Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

Calvinism & Evangelism

~ fundyreformed ~ 20 Comments

Perhaps you are familiar with this parable concerning the difficulties of affirming both man’s free will and God’s all-encompassing sovereignty.

A sign above the door to Heaven boldly proclaims “Whosoever will may come!” However, once through Heaven’s gates, an astute observer will notice that the flip side of the sign says, “Only those predestined before the foundation of the world may enter.”

There is more than a little truth to this parable. The first sign deals with salvation from man’s perspective. To the awakened sinner, the first sign gives hope that if he will but look, he will live. Calvinism pulls the curtain back on the awakened sinner’s soul and sees God’s Spirit at work in regenerating the sinner, and granting him repentance and faith, due to the second sign.

As I see it, Calvinism deals mostly with what goes on behind the scenes, so to speak, in respect to salvation. But let me stress that Calvinism is not prying into secret areas of God’s will. No, Calvinism responds to numerous Scripture texts. While they don’t claim to understand everything, Calvinists are bound to believe the five points due to their regard for Scripture. This is not something they enjoy “making up from thin air” so to speak.

A proper understanding of man’s part and God’s part in salvation will do much to help us sort through the sticky issues surrounding Calvinism and evangelism. Historically, some Calvinists (hyper Calvinists, actually) have claimed that we have no responsibility to evangelize since God will irresistibly draw His elect with or without our help. Furthermore, they have claimed that we cannot confidently tell anyone necessarily that if they will but believe and come, that they will be saved. Such hyper Calvinists, then, denied the first sign.

So it is due to extremists from within their own theological system, that Calvinists face such intense suspicion at times. Many people sincerely doubt that Calvinists believe in evangelism. And many go beyond doubt and actually claim that Calvinism will negatively impact evangelism.

But such claims are so utterly wrong! Historically, some of the greatest evangelists and missionaries, some of the most evangelical of pastors have been 5 point Calvinists. Names like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson and many, many more could be given. In fact many missionary movements and revivals have been started in large part due to the work of Calvinists.

History aside, if one understands that Calvinism addresses the “behind the scenes” actions of God (God’s part), he will not see any contradiction between Calvinists rushing to do man’s part (evangelism). For Calvinists believe that every sinner who would be saved, must actually believe, and he must do this himself. Furthermore, we understand Scripture to clearly teach that no one gets saved apart from the gospel, and almost always people must be involved in spreading that gospel.

So for Calvinists, evangelism is about obeying God. And yet it is more. It is about joining God in His mission. It is about spreading God’s glory among the nations for His sake. Calvinists are encouraged that God is the one ultimately responsible for results. This gives us hope to minister in many contexts that might not provide immediate results, from man’s perspective.

There is one other point to stress here. Calvinists tend to understand salvation as a “work in progress”. It is that “work” which God has started in us and promises to complete. And so for the Calvinist, mere human decisions are not the goal of evangelism. Numbers of noses, and baptism tallies mean little. Calvinists see discipleship and spiritual growth as the goal of evangelism. [This is not to say that all non-Calvinists disagree with us here, by the way.] I say this because when numbers are expected, many a Calvinist might fail the test. But to a Calvinist, numbers aren’t the most important thing.

I hope what I have said makes sense and helps work toward an understanding of where Calvinists stand in relation to evangelism. And if it doesn’t I have several articles here from the last few weeks, which will help you really understand this issue. I provide them, because it was partly by coming across these that I was motivated to write this post.

L, 'ish, & Particular Redemption

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

Yesterday, I concluded my involvement in a somewhat long blog debate over L, ‘ish, & particular redemption. The “L” is the middle point of TULIP, of course, which refers to “limited atonement” or as Calvinists prefer to phrase it  “particular redemption”. The ‘ish  is a Hebrew word for “man” which can also be translated “each” or “every”. That word became important in the debate which centered on Is. 53:6.

To summarize, Pastor Kent Brandenburg claimed that the use of  ‘ish indicated that the reference was expanding from either the nation of Israel or the believing  remnant (which is the consistent use of “we” throughout the context) to all people everywhere. He claimed that both the use of “all” at the beginning and end of the verse, as well as the use of ‘ish [translated as  “every one”] set the verse off from the context to indicate that all people in general, or all of mankind are in view in the final phrase “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”.

I disagreed with this view. I see the Hebrew word in question merely pointing to each person in particular within the “all we” group about whom the verse is speaking. In fact, ‘ish comes in a phrase that also includes “we” in the translation: “we have turned everyone to…”. That seems to support my view. (For more support, reference the debate itself.)

