalists, the Old Testament prophets were absolutely and completely ignorant of the coming church age. They supposedly had been led by God to believe that the coming of the Messiah would be followed by the dispensational Jewish millennium, not by a church age. Also, the prophecy of Joel was addressed to Israel and the children of Zion (Joel 2:23,27), not to the church. Since Israel means Israel, and since church means church, a prophecy about Israel can have no direct relationship to the church, according to the dispensationalists. Now comes the test: What does the New Testament have to say about the fulfillment of Joel 2:28?

We find Joel 2:28 quoted by Simon Peter in Acts 2:16-17 on Pentecost, the birthday of the New Testament church! The Holy Spirit was on that day poured out upon the church in unprecedented fullness, and Peter explained this phenomenon by saying, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” and then by quoting Joel 2:28-32. If words are to be taken in their normal and literal sense, it is hard to imagine how one could communicate more clearly that an event was a fulfillment of prophecy than with the words this is that.

The Bible also indicates that Joel 2 continues to be fulfilled throughout this age. In his Pentecost sermon, Peter indicated that the outpoured Spirit as a gift promised in prophecy was also for “all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39), a reference to pagan Gentiles who would believe. The blessings of the Pentecost outpouring were extended to believing uncircumcised Gentiles in Acts 10. Now that the blessings of the new covenant have been ushered in and extended to all nations, the Holy Spirit is poured out in fulfillment of Joel 2 every time a person is regenerated (Titus 3:5-6).

Consistent dispensationalists, because of their presupposed theological system, have difficulty with such an understanding of Joel 2. They cannot even admit that Pentecost where Peter said “this is that” was an outpouring of the Spirit foreseen by the prophet Joel. Dispensationalists believe that Joel’s prophesied outpouring will occur in their yet future Jewish tribulation period and millennium, in an age in which there is no baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. [1] There is a note of irony here. The Pentecost outpouring is identified as the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; 10:44-48; 11:15-18), that divine work that puts one into the Body of Christ, the church universal (1 Corinthians 12:13). Yet dispensationalists say that the true outpouring, the one genuinely foreseen by the prophet, will occur in an age in which there is no baptizing work of the Holy Spirit, for dispensationalists have no place for either the church or the baptism of the Holy Spirit in their earthly millennial program.

How do dispensationalists deal with Peter’s words at Pentecost? The following quotation from Merrill F. Unger is typical of many dispensationalists’ understanding of this passage:

Peter’s phraseology “this is that” means nothing more than “this is [an illustration of that] which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). In the reference there is not the slightest hint at a continued fulfillment during the church age or a coming fulfillment toward the end of the church age. The reference is solely in an illustrative sense to Jewish listeners at Pentecost. Fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy is still future and awaits Christ’s second coming in glory and a copious spiritual outpouring ushering in kingdom blessing (cf. Zech. 12:10-13:1; Acts 1:6,7). [2]

According to another dispensational writer:

Peter says that the events of Acts 2 are what Joel spoke of but not necessarily the fulfillment of what Joel spoke of! [3]

The writer goes on to speak of the Pentecostal event as containing “a breakthrough” and “a specimen” of the kingdom age prophesied by Joel. Dispensationalists feel free to interpret Peter’s words “this is that” in a less than literal manner so they can interpret Joel’s prophecy with a dispensationally strict literality.

Interestingly, the ultra-dispensationalists believe that Joel’s prophecy did have a direct fulfillment on Pentecost. [4] According to ultra-dispensationalists, there are three peoples of God: Old Testament Israel, the early Jewish Petrine church, and the later Pauline “Body of Christ” Christian church. Since ultra-dispensationalists associate Pentecost exclusively with the early Jewish church and not with the Christian church, they can allow a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy in Acts and still consistently maintain the dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the Christian church. Just as dispensationalists believe the Sermon on the Mount to be Jewish truth not directly related to the church, so some ultra-dispensationalists believe the book of Acts and all the New Testament epistles written during that time period to be Jewish truth not directly related to the Christian church.

Dispensationalists argue for their futuristic view of Joel’s prophecy from the prophecy’s mention of cataclysmic events in the heavens. They ask when in the church age was the sun turned to darkness and when did the moon become blood? In the Old Testament, however, similar language was used to describe the national disasters prophesied for Babylon (Isaiah 13:10), Egypt (Ezekiel 32:7-8), and Edom and the Gentile nations in general (Isaiah 34:4-5). Historical accounts of the fall of ancient political empires may be boring to us, but there was nothing boring about the prophecies of such events for the ancient Jews. The prophesied fall of these powerful, antagonistic pagan powers were events poetically comparable to the fall of stars and the darkening of the sun. For the ancient people who were exposed to the splendor and glory of, for example, ancient Babylon, the fall of that city would have seemed about as likely as the fall of the heavenly bodies that ruled the sky. The Bible speaks of the sun and moon as rulers over the heavenly realm (Genesis 1:16) whose continuing rule is a metaphor for permanency (Jeremiah 31:35-36). This is my understanding of this language. Others view such language as a literal description of the second coming of Christ and believe that the prophets spoke of these ancient national judgments in terms of the final judgment or in conjunction with a description of the final judgment. What is certain is that Biblical prophetic language sometimes associates cataclysmic events in the heavens with the fall of supposedly infallible and everlasting political systems. First century Judea was no mighty political power but it was God’s chosen nation and regarded by first century Jews as under God’s protection. Its fall and destruction was unthinkable.

I believe Joel used this language associated with cataclysmic national judgments to refer to the general principle that God pours out His wrath upon His enemies as well as His Spirit upon His people. The conquering Messiah throughout the new covenant era leads the horsemen of the Apocalypse in judgment against those nations that reject Him (Revelation 6). This general principle about the outpouring of God’s wrath had a special application in God’s judgment upon the apostate Jewish nation in 70 A.D. (compare 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, there were literal signs and wonders in heaven and on earth–the darkening of the sun, the quaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks, the opening of graves (Matthew 27:45-54). Some who observed these extraordinary events were filled with fear and smote their breasts (Matthew 27:54; Luke 23:48), indications that some may have recognized these events as warnings of a coming divine judgment. Peter in his Pentecostal sermon exhorted his Jewish listeners to “be saved from this perverse generation!” (Acts 2:40). This exhortation had reference to salvation from this coming national judgment which Jesus had prophesied, and history testifies that the Jewish church was delivered from that catastrophe. Also, when Jesus prophesied this national judgment, He used apocalyptic language similar to that found in Joel 2 (Matthew 24:29; Luke 21:11,25). This interpretation of Joel 2 finds further support in John the Baptist’s statement that the Messiah would baptize not only with the Holy Spirit but also with the fire of judgment (Matthew 3:10- 12; compare Malachi 3:1-2; 4:5-6).

The prophecy in Joel as quoted by Peter also spoke about “wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, fire and vapor of smoke” (Acts 2:19). In Jewish literature, the phrase signs and wonders is almost always associated with Moses and the deliverance of Israel from Egypt through mighty acts of God. [5] The last words of the Five Books of Moses are:

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharoah, and to all his servants, and to all his land, and in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the sight of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-12 – (compare Acts 7:36)

Joel’s mention of “blood, fire and vapor of smoke” pointed to the Nile’s being turned to blood and the plague of outpoured hail and fire and to the fire and smoke on Mount Sinai. Also, his mention of the darkened sun suggested another of the ten plagues upon Egypt. The age of the Messiah was to include new wonders like those associated with the exodus from Egypt (Micah 7:15). Peter proclaimed that Jesus was “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs” (Acts 2:22). Indeed Jesus was the prophesied Messianic prophet like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18; Acts 3:22). The apostles (as well as those supernaturally gifted by the apostles through the laying on of hands) continued to perform Messianic signs and wonders (Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 8:13; 14:3; 15:12) as signs of their genuine apostleship (2 Corinthians 12:12). The mention of signs and wonders in Joel’s prophecy is no basis for teaching that it has yet to find a direct fulfillment.

Lastly, dispensationalists sometimes argue that only their system can adequately explain the cessation of the gift of prophecy after the age of the apostles. Dispensationalists argue that if the kingdom period prophesied in Joel 2 is the church age, then this age should be an age of continuing prophecy and miracles in the daily lives of believers. [6] There is a note of historical irony here. Dispensationalists argue that only their system can adequately counter charismatic claims that the revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy should be a normative experiences throughout the church age. And yet many Pentecostals who were exposed to the dispensational system through the Keswick movement readily accepted the dispensational system as compatible with their own. [7]

Joel prophesied the Messianic age of the Spirit in which all the people of God would receive the Spirit and spiritual gifts in new covenant fullness. In the Old Testament, the gift of prophecy was associated with the coming of the Spirit in power upon a person (Numbers 11:25,29; 1 Samuel 10:10; 19:20). Joel’s prophecy described the new covenant age of spiritual fullness in terms of prophesying, dreaming dreams and seeing visions, all of which the Old Testament associated with the prophetic office (Numbers 12:6). Joel’s message was that there was coming an age in which all God’s people would receive the Spirit with a fullness and power that was then associated with the prophetic office. And indeed in this age, the least in the kingdom are greater than the greatest of the old covenant prophets (Luke 7:28). I see no need to interpret Joel’s prophecy as meaning that the whole new covenant age is to be characterized by literal dreams, visions and prophecies. It was in time past when God spoke in these divers manners through the prophets (Hebrew 1:1). Joel, ministering “in time past,” simply spoke of the then unknown future in terms of the working of the Spirit in that age.

