Here are the 12 video presentations on Apologetics & Worldview: An Introduction I recorded last year before a group of lay Christians who ranged from ages 15 to 70+. I cite quite a few authorities, and I hope to place these in readable form in the future. The average running time for each video is around one hour and thirty minutes...click here
Showing posts with label Paul Henebury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Henebury. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Telos Theological Ministries Apologetics
Dr. Reluctant:
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Rethinking Dispensations
Dr. Paul Henebury takes a critical and thought provoking look at dispensationalism:
Part One
Part Two
Addendum:
Biblical Covenantalism
Part One
Part Two
Addendum:
Biblical Covenantalism
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Friday, July 19, 2013
Paul Henebury on Dispensationalism
Lindsay Kennedy recently interviewed "Dr Reluctant" on the topic of Dispensationalism.
The discourse is in two parts and can be accessed HERE.
While you're there, take a look around Telos Ministries. Lots of great material.
The discourse is in two parts and can be accessed HERE.
While you're there, take a look around Telos Ministries. Lots of great material.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Touching On Evolution & Hermeneutics
I’ve already mentioned that I was raised in the RCC. My first years were spent being taught by the nuns and I must admit they actually did a fine work of presenting the Gospel message to me and I understood Christ died for my sins, and that He was my savior. It was there I was taught that the OT sacrifices – especially the Abraham-Isaac story – pictured Christ’s future sacrifice. It was also there I was taught a literal Adam and Eve.
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
Friday, January 6, 2012
Surface-Level & Face-Value Interpretation
What’s the difference between a face-value and a surface-level interpretation of Scripture? These two terms are being used fairly regularly in eschatological interpretations. Mind you, their application appears be somewhat elastic and dependent upon which scriptures they’re applied to, and what outcomes the interpreter/critic is looking for.
Consider Rev 6:7-8. I would take the view that a face-value interpretation of this means one quarter of a segment will actually die of the four judgments. Moreover, I think this clearly demonstrates God’s wrath in action given that Christ releases the seal.
Not so says the person who thinks this is a surface-level interpretation of the text. He’ll point out that the verse only tells us “authority” is given to kill that number. Why the 4th horseman mightn’t exercise this authority to its fullest extent and how this number might relate to God’s wrath are questions that defy compelling answers. Of course, that view is expedient if your eschatological model needs a semblance of peace somewhere later in the 70th week (ignoring the 2nd seal).
I’ve seen similar departures from face-value readings to “deeper level” ones of other texts like John 14:2-3 and Rev 13:16-18 (there are others). For example, in the former the Father’s house is somewhere other than heaven and in the latter the Mark of the beast is actually “Bismillah” or “in the name of Allah”.
This brings me to the topic of hermeneutics. I was reading through The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism by Robert L Thomas and it struck me why so many people may be identifying with PD. It allows them more flexibility in determining what a Scripture might be saying. Better yet they have more flexibility in making a set Scripture say something other than a face-value understanding, especially in using the NT to re-interpret the OT.
Perhaps I’m being too simplistic? Yet consider the following from Robert Thomas’ essay:
“Recent additions that differentiate the hermeneutics of PD from traditional dispensational hermeneutics include rhetorical and literary matters, the history of interpretation, the matter of tradition, and the historical context of the interpreter. The method advocates consideration of the problem of historical distance between the text and the interpreter, the role of the interpreter’s preunderstanding, and methodological applications of the hermeneutical spiral. In fact, Blaising and Bock in at least one place call the approach by the name “historical-grammatical-literary-theological,” which, of course, is more sophisticated and therefore quite different from simple grammatical-historical hermeneutics. It emphasizes the subjective element in its reasoning and hence is more provisional in its conclusions."
Later he clarifies this a little bit further:
“One principle that conspicuously distinguishes the two systems of interpretation relates to the role of the interpreter. Traditionally, the interpreter has sought to suppress any of his own viewpoints regarding what he thinks the passage should mean so as to allow the exegetical evidence from the passage under investigation to speak for itself.”
And note this:
“The hermeneutics of PD are a bold contrast to this principle of seeking objectivity through repression of one’s biases. Its relevant principle advocates the inclusion of one’s preunderstanding in the interpretive process as a starting point. Leaders in the movement pointedly advocate allowing one’s biblical theology and other elements of preunderstanding to influence interpretive conclusions.”
If Dr Thomas has presented the PD case accurately (he cites sources) I can see why that movement is gaining ground. To be fair, one should read the entire article and then see if there have been any PD objections or responses to it.