This is not to say that Is. 53:6 is an open and shut case for limited atonement. The word “all” is used twice in the verse, and I can see how people (like Calvin himself!) would take the verse to be referring to all of mankind. But I see the “all” as referring to everyone within the group referred to by “we”. A spokesman might say on behalf of a group: “we agree”. Then later he might emphasize, “we all agree”. I think a similar use of “all” is in view here.

And I believe this understanding  fits with two other important points. First, the verse is written as poetry—Hebrew poetry. And the poem is longer than just verse 6. Second, several verses in the context all point to the “suffering servant” (aka the Messiah—Jesus Christ) as suffering on behalf of and atoning for the sins of the believing remnant—a select group of people.

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…”  — vs. 4

“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”  — vs. 5

“…stricken for the transgression of my people”  — vs. 8

“…by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” —  vs. 11

“…yet he bore the sin of many,…”  — vs. 12

So this is my position on Is. 53:6.    It fits with the larger teaching on the atonement elsewhere in Scripture. In the atonement, Jesus actually substituted for and actually redeemed a people for Himself. Jesus did not merely make atonement or redemption possible, He accomplished it.    I recently came across a great blog post which gives many of the reasons for the Calvinist understanding of particular redemption. Let me refer you to that summary post  and also  this article (taken from this  online booklet) by John Piper.

But before I go, let me deal with two further things. First of all, Pastor Brandenburg, with many others I am sure, like to stress that just because the Bible says Christ died for the sheep (Jn. 10:11, 15), or died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28), or died to save His bride (Eph. 5:25-27) it does not follow that Christ did not die for the non-sheep, non-church, and non-bride. I respond as follows: such a logical dismantling of these texts results in a bunch of nonsense. What is the point in saying Christ shed his blood to purchase the church, if he also purchased everyone else? When Jesus says He gives His life for His sheep, that has to mean something. It is just such expressions of intent, which are one of the chief cornerstones of the doctrine of particular redemption. He bore God’s wrath for all of the sins of the elect. God did not intend to save the world, and fail; rather, He intended to save the elect and wonderfully succeeded!

Lastly, let me deal with Calvin. Perhaps some of my readers have some proof that he believed in limited atonement. But his comments on Is. 53:6 and 53:12 lead me to conclude that he did not accept this position. How can I respond to this? Well, for starters, Calvinism as a system of doctrine was still being formulated, and later Reformed people like John Owen would advance this understanding of the atonement. Further, particular redemption has never  ruled out  that general blessings  for all flow from Christ’s work on the cross (ie. common grace, not being thrown into Hell immediately, gospel preached to all nations, etc.). But most importantly, Calvin’s rejection of this doctrine highlights the fact that I don’t merely agree with a man, but with the Bible. Further, it shows that Calvinists can disagree over this point, and they have. There are a number of “4-point” Calvinists today. Some may argue that “L” logically follows from the other points, and I would agree. But  others differ. In other words, I’m saying if you shoot down “L” that doesn’t demolish Calvinism as a whole.

Finally, let me hear from you on this. Do you agree with my position that “we” refers to the remnant? Am I wrong about Calvin? What passages  convince you  of  particular redemption?

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Who's Limiting the Atonement?

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I came across an excellent article on this very subject by  Rhett Kelley entitled “Limiting the Atonement”. It is well worth reading, and it isn’t even that long! Anyways, I  am going to reproduce a quote from Arminian scholar Dr. J. Kenneth Grider that Rhett gave, and then discuss the main point that I believe his post makes.

“A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition.” — Dr. J. Kenneth Grider [emphasis is  Rhett’s]

So while Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement (only the sins of the elect are “paid” for), Arminians limit the nature of the atonement (Christ only suffered for everyone, He did not “pay the penalty” for anyone’s sins).

So yes, this is just a matter of semantics (in a sense)! Calvinists and Arminians mean different things when they say “atonement”. More on that later.

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to  the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference—Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.  

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Distressed Over a Dissing Dispensationalist

~ fundyreformed ~ 14 Comments

I am  distressed over a dissing dispensationalist. Dan Phillips (of Pyromaniacs fame) has posted on his personal blog an article entitled “25 stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism” (HT: Doxoblogy). And while he claims it is dispensationalists who are getting dissed, he is spreading the wealth liberally to us covenant theology (CT) proponents. Dan comes across as a dissing dispensationalist, and thus he deserves to be dissed 😛 . Well, I will not try to disrespect him, rather I hope to interact with his post here for the benefit of my readers.

