One persistent theme that’s rehashed against pretribulationalism is the argument that it’s not found in the Didache and the early church fathers (ECF) didn’t teach it. Following on from that, the ECF appeared to hold that the church would suffer under the Antichrist, thus the early church was posttribulational.
In 2002 Dr Steve McAvoy wrote two articles for the Conservative Theological Society (Posttribulationism’s Appeal to Antiquity Parts 1 & 2) that address the issue. They can be sourced from Galaxie.Com for a modest yearly subscription fee.
McAvoy quotes Ladd and Gundry:
“Let it be at once emphasized that we are not turning to the church fathers to find authority for either pre- or posttribulationism. The one authority is the word of God, and we are not confined in the strait-jacket of tradition… While tradition does not provide authority, it would nevertheless be difficult to suppose that God had left his people in ignorance of an essential truth for nineteen centuries” George Ladd, The Blessed Hope.
“We’re dealing here with perspective, of course, not proof. For Bible-believing Christians, proof lies in the pages of Scripture, and the view that seems to represent its meaning most naturally is the view that seems best to adopt. Agreed. But Christians belong not only to current communities of faith. They also belong to a community of faith that spans the whole of church history. And since the Spirit of God has been at work throughout that history, Christians should at least respect primary beliefs of the church at large, past as well as present, and suspect the new and novel at least to the extent of requiring extraordinarily good scriptural evidence in its favor.” Robert Gundry, First the Antichrist.
So which is it - tradition or Scripture? The point Ladd and Gundry (and others) try to sell is that, while one must primarily rely on Scripture, the church couldn’t have been wrong until Darby discovered or invented the doctrine. God didn’t leave His people in ignorance.
Yet, as McAvoy and others point out, the church quickly espoused replacement theology (still predominantly the case) which led to interpreting certain prophetic passages non-literally and from a church perspective. The same may be said of soteriology up until Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (1517 AD) and the advent of the Reformation. Could the church have possibly been wrong for so long over such a primary issue as salvation? Where did the ECF stand on TULIP?
Many pretrib apologists will also argue that, from the outset, the eschatology of the ECF wasn’t developed anywhere like it is today. The rapture doctrine wasn’t on their radar. How many rapture references of any kind does one find in their writings? There wasn’t any systematic eschatological statement of faith. For a number of reasons, Amillennialism and the allegorical approach to hermeneutics quickly shaped the church’s eschatology.
Amillennialists will argue the early church was “clearly amillennial”; but I would counter that even if that were the case, the Bible clearly isn’t. Scripture is the final arbitrator. It seems inconsistent that people with differing beliefs rely on the teaching of the ECF to critique pretribulationism. This is especially a problem for those whose teachings are relatively modern developments as in some newer forms of posttribulationism, preterism, Covenant Theology and prewrath rapturism.
Let me try to illustrate. Preterists might have a hard time explaining to most ECF that Christ actually arrived in 70 AD but that they’d missed the event. In fact, don’t partials technically teach two “second” comings of Christ? Gundry might have trouble selling his postmil Sheep & Goats Judgment and maybe even his two-stage first resurrection. Would the ECF nod in unanimous agreement with prewrathers over the meaning of Matt 24:22? And what about that interesting multi-phase “single parousia”? Did the ECF have a consensus on the meaning of the Day of the Lord? I doubt it.
Appealing to the ECF to determine the validity of a doctrine is somewhat simplistic. Perhaps it’s best to stick to Scripture after all.
Further reading:
Answering The Arguments Of Post-Tribulation Rapture Position
THE RAPTURE IN TWENTY CENTURIES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
PROBING THE CRITICAL NEXUS OF THE TWO-STAGE PAROUSIA
AN ANSWER TO ROBERT GUNDRY
Addendum:
Hippolytus is one ECF who is often cited against pretribulationism. Yet McAvoy is quite right when he points out that the ECF read the church in key prophetic texts. Hippolytus, who taught that the Antichrist would spring from the tribe of Dan and who would raise the kingdom of the Jews, writes:
By the woman then clothed with the sun,"he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the "moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, "she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered," mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. "And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings."
Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel
Writings of Hippolytus
Note also:
Those who wish to point out what the early church fathers taught when criticizing pretribulationism may also want to examine what many of the ECFs thought about Mary's perpetual virginity.