See also:
Paul Henebury - Progressive Dispensationalism and Normative Dispensationalism: Separate Hermeneutical Assumptions
Consider Rev 6:7-8. I would take the view that a face-value interpretation of this means one quarter of a segment will actually die of the four judgments. Moreover, I think this clearly demonstrates God’s wrath in action given that Christ releases the seal.
Not so says the person who thinks this is a surface-level interpretation of the text. He’ll point out that the verse only tells us “authority” is given to kill that number. Why the 4th horseman mightn’t exercise this authority to its fullest extent and how this number might relate to God’s wrath are questions that defy compelling answers. Of course, that view is expedient if your eschatological model needs a semblance of peace somewhere later in the 70th week (ignoring the 2nd seal).
I’ve seen similar departures from face-value readings to “deeper level” ones of other texts like John 14:2-3 and Rev 13:16-18 (there are others). For example, in the former the Father’s house is somewhere other than heaven and in the latter the Mark of the beast is actually “Bismillah” or “in the name of Allah”.
This brings me to the topic of hermeneutics. I was reading through The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism by Robert L Thomas and it struck me why so many people may be identifying with PD. It allows them more flexibility in determining what a Scripture might be saying. Better yet they have more flexibility in making a set Scripture say something other than a face-value understanding, especially in using the NT to re-interpret the OT.
Perhaps I’m being too simplistic? Yet consider the following from Robert Thomas’ essay:
“Recent additions that differentiate the hermeneutics of PD from traditional dispensational hermeneutics include rhetorical and literary matters, the history of interpretation, the matter of tradition, and the historical context of the interpreter. The method advocates consideration of the problem of historical distance between the text and the interpreter, the role of the interpreter’s preunderstanding, and methodological applications of the hermeneutical spiral. In fact, Blaising and Bock in at least one place call the approach by the name “historical-grammatical-literary-theological,” which, of course, is more sophisticated and therefore quite different from simple grammatical-historical hermeneutics. It emphasizes the subjective element in its reasoning and hence is more provisional in its conclusions."
Later he clarifies this a little bit further:
“One principle that conspicuously distinguishes the two systems of interpretation relates to the role of the interpreter. Traditionally, the interpreter has sought to suppress any of his own viewpoints regarding what he thinks the passage should mean so as to allow the exegetical evidence from the passage under investigation to speak for itself.”
And note this:
“The hermeneutics of PD are a bold contrast to this principle of seeking objectivity through repression of one’s biases. Its relevant principle advocates the inclusion of one’s preunderstanding in the interpretive process as a starting point. Leaders in the movement pointedly advocate allowing one’s biblical theology and other elements of preunderstanding to influence interpretive conclusions.”
If Dr Thomas has presented the PD case accurately (he cites sources) I can see why that movement is gaining ground. To be fair, one should read the entire article and then see if there have been any PD objections or responses to it.
See also:
Paul Henebury - Progressive Dispensationalism and Normative Dispensationalism: Separate Hermeneutical Assumptions
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Is Israel Prophetically Insignificant?
I believe that Replacement Theology is at the core of most criticisms against dispensationalism even when the stated motive is to correct the “unbiblical” teaching of dispensations or the rapture. I don’t think I’ve ever read a polemic (and I’ve read a few) that didn’t ultimately focus on Israel. Some proponents of RT appear to be offended by Israel’s existence as if it threatens their theology. It does.
These critics insist that modern Israel is prophetically insignificant; that it has forfeited its rights to the land because it rejected the Messiah and because of its national sins. Some even question the genetic lineage of modern Jews (Sizer, Donaldson etc). Thomas Williamson is another example of a Christian minister who makes broad generalizations that Christian Zionists (CZs) sanction anything Israel does, thus making Palestinians victims of this errant relationship:
“Christian Zionists claim to have 70,000,000 followers in America, who insists (sic) that our politicians render unquestioning obedience to the military and political agenda of the Israeli Government...Does God really demand that we support all actions and activities of the Israeli Government, even if those actions violate God’s moral standards of righteousness?”
Williamson asserts much but provides no evidence. One might also ask why he spends no time acknowledging the violations of “God’s moral standards of righteousness” by Israel’s neighbors who have wanted to destroy it since its inception. Why does he single Israel out?
Typically, he raises Gen 12:3 as the standard text that Zionists use to influence American foreign policy. He contends that it doesn’t relate to modern Israel. Like others, he ignores Gen 27:26-29 which zeroes in on the identity of the recipient of the blessing (Jacob).