There was, admittedly, a more literal fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy during the days of the apostles and the New Testament prophets. This was the period during which the New Testament canon was not completed, the apostles were still performing signs and wonders as proofs of apostleship, the extraordinary revelatory gifts of the Spirit were common among the people of God, the Jewish age had not yet ended with finality through the destruction of the temple, and the church was adjusting to the differences between the old and new covenants. This apostolic period was foundational and not normative for the new covenant age (Ephesians 2:20). Through the inspired committing of the apostolic revelations to Scripture and the completing of the New Testament canon, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Now, through this completed and all sufficient revelation, all the people of God have access to a greater prophetic revelation than was ever granted to any prophets of old. With the written Word and the illuminating work of the Spirit, the people of God are now no longer dependent upon the prophetic elite for divine teaching (1 John 2:27). This is the age in which all God’s people know the Lord from the least to the greatest of them (Jeremiah 31:34). [8] God’s perfect revelation through Jesus Christ has been committed to Scripture. Many prophets and righteous men longed to see what we now see through the completed Bible but did not see it.

I see a parallel between the difficulties the modern day dispensationalist has accepting a direct fulfillment of Joel 2 among Christians in the church age and the difficulties which some early Jewish Christians had accepting a fulfillment of Joel 2 among the uncircumcised Gentiles. To prepare Peter the Jew for this event, God gave him a special instructive vision (Acts 10:9- 16). And in Acts 10:44-45, we read of the total surprise experienced by some of the Jewish students of prophecy in the early church when Joel 2 found its first fulfillment among believing uncircumcised Gentiles at the house of Cornelius:

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit was poured out on the believing uncircumcised Gentiles even as He had been poured out upon believing Jews at Pentecost (Acts 10:47; 11:15). Joel 2 had specifically prophesied that the Spirit would be poured out upon “all flesh,” but these early Jewish Christians had apparently assumed that this universal term referred strictly to the Spirit’s being given without reference to sex, age or economic status within Israel. This new covenant outpouring upon uncircumcised Gentiles did not fit their preconceived understanding of the prophet’s message. The issue of the spiritual equality of uncircumcised Gentile believers within new covenant Israel continued to plague the early church and was not officially settled until the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.

At the Jerusalem council, there was additional New Testament revelation on the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in Acts 15:13-17 in James’ speech at the Jerusalem council:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men shall seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The issue before the council was the status of Gentile Christians in the church age. Some Jewish Christians were contending that it was necessary for all Gentile Christians to be circumcised and to be required to observe all the Old Testament ceremonial laws. In other words, some Jewish Christians wanted all the Gentile converts to become Jewish proselytes, to become members of Israel in the Old Testament sense. At the Jerusalem council, Peter argued that in the church age, neither Jew nor Gentile had to bear the yoke of observing the ceremonial law in order to receive the full covenantal status of a true Jew. Peter pointed out that God had given the Holy Spirit at Cornelius’ house just as freely to uncircumcised Gentile believers as He had given Him to Jewish believers. Paul and Barnabus then related “what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.” Then James made his climactic speech in which he pointed out that the words of the prophets agreed with what Peter had said about God’s taking “out of (the Gentiles) a people for His name” for the first time at Cornelius’ house. Here we have the words of the Jewish prophets, who were supposedly ignorant of the church age, agreeing with and confirming an event in the church age. James then paraphrased Amos 9:11-12, a prophecy which in the context of Amos promised that sometime after the destruction of northern Israel by Assyria, God would again return to Israel in a visitation of blessing to rebuild and to restore the Davidic kingdom so that “all the Gentiles, upon whom (God’s) name is called,” “might seek after the Lord.” James viewed this Old Testament prophecy about Gentiles’ being included in the covenantal program as being fulfilled by the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentile believers in the New Testament church.

The dispensationalists have their own interpretation of James’ use of Amos 9 at the Jerusalem council. I believe the following paraphrase fairly represents the dispensational interpretation of Acts 15:15-17 found in the Scofield Reference Bible: [9]

After God has taken out a people for His name from among the Gentiles to form the church (which Simeon related would occur first before the second advent), the second advent of Christ will occur and Christ will reestablish the Davidic rule over Israel in order that Israelites may seek after the Lord and also in order that all the millennial Gentiles may do the same.

The dispensationalists stress the words after and first in James’ speech. They teach that James addressed the issue of Gentile equality in the church by pointing out that the newly inaugurated and parenthetical period of Gentile blessing must come first and the prophesied period of Jewish blessing must come afterwards. The dispensationalists interpret this as prophetic evidence that there was to be a time of Gentile blessing and that God’s special millennial program for Israel had not been abandoned. [10]

There are several inaccuracies in the above that make the exegesis unacceptable. [11]

First, the phrase “after this” in Amos does not refer to “after God has taken out a people for His name from among the Gentiles to form the church,” an interpretation that puts the time reference after the entire church age in a Jewish millennium. “After this” does not relate chronologically to James’ previous statement about Peter’s testimony concerning the calling of the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 15:14). “After this” must be related chronologically to the context in Amos. The prophecy of Amos was directed primarily against the northern kingdom of Israel, and the context of Amos 9 refers to the prophesied scattering of the northern kingdom of Israel, which was fulfilled by the Assyrians under Sargon in 722 B.C. (Amos 9:9-10). Therefore, the phrase “after this,” which is James’ paraphrase of Amos’ phrase “in that day” (compare Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17), referred to the time of the establishment of the New Testament church, which was the prophesied spiritual renewal in Israel after the prophesied scattering.

If dispensationalists interpret “after this” to mean after the church age, then that interpretation contradicts the dispensational parenthesis theory. According to the parenthesis theory, the church age was not foreseen in any Old Testament prophecy. If Amos knew about the church age as a period of Gentile opportunity before the Jewish millennium, then the parenthesis theory is wrong. If Amos did not know about the coming church age, then “after this” could not mean after the church age.

Dr. John F. Walvoord seems to interpret “after this” as meaning after the times of the Gentiles. The times of the Gentiles in dispensational interpretation is that period from the Babylonian captivity to the end of Daniel’s seventy weeks during which Jerusalem is under Gentile political rule. The church age is a parenthetical interruption in the dispensational times of the Gentiles, which are now accomplished except for the future seven year tribulation period, which is the seventieth of Daniel’s seventy weeks. [12]

Dr. Walvoord identifies the “this” of “after this” with “the period of Gentile opportunity” and “the Gentile period.” Dr. Walvoord then argues that James was quoting Amos’ statement that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would occur after the Gentile period as evidence that the divine visitation upon the Gentiles which began at Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 was to occur first before the millennial period of Jewish blessing. [13]

In another book, Dr. Walvoord says the following:

It was difficult for the Jews to understand that for the time being the Gentiles should have a place of equality with Israel, in view of the many prophecies in the Old Testament which anticipated Israel’s pre-eminence and glory…

… it seems that “after these things I will return” refers to the return of Christ after the period of Gentile prominence which began in 606 B.C. and is destined to continue until the second coming. It is after these things–i.e., judgment on Israel, their scattering, and discipline–that Christ will return and build again the tabernacle or tent of David…

… The divine order therefore is judgment on Israel and blessing upon Gentile first, to be followed by judgment on Gentile and blessing on Israel. This is not only the order of the Old Testament, but it is the order of this portion in Acts … [14]

If Dr. Walvoord is saying that “after this” means “after the times of the Gentiles,” then that interpretation does not contradict the dispensational parenthesis theory. That interpretation, however, does take away any relevance the Amos passage would have had to the controversy over the spiritual equality of Gentiles in the church age. All the passage would have said is that after the time of Gentile political rule over Jerusalem, Gentile political superiority over Israel will end and the Davidic political kingdom will be restored. Amos’ prophecy would have said nothing about the church age and nothing about spiritual equality for Gentiles. According to dispensational theory, there is no spiritual equality for Gentiles during the “times of the Gentiles” except during the parenthetical and unrevealed church age, of which Amos would have been totally unaware. Is Dr. Walvoord saying that James’ argument was that just as there is to be no Jewish political superiority until after the times of the Gentiles, so by analogy the Jew is to have no spiritual superiority over the Gentiles until after the times of the Gentiles? This, however, would not be a valid argument. The Jews will have spiritual superiority over the Gentiles in the last seven years of the times of the Gentiles, according to dispensationalism. During the future seven year tribulation period, which is after the parenthetical church age and is the last of Daniel’s seventy weeks, the Old Testament economy will be restored.

Second, the word first in the sentence “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name,” does not mean first in sequence before a Jewish millennium. James is referring to Peter’s testimony about the introduction of the Gospel into the house of Cornelius (Acts 15:7-9; Acts 10), where the Gospel was introduced to uncircumcised Gentiles for the first time and therefore sequentially first before the miracles wrought among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas.