I plan to comment briefly on each of his points, and then to critique his whole post generally. Finally, I will present the most important reasons I have for rejecting dispensationalism.    Now before we start, I encourage you to go read Dan’s post. I am going to list his 25 reasons here, just so that it will be easier to  interact with them, but do read his post. And before I jump into the task ahead of me here, I must stress that I represent my own views and can speak for the few critiques of dispensationalism I have read, both online and in books. I don’t want to presume to speak for all CT-ers. All right then…

  1. All of the coolest guys are amillennial”historical” premill/covenant/whatever. — This illustrates the absurdity of some of Dan’s claims here. This is a loaded argument to say the least. Perhaps that is the true motivation of some who dis dispensationalism, but I would venture to say that no one would actually claim that. And while I realize I am prone to being swept away by all the “coolest” guys out there, I honestly do not believe that this has had any part in my departure from dispensationalism. I have rejected the system because of Scriptural reasons and it is Scripture that I hope I am following.

  2. It’s new. — Now on this point, Dan has a legitimate beef, I’m afraid. He points out that Calvinism as a system dates from the Reformation, and that the doctrine of the Trinity was only precisely formulated in the 400s AD. Neither of these date back to the NT time period, but this does not invalidate those doctrinal formulations. And so yes, there are much more important merits upon which to evaluate dispensationalism than its age. That being said, there were clear precursors to the Trinity and Calvinism in earlier ages.   Can that be said of dispensationalism? I speak concerning its defining characteristic — viewing Israel and the church as absolutely distinct, not with regard to premillennialism (which does not necessitate dispensationalism). And certainly when taken together in consideration with other points, newness can be a valid critique. But I want to stress that “newness” is not one of the main reasons I or others (that I am aware of) reject dispensationalism.

  3. It’s not Reformed/Calvinistic.   — I am sure some claim that dispensationalism is not the product of the Reformation, and it isn’t. And others might claim it is contradictory to the tenets of Calvinism. That claim would be false. Nevertheless, I would really doubt that this is a chief argument that CT guys use to dis dispensationalism. No one sets out to just blindly follow a system, they all pay lipservice at the very least to the absolute authority of Scripture.

  4. So many dispensationalists are goofs.   — What an argument! Yea, there are some goofs, and they do turn guys like me off to dispensationalism. But I would hope that no one would use this argument as a primary reason for rejecting dispensationalism.

  5. Dispensationalist writers have made false predictions.   — Just speaking for me here, but I have never used this argument. I treat the Van Impe’s and Hal Lindsey’s of this world as a separate subclass. Yea, they are dispensationalists, but their eschatology seems really far fetched. And I don’t think most dispensationalists would disagree too strongly with me. Dan backpedals a bit, and claims that dispensationalists sometimes make “educated guesses”, and then Dan claims that CT-ers don’t make such guesses because their system does not allow for this at all. I think Dan does have a point there. But again, this is not a chief argument used by CT-ers.

  6. The best scholars hate dispensationalism.   — I think there are scholars on both sides of the gulf. I like the guys on my side, but they are not the reason I dis dispensationalism.

  7. But the Reverend Doctor Professor _____ wrote a 600-page book destroying dispensationalism! — Now this argument rubs me the wrong way, let me tell you. First, I have never heard anyone argue in this fashion. They may cite arguments that “Reverend Doctor Professor So and So” made. They might have been convinced by him. But they don’t cite chapter and “verse” from his book as their only defense for their position. This argument is also inaccurate in that there really aren’t any 600 page books against dispensationalism (that I know of). They might be around 200 pages, but not 600. And finally, such an argument insinuates that we should not use books or lean on professors to come to our doctrinal positions. But didn’t God give us teachers? And don’t dispensationalists lean heavily on Lewis Sperry Chafer and CI Scofield, to name a few Reverend Doctor Professors?

  8. You can’t prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the New Testament alone! — I haven’t heard this weak argument.

  9. It isn’t a spiritual hermeneutic. — Dispensationalism does employ a primarily naturalistic method in interpreting texts. But again, just stating that it isn’t spiritual does not win any argument. Dispensatinalists  don’t stop at a naturalistic evaluation, however. They have a presuppositional approach that Scripture is spiritual and they seek to apply spiritual truths to their lives from any Scripture they are exegeting. Once again, this is a B or C argument, and not one that wins the day for me.