He asserts that CZs mistakenly interpret Zech 13:8 although he doesn’t exegete the passage. He claims that it is commonly understood that CZs do not really care about what is best for the Jews. This is pure propaganda and ironic given Williamson’s statements against Israeli support. Dispensationalists take a literal view of Zech 13 & 14 (see David Baron’s Zechariah). It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish.
In a seeming about face, Williamson states: “There is no scriptural justification for putting Jewish people on a pedestal as some kind of superior race. Jewish people today do not want to be put on that pedestal. Nor do they want to be blamed for all the problems of the world, as some would do with their accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.”
And this: “God’s program is that we should love the Jews, seek their conversion (Romans 9: 3), and then be united with them in the fellowship of the Lord’s Church, where there is no longer any Jew nor Greek...God has made every nation on earth of one blood, Acts 17.26. Therefore we cannot elevate the Jews as a superior race, nor look down on them as an inferior race. The Jews are people just like you and I. (sic) and many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. As one of the greatest Jews of all, the Apostle Paul, said, "There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek."”
Paul taught that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek insofar as salvation is concerned. However, that doesn’t mean Israel doesn’t have a distinct future role as a nation in God’s plan and it does not make the church spiritual Israel. Furthermore, no decent dispie puts Israel or the Jewish race “on a pedestal”. Acknowledging God’s program for them is simply that and nothing more. By disavowing the conspiratorial accusations that others make against Jews, Williamson admits they are victims of propaganda. Sadly, he has already truly poisoned the well with his inference that Israel violates “God’s moral standards of righteousness”.
Elsewhere he argues that God didn’t make an unconditional land covenant with Israel. He points to several instances of the OT use of the word “forever” where he thinks dispies wouldn’t be inclined to take that word as literal. That being the case, his argument is that the word “forever” - insofar as the land covenant with Abraham is concerned (Gen 13:15) – doesn’t actually mean forever. But, as Michael Rydelnik informs us in “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (p 156):
“Min olam v’ad olam is the strongest expression in Hebrew to describe perpetuity and eternality. And, for the most part, it refers to God and His eternal nature.” (See 1Chron 16:36; Psalm 90:2; Psalm 103:17; Dan 17:18 etc).
Dr Rydlenik points out that there are two exceptions where the usage of the phrase does not refer to God. It is in Jer 7:7 and Jer 25:5 where it refers to Israel’s possession of the land forever and ever. Stuart Dauermann concurs.
Williamson: “Since the land promise to the Jews was conditional upon their obedience, and they completely failed to obey God or keep the covenant with God, therefore there is no duty upon Christians to help modern-day Jews to take Palestine away from the Arabs, nor to prevent them from giving back to the Arabs land that they have already occupied (such as the Gaza Strip).”
Notice the sleight of hand? He makes simplistic statements about a complex situation that one might presume true. We might ask - how are the Palestinians (who are mostly Muslim) “keeping the covenant with God”?
He supplies a series of OT verses that appear to show conditionality. And they do. See Gen 17:8, 14; Ex 19:5; Num 14:30; Deut 4:25-16, 7:12-13, 11:16-17; Josh 23:15-16; Jer 7:3-6, 9:13-16; Ezek 33:24-26; Matt 21:43 etc.
Dr Rydelnik points out that enjoyment of the land is conditional to Israel’s obedience, yet its exile is never final. Every time God exiled Israel He also, eventually, returned them back to the land. Moses was barred from entering the Promised Land but the rest of Israel entered. One generation may be exiled for disobedience but that does not prevent a future generation from occupying it.
Why? - Because God made an everlasting land covenant with Abraham.
In his article “Let God Be True…And Say What He Means” Paul Henebury compellingly outlines the problems confronting those who teach Israel has forfeited the land promises. I highly recommend reading it. Ezekiel 36 clearly states that God will give Israel a heart of flesh and write His law on their hearts, for His own name’s sake. God said He would change and restore Israel despite their sins, and that they would eventually be in their land forever!
"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek 36:24-26
Has all that happened yet? Did God change His mind? Should we take Him at His word? It is the proponent of RT who must deal with Scripture and rightly divide the word of God - not the dispensationalist.
