Category: Recommended

yep, I recommend this link, article or whatever it is

“The More I Read the Bible the Less Dispensational I Become”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

These words were posted in an article written by John Davis (B.A. , M.Div., Th.M., D.Min.) for Sharper Iron, describing his journey out of dispensationalism. His description of becoming less and less dispensational, fits my story. I’ve taken a similar journey out of dispensationalism.

His article is a good read, and the discussion to follow may well prove quite lively. Here’s another excerpt, and an encouragement to follow the discussion at Sharper Iron. For my take on dispensationalism, check out posts in that category, or my “Understanding the Land Promise” series.

Take, for example, the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the relationship of the law to saving faith, in Galatians 3. He introduces Abraham as a paradigm of saving faith and of inclusion in the promises of God. In the course of his discussion, the apostle makes interpretive statements based on his understanding of the Genesis passages. These reflect on the Abrahamic covenant. These statements are as follows:

  1. “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
  2. “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you'” (Gal. 3:8).
  3. “Those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
  4. “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:14).
  5. “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “˜and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but “˜and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
  6. “But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).

…Relationship with Christ, established by emulating the faith of Abraham, guarantees one’s participation in the promises of the covenant. It is not the keeping of the law or physical descent from Abraham that constitutes one as a child of Abraham, but rather faith in Jesus Christ.

These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles, and they substantiate the view that there is one people of God of all ages that share the covenants of Scripture which find their consummation in Christ.

Problematic Polemic Puritanism

~ Bob Hayton

You know I was stretching to come up with that title! Seriously though, I wanted to highlight D.A. Carson’s recent editorial on polemical theology, in the online (and free) theological journal Themelios (connected with The Gospel Coalition).

Carson explains the inevitability of polemics: anyone “contending for a particular theological understanding” is practicing polemical theology. He then offers some wise thoughts on various aspects concerning polemics. I found a few sections of his piece particularly interesting, given my experience with fundamentalism. The problem isn’t exclusive to fundamentalists, by any stretch, however. And when I use the term “puritanism” in my title, I am thinking “Pharisee”, but am not implying that all puritans were pharisees.

So without further ado, here are Carson’s words for us to ponder. Be sure to read his whole piece (which is only about 2 pages long). [HT: Justin Taylor]

Nevertheless there is something wrong-headed about making polemical theology the focus of one’s theological identity. This can be done in many ways. There are well-known scholars whose every publication has an undertone of “everyone-has-got-this-wrong-before-me-but-here-is-the-true-synthesis.” Some become far better known for what they are against than for the overflow of their worship or for their generosity to the needy or even for their affirmation of historically confessed truth. Still other Christians develop websites and ministries whose sole aim is to confute error. God knows there is plenty of error to confute. To make the refutation of error into a specialized “ministry,” however, is likely to diminish the joyful affirmation of truth and make every affirmation of truth sound angry, supercilious, self-righteous””in a word, polemical. In short, while polemical theology is just about unavoidable in theory and should not, as a matter of faithfulness, be skirted, one worries about those who make it their specialism.

…Second, at the risk of a generalization, those who spend their lives refuting and correcting fellow believers but who rarely engage at a serious level with ideas and stances in the broader world almost always find themselves at increasing odds with more and more believers. That should be unsurprising. Those who engage in a broader polemical theology are, on the whole, more grateful to focus with gratitude on the common heritage of Christians.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity across Eschatological Positions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

We’ve been discussing whether eschatological positions should hinder our unity in a local church, or beyond. Mark Dever recently challenged pastors to not let this hinder unity, even calling doctrinal statements that detail a specific millennial position, sinful.

In light of all this, I was struck when I read the following words from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a book I finished this weekend. Speaking on the phrase “let all things be done with charity” (1 Cor. 16:14), he addresses the question at hand directly.

In standing fast in the faith, if we are not animated by the spirit of love, we may not always differentiate as we should between faith in its essence and certain peculiar interpretations and expositions of our own. Here is a theme which might very easily occupy our minds on many occasions. There is nothing so tragic, I sometimes think, in certain circles as the way in which men fail to differentiate between that which is of the essence of the faith and certain other matters about which there can be no certainty. You cannot, I am told, be a member of the World Fundamentalist Association unless you believe in the “pre-millennial” return of our Lord and if you happen to be a “post-millenarian” you cannot be a Christian! If you are an “a-millenarian” you are just unspeakable. There you have an illustration of the importance of differentiating between the essence of the faith and the interpretation of a particular matter about which there has always been a difference of opinion. There is the same difference of opinion as to when the rapture of the saints is to take place. Men separate from each other about matters of that nature, where there is no certainty, and where there can be no certainty, though the return of the Lord is certain. Who can decide who is right, whether those who hold the pre-millennial, or those who hold the post-millennial view? I could mention great names on both sides, equally expert theologians. Surely these are matters where there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Let us bear in mind the adage: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” “Stand fast in the faith.” Yes, but in a spirit of love.