Third, the clause “I will return” does not refer to the second advent. This clause is not found in the Amos passage, and some commentators suggest that it may be based on Jeremiah 12:15 where the return is a return of favor and a divine visitation of blessing. The Hebrew of Jeremiah 12:15 literally says “I will return and have compassion,” and the New International Version translates this as “I will again have compassion.” The same Greek word translated return in Acts 15 is found in the LXX translation of Genesis 18:10 & 14. There the Angel of the Lord promised to return to Abraham and bless him with a son through Sarah. This was fulfilled through a visitation of blessing recorded in Genesis 21:1-2, not through a literal bodily return. The concept of a visitation of blessing is not uncommon in the Old Testament. [15]

Fourth, the phrase “the residue of men” does not refer to Israel. There is no reference to Israel in this quotation from Amos 9, yet the Scofield Reference Bible specifically identifies the phrase “the residue of men” with “Israelites.” This phrase is the Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew “the remnant of Edom.” One can view this as a paraphrase that interpretatively viewed Edom as symbolic for all the Gentile enemies of Israel (compare Isaiah 34:1-5). Or the explanation may be that the early Hebrew text did not have the vowel points and the Hebrew words for Edom and mankind (i.e., adam) without the vowel pointing are almost identical. Regardless of the correct explanation for the paraphrase, this passage specifically states that the house of David would be reestablished in order that Gentiles might seek the Lord. The passage from Amos points to the Messianic age as a time of special spiritual blessings upon Gentiles, and James used this teaching as an argument for recognizing and accepting God’s spiritual blessings upon the Gentiles in the church age. The dispensational position is that the Messianic age spoken of in Amos is not the church age but a yet future Jewish millennium and that James quoted Amos to prove that the time of special Jewish blessing follows the time of Gentile blessing. The Amos passage, however, presents the Messianic age as a period of Gentile spiritual blessings, not as an age of Jewish blessing following an age of Gentile blessing.

Fifth, the dispensational interpretation fails to see the obvious connection between “the heathen, which are called by My name” in Amos 9:12 (Acts 15:17) and Cornelius’ household where “God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name” (Acts 15:14). In the dispensational interpretation, the first phrase refers to millennial Gentiles and the second phrase refers to church age Gentiles.

Sixth, the dispensational interpretation of this passage does not relate well to the issue of the spiritual equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church, the issue before the Jerusalem council. Dispensationalist Charles L. Feinberg apparently agrees with me that James quoted a prophecy about Gentiles in the Messianic age as an argument for the religious equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church age:

It was left to James to make the concluding remarks. He pointed to the testimony of Peter, which showed conclusively that God was visiting the Gentiles “to take out of them a people for his name.” Then followed his statement as to the harmonization of that with the return of the Lord and the setting up of the Davidic kingdom with the conversion of those in Israel and the Gentiles also. [16]

I view the church age as the fulfillment of Amos 9 and Dr. Feinberg does not in accordance with the parenthesis theory. He instead sees Amos 9 as referring to the dispensational millennium and relates it to the church age as a “harmonization.” But what is harmonious between the dispensational millennium and the church age spiritual equality of believing Jews and Gentiles?

■According to dispensationalist Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, Israel in the millennium “will be exalted above the Gentiles,” “the Gentiles will be Israel’s servants,” and “the distinction of Israel from the Gentiles will again be resumed.” [17]

■According to Dr. Feinberg, “The nations in the kingdom will recognize the favored condition of Israel …” and “… Israel will also rule over the nations under the direct command of the King.” [18]

■According to Dr. John F. Walvoord: “In contrast to the present church age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, the millennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence and blessing.” [19]

If the dispensational interpretation of the millennial situation is correct, then the party of the circumcision who wanted Gentiles admitted into the church as they had been admitted into the synagogue (i.e. as circumcised proselytes) could have made better use of this passage than did James. [20] They could have argued that the prophesied inferior status of spiritually blessed millennial Gentiles is evidence for a similarly inferior status for church age Gentiles.

Scofield in his reference Bible notes described this passage in Acts 15 as “dispensationally … the most important passage in the New Testament.” [21] He was perhaps correct, but not in the sense that he intended. The correct interpretation of this passage demonstrates that, contrary to dispensational claims, a prophecy about Israel and the Jewish Davidic covenant is here declared to be fulfilled in and through the Christian church in the church age.

I would like to discuss the New Testament’s use of one last Old Testament prophecy. We read in Acts 13 that Paul spoke to the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch about Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Acts 13:44-48 records what happened on the following Sabbath:

And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabus waxed bold, and said, It is necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Here we have Paul quoting Isaiah 49:6, one of the many Old Testament prophecies about the spiritual blessings that were to come upon the Gentiles in the age of the Messiah. [22] If the dispensationalist is to hold to his parenthesis theory with strict consistency, he would directly relate these prophecies about the nations to millennial Gentiles and relate these prophecies to the church age only indirectly. According to the parenthesis theory, the Old Testament prophets were totally ignorant of the coming church age and spoke no prophetic word about the church age. Also, some of these prophecies spoke about the coming spiritual blessings upon the Gentiles in terms of the Old Testament system of worship. For example, Malachi 1:11 says:

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

For the consistent dispensationalist, these prophecies have no direct reference to the church age. Therefore, Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost is only being consistent when he uses Isaiah 49:6 as a proof text for the statement: “the fact of Gentiles’ participation in the millennium is promised in the prophetic Scriptures.” [23] Paul, however, believed that he was an agent for an actual fulfillment of this prophecy.

The Old Testament prophets spoke about the coming day when Israel would enlarge her tent to include the Gentiles (Isaiah 54:2). All three of the Old Testament prophecies that we have examined in this chapter have related to this theme of the day when God’s covenantal blessing would be upon all flesh and not just upon physical Israel. In all three cases, we have seen that dispensationalists refer these prophecies to a future Jewish millennium and the New Testament refers these prophecies to the present church age. The New Testament’s use of Old Testament prophecy contradicts the dispensational parenthesis theory.

***

End Notes

1 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), pages 271, 486; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: The New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pages 208-209 (note on Acts 2:16-21); John B. Graber, “Ultra-Dispensationalism” (dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1949), pages 88-89.

2 Merrill F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1971), page 26.

3 Joseph Dillow, Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), page 105. See also Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Rockville, Maryland: Assurance Publishers, 1974), pages 183-185.

4 John B. Graber, “Ultra-Dispensationalism,” page 85.

5 Gerhard Friedrich, editor; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 7:216, 221.

6 Joseph Dillow, Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions, page 101.

7 “Dispensationalism, which fit so well with the Pentecostal and holiness ideas of the ‘Age of the Spirit,’ easily gained acceptance in the new Pentecostal movement, even though Scofield-type dispensationalists maintained that tongues ceased with the apostles.”

George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), page 94.

“The Keswick movement, as we shall see, was absolutely crucial to the development of Pentecostalism. . . . that wing of the Pentecostal movement which had earlier connections with Wesleyanism became Pentecostal by accepting Keswick (i.e. Calvinist) teachings on dispensationalism, premillennialism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), page 43.

8 “The correct understanding of the words results from a right perception of the contrast involved, viz. that under the old covenant the knowledge of the Lord was connected with the mediation of priests and prophets.”

C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes: Volume VIII: Jeremiah, Lamentations (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 2:40.

9 C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), pages 1169-1170 (note on Acts 15:13); see also Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), pages 102-103; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 133; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), pages 204-207; John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), pages 91-93; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: The New Testament, page 236 (note on Acts 15:15-17).

10 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 205-206; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: The New Testament, page 236 (note on Acts 15:15-17).

11 See also William Everett Bell, Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (dissertation, School of Education of New York University, 1967), pages 197-203.

12 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 314-316; C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Reference Bible, page 1345 (note on Revelation 16:19).

13 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 205.

14 John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy, pages 91-93.

15 paqad: Genesis 21:1; 50:24-25; Exodus 13:19; Ruth 1:6; Psalm 65:9; Jeremiah 15:15; 29:10; 32:5; shub: Genesis 18:10,14; 2 Chronicles 30:6; Psalm 6:4; 80:14; 90:13; Isaiah 63:17; Jeremiah 12:15; Zechariah 1:3; Malachi 3:7.

16 Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, Third and Enlarged Edition (Chicago: Moody Press, 1936), page 154. See also Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, pages 128-130.

17 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 507, 508, 519-520.

18 Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, page 186.

19 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 302-303.

20 Daniel Payton Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (dissertation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957), page 347, footnote 18.

21 C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Reference Bible, page 1169 (note on Acts 15:13).

22 Psalm 22:27-30; 68:29-31; 72:8-11,17; Isaiah 2:2-5; 11:9-10; 19:24-30; 42:1-4; 45:14; 49:6-7,22-23; 52:10; 54:1-3; 60:3f.; 65:1; 66:19; Jeremiah 16:19; Amos 9:11-12; Zechariah 2:3-13; 8:20-24; Malachi 1:11.