"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." Jer 33:25-26
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "When the plowman will overtake the reaper And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; When the mountains will drip sweet wine And all the hills will be dissolved. Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God. Amos 9:13-15
Further reading:
Paul Henebury: The Church and the Promised Land
Matt Waymeyer: THE DUAL STATUS OF ISRAEL IN ROMANS 11:28
Larry Helyer: Luke and the Restoration of Israel
Barry Horner: Zechariah
These critics insist that modern Israel is prophetically insignificant; that it has forfeited its rights to the land because it rejected the Messiah and because of its national sins. Some even question the genetic lineage of modern Jews (Sizer, Donaldson etc). Thomas Williamson is another example of a Christian minister who makes broad generalizations that Christian Zionists (CZs) sanction anything Israel does, thus making Palestinians victims of this errant relationship:
“Christian Zionists claim to have 70,000,000 followers in America, who insists (sic) that our politicians render unquestioning obedience to the military and political agenda of the Israeli Government...Does God really demand that we support all actions and activities of the Israeli Government, even if those actions violate God’s moral standards of righteousness?”
Williamson asserts much but provides no evidence. One might also ask why he spends no time acknowledging the violations of “God’s moral standards of righteousness” by Israel’s neighbors who have wanted to destroy it since its inception. Why does he single Israel out?
Typically, he raises Gen 12:3 as the standard text that Zionists use to influence American foreign policy. He contends that it doesn’t relate to modern Israel. Like others, he ignores Gen 27:26-29 which zeroes in on the identity of the recipient of the blessing (Jacob).
He asserts that CZs mistakenly interpret Zech 13:8 although he doesn’t exegete the passage. He claims that it is commonly understood that CZs do not really care about what is best for the Jews. This is pure propaganda and ironic given Williamson’s statements against Israeli support. Dispensationalists take a literal view of Zech 13 & 14 (see David Baron’s Zechariah). It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish.
In a seeming about face, Williamson states: “There is no scriptural justification for putting Jewish people on a pedestal as some kind of superior race. Jewish people today do not want to be put on that pedestal. Nor do they want to be blamed for all the problems of the world, as some would do with their accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.”
And this: “God’s program is that we should love the Jews, seek their conversion (Romans 9: 3), and then be united with them in the fellowship of the Lord’s Church, where there is no longer any Jew nor Greek...God has made every nation on earth of one blood, Acts 17.26. Therefore we cannot elevate the Jews as a superior race, nor look down on them as an inferior race. The Jews are people just like you and I. (sic) and many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. As one of the greatest Jews of all, the Apostle Paul, said, "There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek."”
Paul taught that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek insofar as salvation is concerned. However, that doesn’t mean Israel doesn’t have a distinct future role as a nation in God’s plan and it does not make the church spiritual Israel. Furthermore, no decent dispie puts Israel or the Jewish race “on a pedestal”. Acknowledging God’s program for them is simply that and nothing more. By disavowing the conspiratorial accusations that others make against Jews, Williamson admits they are victims of propaganda. Sadly, he has already truly poisoned the well with his inference that Israel violates “God’s moral standards of righteousness”.
Elsewhere he argues that God didn’t make an unconditional land covenant with Israel. He points to several instances of the OT use of the word “forever” where he thinks dispies wouldn’t be inclined to take that word as literal. That being the case, his argument is that the word “forever” - insofar as the land covenant with Abraham is concerned (Gen 13:15) – doesn’t actually mean forever. But, as Michael Rydelnik informs us in “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (p 156):
“Min olam v’ad olam is the strongest expression in Hebrew to describe perpetuity and eternality. And, for the most part, it refers to God and His eternal nature.” (See 1Chron 16:36; Psalm 90:2; Psalm 103:17; Dan 17:18 etc).
Dr Rydlenik points out that there are two exceptions where the usage of the phrase does not refer to God. It is in Jer 7:7 and Jer 25:5 where it refers to Israel’s possession of the land forever and ever. Stuart Dauermann concurs.
Williamson: “Since the land promise to the Jews was conditional upon their obedience, and they completely failed to obey God or keep the covenant with God, therefore there is no duty upon Christians to help modern-day Jews to take Palestine away from the Arabs, nor to prevent them from giving back to the Arabs land that they have already occupied (such as the Gaza Strip).”
Notice the sleight of hand? He makes simplistic statements about a complex situation that one might presume true. We might ask - how are the Palestinians (who are mostly Muslim) “keeping the covenant with God”?
He supplies a series of OT verses that appear to show conditionality. And they do. See Gen 17:8, 14; Ex 19:5; Num 14:30; Deut 4:25-16, 7:12-13, 11:16-17; Josh 23:15-16; Jer 7:3-6, 9:13-16; Ezek 33:24-26; Matt 21:43 etc.
Dr Rydelnik points out that enjoyment of the land is conditional to Israel’s obedience, yet its exile is never final. Every time God exiled Israel He also, eventually, returned them back to the land. Moses was barred from entering the Promised Land but the rest of Israel entered. One generation may be exiled for disobedience but that does not prevent a future generation from occupying it.