Showing posts with label George E Ladd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George E Ladd. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ladd, Israel and the Church
I confess to having little patience with casual remarks that some throw out at the dispensational system. They range from the absurd heresy label to vague statements like a recent comment made by a blogger (The Orange Mailman) who affirmed that:
“…there was a real need for dispensationalists to address the contradictions in their position.”
And that:
“….So many dispensationalists have moved significantly toward historic premillennialism. Now instead of attacking those dispensationalists (classic and revised) which they acknowledge have severe contradictions in their position, they attack historic premillennialists with whom they have so much more in common now.”
OM was reacting to Mike Vlach’s post on Historic Premillennialism (Covenant Premillennialism) vs Dispensational Premillennialism. He felt that Mike misrepresented George Ladd and HP. One of the issues was whether Ladd held that the church was the new Spiritual Israel. Here’s what OM says on his blog:
“The second issue is the idea that Historical Premillennialists believe in a form of replacement theology. Vlach cites Ladd, but he does so in such a way that you think that Ladd believes that the church is the new Israel, which is not the case. Ladd never wrote that the church is the new Israel as he always used the term “the true Israel”. Notice how Vlach frames Ladd’s quote: Ladd asserted that the church is now the new “spiritual Israel.” You see how the word “new” is not in the quotes, only “spiritual Israel” is in the quotes. He does cite Millard Erickson, whom I am unfamiliar with who is quoted properly. But old school premillennialists like Nathaniel West, BW Newton, and SP Tregelles would all agree that the church is not the new Israel. They all held that Israel was Israel and the church was the church. They believed there were some parallels between the church and Israel, and there was definitely a historicist flair in many of their works, but they uniformly taught a future for the physical nation of Israel, and Ladd can easily be included here.”
And yet in “The Last Things – What about Israel?” Ladd writes:
“Here, in two separate places, prophecies which in their Old Testament context refer to literal Israel are in the New Testament applied to the (Gentile) church. In other words, Paul sees the spiritual fulfillment of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in the church. It follows inescapably that the salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel. Such facts as this are what compel some Bible students, including the present writer, to speak of the church as the New Israel, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.”
I’m fairly sure OM knows Ladd’s position on the 144,000:
“The second throng pictured the same people, the 144,000, seen from a different point of view. They are the church which from the human perspective is a great in numerable throng from every nation and tongue. Now they are seen as martyrs of the Great Tribulation; they are seen standing before God's throne clothed in white robes, singing a hymn of praise "salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb." They are furthered identified: "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (7:14). Their martyrdom is the path to eternal blessedness and glory.” (The Last Things - The Antichrist and the Great Tribulation)
On Mike’s blog OM comments that:
“I don't believe Ladd's terminology leads to replacement theology at all. In fact, I have The Gospel of the Kingdom right in front of me. As I read through the chapter titled The Kingdom, Israel and the Church, it becomes obvious that Ladd believed in a future restoration of the nation of Israel. Two quotes are "Israel is yet to be saved" and "There will be a restoration of Israel". That directly contradicts the claim made in the above post.”
That sentiment doesn’t square with Ladd’s quote above. When Ladd talks about “restoration” he means salvation. That salvation absorbs the Jews into the church and may EXCLUDE OT prophetic land and Temple restoration. He sees the church as the New, true, spiritual Israel. That would be Replacement Theology!
Ladd again:
“What does this have to do with the present Israeli question? Three things: First, God has preserved his people. Israel remains a "holy" people (Rom. 11:16), set apart and destined to carry out the divine purpose. Second, all Israel is yet to be saved. One modern scholar has suggested that in the millennium history may witness for the first time a truly Christian nation. Third, the salvation of Israel must be through the new covenant made in the blood of Christ already established with the church, not through a rebuilt Jewish temple with a revival of the Mosaic sacrificial system. Hebrews flatly affirms that the whole Mosaic system is obsolete and about to pass away. Therefore the popular Dispensational position that Israel is the "clock of prophecy" is misguided. Possibly the modern return of Israel to Palestine is a part of God's purpose for Israel, but the New Testament sheds no light on this problem. However, the preservation of Israel as a people through the centuries is a sign that God has not cast off his people Israel.”
