Tag: church

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 2

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

–continuing from yesterday’s post.

The Land Promise Fulfilled?

But was the actual promise fulfilled? Were the boundaries of the land promised in Gen. 15:18-21 ever completely owned by Israel? The dispensationalists say no, and they point to history and the Biblical record of what land Israel possessed. The Philistines and other groups remained in the land such that Israel never truly owned all the land.

However, as  I started studying these claims on my own a few years ago, I came across an article by my friend Nathan Pitchford which pointed out that Scripture Itself declares that the promise of the land was fulfilled. In his article entitled Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant, Nathan pointed me to Joshua 21:43-45. Since then, I’ve also seen this restated in other scriptures, which I will quote below.

So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43-45)

So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. And they captured fortified cities and a rich land, and took possession of houses full of all good things, cisterns already hewn, vineyards, olive orchards and fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and became fat and delighted themselves in your great goodness. (Nehemiah 9:24-25)

Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant. (1 Kings 8:56)

Nathan goes on in  his paper to explore how Abraham himself viewed the land. He was looking for a heavenly city and not satisfied with an earthly inheritance, according to Hebrews 11:10, 13-16. Nathan shows how even in Genesis we can see this heavenward focus  about Abraham. I encourage you to read his paper for more.

In the  next post in this series, I will explore a Scriptural justification for “spiritualizing” the land promise. And I’ll link you to another  resource that may put everything into perspective for you.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 1

~ fundyreformed ~ 27 Comments

Some of you probably know that I am a former dispensationlist. I have since embraced Covenant Theology, at least in a broad sense. One of the key factors in my change concerning this position centered on the promise of the land.

In my experience, the promise concerning a land for Abraham’s descendants plays a vital role in supporting the claims of Dispensationalism. Since the specific plot of land promised in Genesis 15 has not yet been completely occupied by Israel, we must expect a future literal fulfillment of this promise. This leads to the conclusion that God still has dealings with physical/national Israel and promises He must keep for them, which in turn leads us to understand that God’s plans for the Church are different than His plans for Israel. God thus has two peoples, Israel and the Church, and two purposes (at least) for His interactions with man in this world.

My particular understanding of Dispensationalism included the notion that the church age was basically a parenthesis from his plan for Israel. And that his plans for Israel would be culminated in a physical thousand year reign in which the Temple and its physical sacrifices would be reinstated. Many dispensationalists today do not agree with these particular views, but nevertheless there are many who still hold to them, largely because of their support of Dispensationalism.

Since land was so central to Dispensationalism, when I saw how the New Testament treated the land promise, I soon became more and more convinced that Dispensationalism is flawed, and Covenant Theology or something similar to it, must be the preferred way of understanding how Scripture fits together.

New Testament View of The Land Promise

Compare these verses to the Dispensational understanding of the land promise:

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring“”not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,… (Rom. 4:13, 16)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Eph. 6:1-3)

Notice that the meek inherit the earth. The very promise given to Abraham concerning the land is promised to his spiritual descendants. And also the Gentile Ephesian children are promised long life in “the land” (or “the earth” as the NASB has it). Compare Eph. 6:3 with the promise as stated in Exodus 20:12b: “that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” Paul holds up this promise for the Ephesian Christians.

This NT understanding of the land promise certainly seems to spiritualize the promise [should the Ephesians really expect to live long in Canaan? or should the meek expect to inherit Canaan?] or more properly, to expand it to include the whole world (Rom. 4). And indeed the promise that God would be with Abraham’s descendants, dwell with them and be their God (see Gen. 17:7-8, also Ex. 29:45, Lev. 26:12, and Ez. 37:27) is repeated and realized in Rev. 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them”. Certainly the New Testament seems to indicate that the land promise points us to this ultimate reality.

In the next posts, I will look at the land promise a little more closely, and provide some links which may prove helpful for further study.