Why? - Because God made an everlasting land covenant with Abraham.
In his article “Let God Be True…And Say What He Means” Paul Henebury compellingly outlines the problems confronting those who teach Israel has forfeited the land promises. I highly recommend reading it. Ezekiel 36 clearly states that God will give Israel a heart of flesh and write His law on their hearts, for His own name’s sake. God said He would change and restore Israel despite their sins, and that they would eventually be in their land forever!
"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek 36:24-26
Has all that happened yet? Did God change His mind? Should we take Him at His word? It is the proponent of RT who must deal with Scripture and rightly divide the word of God - not the dispensationalist.
"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." Jer 33:25-26
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "When the plowman will overtake the reaper And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; When the mountains will drip sweet wine And all the hills will be dissolved. Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God. Amos 9:13-15
Further reading:
Paul Henebury: The Church and the Promised Land
Matt Waymeyer: THE DUAL STATUS OF ISRAEL IN ROMANS 11:28
Larry Helyer: Luke and the Restoration of Israel
Barry Horner: Zechariah
Friday, October 14, 2011
Those Armageddon Loving Dispensationalists
A while ago I became involved in the historic premil Church-Israel discussion initiated at Mike Vlach’s blog. From there I looked at Craig Blomberg who strongly endorses Gary Burge and Colin Chapman and noted that these two theologians are actively anti-Zionist and anti-dispensational.
This subject is more crucial than the emotive rapture timing debate. That’s not to say that the rapture isn’t important, but (for me) what’s really important is what God said about Israel in the OT; how we understand that in light of the NT and how we understand modern Israel.
Did God mean to do what He said He would in the OT? On what basis do people re-define or ignore select OT verses relating to Israel’s future? Can we trust God at His word? See Paul Henebury’s Let God Be True…And Say What He Means
Joel Rosenberg’s 2011 Epicenter Conference featured a panel discussion called "Assessing The Threat of Replacement Theology and Other Efforts To Delegitimize Israel" between Joel and three other men. One of those men was Dr Michael Rydelnik. You can watch it HERE.
Dr Rydelnik recalled an earlier (Dec 2010) interview with Dr Burge when Moody Radio’s Janet Parshall hosted them in a discussion over Israel’s rights to the land. Notable during that interview was Dr Burge’s avoidance in fully dealing with Dr Rydelnik’s OT texts. In each case he would eventually steer the conversation away to something else.
In the end, Dr Burge retreated to a geo-political debate where he proceeded to disparage Israel in contrast to the observations of the program’s host and Dr Rydelnik. Recall also that Dr Blomberg finished off his Denver Seminary commentary with an indictment on Americans blithely supporting an Israel who “oppresses” Palestinians.
I’ve noticed a trend where certain critics employ a similar formula:
1) They link Christian Zionism with dispensationalism
2) They undermine dispensational theology by pointing out the personal failures of some of its adherents.
3) They tend to use the same arguments to try to prove that dispensational theology is unbiblical
4) They try to stereotype the average Zionist as a provocateur of Armageddon
5) Finally, they go after an “oppressive” Israel.
Rarely, in their narrative, do they acknowledge examples of Arab-Palestinian or Islamic hegemony or the recorded attempts to eradicate Israel, and they never fully engage Scripture that could undermine their theology.
One example of the contempt for Zionism and dispensationalism is Gary Burge’s essay “Why I’m Not a Christian Zionist, Academically Speaking” where his main target is John Hagee. Dr Burge writes:
“The average reader may be excused for not understanding the finer differences between an evangelical preacher who calls for a pre-emptive bombing strike against Iran and one who thinks this view is outrageous and immoral... For instance, high-profile pastor John Hagee...is a Christian preacher who enjoys outrageously militant sermons....Others like myself find him not only embarrassing but dangerous.”
And again:
“Christian Zionists excel in one but fail in the other. They love Israel profoundly but I await the day when Rev. Hagee exhorts Israel (just once) to pursue a national life of justice and truth...This is where everything has been leading. This is the crown jewel in Christian Zionism’s worldview. This is why Rev. Hagee is willing to risk throwing the Middle East into nuclear war. The birth of Israel has now set the stage for the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.”
This is the same polemic that Stephen Sizer promulgates. Rev Sizer has also written a Forward for a book by Alistair Donaldson “the last days of dispensationalism – a scholarly critique of popular misconceptions” which follows the above 5 point formula. Dr Donaldson, in turn, has endorsed Dr Sizer’s polemical “Christian Zionism”.