23 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 508.

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow: Part (4)

2010-10-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

Dispensationalism: Consistent Literalism

I believe that if you were to ask the knowledgeable dispensationalist to specify the most basic and fundamental element in his system, he would probably say consistent literalism or some equivalent expression. The dispensationalist believes that consistent literalism is the basic key to the correct interpretation of Scripture and the only sure hedge against liberalism. The dispensationalist’s main criticism of the Reformed theologian is that he “spiritualizes” or “allegorizes,” which is to say that he is not consistently literal in the dispensational sense of the expression.

This dispensational criticism most often refers to the Reformed theologian’s directly applying Old Testament prophecies that speak of Israel and the Messianic age to the New Testament church. Many dispensationalists also regard the Reformed theologian as an incipient liberal because they believe that it is only the Reformed theologian’s inconsistency and his failure to apply his non-literal hermeneutic (i.e., system of interpretation) throughout his system of theology that saves him from liberalism. [1] After all, the Reformed theologian’s “spiritualizing” away Jewish prophecies by applying them directly to the church differs only in degree from the liberal’s spiritualizing away the creation account or the virgin birth by saying that these are myths, reasons the dispensationalist. The dispensationalist is emotionally committed to his literal hermeneutic and believes that he alone has the moral courage and integrity necessary to accept what Scripture literally teaches.

Dr. Charles C. Ryrie explains the dispensational emphasis on consistently literal interpretation as follows:

The distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. … The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does. … Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency — the strength of dispensational interpretation — that irks the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule. [2]

If plain or normal interpretation is the only valid hermeneutical principle, and if it is consistently applied, it will cause one to be a dispensationalist. As basic as one believes normal interpretation to be, to that extent he will of necessity become a dispensationalist. [3]

Dr. Walvoord captures the spirit of dispensational literalism in his dramatic statements:

History is history, not allegory. Facts are facts. Prophesied future events are just what they are prophesied. Israel means Israel, earth means earth, heaven means heaven. [4]

The importance of consistent literalism to the dispensationalist cannot be overstated. Dispensationalists like to argue that consistent literalism is their first principle and that the dichotomy and parenthesis theories logically follow from the application of this first principle to the study of Scripture. I believe that the reality is the reverse: dispensational interpretation uses the degree of literalism necessary to interpret prophecy in terms of the dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis assumptions. Beyond this, differing degrees of figurativeness and literality can be found in dispensational interpretations.

Certain passages dramatically demonstrate the difficulty in trying to interpret prophecy with so-called consistent literalism. One such class of passages are those which dispensationalists apply to their Jewish millennium and which refer to some ancient enemies of Old Testament Israel which long ago passed out of existence, such as the Ammonites (Isaiah 11:14; Daniel 11:41), the Assyrians (Micah 5:5; Isaiah 19:23-25), the Edomites (Isaiah 11:14; 63:1-6; Joel 3:19; Amos 9:11-12; Daniel 11:41), the Egyptians (Zechariah 14:16-19; Isaiah 19:23-25), and the Moabites (Isaiah 11:14; Daniel 11:41). [6] Dr. William Everett Bell has made the following observations in this regard:

One wonders why if “Israel means Israel,” why Assyria does not mean Assyria and Egypt mean Egypt. The answer, obviously, is that plain common sense militates against any interpretation that sees a necessary revival of ancient peoples who passed off the scene of history thousands of years ago. No Christian would deny that God could once again bring together an Assyrian empire or a Philistine nation if He chose to do so, but few expositors, dispensationalists included, look for such an occurrence. [7]

Still another problem for the theory of consistent literalism are those passages which dispensationalists refer to a future Jewish dispensation and which specifically mention Old Testament family and tribal relationships. Dispensationalists argue that there is a future generation of Jews who will fulfill the Old Testament prophecies about a Messianic age, but some of these prophecies specifically mention the existence of ancient family and tribal relationships. For example, Zechariah chapters 9-12 is usually considered by dispensationalists to be a passage especially supportive of their system. Zechariah 12:11-14, however, specifically speaks of the separate and distinct existence of the families of David, Nathan, Levi and Shimei. Other passages about the Messianic age speak of the distinct existence of the tribe of Levi (Isaiah 66:21; Malachi 3:3), and some even speak of the continued existence of the sons of Zadok within the tribe of Levi (Ezekiel 44:15; 48:11). Other prophetic passages speak of all the separate and distinct twelve tribes of Israel (Ezekiel 48; Revelation 7). These tribal and family relationships, however, have long been lost. God has not seen fit to preserve these genealogical distinctions past the time of the New Testament. Once tribal and family relationships are lost, they cannot be restored except by resurrecting the family and tribal heads and starting over again. Because of such considerations, Patrick Fairbairn has said the following:

So long as any prophecies were depending for their fulfillment on the separate existence of tribes and families in Israel, the distinction betwixt them was preserved; and so, also, were the genealogical records, which were needed to attest the fulfillment. These prophecies terminated in the Son of Mary, the branch of the house of David, and the lion of the tribe of Judah; but with him this, and all other old things, ceased — a new era, independent of such outward and formal differences, began. Hence, we find the apostle discharging all from giving heed to endless genealogies, as no longer of any avail in the church of God; and the providence of God shortly after sealed the word by scattering their genealogies to the winds, and fusing together in one undistinguishable, inextricable mass, the surviving remnants of the Jewish family. Now, prophecy is not to be verified by halves; it is either wholly true, in the sense in which it ought to be understood, or it is a failure. And since God’s providence has rendered the fulfillment of the parts referred to manifestly impossible on the literal principle of interpretation, it affords conclusive evidence, that on this principle such prophecies are misread. In what it calls men to believe, it does violence to their reason; and it commits the word of God to expectations, which never can be properly realized. [8]

The passage most commonly mentioned in discussions of the difficulty presented by 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. [9] Dispensationalists are careful to specify 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 as literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15,17,20; Hebrew: kaphar, 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 done away forever 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.

Another area where strict literalism is difficult are those prophecies which dispensationalists interpret as end-time events and which refer to ancient weapons systems.

For example, Ezekiel 38-39 is a passage which dispensationalists interpret as referring to an end-time invasion of Israel by a Russian army. And yet the prophecy speaks of this army as equipped with primitive weapons: “shields and bucklers, … bows and arrows, and … handstaves, and … spears” (Ezekiel 39:9). These weapons are largely made of wood as evidenced by their being burned as firewood. Dr. John F. Walvoord suggests the following explanation:

Modern missile warfare will have developed in that day to the point where missiles will seek out any considerable amount of metal. Under those circumstances, it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metal weapons and substitute wood such as is indicated in the primitive weapons. Whatever the explanation, the most sensible interpretation is that the passage refers to actual weapons pressed into use because of the particular circumstances of that day. [10]

Not all dispensational interpreters guard the literal hermeneutic as carefully as does Dr. Walvoord.

The popular dispensational writer Hal Lindsey, a graduate of the seminary where Dr. Walvoord is president, shares his hermeneutical approach to the book of Revelation:

Some writers have chosen to interpret each symbol quite literally. For example, a locust with the face of a man, the teeth of a lion, a breastplate of iron, a tail that can sting, and wings that made the sound of many chariots would have to be specially created by God to look just like that description.

I personally tend to think that God might utilize in his judgments some modern devices which the Apostle John was at a loss for words to describe nineteen centuries ago! In the case just mentioned, the locust might symbolize an advanced kind of helicopter. [11]

Mr. Lindsey later suggests that the composite locust creatures of the Apocalypse might be Cobra helicopters that spray nerve gas from their tails. [12] And yet, interpreters such as Mr. Lindsey also argue that Reformed interpreters are making a serious and fundamental error in teaching that the Old Testament prophets at times spoke of the coming church age in terms of the Old Testament religious economy with which the people of God were then familiar!

Another passage where dispensationalists generally insist on strict literality is the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.

The new Jerusalem vision of Revelation 21, if interpreted with strict literality, involves the coming down to earth of a city whose length, width and height are each 12,000 stadia (i.e., about 1,500 miles). Just stop and try to visualize a city fifteen hundred miles long, wide and tall resting on planet earth. Such a metropolitan mass would put a definite wobble in this planet’s orbital spin! Of course, God could do such a feat and overcome any such difficulties, but is it not more likely that these outrageous dimensions were used intentionally to prevent an overly literal interpretation?

Also, the use of the highly symbolic number 12,000 would seem enough to indicate that this city, which elsewhere is literally said to be the Bride of Christ (Revelation 21:9-10), is a symbol for the full number of the people of God of all the ages. The number twelve is associated with the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles (Revelation 21:12,14) and therefore with the covenant people of both ages. The numbers ten and thousand are associated with fullness or completion. Why the insistence on a literal city with such outrageous and disproportionate dimensions relative to planet earth?