And this rather confusing statement:
“It is quite impossible in light of the context and the course of Paul's thought in this passage to understand "all Israel" to refer to the Church. There is, to be sure, a very real sense in which the Church is Israel, the sons of Abraham, the true circumcision (Gal. 3: 7; Rom. 2: 28; 4: i, 12,16). However, this does not mean that God has for ever cast off Israel after the flesh. Paul emphatically denies this. There is first of all a spiritual remnant—natural branches which were not broken off because they received Christ (Rom. 11: 1-6). But secondly, there is to be a greater turning to the Lord on the part of Israel after the flesh, of such proportions that Paul can say that "all Israel," i.e., Israel as a whole, will be saved.” (THE KINGDOM, ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH)
That Israel will be saved by faith in Christ is true. But note Ladd’s reluctance to refer to the clear and specific OT prophetic promises. He gives precedence to his interpretation of the NT which is based on his presuppositions (144,000 etc).
I don’t know what ALL HP proponents think. Some early ones, like Horatius Bonar, did believe the physical promises to Israel were still valid and awaiting fulfillment. However, my observation is that MOST non-dispies DO allow the NT to reinterpret and spiritualize the OT to the point of abrogating clear physical promises made by God to national Israel. Most concede that Israel has a future salvation but it is often doublespeak because that future most often excludes the land promises etc.
For clarification on this I recommend reading Barry Horner’s “Future Israel”.
Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum covers HP (Covenant Premillennialism) in his book “Israelology” (pp 234-317). He cites statements by Ladd, Erickson and several others who DO spiritualize Israel’s future. I recommend reading it!
Mike Vlach was correct. He didn’t misrepresent Ladd at all and OM stands to be corrected.
In conclusion, it’s apparently permitted for some individuals to attack dispensationalism and pretribulationism with generalizations, yet they often take offense when their own beliefs are called to question. I wish that people who typically make off-the-cuff statements about disp. would actually list some of these elusive “severe contradictions”. I’d love to hear about them!
Answers to the 95 Theses Contra Dispensationalism
Core Characteristics of Dispensationalism
A Book Review of Blomberg and Chung's, A Case for Historic Premillennialism by Erik Swanson
Addendum:
Sadly, some of the links have gone by the wayside. If ever they re-appear I'll re-link to them.
Ladd subscribed to Covenant Theology which began to be developed around the 16th century. Typically, CTs reinterpret the OT via the lens of the NT, which is why Ladd was sometimes ambiguous regarding the relationship between Israel and the church. This is also the reason why he could only use Revelation 20 to defend his premillennialism.
Non-dispensational premils tend to hold Ladd's scholarship in esteem. They often eschew dispensationalism on the grounds of its pretribulationism and its sharp distinction of Israel and the church. However, this distinction is important if we are to understand God's plan for Israel. Ladd does not help us here.
The following link to a PDF document of Ladd's "Israel and the Church" proves that Ladd was closer to supersessionism than many historic premils might admit. Read it HERE
“…there was a real need for dispensationalists to address the contradictions in their position.”
And that:
“….So many dispensationalists have moved significantly toward historic premillennialism. Now instead of attacking those dispensationalists (classic and revised) which they acknowledge have severe contradictions in their position, they attack historic premillennialists with whom they have so much more in common now.”
OM was reacting to Mike Vlach’s post on Historic Premillennialism (Covenant Premillennialism) vs Dispensational Premillennialism. He felt that Mike misrepresented George Ladd and HP. One of the issues was whether Ladd held that the church was the new Spiritual Israel. Here’s what OM says on his blog:
“The second issue is the idea that Historical Premillennialists believe in a form of replacement theology. Vlach cites Ladd, but he does so in such a way that you think that Ladd believes that the church is the new Israel, which is not the case. Ladd never wrote that the church is the new Israel as he always used the term “the true Israel”. Notice how Vlach frames Ladd’s quote: Ladd asserted that the church is now the new “spiritual Israel.” You see how the word “new” is not in the quotes, only “spiritual Israel” is in the quotes. He does cite Millard Erickson, whom I am unfamiliar with who is quoted properly. But old school premillennialists like Nathaniel West, BW Newton, and SP Tregelles would all agree that the church is not the new Israel. They all held that Israel was Israel and the church was the church. They believed there were some parallels between the church and Israel, and there was definitely a historicist flair in many of their works, but they uniformly taught a future for the physical nation of Israel, and Ladd can easily be included here.”
