Category: Recommended

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

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.

Al Mohler, The Fundamentalist

~ Bob Hayton ~ 22 Comments

Christianity Today is out with a cover story on Al Mohler and how he lead the push to purge the SBC from liberal theology by reforming the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary. The article is entitled “The Reformer”, and certainly Mohler is that. It truly is an amazing story, even if the author of the CT story makes it very clear she doesn’t approve.

What struck me when reading this article was how similar Mohler’s battle for truth at Southern is to the battle that was waged at Princeton in the 1920s by the likes of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til. The only difference is that Mohler won and turned back the tide of liberalism at Southern. He didn’t have to leave and found his own seminary, like Machen and Van Til did (when they founded Westminster).

“Fundamentalist” isn’t a popular label these days. And it’s meanings are many and varied. But by the truest, historic sense of the term, Al Mohler would have to be considered a fundamentalist. The question is, would today’s fundamentalists (of the independent Baptist variety) accept him?

Sadly, no. At least the vast majority would find some reason to distrust him or avoid allowing him entrance into the “seriously-devoted-to-God” club. Some would point to Mohler’s chairing of a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville as an act that belies Mohler’s true character (or at least points to something worthy of separation), while others would point to his more recent signing of the Manhattan Declaration. As an aside, that crusade carefully excluded the participation of Catholics, and Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the MD should be acceptable to any but the most die-hard of critics.

This is precisely the problem I have with most fundamentalists today. They refuse to get out of their box and see the world through non-sectarian lenses. Mohler is a convention man””not independent, like the fundamentalists. But the original fundamentalists were forced out of their conventions and denominations. Separation from doctrinal error, and militancy for truth have more than one manifestation. And from the fundamentalist side of the aisle, at a point several decades from the original conflicts with modernism which gave Fundamentalism its name, the thought that someone may be employing some form of separation from within a denomination doesn’t seem to register.

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis recently explained how separation is a hallmark of what it means to be a fundamentalist:

…fundamentalism was always about more than belief in the fundamentals. It was about doing battle for the fundamentals, an attitude that came to be called militancy….

At first, the fundamentalists hoped that the liberals would leave the Christian denominations peacefully and quietly (a hope that, in retrospect, seems astonishingly naïve). Later, the fundamentalists attempted to purge liberal influences from their denominations by expelling the liberals. Failing in that, the fundamentalists themselves severed contact with the liberals by leaving the denominations. In all three forms, however, fundamentalism was about separation, i.e., ecclesiastical non-cooperation with apostasy.

If the original fundamentalists could have had their choice, they would likely have stayed in the denominations. They would have loved to see Al Mohler’s outcome in their own context. It didn’t work out that way for them. Unfortunately, many of the heirs of the fundamentalists can’t give Christian support and brotherly affirmation to their conservative brethren like Al Mohler who have so profoundly changed the SBC for the better. Instead, they find ways to maintain a skeptical distance.

I hope this attitude of distrust will diminish. I hope a greater striving for unity and a mutual welcoming of others as true brothers in the faith, will flourish. And I am happy to see signs of change in fundamentalism. A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-kown SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.

Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today. Sadly, this is due in large part to their own distrusting attitude toward even the best of evangelicalism””pastors and leaders who are often fundamentalists at heart, going by different names.

Book Trailer and Great Deal on Republocrat by Carl Trueman

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I just finished reading a provocative little book, Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative by Carl Trueman (P & R Publishing). I was captivated by Trueman’s writing style and enthralled by his message. I really think this book deserves a widespread hearing.

A fuller review will be forthcoming, but for now, I’d like to offer you the book’s trailer, and encourage you to take advantage of a fantastic sale at Westminster Bookstore. Pick up a copy for only $4.99 (50% off) now through Thursday Oct. 7. This book is worth grappling with and thinking through no matter what side of the political divide you currently find yourself at.

P&R has some additional audio/visual content about this book here. At that link, be sure to check out a brief video clip of Carl Trueman discussing his new book, and also take note of the 50 minute video conversation from Reformed Forums with Dr. Trueman about the book.

–Originally posted at my book themed site, Cross Focused Reviews.

“Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community” by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

Go or Send? How Best to “Do Church”

My pal William Dudding over at Reforming Baptist, has a great post examining the missional model of church growth. He bristles at that term for it’s cutting-edge, postmodern feel (even while others would complain it’s over-used and much abused). I respect Will all the more, for posting a couple video clips of Mark Driscoll talking about this, because if you know Will, he is very much not a Mark Driscoll fan. We can learn from anyone, however, and it takes humility and sincerity to admit that.

I agree with the main point of Will’s post, that attracting people to a church with it’s programs is not the NT model for “doing church”. Rather than sending people to our church, we should be going to where the people are and reaching them. We should gather as believers to be built up, edified, and most of all to worship Christ together. We then leave the assembly to take Christ to the lost all around us.

How do we do this effectively, however? How can I get my own self to open my mouth boldly and also to compassionately interact with the people God has placed in my life? These are the questions Will brings up, and which demand answers.