The dispensationalist Dr. Paul Lee Tan explains that the dispensationalist believes that Biblical prophecy should be interpreted literally whenever this is possible or plausible. As an example of what he is talking about, he mentions the pearls that are to serve as gates in the extraordinarily large city described in Revelation 21. [13] Of course, it is possible for God to create such extraordinary pearls. And it is possible for omnipotent God to recreate many elements of the Old Testament world and to cataclysmically rearrange the earth’s topography in order to allow for a very literal fulfillment of Messianic prophecies. The question, however, is not whether or not such fulfillments are theoretically possible by any stretch of the imagination. The issue is what God was intending to communicate by the language used in Biblical prophecy.

Dispensationalists sometimes do lay aside this insistence on literality if possible by any stretch of the imagination in prophetic interpretation. For example, in Psalm 22, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be surrounded by “bulls of Bashan.” Most interpreters take this prophecy to refer to those people who persecuted our Lord at His passion. One must admit, however, that this interpretation is not a “literal if possible” interpretation of the passage. And yet, I am aware of no dispensationalist who insists in the name of literalism that our Lord at His second coming must suffer again under the threats of literal bulls from literal Bashan in order to fulfill all prophecy literally. Yet these same interpreters argue that Christ will not begin His prophesied Messianic reign until He is ruling from a literal Mount Zion in literal Palestine (Psalm 2:6) even though the New Testament teaches both that Christ obtained His Messianic throne at His ascension into heaven (Revelation 12:5; 2:26-27; compare Psalm 2:9) and that Mount Zion and Jerusalem in the age are heavenly realities (Hebrews 12:22).

The editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible have made a significant admission regarding literalism and the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.

They have acknowledged that the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple vision do not need to be interpreted literally but may be validly regarded as a general prophecy of future worship in terms of the Old Testament economy with which the original recipients of the prophecy were familiar. [14] If this principle can be applied here, then why not elsewhere in other prophecies of the Messianic age? If this principle applies to the sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple vision, then why not also to the entire temple setting? Once this principle is acknowledged in regard to one element of Old Testament worship in a Messianic prophecy, it is arbitrary to deny it in regard to other elements of Old Testament worship and other Messianic prophecies. The more this principle is applied in dispensational interpretation of prophecy, the less Judaistic will be the dispensational millennium and the closer dispensational interpretation will come to traditional Reformed prophetic interpretation.

I opened this chapter with some criticisms that dispensationalists have of the Reformed hermeneutic. Allow me to close by answering these criticisms.

First, consistent literalism is not the final key to proper Biblical interpretation. It is too subjective and rationalistic. One man’s consistency is another man’s absurdity. Consistent literalism means that the interpreter must ultimately look to his own personal sense of literary usage to determine the degree of literalism and figurativeness in prophecy.

The proper hermeneutic involves a study of how Scripture interprets other Scripture as a guide to what is Scripturally normal language. If Matthew’s interpretation of prophecy seems abnormal to us, then we should adjust our understanding of what normal language is.

The proper hermeneutic involves a willingness to interpret difficult passages of Scripture in the light of the teaching of clearer passages of Scripture and with a sensitivity to literary genre. One should not build a theological system on possible interpretations of poetic or apocalyptic passages when those interpretations require one to twist the clear meaning of straightforward didactic passages. For example, the clear teaching of the New Testament on the finished sacrifice of Christ should guide one in interpreting the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel’s vision.

The proper hermeneutic involves a prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies in truth. The interpreter should not be a rationalist who puts his ultimate trust in his own personal sense of language. The interpreter’s own personal sense of language is reliable only to the extent that it has been sanctified by the Spirit in truth. The interpreter should humbly acknowledge that his ultimate dependence is on the Spirit’s illumination for spiritual discernment and for deliverance from sinful biases and blindnesses. Interpretation of Scripture is a moral endeavor as well as an intellectual endeavor. We are dependent on the Spirit to help us to understand Scripture as God meant it to be understood.

Second, strict literalism is not the final hedge against liberalism. Both liberals and cultists defend their distorted theologies both by literalizing Scripture and by allegorizing Scripture. For example, Armstrongism literalizes the eternal throne in the Davidic covenant and insists upon a fulfillment involving a literal, physical throne. The true hedge against doctrinal distortion is not literalizing. The true hedge is a real submission to the illumination of the Holy Spirit and to the teachings of Scripture. Only here in this double combination of Word and Spirit does one find truth safely hedged against error.

What is truly objective interpretation? The ultimate objectivity is found in the divine subjectivity as expressed in the “thus saith the Lord” of the written Word. And for us to have reliable access to this ultimate objectivity, we are ultimately dependent on the Spirit’s work in giving us the subjective ability to understand God’s Word. In the last analysis, truth and understanding are gifts from God. But for the grace of God, I, too, would be blinded to God’s clear revelation and I would be enslaved by cultic error. As is true with many issues, we in the end come to the apparent antinomy between human responsibility and divine sovereignty. I am morally responsible for seeing and obeying the clear message of Scripture.

Apart from Christ, I can do nothing and am spiritually blind and dead. When I do understand and obey God’s message, it is an unmerited gift from God. And yet my natural inability and my total dependence on God does not relieve me of my responsibility to use all my God given facilities in an effort to understand His Word. And if I am right and my dispensational friends are wrong in understanding prophecy, I have no basis for boasting. For what do I have that I did not receive? Every good and perfect gift is from above.

***

End Notes

1 “The amillennial method of interpreting Scripture is correctly defined as the spiritualizing method. It is clear, however, that conservative ammillennialists limit the use of this method, and in fact adopt the literal method of interpreting most of the Scriptures. …

“The modern liberal scholar, who is also an amillenarian, feels free to use the spiritualizing method rather freely in areas other than prophecy whenever it suits his fancy, and being bound by no law of infallible inspiration need not be concerned if the result is not consistent. The spiritualizing method once admitted is not easy to regulate and tends to destroy the literal method. While the amillennial use of the literal method is general among conservatives, among liberal groups it has less standing and use.”

John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), pages 62-63. See also Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Rockville, Maryland: Assurance Publishers, 1974), pages 275-277.

2 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), pages 45-46.

3 Ibid., page 21.

4 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 129-130.

5 Ibid., page 200.

6 Compare John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967) pages 160-169.

7 William Everett Bell, Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (dissertation, School of Education of New York University, 1967), pages 85-86.

8 Patrick Fairbairn, Prophecy Viewed in Respect to Its Distinct Nature, Its Special Function, and Proper Interpretation (n.p.: T. & T. Clark, 1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), pages 276-277.

9 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), page 519.

10 John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, page 116. Quoted in Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, page 224.

11 Hal Lindsey, There’s a New World Coming: “A Prophetic Odyssey” (Irvine, California: Harvest House Publishers, 1973), page 16.

12 Ibid., pages 138-139.

13 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, pages 157-160.

14 C.I. Scofield, editor, The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), page 888

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow: Part (5)

2010-10-05T17:52:00.000-07:00

Dispensationalism: Christian Zionism

The dispensational system promotes Zionism among Christians, the conviction that physical Jews today have a Biblical right to possess the land of Palestine. The point of discussion in this chapter is not Zionism as a political issue but Zionism as a Biblically based theological issue.

The typical dispensationalist does have a passionate commitment to theological Zionism and a religious regard for the epic Zionistic events of 1948 and 1967: the modern establishment of the Jewish state of Israel and the Israeli conquest of Jerusalem. These two events are viewed as the two most dramatic fulfillments of prophecy since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and as signs of the soon return of Christ. Many dispensationalists are also anticipating a third imminent Zionistic fulfillment of prophecy: the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. [1]

The following statement by Dr. John F. Walvoord is typical:

One of the most dramatic evidences that the end of the age is approaching is the fact that Israel has re- established her position as a nation in her ancient land. Israel today is in proper place to enter into the covenant anticipated in Daniel 9:27 which will begin the last seven- year period leading up to the second coming of Christ. Even the modern city of Jerusalem built by Israel is occupying the precise area predicted in Jeremiah 31:38-40 and constitutes a fulfillment of this prophecy given twenty-five hundred years ago and never before fulfilled. Jeremiah states that when Jerusalem is built in the area described, as it has been in our generation, it will be a sign of the final chapter in the history of Jerusalem, in preparation for the millennial kingdom of our Lord. [2]

Hal Lindsey has even gone so far as to indulge cautiously in some prophetic date setting based on the 1948 event in his best selling book The Late Great Planet Earth, copyrighted in 1970:

When the signs just given begin to multiply and increase in scope it’s similar to the certainty of leaves coming on the fig tree. But the most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech “fig tree” has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the “fig tree” put forth its first leaves.

Jesus said that this would indicate that He was “at the door,” ready to return. Then He said, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matthew 24:34 NASB).

What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs–chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so. [3]

Mr. Lindsey is saying that 1948 establishment of the state of Israel has given him reason to anticipate that the events of the seven year Jewish tribulation period that culminates in the second coming of Christ could all occur by 1988. Since Mr. Lindsey, like most dispensationalists, places the church rapture seven years before the second coming, he would have expected the rapture by 1981 if he had expected the second coming to occur by 1988.