And yet in “The Last Things – What about Israel?” Ladd writes:
“Here, in two separate places, prophecies which in their Old Testament context refer to literal Israel are in the New Testament applied to the (Gentile) church. In other words, Paul sees the spiritual fulfillment of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in the church. It follows inescapably that the salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel. Such facts as this are what compel some Bible students, including the present writer, to speak of the church as the New Israel, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.”
I’m fairly sure OM knows Ladd’s position on the 144,000:
“The second throng pictured the same people, the 144,000, seen from a different point of view. They are the church which from the human perspective is a great in numerable throng from every nation and tongue. Now they are seen as martyrs of the Great Tribulation; they are seen standing before God's throne clothed in white robes, singing a hymn of praise "salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb." They are furthered identified: "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (7:14). Their martyrdom is the path to eternal blessedness and glory.” (The Last Things - The Antichrist and the Great Tribulation)
On Mike’s blog OM comments that:
“I don't believe Ladd's terminology leads to replacement theology at all. In fact, I have The Gospel of the Kingdom right in front of me. As I read through the chapter titled The Kingdom, Israel and the Church, it becomes obvious that Ladd believed in a future restoration of the nation of Israel. Two quotes are "Israel is yet to be saved" and "There will be a restoration of Israel". That directly contradicts the claim made in the above post.”
That sentiment doesn’t square with Ladd’s quote above. When Ladd talks about “restoration” he means salvation. That salvation absorbs the Jews into the church and may EXCLUDE OT prophetic land and Temple restoration. He sees the church as the New, true, spiritual Israel. That would be Replacement Theology!
Ladd again:
“What does this have to do with the present Israeli question? Three things: First, God has preserved his people. Israel remains a "holy" people (Rom. 11:16), set apart and destined to carry out the divine purpose. Second, all Israel is yet to be saved. One modern scholar has suggested that in the millennium history may witness for the first time a truly Christian nation. Third, the salvation of Israel must be through the new covenant made in the blood of Christ already established with the church, not through a rebuilt Jewish temple with a revival of the Mosaic sacrificial system. Hebrews flatly affirms that the whole Mosaic system is obsolete and about to pass away. Therefore the popular Dispensational position that Israel is the "clock of prophecy" is misguided. Possibly the modern return of Israel to Palestine is a part of God's purpose for Israel, but the New Testament sheds no light on this problem. However, the preservation of Israel as a people through the centuries is a sign that God has not cast off his people Israel.”
And this rather confusing statement:
“It is quite impossible in light of the context and the course of Paul's thought in this passage to understand "all Israel" to refer to the Church. There is, to be sure, a very real sense in which the Church is Israel, the sons of Abraham, the true circumcision (Gal. 3: 7; Rom. 2: 28; 4: i, 12,16). However, this does not mean that God has for ever cast off Israel after the flesh. Paul emphatically denies this. There is first of all a spiritual remnant—natural branches which were not broken off because they received Christ (Rom. 11: 1-6). But secondly, there is to be a greater turning to the Lord on the part of Israel after the flesh, of such proportions that Paul can say that "all Israel," i.e., Israel as a whole, will be saved.” (THE KINGDOM, ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH)
That Israel will be saved by faith in Christ is true. But note Ladd’s reluctance to refer to the clear and specific OT prophetic promises. He gives precedence to his interpretation of the NT which is based on his presuppositions (144,000 etc).
I don’t know what ALL HP proponents think. Some early ones, like Horatius Bonar, did believe the physical promises to Israel were still valid and awaiting fulfillment. However, my observation is that MOST non-dispies DO allow the NT to reinterpret and spiritualize the OT to the point of abrogating clear physical promises made by God to national Israel. Most concede that Israel has a future salvation but it is often doublespeak because that future most often excludes the land promises etc.
For clarification on this I recommend reading Barry Horner’s “Future Israel”.
Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum covers HP (Covenant Premillennialism) in his book “Israelology” (pp 234-317). He cites statements by Ladd, Erickson and several others who DO spiritualize Israel’s future. I recommend reading it!
Mike Vlach was correct. He didn’t misrepresent Ladd at all and OM stands to be corrected.
In conclusion, it’s apparently permitted for some individuals to attack dispensationalism and pretribulationism with generalizations, yet they often take offense when their own beliefs are called to question. I wish that people who typically make off-the-cuff statements about disp. would actually list some of these elusive “severe contradictions”. I’d love to hear about them!
Answers to the 95 Theses Contra Dispensationalism
Core Characteristics of Dispensationalism
A Book Review of Blomberg and Chung's, A Case for Historic Premillennialism by Erik Swanson
Addendum:
Sadly, some of the links have gone by the wayside. If ever they re-appear I'll re-link to them.
Ladd subscribed to Covenant Theology which began to be developed around the 16th century. Typically, CTs reinterpret the OT via the lens of the NT, which is why Ladd was sometimes ambiguous regarding the relationship between Israel and the church. This is also the reason why he could only use Revelation 20 to defend his premillennialism.
Non-dispensational premils tend to hold Ladd's scholarship in esteem. They often eschew dispensationalism on the grounds of its pretribulationism and its sharp distinction of Israel and the church. However, this distinction is important if we are to understand God's plan for Israel. Ladd does not help us here.
The following link to a PDF document of Ladd's "Israel and the Church" proves that Ladd was closer to supersessionism than many historic premils might admit. Read it HERE
Friday, July 8, 2011
1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary
Here's a fantastic resource that ties everything together from a pretribulational perspective.
1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary
Here's John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope" by G E Ladd. Note Walvoord's response to Ladd's critique of the pretribulational view of imminence. Read it HERE
1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary
Here's John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope" by G E Ladd. Note Walvoord's response to Ladd's critique of the pretribulational view of imminence. Read it HERE
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Hermeneutic of Reinterpretation
It’s no wonder we have so many differences in understanding Scripture. Take these quotes for example:
The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)
But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)
Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)
Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)
Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.
The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.
If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)
If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)
The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.
Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:
By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”
Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.
The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)
But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)
Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)
Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)
Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.
The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.
If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)
If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)
The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.
Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:
By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”
Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology’
I’ve just read a review of a book that I haven’t read yet because I currently have too many on the go. The review caught my eye because I’d heard some favorable comments about ‘A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology’ by Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung Eds. No surprise that these comments haven't come from the pre-trib camp.
The reviewer, Erik Swanson, begins by making the following observations:
Current eschatology recognizes three views on the millennium: premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Premillennialism itself comes in two flavors: dispensational premillennialism (hereafter DP) and its less popular cousin, historic premillennialism (hereafter HP). HP has never dominated popular belief or academic strongholds, but the contributors to A Case for Historic Premillennialism seek to change that. This collection of articles, edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, was written mostly by the faculty of Denver Theological Seminary, with two outside contributors. Since every branch of eschatology has “received sustained attention and developed new permutations,” these authors felt it was “past time for a new look at classic premillennialism” (xvi). Amillennialism has continued to develop. DP has continued to develop. But since the death of George Ladd in 1982, HP has not. Hence the occasion for this book—to progress the system of HP and steal some attention away from DP for itself.
How does this work fare in its goals? How do these contributors progress HP? What kind of case do they present for HP and how strong is it? How well do they critique the other millennial views, especially DP? These questions will be answered in the following critique. I will begin by surveying the more subtle purpose behind this book, followed by examining the contributors’ critique of DP. Then I will explore their case for HP followed by an overall evaluation of how well they achieved their intended purposes…
Here are some take out comments:
A Case for Historic Premillennialism’s real agenda is to attack “left behind” eschatology. These authors are clearly venting their frustration with the popularity of “left behind” eschatology, which is presumably DP. They relate how they go to speak to Presbyterian or Reformed churches only to find that their members know nothing of their historic eschatology beliefs. The people only know of Lindsey, LaHaye, and Jenkins: “Today, at least at a grassroots level, one can find…many believers whose eschatology is largely or entirely determined by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and other writers of similar bent” (xiv). They claim that DP is the popular, majority belief of evangelicals who are biblically illiterate. (ouch) DP is represented as the view of the masses and popular culture which infiltrated society after 9/11 when Americans were willing to hear what the Bible said about end times….