In his Forward, Rev Sizer wastes no time raising “apocalyptic” concerns by citing Sarah Posner’s “Pastor Strangelove” in which she focuses on John Hagee’s misguided comments:
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”
This sets to poison the well and leads readers into believing the dispensational system unanimously promotes this sort of thing. Dr Donaldson takes this same “apocalyptic” cue when he states on page 149 that:
“[dispensational] beliefs, though being counter to a sound biblical understanding, have significantly influenced foreign policies of governments (especially the United States) concerning Israel, giving rise to significantly distressing world-impacting events, and to what is often uncritical support for the modern state of Israel – despite her atrocious and dehumanizing tyranny of another people – by millions of people who profess to love God who himself abhors justice.”
But John Hagee is not a normative dispensationalist and mature dispies would strongly disagree with his theology and politics. God doesn’t need Christians lobbying for pre-emptive strikes to fulfill His plan. Christians are to be out spreading the Good News and praying for peace.
What these critics are doing is selectively quoting statements made by individuals on the fringe of Zionism and/or dispensationalism and using them as an excuse to disparage the system and Israel. These critics also habitually make polemical and unsubstantiated statements regarding Israel. This is done so often and glibly that it becomes factual in the mind of a non-discerning reader. Far from being the peacemakers they claim to be by often quoting Matt 5:9 against dispies, they are actively fomenting conflict.
Dr Burge should know better as a consequence of his friendship with Michael Rydelnik. Dr Rydelnik’s book “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” is, in my opinion, a testament to how a Christian should view the Middle East conflict and Israel. He understands both sides of the conflict. He recognizes the fact that Israel isn’t perfect and that both Jews and Muslims need Christ.
One page 220 of his book, Dr Rydelnik lists three responsibilities resting upon those who follow Jesus:
1) We must pray for peace
2) We must work for peace
3) We must proclaim God’s peace through Messiah Jesus
Amen to that.
Further reading:
A Review of "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend" by Timothy P. Weber.
Is Dispensationalism Hurting American Political Policies in the Middle East?
A DISPENSATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE KNOX SEMINARY OPEN LETTER TO EVANGELICALS
A critique of "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Faydra L. Shapiro on "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Mainline Churches Embrace Burge's False Narrative
Mainline Churches Embrace Gary Burge's Harmful Mythology
Sabeel's Demonizing Liturgy
This subject is more crucial than the emotive rapture timing debate. That’s not to say that the rapture isn’t important, but (for me) what’s really important is what God said about Israel in the OT; how we understand that in light of the NT and how we understand modern Israel.
Did God mean to do what He said He would in the OT? On what basis do people re-define or ignore select OT verses relating to Israel’s future? Can we trust God at His word? See Paul Henebury’s Let God Be True…And Say What He Means
Joel Rosenberg’s 2011 Epicenter Conference featured a panel discussion called "Assessing The Threat of Replacement Theology and Other Efforts To Delegitimize Israel" between Joel and three other men. One of those men was Dr Michael Rydelnik. You can watch it HERE.
Dr Rydelnik recalled an earlier (Dec 2010) interview with Dr Burge when Moody Radio’s Janet Parshall hosted them in a discussion over Israel’s rights to the land. Notable during that interview was Dr Burge’s avoidance in fully dealing with Dr Rydelnik’s OT texts. In each case he would eventually steer the conversation away to something else.
In the end, Dr Burge retreated to a geo-political debate where he proceeded to disparage Israel in contrast to the observations of the program’s host and Dr Rydelnik. Recall also that Dr Blomberg finished off his Denver Seminary commentary with an indictment on Americans blithely supporting an Israel who “oppresses” Palestinians.
I’ve noticed a trend where certain critics employ a similar formula:
1) They link Christian Zionism with dispensationalism
2) They undermine dispensational theology by pointing out the personal failures of some of its adherents.
3) They tend to use the same arguments to try to prove that dispensational theology is unbiblical
4) They try to stereotype the average Zionist as a provocateur of Armageddon
5) Finally, they go after an “oppressive” Israel.
Rarely, in their narrative, do they acknowledge examples of Arab-Palestinian or Islamic hegemony or the recorded attempts to eradicate Israel, and they never fully engage Scripture that could undermine their theology.
One example of the contempt for Zionism and dispensationalism is Gary Burge’s essay “Why I’m Not a Christian Zionist, Academically Speaking” where his main target is John Hagee. Dr Burge writes:
“The average reader may be excused for not understanding the finer differences between an evangelical preacher who calls for a pre-emptive bombing strike against Iran and one who thinks this view is outrageous and immoral... For instance, high-profile pastor John Hagee...is a Christian preacher who enjoys outrageously militant sermons....Others like myself find him not only embarrassing but dangerous.”