Of course, the really careful dispensationalist neither sets dates nor regards 1948 and 1967 as direct fulfillments of prophecy. According to dispensational theory, no Jewish prophecy can directly refer to the unrevealed and parenthetical church age. Also, dispensationalists argue for their pre-tribulation rapture by insisting that “the prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ is not qualified by description of any signs or prerequisite events.” [4] These Zionistic events are instead regarded as dramatic preparations for the Jewish fulfillment of prophecy that will begin to occur after the rapture of the church. For the dispensationalist, the supposed preparation of the end-time stage in this generation is a strong indication that the end-time drama is now imminent.

Dispensational Zionism is founded on the dispensational interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant. Dispensationalists argue that the Abrahamic covenant is Jewish, unconditional and unfulfilled. Since the covenant is unconditional, it must be fulfilled at some point in history. Since it has not been fulfilled in the past, then it must be fulfilled in the future. And since it is Jewish, it must be fulfilled in a future Jewish dispensation. Therefore, the Abrahamic covenant mandates a coming Jewish age, the millennium, for the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. We will examine in this chapter the dispensational understanding of the Abrahamic covenant as Jewish and unfulfilled.

We will begin with the teaching that the Abrahamic covenant is Jewish.

Using their “literal” hermeneutic, dispensationalists interpret the seed associated with the Abrahamic covenant to be the physical Jews. A difficulty with this interpretation is that in Galatians 3, verses 7 and 29, the Christian, regardless of his race, is said to be the seed of Abraham and the heir of the promise made to Abraham. The dispensational answer to this is that the individual Christian is a spiritual seed of Abraham and heir of the universal spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic covenant but not the physical seed to which the national promises were made. This dispensational solution is typical in that it stresses a rigid dichotomy between the earthly and the spiritual, the Jewish and the Gentile, the national and the individual aspects of the Abrahamic covenant.

According to Dr. Charles C. Ryrie:

It is quite obvious that Christians are called the spiritual seed of Abraham, but the New Testament nowhere says that they are the heirs of the national promises made to the physical descendants. . . . the term Israel is not the appellative given to the spiritual seed of Abraham. It is correct to call some of the spiritual seed of Abraham spiritual Israel, but not all. . . . Only when a believer belongs to the race of Israel can he in any sense be called a spiritual Israelite. [5]

Faith and justification are personal and individual matters, and belonging to the spiritual seed of Abraham is also a personal and individual matter unrelated to race. The spiritual seed of Abraham does not mean Israel, for Abraham is related to Israel as a national father, and he is related to believing individuals of all nations (including the Jewish) who believe, as a spiritual father. But believers as a group are not called spiritual Israel. [6]

[Also] According to Dr. John F. Walvoord:

There are, then, three different senses in which one can be a child of Abraham. First, there is the natural lineage, or natural seed. This is limited largely to the descendants of Jacob in the twelve tribes. To them God promises to be their God. To them was given the law. To them was given the land of Israel in the Old Testament. With them God dealt in a special way. Second, there is the spiritual lineage within the natural. These are the Israelites who believed in God, who kept the law, and who met the conditions for the present enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant. Those who ultimately possess the land in the future millennium will also be of spiritual Israel. Third, there is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are not natural Israelites. Here is where the promise to “all the families of the earth” comes in. . . . the children of Abraham (spiritually) who come from the “heathen” or the Gentiles fulfill that aspect of the Abrahamic covenant which dealt with Gentiles in the first place, not the promises pertaining to Israel. . . .

While premillenarians can agree with amillenarians concerning the fact of a spiritual seed for Abraham which includes Gentiles, they deny that this fulfills the promises given to the natural seed or that the promises to the “seed of Abraham” are fulfilled by Gentile believers. To make the blessings promised to all the nations the same as the blessings promised the seed of Abraham is an unwarranted conclusion. [7]

This dispensational explanation of the spiritual and physical seeds of Abraham does not adequately integrate all the Biblical data about Abraham’s seed.

Even as early as the Genesis 17 covenant of circumcision, there were provisions for including Gentiles and excluding physical seed of Abraham from the covenant community (Genesis 17:12-14). [8]

Gentile proselytes such as Rahab the harlot and Ruth the Moabitess, ancestors of King David (Matthew 1:5), inherited the national promises of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament.

Physical descendants of Abraham such as Ishmael and Esau did not. Ishmael did receive his own national promise because of his physical descent from Abraham, but the seed of covenant blessing was reckoned only through Isaac (Genesis 21:12-13). Esau and Jacob were twin brothers, and yet only Jacob became a father of God’s chosen nation and an heir of the land promise. This data suggests that the dispensational teaching that the physical seed will inherit the national promises is not an adequate explanation of the Biblical administration of the Abrahamic covenant.

In Reformed interpretation, the land-inheriting seed of Abraham are defined not strictly in terms of racial descent but in terms of a continuing covenant community. [9]

Physical descent and genealogies were important under the old covenant because the coming Messianic seed was to be a physical descendent of both Abraham and David, but the developing covenant community both excluded unfaithful physical descendents of Abraham and assimilated believing Gentiles. The historical administration of the covenant can be explained from the Reformed perspective by using Paul’s Romans 11 olive tree illustration.

The olive tree represents God’s covenant community and its roots represent God’s gracious covenant. The physical seed within the covenant community are the natural branches who all partake of the roots’ sap to some degree, who all enjoy covenant blessings such as exposure to the means of grace and special temporal blessings. Gentiles or branches from the wild olive tree of paganism can be grafted into the covenant community through a profession of faith. And any branch unrepentantly exhibiting obvious high- handed evidences of unbelief should be pruned off in discipline. After being cut off from the covenant community in judgment, the natural branches and their descendants remain beloved of God on account of their fathers and are prime prospects for grafting in through a profession of faith. In terms of this motif, Isaac and Jacob were persevering natural branches, Rahab and Ruth were persevering grafted on branches, Ishmael and Esau were pruned off natural branches that continued to experience certain temporal divine blessings, and the Edomites who became proselytes during the inter-testamental period were grafted in descendants of Esau, a pruned off branch.

The spiritual seed of Abraham are all those who truly share Abraham’s faith (Romans 4:11-12), and these alone are the seed of Abraham in the most fundamental sense of the term (John 8:39; Romans 9:6-7; 2:28). Only these will inherit the promises of the covenant in terms of real spiritual rest and an eternal inheritance. This definition of the seed of Abraham, which is from the perspective of God’s secret decrees and sovereign work of grace, is simple and easily understood. Defining the seed of Abraham from within the context of history and human relations, however, is much more complex because of human limitations.

In administering the covenant, the church is not to seek to pry into God’s secret plans or to presume to be able to infallibly gauge everyone’s true spiritual condition. The church’s limited responsibility is to function in terms of God’s revealed will, the Biblically defined rules for administering the covenant. The seed of Abraham from this perspective of historical covenant administration is a complex phenomenon best defined in terms of a continuing covenant community rather than in terms of racial descent alone.

As we have seen, the dispensational position also stresses that the spiritual seed of Abraham as defined in Galatians 3 have no claim to the national land promise of the Abrahamic covenant.

Paul’s teaching on the Christian and the Abrahamic covenant will not allow such a conclusion.

Paul argues in Galatians 3 that God intentionally used seed as a collective noun that has both a singular and plural reference so that the singular reference could refer to Christ and the plural reference could refer to those who are in Christ. Paul’s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (verse 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (verse 16) and all who are in Christ (verse 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (verse 29).

In his argumentation, Paul specifically quotes from the Old Testament the phrase “and to thy seed,” the “thy” referring to Abraham (Galatians 3:16; see also Romans 4:13). The Greek phrase in Galatians 3:16 translated “and to thy seed” could have come from only two passages in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek: Genesis 13:15-17 and Genesis 17:8. [10] And in both of these Old Testament passages, that which is promised to Abraham’s seed is the land promise. [11]

Beyond this, every time in the book of Genesis where the phrase “to your seed” is used in the context of a divine promise to give something to somebody, the reference is to the Abrahamic land promise. [12] When Paul was talking about the Old Testament promise that belongs to the Christian, he was referring specifically to the land promise, the one promise that dispensationalists argue that Paul could not have been referring to.

I will explain later my understanding of how the Christian today is related to the Abrahamic land promise.

The Old Testament quotation in Galatians 3 that the dispensationalists stress is the statement “In thee shall all nations be blessed” (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8). The dispensationalists acknowledge that this portion of the Abrahamic covenant has reference to the spiritual blessings that are now enjoyed by Gentiles in Christ Jesus. [13] There are many Old Testament prophecies that expand on this universal statement of the Abrahamic covenant, [14] and it is instructive to note the dispensational position on their fulfillment.

Since dispensationalists define the church age as an unrevealed parenthesis in the Jewish prophetic program, they cannot with consistency teach that these prophecies have a direct reference to the church age; these prophecies must be fulfilled in the future Jewish millennium.

Under the heading “The Gentiles in the Millennium,” Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost states: “The universal aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, which promised universal blessing, will be realized in that age.” [15]

That the universal aspect of the Abrahamic covenant finds its direct fulfillment, not in the church age, but in the coming Jewish earthly millennium, demonstrates how thoroughly Jewish the Abrahamic covenant is in dispensational interpretation.