The review is worth reading just on the basis of how well (or not) the writers defend posttribulationism and deal with pretribulationism, which seems to be the underlying agenda. Do they actually make a case for HP? Swanson concludes with this:
The goal of this book was to present a case for HP. Rather, the title should be changed to “A Case of Posttribulationalism.” The sub-title should then read, “An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology…Though Nothing to Do with Dispensational Premillennialism.” Chapter after chapter, I found myself waiting for the case for HP. It never came. Rather the authors’ biases, presuppositions, and frustrations were the only clear part of this book. I wish it weren’t the case, but this book entirely fails at its objective and is of little value to the church in understanding eschatology today.
For what it's worth, read it HERE.
The reviewer, Erik Swanson, begins by making the following observations:
Current eschatology recognizes three views on the millennium: premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Premillennialism itself comes in two flavors: dispensational premillennialism (hereafter DP) and its less popular cousin, historic premillennialism (hereafter HP). HP has never dominated popular belief or academic strongholds, but the contributors to A Case for Historic Premillennialism seek to change that. This collection of articles, edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, was written mostly by the faculty of Denver Theological Seminary, with two outside contributors. Since every branch of eschatology has “received sustained attention and developed new permutations,” these authors felt it was “past time for a new look at classic premillennialism” (xvi). Amillennialism has continued to develop. DP has continued to develop. But since the death of George Ladd in 1982, HP has not. Hence the occasion for this book—to progress the system of HP and steal some attention away from DP for itself.
How does this work fare in its goals? How do these contributors progress HP? What kind of case do they present for HP and how strong is it? How well do they critique the other millennial views, especially DP? These questions will be answered in the following critique. I will begin by surveying the more subtle purpose behind this book, followed by examining the contributors’ critique of DP. Then I will explore their case for HP followed by an overall evaluation of how well they achieved their intended purposes…
Here are some take out comments:
A Case for Historic Premillennialism’s real agenda is to attack “left behind” eschatology. These authors are clearly venting their frustration with the popularity of “left behind” eschatology, which is presumably DP. They relate how they go to speak to Presbyterian or Reformed churches only to find that their members know nothing of their historic eschatology beliefs. The people only know of Lindsey, LaHaye, and Jenkins: “Today, at least at a grassroots level, one can find…many believers whose eschatology is largely or entirely determined by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and other writers of similar bent” (xiv). They claim that DP is the popular, majority belief of evangelicals who are biblically illiterate. (ouch) DP is represented as the view of the masses and popular culture which infiltrated society after 9/11 when Americans were willing to hear what the Bible said about end times….
The review is worth reading just on the basis of how well (or not) the writers defend posttribulationism and deal with pretribulationism, which seems to be the underlying agenda. Do they actually make a case for HP? Swanson concludes with this:
The goal of this book was to present a case for HP. Rather, the title should be changed to “A Case of Posttribulationalism.” The sub-title should then read, “An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology…Though Nothing to Do with Dispensational Premillennialism.” Chapter after chapter, I found myself waiting for the case for HP. It never came. Rather the authors’ biases, presuppositions, and frustrations were the only clear part of this book. I wish it weren’t the case, but this book entirely fails at its objective and is of little value to the church in understanding eschatology today.
For what it's worth, read it HERE.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A quick note
Some time ago when I began to seriously study the concept of the rapture, I shifted from being a sceptical posttribber to believing that pretribulationism has the best answers. My modus operandi was to see what pre-trib’s two main opponents were saying about the system and then checking out how pretribulationists responded to those criticisms. One can easily go to several prominent non pre-trib websites and discover that they inevitably have a list of objections, polemics and alleged rebuttals for that system. I would then check what pre-trib scholars would say about opposing systems and how those systems in turn answered criticisms – if at all!
Personally, I’d never considered somehow escaping the “tribulation” - if it occurred in my time - by hiding my head in the sand in fear and believing in a false hope. But it does sober and excite me, as I study deeper, that the Lord could really come for us at any time. If this is truly the case then I had better be constantly prepared or risk being found wanting by my Lord. If I am really prepared to meet my Lord then I am also ready for persecution and possible martyrdom.