[from The Christian in an Age of Terror: Selected Sermons of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1941-1950 (previously unpublished sermons, edited by Michael Eaton) — Kregel, pg. 264 ]

I think we see Lloyd-Jones agreeing with Dever here. As for me, I think we should leave the question open for membership, but we can define what our church will teach. But as we teach we should be careful with how we deal with opposing views.

I think this does shape how we approach Scripture (or how we approach Scripture shapes this issue). So it is emphatically important. But we should be careful to elevate our preferences and doctrinal conclusions on a matter that is not crystal clear, over and above the points of doctrine which are universally held and powerfully clear. When you elevate every position to the place of major doctrine, you minimize what Scripture presents as truly central.

Unity and the End Times

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

Should one’s end times’ views limit their unity with other Christian believers? Should churches and denominations spell out their particular end times’ theology, as a matter of their statement of faith? Should adherence to premillennialism, for instance, be considered a hallmark of the faith, a non-negotiable test of one’s submission to Christ?

Mark Dever doesn’t think so. In a recent sermon on Revelation, he commented:

I am suggesting that what you believe about the Millennium””how you interpret these thousand years””is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order for us to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course, all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.

Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians, whether nearly (in a congregation) or more at length (in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up in the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ, for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ””to divide the body that he prayed would be united.

Therefore, for us to conclude that we must agree on a certain view of alcohol or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the Millennium, in order to have fellowship with one another is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore unwarranted and, therefore, condemned by Scripture.

So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

I tend to agree with Dever’s assessment. I think a church could explain their preference, but to demand an end-times’ belief of any who would join with the church, seems too much. Of course there are Christian end times’ beliefs that are universally agreed upon. But I’m talking about your particular thoughts on when the rapture, or if a “rapture” will occur, and what kind of millennialism you hold to.

This is akin to baptism, but on that point Dever does draw the line of church fellowship tight. So would it would be reasonable for a church to draw their own lines on both baptism and eschatology, and yet admit they will fellowship in the gospel with all who carefully differ with them on these matters? Should baptism be more consequential than millennialist views? Which is more clear in Scripture?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here. Any thoughts? Others are hashing out these questions in the comments on the links below.

(HT: Justin Taylor, Ben Wright & Caleb Kolstad)

“101 Portraits of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures” by Bob Beasley

~ Bob Hayton

Author: Bob Beasley
Publisher: Living Stone Books
Format: Softcover
Pages: 208
ISBN: 9780979973147
Stars: 3 of 5

Many Christians are bewildered by the Old Testament. They start reading in Genesis and give up by the time Leviticus comes around. They remember bits and pieces of a smattering of OT Bible stories: David and Goliath, the Red Sea, Daniel and the lion’s den, etc. But the Old Testament (except for Psalms and Proverbs) remains generally obscure and mysterious to many.

For those who have discovered the many connections between the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, this is quite sad. Recognizing how Jesus fulfills the types of the Old Testament truly makes the Bible come alive. Nothing is so spiritually impacting as finding Christ in the Old Testament, and being moved by the picture of our God so beautifully illustrated by His works with the Israelites.

Bob Beasley is eager for the average Christian to become familiar with the many portraits of Jesus in the Hebrew Old Testament. In his book 101 Portraits of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures, he marches through the Old Testament highlighting many of the clearest pictures of Jesus found there. He uses promise/fulfillment and type/anti-type models as he explains the significance of the OT’s witness to Christ.

Beasley explains:
…Jesus does not jump into the pages of history as a little child in a stable in Bethlehem. His story begins much further back in history than that…. all history is His Story. Jesus is the Creator God, the promised Redeemer, the great Prophet, Priest, and King of the Hebrew Scriptures. He is Yahweh, Jehovah””the great I AM””of the burning bush. He is Immanuel — God with us!

The book deals with 101 such places in the Old Testament. Each is given just two pages of space, which is why no passage is really covered in too much depth. The result is a good introduction to the Old Testament witness to Christ, most helpful for the new Christian who may be inexperienced with the Old Testament.

Beasley will give one an eye for finding Christ all throughout the Old Testament. The book’s emphasis on the unity of the Bible and the person and work of Jesus Christ make it especially good. Anyone interested in learning more about the harmony of the Bible and how the OT speaks of Jesus Christ, should certainly consider this book. With its simple layout, 101 Portraits makes for a great devotional book. Each portrait of Christ can be considered slowly and provide meat for one’s soul.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is still available for purchase at Amazon.com.