  10. Dispensationalists are antinomian. — It is true that some hyper dispensationalists write off the Law to enable them to live however they please. But mainstream dispensationalists have every bit as much of a desire to please God and live holy lives as do CT-ers. I and the articles and books I have read do not employ this argument.

  11. We should interpret the Old by the New. — Dan makes it clear that he would agree with the surface level of this statement. But he assumes CT-ers really mean more than this. They reinterpret the Old and turn it into a “lie, a fake, a trick” on the basis of the New. What Dan fails to consider here, is that the New Testament gives us a hermeneutical model to follow. We follow the practice of the apostles in so many other regards, why not in how they interpret and use the Old Testament too? And when rightly understood, this method of interpretation does not replace the Old, but rather fills it up. This is a major argument  used rightly, I believe, by CT-ers. And Dan really does not dismantle it at all. (You can go read his one argument he gives, but I don’t think it is strong enough on its own to counter the argument I gave above).

  12. You can’t take everything literally. — I think we all agree here. This argument is not very clear so if some use it, they shouldn’t lean too heavily on it.

  13. Dispies are over-literal. — Dan gives a good case against this argument. And again, the argument is not stated clearly. The truth of the matter is that in some passages Dispies are very literal despite what the genre and/or related passages would seem to indicate, and that in other places Dispies opt for the genre or related passages over and against what would seem to be more consistent with the context and a literal interpretation. Dan repeatedly insinuates that dispies are just universally literal and hence consistent, but it is not as simple as this. I can understand the charge that dispies are over literal, but I don’t base my position on that claim. Actually that charge would only be made after one understands and embraces CT, which makes the charge not a chief argument for CT.

  14. I think Hal Lindsey is stupid, and I like to make fun of him. — I don’t know who is making such an argument. Hopefully this argument is as rare as I think it is.

  15. I know some big names who used to be dispensationalists, and aren’t. — Dan clarifies his point on this one stating that this is all about the fact that we need to go with the Bible more than with “big names”. I agree. And I would venture to say most reasonable CT-ers who advocate their position in the blogworld, for instance, would agree too.

  16. Dispensationalism is divisive. — Dan points out that by this standard,  Calvinism and complementarianism are divisive. We stand for those positions because they are Bible truth, and we let the cards fall how they may. Same goes for dispensationalism from the Dispies’ viewpoint. I agree. This should not be an argument used in this kind of a debate.

  17. Dispensationalism is defeatist. — Haven’t heard this argument. What Dan explains seems correct to me. Again, this is not a major argument made by anybody out there, that I can tell.

  18. Dispensationalism is fatalistic. — Ditto #17.

  19. Dispensationalism is escapist.   — Some might be saying this with the idea of a pre-trib rapture in view or something. But again I would claim it is a useless argument for the discussion at hand.

  20. Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ. — This again is a secondary argument, but Dan makes a good counter. He claims that Calvinists would be forced to admit that the offer of the gospel is “false” in the same sense that the offer of the kingdom was “false” if indeed it was. Interesting point, but again this is a secondary argument. From the tenor of the Gospels, it appears that Christ was declaring the presence of the kingdom and the NT supports that the kingdom has already come. However there is an eschatological element of the kingdom for which we are still waiting. This seems to do more justice to the kingdom than a dispensational offer of the kingdom being rescinded upon the Jew’s rejection.

  21. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Corinthians 1:20a).   — I agree with Dan that this is not a definitive argument. It is not abundantly clear that this requires all OT promises to be fulfilled only in Christ.

  22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. — Dan points out that it was only a few fruit cakes who believed this. Dispensationalism doesn’t assert this. And again, I say that it is only a few fruit cakes who argue like this, and no one bases their rejection of dispensationalism on this point.

  23. “Hey, I’m a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!”   — Now I haven’t heard anyone jump up and say this argument that Dan gives. Yet Dan is not understanding something here. With redemptive historical hermeneutics (the hermeneutic of CT), you look at the text in light of its immediate context (historical and literal/grammatical) and then you look at it in its redemptive historical context. There are multiple levels of evaluation and interpretation involved. The dissension comes over how to apply literal hermeneutics. This argument from CT-ers really wouldn’t solve anything, and it isn’t a basis for their position, either.

