Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

“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.

Quotes to Note 11: Once Saved, Always Saved?

~ Bob Hayton

I am working on my review of Larry Helyer’s excellent book, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology. I came across a quote that is really good, but doesn’t quite fit into my review.

I’ve explained my take on the well-known phrase “Once Saved, Always Saved”, in one of my most popular posts of all time. Here I’ll quote Larry Helyer’s (Professor of Biblical Studies at Taylor University) thoughts on this issue (he largely agrees with me).

A popular slogan says, “Once saved, always saved.” There is, of course, an element of truth in this: the number of God’s elect is fixed and certain because they are foreknown and predestined from eternity to obtain final salvation (i.e., glorification [see Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-14]). On the other hand, exact knowledge of who the elect are belongs to God alone (cf. Deut 29:29). The individual believer is warned against making premature judgments in this regard (1 Cor. 4:5), simply to make his or her election sure by persistence in faith (Col 1:22-23; cf. 2 Pet 1:10). One need not live in constant anxiety about this, however, since the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, giving assurance that we are the children of God, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:14-17). Where the slogan can be misleading is in the tendency to think that some outward show of commitment, such as raising one’s hand, going forward in an evangelistic service, signing a decision card and the like, forever seals one’s eternal destiny, there being nothing capable of altering the unalterable. Such an view ignores the necessity of continuing in faith (Col. 1:23). Paul insists that “the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Gal 5:6 [my italics]). Decisions not matched by discipleship are deceitful. They presume that one may secure salvation on one’s own terms, and such presumption is precarious.

From The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John by Larry Helyer (IVP Academic)  © 2008, 261-262.

Aliens & Atheist Absurdity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

My wife and I rented Knowing, a newly released (on DVD) movie with Nicolas Cage in it. I have to admit I love end-of-the-world, science fiction movies. Some of my favorites are Deep Impact, Independence Day and Core.

There is a scene in Knowing, where the professor character that Cage plays, explains two competing views of the universe: determinism and randomness. Determinism says everything happens for a reason, and is bolstered by the understanding of how small the probabilities are that life on Earth could just accidentally happen. The opposite view claims that in fact everything is an accident, a freak of randomness and chance. Life has no meaning.

By the end of the movie, we are left to side with determinism, but in a very meaningless way. <spoiler alert> The world will end and we glimpse the awe-inspiring (at least for the main character in the movie) truth about our existence — aliens protected us, and evidently seeded our planet. </spoiler alert>

What amazes me is how rational and realistic all of this seems from a secular, scientific viewpoint. Real scientists propose mainstream, class-room theories about all of life possibly having evolved on a different planet. Aliens brought the beginnings of life to our planet. In the movie Expelled, with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins posits that in the face of evidence for intelligent design, a plausible theory is just this: life came here from another world.

Anyone intrigued by UFOs have seen how Biblical accounts such as Ezekiel’s vision of the presence of God among the wheels, are turned into ancient evidence for the existence of UFOs. While to a certain extent, science laughs off UFO claims; nevertheless, the search for extraterrestrial life continues in the most respected institutions.

All of this seems absurd. Aliens who bring life to earth in a spaceship; UFOs behind Biblical visions and indeed all the religions on earth (think Stargate); even the Big Bang itself — all of this is flat out crazy. If you take a step back, these theories are preposterous and absurd — beyond belief. But major motion pictures and scientific documentaries are endlessly preaching this dogma.

Now we come to my ironic point. In a world where science lets us dream of intelligent life all throughout the universe, why is the scholarly consensus so dead set against any notion of the Christian faith? Why is it that Christians are laughed to scorn for believing in a God who created life, and will one day bring all people to a moral accounting? Why is that unbelievable and absurd, whereas aliens, UFOs, paranormal experiences and the like aren’t?

Could it be that we deify man and his pursuits in understanding the universe (science)? At the end of the day, atheists refuse to believe Christianity’s worldview, because they cannot tolerate it. They don’t want to believe.

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)