The dispensationalist also argues that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional in contrast to the conditional Mosaic covenant.

Dispensationalists teach that the unconditional Abrahamic covenant was expanded into three other unconditional Jewish covenants: the Palestinian covenant, the Davidic covenant and the new covenant.

The expanded covenant dealing with the land promise portion of the Abrahamic covenant is the Palestinian covenant, which dispensationalists identify with Deuteronomy 30:1-10.

It does seem strange that anyone would teach that a section of Deuteronomy contains a separate covenant that is not a part of the Mosaic covenant and that differs from the Mosaic covenant in its basic nature. The Palestinian covenant is supposed to be unconditional in the dispensational sense of the word. Deuteronomy chapter 30, verses 1-3 and 10, however, contains statements that sound like moral conditions:

And it shall come to pass when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.

If thou shalt harken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

Lastly, dispensationalists also argue that the Abrahamic covenant is unfulfilled.

They prove the covenant to be unfulfilled by examining the chronological and geographic boundaries of the covenant promise. Chronologically, the Abrahamic covenant is a forever promise (Genesis 13:15; 17:8), and the Jews possessed Palestine for only a limited time in the Old Testament. Geographically, the promised land was to include the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). Dispensationalists argue that the Jews never at any time possessed all the land within these boundaries. In 1 Kings 4:21, we learn that Solomon ruled over all the land from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates River, but the dispensationalists argue that the “border of Egypt” is not the “river of Egypt” and that Solomon merely ruled over much of this territory by collecting tribute, not by actually possessing it. [16] So, if the dispensationalists are right, the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant is Jewish, unconditional and unfulfilled, and therefore there must be a yet future Jewish possession of the land of Palestine.

If this is so, then exactly when and how is the Abrahamic covenant’s land promise to be fulfilled? In searching out the details of this question, one encounters some interesting divergencies in dispensational answers. In the earlier dispensational writers like Chafer, the Abrahamic covenant had a truly eternal Jewish fulfillment. According to Dr. Chafer:

Jehovah’s fivefold covenant with Israel is everlasting in every respect– (1) a national entity (Jer. 31:36), (2) a land in perpetuity (Gen. 13:15), (3) a throne (2 Sam. 7:16; Ps. 89:36), (4) a King (Jer. 33:21), and (5) a kingdom (Dan. 7:14). These earthly promises are confirmed by the oath of Jehovah and extend forever, else language ceases to be a dependable medium for the expression of truth. [17]

In that system, the resurrected Old Testament saints together with the resurrected millennial saints were to inherit eternally a Judaistic new earth after the Judaistic millennium and the church saints were to inherit a Christian new heavens for eternity. According to Dr. Chafer:

. . . there is an eschatology of Judaism and an eschatology of Christianity and each, though wholly different in details, reaches on into eternity. One of the great burdens of predictive prophecy is the anticipation of the glories of Israel in a transformed earth under the reign of David’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is likewise much prediction which anticipates the glories of the redeemed in heaven. [18]

. . . Israelites, as a nation, have their citizenship now and their future destiny centered only in the earth, reaching on to the new earth which is yet to be, while Christians have their citizenship and future destiny centered only in the earth, reaching on into the new heavens that are yet to be . . . . [19]

Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created new. Every covenant or promise for the Church is heavenly, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are recreated. [20]

It should be asserted, however, that the entire system known as Judaism, along with all its component parts, is, in the purpose of God, in abeyance throughout the present age, but with the definite assurance that the entire Jewish system thus interrupted will be completed by extension into the kingdom, the new earth, and on into eternity to come. [21]

Among those who stand in eternal favor with God are the earthly citizens whose destiny it is to go on into eternity as the dwellers on the earth . . ., and the heavenly citizens whose destiny it is to occupy the new heaven . . . . [22]

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity. Why should this belief be deemed so incredible in the light of the facts that there is a present distinction between earth and heaven which is preserved even after both are made new; when the Scriptures so designate an earthly people who go on as such into eternity; and a heavenly people who also abide in their heavenly calling forever? [23]

In this older dispensational system, there was an eternal dichotomy of destinies between Israel, the earthly seed of Abraham, and the church, the heavenly seed of Abraham.

Some more recent dispensationalists disagree with these details of Chafer’s view. They teach that the eternal Jewish land promise is to be completely fulfilled in the 1000 year Judaistic millennial period. According to Dr. Charles C. Ryrie:

The earthly purpose of Israel of which dispensationalists speak concerns the national promise which will be fulfilled by Jews during the millennium as they live on the earth in unresurrected bodies. [24]

According to Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost:

■The promises in the Abrahamic covenant concerning the land and the seed are fulfilled in the millennial age (Isa. 10:21-22; 19:25; 43:1; 65:8-9; Jer. 30:22; 32:38; Ezek. 34:24; 30-31; Mic. 7:19-20; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:16-18). [25]

■The promises in the Palestinic covenant concerning the possession of the land are fulfilled by Israel in the millennial age (Isa. 11:11-12; 65:9; Ezek. 16:60-63; 36:28- 29; 39:28; Hos. 1:10-2:1; Mic. 2:12; Zech. 10:6). [26]

■It will thus be observed that the millennial age finds the complete fulfillment of all that God promised to the nation Israel. [27]

Elsewhere, Dr. Pentecost argues that the eternal nature of the covenants with Israel requires that they be fulfilled in eternity on the new earth. [28] If, however, the land promise finds its ultimate fulfillment in eternity on the new earth, then there is no real mandate for a Jewish millennium in the Abrahamic covenant.

Some more recent dispensationalists also teach that the promised land is to be inhabited during the millennium only by unresurrected living Jews and Gentiles and not by the resurrected Old Testament saints. [29] During the millennium, the resurrected Old Testament saints together with the resurrected church saints are to be in the new Jerusalem, which will be a millennial satellite city hovering over Palestine. [30] At the end of the millennium, the new Jerusalem will descend to earth, and the saints of all ages will inhabit together the new earth. In this system, the strictly Jewish inheritance of the land promise is limited to the millennial years and to unresurrected millennial saints. The land promise specifically promised the land inheritance to Abraham as well as to his seed [31], but Abraham, together with the other Old Testament saints, will be in the heavenly city with the church saints during the time of the land inheritance.

Here we have the dispensational understanding of the Abrahamic covenant’s land promise. Was Scripture truly allowed to interpret Scripture? Was there a sensitivity to progressive revelation? Is there any evidence that the dispensational interpreters recognize their fallibility and have a willingness to adjust, if necessary, their initial understanding of the Abrahamic covenant if it does not harmonize well with further infallible revelation on the subject? Or do we see evidence of a willingness to artificially bend further revelation in order to vindicate a particular understanding of the Abrahamic covenant’s land promise?

My own understanding of the Abrahamic covenant’s land promise is different from the dispensationalist’s. I believe the Jewish inhabitation of Palestine in the Old Testament was a temporary typological symbol and pledge of the ultimate eternal inheritance of the saints. I also believe that the land promise applies to the Christian today in the spiritual rest and heavenly position that is his in Christ Jesus. The following is an eight point explanation of my understanding of the fulfillment of the land promise.

First, there is some sense in which the land promise had a real fulfillment in the Old Testament:

And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. . . . There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. Joshua 21:43,45

. . . not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Joshua 23:14b

Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. 1 Kings 8:56

Thou art the Lord the God who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous. Nehemiah 9:7-8

This data must be integrated into one’s total understanding of the land promise. There were many elements in the Old Testament Jewish economy besides the land promise that were said to be eternal. For the consistent literalist, this requires a belief in an eternity involving resurrected Old Testament rites and rituals and institutions. Another possibility is that these Old Testament rites and rituals and institutions were temporary types of eternal spiritual realities. These found a fulfillment as types in the Old Testament and also anticipated a future fulfillment in terms of the antitype.

According to Patrick Fairbairn:

The occupation of the earthly Canaan by the natural seed of Abraham was a type, and no more than a type, of this occupation by a redeemed Church of her destined inheritance of glory; and consequently every thing concerning the entrance of the former on their temporary possession, was ordered so as to represent and foreshadow the things which belong to the Church’s establishment in her permanent possession. [32]

Second, as we have already mentioned, the ultimate fulfillment of the land promise is an eternal fulfillment (Genesis 13:15; 17:8). The Hebrew word translated forever is at times contextually limited and does not always refer to a literal eternity (compare Deuteronomy 15:17), but God’s covenants do have a truly eternal, forever reference. When the forever nature of God’s covenant is compared to the life span of the sun, one can be certain that the divinely inspired writer had more in mind than a mere 1000 years (Psalm 89:34-37; compare Jeremiah 31:35- 36; 33:20-21; Isaiah 54:10).

Third, the ultimate fulfillment of the land promise involves the whole world and not just Palestine. Notice what Paul said in Romans 4:13:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (Greek: kosmos) was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

We have already shown the terminology about a promise given by God to Abraham and his seed can only refer to the land promise. Paul identified the land promise given to Abraham and his seed not merely with Canaan but with the whole world.