I think we need to get creative, and make sure our church activities don’t sap us of any time and strength left to think missionally of our own neighborhoods and communities. We need to envision ourselves as missionaries to the places we live.

God ultimately has to guide us and empower our ministry, but there are strategies which may enhance our effectiveness in God’s mission. One of the tools and methods that I most believe could work, has also been ignored by the wider church. In fact I still haven’t come to a place where I have liberty to attempt this (or is it just plain ol’ courage I lack?).

I’m talking about using small groups as home church-meetings, in a sense. We can invite people to come to these smaller meetings where we are more open and real and less “church-ly”. We can let the lost see how Christianity is lived out in our homes and how it radically shapes our outlook. I look in vain to the New Testament for a one-man-gets-up-to-speak-while-the-thousand-congregants-sit-down-to-listen-quietly model of church teaching and preaching. I see believers interacting with one another, teachers interrupting each other as God gives them a word, and prophets judging the prophets in a vibrant, lively way.

I’m a little leery of changing things up too drastically, however. We have hundreds of years of tradition, not to mention the fact that preaching can be very effective in people’s lives. So what about some kind of mix between an emphasis on home groups (where evangelism and discipleship can happen, and where gifted teachers can exercise their gifts) and corporate gatherings of the entire church for preaching and extended worship?

This kind of model is described in detail, in a book I gobbled up a while back, called Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. In the book they talk about living with gospel intentionality. They show how an emphasis on community is encouraged in Scripture. They see evangelism as a three-fold cord: building relationships, sharing the gospel, and introducing people to community (by means of the home groups). All the while, they encourage the Gospel and the Word to stay central. But they also encourage community involvement, and meeting social needs in the name of Christ.

The benefits of the emphasis on home groups is that church planting becomes easier. Training and discipleship can happen while people are ministering in home settings, and seeing ministry modeled up close and personal. Furthermore, the togetherness that this model fosters, aids in purity and spiritual growth, as we really can’t become holy by ourselves, nor were we expected to (think Heb. 3:12-14).

Total Church does have some radical ideas, but I appreciated how they connected everything to the gospel. It’s a book I’ll be picking up again, as I continue sorting out how best we should do church for God’s glory, our growth, and the eternal benefit of the lost around us.

Does this make sense? Am I missing some important problems with this idea? Anyone else thinking along these lines? I’d love your feedback here, or over on Will’s post where they’re discussing this too.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com or through Crossway direct.

Random Thoughts on Eschatology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Recently, a friend asked for feedback on some thoughts she had shared about eschatology. Her blog post shared a summary and reflection on Kim Riddlebarger’s book A Case For Amillennialism. After I typed up my response, I thought it’d be good to share it here as well, as it gives a good summary of my current perspective on eschatological questions. As R.C. Sproul once said, “When it comes to eschatology, I land like a butterfly with sore feet!”

For me, I think there are a couple guiding principles which lead me in my thinking of Eschatology.

1) The New Testament use of the Old Testament is programmatic. In other words, it is an example of how we are to properly interpret the OT. You certainly can’t get the idea that we should never try to interpret the OT like the NT authors did, from a plain reading of the NT. They speak as if their interpretation is quite clear from the OT texts they are reading, and that they believe it is a normative interpretation.

2) We should interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. In other words, obscure passages in the prophets or Revelation, should not form the foundation of our entire eschatological framework. Clear teaching in the NT epistles and elsewhere (as in the one parousia, and in the relief that we believers will find at the parousia — 2 Thess. 1), should factor in first, before grappling with picturesque language in Revelation, Gospel parables and OT prophecies.

Finally, an additional consideration comes to mind. Ultimately Christ will reign over all the Earth with His people forever. That can safely fulfill all the OT prophecies in a very literal sense. Prior to that eternal kingdom, we certainly have Christ ruling in some sense, even as the kingdom is here in some sense (but not yet fully). So this could be amillennial. But the ultimate rule is going to be much better than anything we have now, so a postmillennial flavor can be seen.

Premillennialism, for me, given that I accept the Church as being part of the one people of God (grafted in as Rom. 11 says), boils down to how you interpret Rev. 20. Nothing else speaks of a duration of time associated with the restored/renewed Davidic kingdom. Sometimes the amil arguments sway me on Rev. 20, but other times the literal exegesis of Rev. 20 seems to sway me the other way. It is an admittedly difficult passage.

To make one’s view of this one passage a litmus test for the level of their faithfulness to the Bible seems unwise to me.

I think that in dealing with Revelation, we need to admit there is much that we aren’t sure of. But the main message of the book is a wonderful blessing. The devil loses, Jesus wins! The bad guys get punished, and God rewards the faithful. Persecution now is not the end. God sees what is done and He will mete out judgment in his time. The plans and city of Man will not prosper. The beastly elements of religion and political might are nothing to Christ. I fear our tribulation saints’ merchandise, our intricate charts and end times maps, all conspire to make us lose the sweet view of the big picture given us in Revelation.