Am I 100% sure of a pretribulational rapture? - Certainly not. What I have found is that the two “other” main systems are flawed and that most of their objections to pretribulationism are answerable, despite the polemics I’ve found along the way. What I intend to do soon is to put together a series of supposed pre-trib rebuttals and problems that I’ve come across on those sites, and provide what I think are the answers.
I still intend to do an article on the Olivet Discourse and whether there is a rapture found within it. I began the article over a month ago and it grew into a short story about half way through, so I need to prune and rethink about how I’m going to present it. I’ll probably do that first.
Also, if you take a look at my links you’ll see that I’ve added dispensational resources. Dispensationalism is another system that has received a lot of bad press; however, I find it answers most of my questions more satisfactorily than other systems do. I see polemics fired at it by otherwise good Christians, yet there are a lot of misconceptions and downright misinformation assigned to it. Does it really teach more than One Way of Salvation? Did Scofield really teach a salvation by works during the OT in the unfortunate wording of the original version of his Bible note – or did his other notes clarify that salvation was always by Grace alone? Have Covenant Theologians made similar faux pas’ about how one acquired salvation in the OT? Is dispensationalism’s “newness” a legitimate criticism (like pre-trib)? How old is CT anyway and how many modifications have been made to it since its inception? What about “Progressive Dispensationalism”? Is it the logical progression from Classical Dispensationalism?
I’m still studying Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism. His book covers all these questions. I also highly recommend Dr Reluctant’s website where he is currently answering the 95 Theses against Dispensationalism, among other things. I’ll probably have something more to say on this topic some time down the track.
Footnote:
I'm adding this very well written article by Dr Ron Bigalke...
Dispensationalist critic George E. Ladd wrote the following words regarding dispensationalists: "It is doubtful if there has been any other circle of men who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.” Dispensationalism Today
Also,
A REVIEW OF JOHN GERSTNER'S
WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH
Personally, I’d never considered somehow escaping the “tribulation” - if it occurred in my time - by hiding my head in the sand in fear and believing in a false hope. But it does sober and excite me, as I study deeper, that the Lord could really come for us at any time. If this is truly the case then I had better be constantly prepared or risk being found wanting by my Lord. If I am really prepared to meet my Lord then I am also ready for persecution and possible martyrdom.
Am I 100% sure of a pretribulational rapture? - Certainly not. What I have found is that the two “other” main systems are flawed and that most of their objections to pretribulationism are answerable, despite the polemics I’ve found along the way. What I intend to do soon is to put together a series of supposed pre-trib rebuttals and problems that I’ve come across on those sites, and provide what I think are the answers.
I still intend to do an article on the Olivet Discourse and whether there is a rapture found within it. I began the article over a month ago and it grew into a short story about half way through, so I need to prune and rethink about how I’m going to present it. I’ll probably do that first.
Also, if you take a look at my links you’ll see that I’ve added dispensational resources. Dispensationalism is another system that has received a lot of bad press; however, I find it answers most of my questions more satisfactorily than other systems do. I see polemics fired at it by otherwise good Christians, yet there are a lot of misconceptions and downright misinformation assigned to it. Does it really teach more than One Way of Salvation? Did Scofield really teach a salvation by works during the OT in the unfortunate wording of the original version of his Bible note – or did his other notes clarify that salvation was always by Grace alone? Have Covenant Theologians made similar faux pas’ about how one acquired salvation in the OT? Is dispensationalism’s “newness” a legitimate criticism (like pre-trib)? How old is CT anyway and how many modifications have been made to it since its inception? What about “Progressive Dispensationalism”? Is it the logical progression from Classical Dispensationalism?
I’m still studying Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism. His book covers all these questions. I also highly recommend Dr Reluctant’s website where he is currently answering the 95 Theses against Dispensationalism, among other things. I’ll probably have something more to say on this topic some time down the track.
Footnote:
I'm adding this very well written article by Dr Ron Bigalke...
Dispensationalist critic George E. Ladd wrote the following words regarding dispensationalists: "It is doubtful if there has been any other circle of men who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.” Dispensationalism Today
Also,
A REVIEW OF JOHN GERSTNER'S
WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