  24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God.   — This is a major argument against dispensationalism. Dan’s comparing it to men and women being different but equal in Christ, or comparing it to the relaion of the Persons of the  Godhead within the Trinity, just doesn’t cut it. The New Testament makes it clear that the church is the Israel of God today. And while Dan distances himself from some of his dispensational forebears, this remains the single most important point of difference between CT and Dispensationalism. Dan giving this argument as a “stupid” one is problematic. While I understand that dispensationalists disagree with me on this point, I am not going to call their beliefs stupid. CT-ers believe there is one people of God and Dispensationalists disagree. Both sides think they are right and the other wrong. Neither argument needs to be cast as “stupid”.

  25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible.   — Dan helps us know what he is talking about here when he claims that some CT-ers believe texts must be “worthy” of God by referencing Christ. This understanding is totally wrong and stupid. Dan agrees that Christ is all over the Bible, and so do I. Nowhere does Scripture state Jesus has to be in every verse. This is not to say, however, that Dispensationalism does not fail to see Christ properly in Scripture. I do think it fails. But this belief is rooted in my acceptance of CT and is not an argument for my acceptance of CT.

At this point, I should stress that Dan is claiming to deal with only the “stupid” arguments. But the introduction he gives to his post makes it seem like this is the common argumentation that he sees for CT. He paints CT-ers as ones who can only come up with the arguments above in arguing for his position. He may not have intended it to come across this way, but it does nonetheless. This is why I have taken pains to point out that virutally every argument above is not a serious argument. It is not what would lead someone out of dispensationalism.

Dan’s whole post is rather belittling of those who support CT. And I think the utter ridiculousness of some of the arguments he cites represent his creating a strawman of CT. He makes them look really bad in their argumentation.

He is also constantly throwing out the term “perspicuity”. He is implying that if you don’t agree to dispensationalism, you think Scripture is not understandable. It is quite funny, to be honest with you. Dispensationalism has quite a few points which require a bit of mind bending to understand and see, but it is the system which allows Scritpure to speak for itself? Dan sees around 7 dispensations in Scripture. I am not sure how he views them, but classic dispensationalism sets up each dispensation as a new test which man fails again and again. And in dividing the dispensations and defining the “rules” for each test, as well as the “punishment” for failure, dispensationalism goes way beyond the bounds of the text. The text doesn’t state that this group failed X test and received Y punishment for it. But these assumptions are read into the text to support the system.

Dan admits honestly  in the comments that he is not an expert in prophecy and then  states, “[prophecy] is a very difficult field…”. Does Dan not see the contradiction between these statements and his assumptions about perspicuity? Why do we need prophecy experts if Scritpure is so abundantly clear that we all should become dispensationalists by default?

One last point before briefly presenting what I believe are the major arguments against dispensationalism. Dan in the comments made this statement:

To my dispensationalist readers: if you see younger, underexperienced, overconfident writers complaining that these are “straw men,” do two things:

1. Chuckle knowingly.

2. Note it for the future. Guaranteed you’ll have opportunity to say, “Ah, I see. That’s Phillips’ #17,” or, “So, in other words, Phillips’ #8.”

It’ll be sweet.

I thought we were not to rely on teachers, Dan. Aren’t we supposed to just go with the Bible? So underexperienced, younger guys can’t do that? I mean, isn’t dispensationalism the system everyone would come to on their own, if they had been converted to Christ, handed a Bible, and shipped to the moon away from all teachers? It appears that Dan is cutting off at the pass any criticism by younger guys that he has misrepresented them. It doesn’t seem very charitable or reasonable to me, but then, I am a younger, underexperienced guy.

Now to my reasons.

  • The physical promise of the land  includes the church. 1) The promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (promised land) was expanded to a promise that they would inherit the “earth” (Matt. 5:5)  or the “world” (Rom. 4:13). 2) The promise of the land (“that Abraham would be heir of the world” Rom. 4:13) is specifically said to apply to all the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:16). [“The promise” in vs. 16  is the same  as the land promise in vs.  13.]  
  • The church is the seed of Abraham. The New Testament clearly declares that  Gentile believers are the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:11-12), and that they are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29b).
  • The church and Israel are now God’s “one new man”. Eph. 2 takes great lengths to declare that God has abolished the partition dividing national Israel and the Gentiles, and that he has included the Gentiles together as “no longer strangers and aliens, but…fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (v. 19). Indeed God has made true Israel and the church together “one new man in place of the two” (v. 15).
  • The church is described in the exact same terms as Israel was. Ex. 19:5-6a says, “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” And, Hosea 2:23b says, “And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people‘; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.'” Then, 1 Pet. 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” And finally Rev. 1:6a says, “And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father….”
  • The Dispensational structure seems very artificial to me. The underlying idea that God is repeatedly testing mankind to prove that he is sinful is nowhere stated in Scripture. [Dispensationalism sets up a series of dispensations where man fails a new test and receives judgment. If you are not familiar with this idea check out this article [pdf] which provides a helpful summary on pg. 16.] Key  concepts of this system are read into the text. For instance God nowhere states that the Israelites’ bondage in Egypt was judgment for their failures or sins. In fact Gen. 15:13-16 expressly tells us why they were to be afflicted  in Egypt, so that 1) God could bring judment on Egypt and 2) so that the iniquity of the  Amorites could become complete.
  • The New Testament provides us with a pattern for how to interpret the Old Testament. We are not left to determine “golden rule”s by ourselves. If we study the way the NT authors and preachers used the OT, we find a hermeneutical model that we can employ safely and profitably. [Cf. Rom. 15:4; Luke 24:27, 44; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; Hebrews 10:1; Acts 2:16; Acts 15:14-18 (quoting Amos 9:11-12); etc.]