And again:
“Christian Zionists excel in one but fail in the other. They love Israel profoundly but I await the day when Rev. Hagee exhorts Israel (just once) to pursue a national life of justice and truth...This is where everything has been leading. This is the crown jewel in Christian Zionism’s worldview. This is why Rev. Hagee is willing to risk throwing the Middle East into nuclear war. The birth of Israel has now set the stage for the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.”
This is the same polemic that Stephen Sizer promulgates. Rev Sizer has also written a Forward for a book by Alistair Donaldson “the last days of dispensationalism – a scholarly critique of popular misconceptions” which follows the above 5 point formula. Dr Donaldson, in turn, has endorsed Dr Sizer’s polemical “Christian Zionism”.
In his Forward, Rev Sizer wastes no time raising “apocalyptic” concerns by citing Sarah Posner’s “Pastor Strangelove” in which she focuses on John Hagee’s misguided comments:
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”
This sets to poison the well and leads readers into believing the dispensational system unanimously promotes this sort of thing. Dr Donaldson takes this same “apocalyptic” cue when he states on page 149 that:
“[dispensational] beliefs, though being counter to a sound biblical understanding, have significantly influenced foreign policies of governments (especially the United States) concerning Israel, giving rise to significantly distressing world-impacting events, and to what is often uncritical support for the modern state of Israel – despite her atrocious and dehumanizing tyranny of another people – by millions of people who profess to love God who himself abhors justice.”
But John Hagee is not a normative dispensationalist and mature dispies would strongly disagree with his theology and politics. God doesn’t need Christians lobbying for pre-emptive strikes to fulfill His plan. Christians are to be out spreading the Good News and praying for peace.
What these critics are doing is selectively quoting statements made by individuals on the fringe of Zionism and/or dispensationalism and using them as an excuse to disparage the system and Israel. These critics also habitually make polemical and unsubstantiated statements regarding Israel. This is done so often and glibly that it becomes factual in the mind of a non-discerning reader. Far from being the peacemakers they claim to be by often quoting Matt 5:9 against dispies, they are actively fomenting conflict.
Dr Burge should know better as a consequence of his friendship with Michael Rydelnik. Dr Rydelnik’s book “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” is, in my opinion, a testament to how a Christian should view the Middle East conflict and Israel. He understands both sides of the conflict. He recognizes the fact that Israel isn’t perfect and that both Jews and Muslims need Christ.
One page 220 of his book, Dr Rydelnik lists three responsibilities resting upon those who follow Jesus:
1) We must pray for peace
2) We must work for peace
3) We must proclaim God’s peace through Messiah Jesus
Amen to that.
Further reading:
A Review of "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend" by Timothy P. Weber.
Is Dispensationalism Hurting American Political Policies in the Middle East?
A DISPENSATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE KNOX SEMINARY OPEN LETTER TO EVANGELICALS
A critique of "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Faydra L. Shapiro on "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Mainline Churches Embrace Burge's False Narrative
Mainline Churches Embrace Gary Burge's Harmful Mythology
Sabeel's Demonizing Liturgy
Friday, September 23, 2011
Gen 12, Israel & the Land
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. Gen 12:3
Christian Zionists often quote this verse and apply it to the nation Israel. Note that this shouldn’t suppose that Israel is free to do whatever it wills and that Christians must indiscriminately support it. Among other things, we should acknowledge that Israel’s major failing as a secular nation is its lack of recognition of Christ as its Messiah.
But anti-Zionists (for want of a better word) will invariably take the above verse and re-route it to ONLY point to Christ and ultimately the church. Steve Wohlberg’s article is one example of how replacement theologians might strategize a response to Zionists:
Notice, the direct "bless-curse" line concerned Abraham alone, not Israel, and "all the families of the earth" were to be blessed in Abraham, which meant through "his seed," which was Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16). In order to receive that very blessing, individuals must be willing to be "turned away" from their sins by God's grace (see Acts 3:25,26).
Wohlberg, and others, invariably ignore Gen 27:29 where Isaac blesses Jacob-Israel. Note the blessing and curse.
May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, And may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you.
Acts actually confirms Israel’s election and that the covenant is still valid. Peter is addressing the Jews (Acts 3:13-15):
It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. Act 3:25-26
And Romans:
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS. Rom 11:24-27
Those verses counter the idea that, because God is “no respecter of persons” (Rom 2:8-11), it somehow negates Israel’s future land promises. The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, as distinct to the Mosaic Covenant.