Calvin on Fundamental Doctrines

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

In reading through Nine Mark’s e-journal on fundamentalism, I came across an audio lecture by Iain Murray (editor of Banner of Truth) on George Whitefield and Catholicity. Catholicity refers to a spirit of unity among the universal (i.e. Catholic) church, and not in any way to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

The lecture was very interesting as it deals with George Whitefield’s life and influence. It focused on his ideas of Christian unity across denominational lines. And Murray alleges that this emphasis on Christian catholicity directly resulted in the birth of modern missions and other evangelistic ventures such as Bible societies and publishing houses. Murray is careful to apply Whitefield’s story to today’s Christianity, and warns against both a radical ecumenism and a sectarian disregard for unity.

In his lecture, he quoted from John Calvin on the idea of doctrines being fundamental or not. And as we’ve been arguing the historicity and validity of this idea (that doctrines can be ranked as primary and secondary, etc.), I thought I’d share the full quote, which I found in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1, section 12.

What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes–short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness–that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters* should in no wise be the base of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation. (emphasis added)

Also note the footnote (at the place where the asterisk is in the above quote), where John McNeill notes several proponents of this fundamental doctrine ideal in the seventeenth century.

*What follows is the footnote in my copy of the Institutes (edited by John McNeill [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960] ), emphasis added:

Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. I Cor. 3:11 (Corpus Reformatorum: Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J.A. Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.

I’ll have more to say on Nine Mark’s e-journal later. For now, you should know that several excellent articles on the question of fundamentalism, separation and unity are brought together in this one resource. I find it very helpful.

We Believe (#15): The Spirit of This Affirmation and the Unity of the Church

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

This is the 15th and last part in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

The Spirit of This Affirmation and the Unity of the Church

We do not believe that all things in this affirmation of faith are of equal weight, some being more essential, some less. We do not believe that every part of this affirmation must be believed in order for one to be saved.

Our aim is not to discover how little can be believed, but rather to embrace and teach “the whole counsel of God.” Our aim is to encourage a hearty adherence to the Bible, the fullness of its truth, and the glory of its Author. We believe Biblical doctrine stabilizes saints in the winds of confusion and strengthens the church in her mission to meet the great systems of false religion and secularism. We believe that the supreme virtue of love is nourished by the strong meat of God-centered doctrine. And we believe that a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ is sustained in an atmosphere of deep and joyful knowledge of God and His wonderful works.

We believe that the cause of unity in the church is best served, not by finding the lowest common denominator of doctrine, around which all can gather, but by elevating the value of truth, stating the doctrinal parameters of church or school or mission or ministry, seeking the unity that comes from the truth, and then demonstrating to the world how Christians can love each other across boundaries rather than by removing boundaries. In this way, the importance of truth is served by the existence of doctrinal borders, and unity is served by the way we love others across those borders.

We do not claim infallibility for this affirmation and are open to refinement and correction from Scripture. Yet we do hold firmly to these truths as we see them and call on others to search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. As conversation and debate take place, it may be that we will learn from each other, and the boundaries will be adjusted, even possibly folding formerly disagreeing groups into closer fellowship.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 15.1-15.4. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

Go Giants!

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Since it is Super Bowl Sunday, I thought I’d declare I’m rooting for anyone but the Patriots! Actually, this year I was pulling for Indianapolis and also Green Bay. They both lost in the championship games and I am disappointed!

I don’t necessarily like the Giants (without Tiki Barber). But the Patriots are annoyingly too good! And I think they know it. So like the Dallas Cowboys of the 90s and even the Green Bay Packers after that, they are too cocky for my taste.

Besides, I’m holding out for Peyton Manning and the Colts to get that perfect season.

Oh, and I’m not missing church to watch the game. Our small group is having a Super Bowl party, and my church doesn’t have Sunday night services.

Please remember football is a game. It’s fun, but it shouldn’t be one’s all-in-all. Make sure you worship Christ today.