These are my basic arguments. They contradict the basic premises of dispensationalism as I understand them. For some excellent articles on this issue (Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology) check out those written by Nathan Pitchford here (particluarly his “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” . He is also a convert from dispensationalism and so he understands the system better than those who have never been dispensational.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Jesus’ Demands: Believe (#4)

~ Bob Hayton

Click to orderNote: these are devotional posts based on John Piper’s new book What Jesus Demands from the World.

Demand #4 — Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God….Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:16-18, 36)

Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me (John 14:1)

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (John 14:11)

While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. (John 12:36a)

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (John 20:27)

Why must we believe?

We are to believe in Jesus, because only he can rescue us. Only he can save us from the danger of perishing under God’s wrath forever in Hell. Let me quote Piper’s illustration here.

Jesus is the only one who can save us from this danger….It is as though a fireman finds you almost unconscious in a burning building that is about to collapse, throws his insulated tarp over you, picks you up, and says, “Hold still as I carry you. Don’t move. Don’t try to help me. I will get you out. You must let me do it. Trust me.”

Just like the fireman, Jesus has done everything to save us. He does not demand “heroic acts of penance but [rather] that we trust him.” Jesus has purchased us through his Cross-work on our behalf. And on that basis He calls us to believe in Him.

What is it to believe?

There are three indispensable elements to belief. Saving faith includes all three points.

  1. We must believe that the facts about Jesus and the Gospel are true. (Jn. 20:27)
  2. We must trust Jesus as a “living person for who he really is”. We need to believe “in him”. (Jn. 14:1)
  3. We must be satisfied with All God is for us in Jesus. (Jn. 6:35)

The “1-2-3 repeat after me” approach to evangelism hones in on the first aspect of belief. They try to get people to pray a quick prayer upon assenting to a short Gospel fact list. But saving faith is much more than that.

We must trust Jesus as our Lord and Savior. But not merely our Lord and Savior, but as our Supreme Treasure. Piper loses people at this point, but regardless God’s Word clearly teaches that saving faith is the kind of faith that savors Jesus and enjoys Him. Let me showcase the Scriptural proof that Piper offers here.

  • “Jesus offers himself to us not merely as a rescuer to be trusted but as living water to be drunk….” And as a Shepherd (Matt. 26:31), Bridegroom (Matt. 9:15), Treasure (Matt. 13:44), King (John 18:36), and more.
  • John 6:35 shows the relationship between belief and drinking or coming to Jesus: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst“. To believe is to drink deeply from the “wells of salvation” (Is. 12:3).

So Piper rightly argues that believing that water gives life doesn’t cut it. You must drink the water. “Jesus gives life by being trusted. Trusting Jesus as water, therefore, means drinking the water.” It means “receiving” Jesus and all the “life-giving grace of God that comes to us in him”.

You don’t have to receive a fireman, just his aid. Jesus is not like that:

[The fireman] doesn’t ask you to believe in him for all that he is, or to receive him, or to savor his life. But Jesus does. He is so much more than a rescuer. Therefore, believing in him is more than trusting in his rescue skills.

In thinking through these thoughts, I couldn’t help but wondering how much I really am presently savoring Christ. I mean, most of my readers, like myself, have already believed. But are we truly continuing to believe? Is Jesus giving us true life? Are we entranced with the glory of Jesus as so much MORE than merely our Delivering Fireman? Are we daily growing in our love for and appreciation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Is He truly our Supreme Treasure?

We’ll consider more along this line of thinking in the next post on Demand #5, Love.

—See all posts on, the Demands of Jesus

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7