Referring to Deut 28 yet leaving out Deut 30 (keeping in mind Romans 11:24-27) simply doesn’t do the matter justice. Lev 26 is often appealed to by those who argue that Israel hast lost rights to the land but verses 44-46 are almost always ignored. Other verses routinely ignored are Deut 4:25-31; Eze 36:22-38; Zec 2:8 and Zec 14:1-21. There are a host of others.
Often those who deny Israel’s right to the land also deny they hold to replacement theology. They prefer to describe their views in other terms – such as “Fulfilled” - and appeal to a redefinition of the promises. Paul Henebury (Dr Reluctant) is sorting that matter out on his blog and I strongly recommend that people find out what he has to say about it.
More later.
What Does Christ as “True Israel” Mean for the Nation Israel?
Read Barry Horner's "Future Israel - Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must be Challenged" HERE
Christian Zionists often quote this verse and apply it to the nation Israel. Note that this shouldn’t suppose that Israel is free to do whatever it wills and that Christians must indiscriminately support it. Among other things, we should acknowledge that Israel’s major failing as a secular nation is its lack of recognition of Christ as its Messiah.
But anti-Zionists (for want of a better word) will invariably take the above verse and re-route it to ONLY point to Christ and ultimately the church. Steve Wohlberg’s article is one example of how replacement theologians might strategize a response to Zionists:
Notice, the direct "bless-curse" line concerned Abraham alone, not Israel, and "all the families of the earth" were to be blessed in Abraham, which meant through "his seed," which was Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16). In order to receive that very blessing, individuals must be willing to be "turned away" from their sins by God's grace (see Acts 3:25,26).
Wohlberg, and others, invariably ignore Gen 27:29 where Isaac blesses Jacob-Israel. Note the blessing and curse.
May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, And may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you.
Acts actually confirms Israel’s election and that the covenant is still valid. Peter is addressing the Jews (Acts 3:13-15):
It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. Act 3:25-26
And Romans:
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS. Rom 11:24-27
Those verses counter the idea that, because God is “no respecter of persons” (Rom 2:8-11), it somehow negates Israel’s future land promises. The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, as distinct to the Mosaic Covenant.
Referring to Deut 28 yet leaving out Deut 30 (keeping in mind Romans 11:24-27) simply doesn’t do the matter justice. Lev 26 is often appealed to by those who argue that Israel hast lost rights to the land but verses 44-46 are almost always ignored. Other verses routinely ignored are Deut 4:25-31; Eze 36:22-38; Zec 2:8 and Zec 14:1-21. There are a host of others.
Often those who deny Israel’s right to the land also deny they hold to replacement theology. They prefer to describe their views in other terms – such as “Fulfilled” - and appeal to a redefinition of the promises. Paul Henebury (Dr Reluctant) is sorting that matter out on his blog and I strongly recommend that people find out what he has to say about it.
More later.
What Does Christ as “True Israel” Mean for the Nation Israel?
Read Barry Horner's "Future Israel - Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must be Challenged" HERE
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Response To Some Questions About Israel and the Church
Paul Henebury responds to some thoughtful questions regarding the relationship between the Church and Israel. Read the questions and comments at the end as well.
I have lately had the pleasure of doing some theological fencing with a good Christian man named Andrew Suttles. Andrew has raised a number of pertinent questions about Dispensational interpretations of Israel and the Church which I would like to address in this (and another post).
Once again I want to state that I think “Dispensationalist” is a lousy and inaccurate name for this type of theology. Firstly because dispensations are largely theologically mute. Secondly, because the real crux of the matter are the Biblical Covenants!
I hope this response will be of help in clarifying my understanding of this issue. We shall begin with Paul’s use of “Israel” and “Jacob” in Romans 9-11 and go from there. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but it is quite detailed and should suit its purpose...keep reading
I have lately had the pleasure of doing some theological fencing with a good Christian man named Andrew Suttles. Andrew has raised a number of pertinent questions about Dispensational interpretations of Israel and the Church which I would like to address in this (and another post).
Once again I want to state that I think “Dispensationalist” is a lousy and inaccurate name for this type of theology. Firstly because dispensations are largely theologically mute. Secondly, because the real crux of the matter are the Biblical Covenants!
I hope this response will be of help in clarifying my understanding of this issue. We shall begin with Paul’s use of “Israel” and “Jacob” in Romans 9-11 and go from there. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but it is quite detailed and should suit its purpose...keep reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