Fourth, the ultimate inheritors of the land promise will be the elect of all the ages. As we have already seen, there are New Testament passages which relate the language of the land promise to Christians as the spiritual seed of Abraham (Galatians 3; Romans 4:13). In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ identified the heirs of the land promise as the spiritually meek (Matthew 5:5; compare Psalm 37:11), which is an appropriate description of God’s people in general. In the book of Hebrews, the land promise is associated with citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem:

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. . . . But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. Hebrews 11:8-10,16

The saints of all ages are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22-23; 13:14; Galatians 4:26), which is further evidence that the saints of all ages will inherit the land promise.

Fifth, this association of the land promise with citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem means that during the inter-advent age, the land promise finds fulfillment in “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven” (1 Peter 1:4). From the moment of conversion, the Christian is a comer unto Mount Zion and a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), has spiritual rest in Christ Jesus (Matthew 11:28), and is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6). We, today, in Christ Jesus have a foretaste of the heavenly rest that was pictured by Joshua’s conquest of the promised land (Hebrews 4:8-9).

Sixth, the land promise today is related to the covenant blessing of the fifth commandment. Under the old covenant, those who honored their father and mother were promised, in general, that it would go well with them in the land which God gave them (Deuteronomy 5:16). Now that the covenant people are from every nation, tribe and tongue, this promise of covenant blessing has been dispensationally adjusted by Paul to read: “that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:3). Paul has removed the Palestinian specific geographic limitation in this covenant promise that related covenant blessing in terms of the land promise.

Seventh, the Christian today is in a position analogous to Israel under Joshua when they conquered the promised land. The difference is that our weapons are not physical (2 Corinthians 10:4) and our task is to go into all the world. We know that the Abrahamic land promise ultimately refers to the whole world (Romans 4:13).

Adam was originally given dominion over the whole world (Genesis 1:26-28). This inheritance was lost in the fall and Satan became the prince of this world, [33] but God promised that a Seed Redeemer would ultimately defeat Satan (Genesis 3:15) and that this new Adam would regain world dominion (Psalm 8:6). This Seed Redeemer would be a Seed of Abraham through whom Abraham would be a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). This Seed Redeemer would be a son of David who would have the nations for His inheritance and the ends of the earth for His possession (Psalm 2:8). This Seed Redeemer would be a Son of Man who would be given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him (Daniel 7:14).

Through His resurrection-ascension, Christ has received all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Christ, from His heavenly throne, is today fulfilling Psalm 2 (Revelation 2:26-27; 12:5) and Psalm 8 (Hebrews 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 15:25-27). Even as God gave Palestine to Israel under Joshua and told them to conquer it, so God has given the nations to new covenant Israel under Jesus and has told us to disciple them.

And eighth, when Christ returns, the heavenly Jerusalem will descend to the new earth (Revelation 21:1-2), which then becomes the eternal locus of the land promise fulfillment. In Hebrews 4:8-9, we learn that the rest under Joshua after the conquest of the promised land was a type of the heavenly Sabbath rest of the eternal inheritance. The ultimate fulfillment of the land promise will be the eternal inheritance of the new earth by the saints of all ages. Only in this eternal context can Abraham and all his true seed inherit the land forever.

Before closing this chapter on the Abrahamic land promise, I want to comment on the Old Testament prophecies about dispersed Jews’ returning to the land. Dispensationalists tend to refer these prophecies to an end-time regathering of the Jews to Palestine, but it seems much more logical that these prophecies primarily referred to the Babylonian exile and the return of the Jewish captives, first under Zerubbabel and Joshua the priest, and later under Ezra.

In opposition to this, the dispensationalist can point out that these prophesied regatherings were a second return to the land (Isaiah 11:11) and a regathering from a world-wide dispersion, not from a localized Babylonian exile (Isaiah 49:12). This objection ignores the Biblical fact that the exiled Jews were scattered all over the civilized world of that day (Esther 3:8). And return from Babylonian exile was the second return to the land since the first was the exodus under Moses (Isaiah 11:15-16).

Admittedly, there are elements in the restoration prophesies that go beyond what was experienced under the old covenant. This is because the fulfillment of prophecies of blessing can be limited (Joshua 1:4 & 7:11-12) or postponed (Numbers 14:30-31) or cancelled (Jeremiah 18:9-10) due to covenant disobedience and because these prophecies have continuing and progressively greater fulfillments in the church age and in eternity. As I discussed in the previous chapter on literalism, a prophecy can be given in terms of the old covenant economy and fulfilled in terms of the new covenant economy and eternity.

I no longer believe in a Zionistic interpretation of the Abrahamic land promise, but it is possible to retain a Zionistic element in one’s understanding of prophecy without going to dispensational extremes.

One needs to recognize that the Abrahamic covenant is primarily a spiritual covenant that relates to all the elect of all the ages. If there is any specific Jewish inheritance of Palestine in the Abrahamic covenant, this should be seen as secondary to the ultimate fulfillment in the eternal inheritance of all the saints. And such a limited Palestinian fulfillment should be conditioned on the physical Jews’ being converted to Christianity and being regrafted into spiritual Israel.

Nowhere does the Bible promise blessings and return from judgmental exile to God’s covenant people when they are still living in rebellion. [34] The blessing of return to the land from exile is always conditioned on repentance and spiritual revival.

The major difference between the dispensational and the Reformed view of the land promise is that dispensationalists view it as having primary reference to physical Jews. This strong Jewish emphasis in the dispensational interpretation of the Old Testament covenants is probably best demonstrated by a statement made by Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost about the dispensational interpretation of the new covenant:

“. . . there is one point of agreement: the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the church.” [35]

If the dispensationalists have such a strongly Zionistic interpretation of the new covenant, is it any great surprise that their interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant’s land promise is largely, primarily, and ultimately Zionistic?

****

Dispensationalism: Christian Zionism by Grover Gunn
End Notes:

1 Hal Lindsey with C.C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), pages 50-58; Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pages 199-201.

2 John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), page 130; compare Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!, pages 123-143; 188-214.

Dispensationalists interpret Daniel 9:27 as teaching that in the middle of the future Jewish tribulation period, the Anti-Christ will break a covenant made with national Israel that had allowed them to have temple worship with sacrifices and will desolate the temple by there proclaiming himself divine. This act is to mark the beginning of the three and one half year great tribulation.

3 Hal Lindsey with C.C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth, pages 53-54.

Contrary to Mr. Lindsey, the fig tree species was not “a historic symbol of national Israel.” The only possible evidence for such a view is the barren fig tree in Matthew 21 which Christ cursed. That tree was used by Christ as a symbol of national Israel, not because it was a fig tree, but because its abundance of foliage gave reason to expect the presence of fruit when there was none. This was analogous to national Israel whose abundant foliage included the temple, the priesthood, and religious tradition, but which lacked the fruit of faith in God’s Messiah. That Jesus did not regard the fig tree species as a symbol of Israel in the Olivet Discourse is evident from the wording in Luke 21:29: “Behold the fig tree, and all the trees.” The grape vine (John 15) and the olive tree (Romans 11) were historic symbols of Israel.

4 John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957), pages 78-79.

5 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), page 149.

6 Ibid., pages 149-150.

7 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), page 145-146.

8 Dr. Walvoord’s response is “Circumcision is wider in its application than the term seed, as far as the use in Genesis is concerned.” John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 141.

9 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), pages 86-87

10 The phrase “and to your seed” is found in both verses 15 and 17 of Genesis 13 in the LXX but only in verse 15 in the Hebrew.

11 William Everett Bell, Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (dissertation, School of Education of New York University, 1967), pages 125-126.

12 Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3,4; 28:4,13; 35:12; 48:4.

13 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 145; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), page 62.

14 Compare Psalm 22:27-30; 68:29-31; 72:8-11,17; Isaiah 2:2-5; 11:10,14; 19:24-25; 42:1-4; 45:14; 49:6-7,22-23; 52:10; 54:1-3; 60:3f.; 65:1; 66:19; Jeremiah 16:19; Amos 9:11-12; Zechariah 2:3-13; 8:20-23; Malachi 1:11.

15 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 507; compare Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, page 134.

16 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 156-157; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pages 60-61.

17 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:30.

18 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:27; Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1936), page 65.

19 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:30.

20 Ibid., 4:47.

21 Ibid., 4:248.

22 Ibid., 4:401.

23 Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism, page 107.

24 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, page 146.

25 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 476.

26 Ibid., page 477.

27 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 477; compare William Everett Bell, Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology,” page 85.

28 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 491-494; 561-562.

29 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 536-537,542,546.

30 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 546,576-580; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 327-330; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: The New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), page 482, note on Revelation 21:2.

31 See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:320,406-407.

32 Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture Viewed in Connection with the Whole Series of the Divine Dispensations (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1900, 1975) 1:359.

33 John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; compare Ephesians 2:2.

34 [34] Louis A. DeCaro, Israel Today: Fulfillment of Prophecy? (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974) pages 31-42.

35 [35] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 124.