Tag: doctrine

Dispensationalism Examined

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I’ve been caught up in a couple interesting articles over on Sharper Iron. One is a story of one man’s journey out of dispensationalism, another is a story of why a former Lutheran is a classic deispensationalist. The comments are a wild ride through a sticky debate, to put it mildly.

At some point I want to type out my own story of leaving dispensationalism. But for now, I thought I’d compile a few helpful resources on the Dispensationalism question. Of course you can check out that category in my own blog, but here are a few resources. If anyone else wants to share something along these lines, please chime in.

My friend Nathan Pitchford, of Psalm 45 Publications and Reformation Theology, has several excellent articles on the topic. His article on the Abrahamic Covenant sticks to the OT witness about that covenant and explains how it fits with Hebrews’ spiritual perspective on the land promise.

Vern Poythress has an excellent book about this issue, available for free online: Understanding Dispensationalists. He presents Scriptural arguments against Dispensationalism, but does so in a charitable and helpful way.

There are also several articles and resources on Dispensationalism compiled at Monergism.com.

I have also been greatly helped by O. Palmer Robertson’s books on the Scriptural covenants. I’ve reviewed his books The Christ of the Covenants and The Israel of God on my blog. His books influenced my series of posts called Understanding the Land Promise, which presents a good explanation of my views. I also once posted an excellent power point presentation, from a friend of mine, on how to view all of Scripture from a covenantal perspective. The presentation is called The Advance of God’s Kingdom, and I found it extremely helpful.

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)

“Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Isn’t Enough” by Michael E. Wittmer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

DontStopBelievingAuthors: Michael E. Wittmer
Format: Soft cover
Page Count: 230
Publisher: Zondervan
Publication Date: 2008
ISBN: 9780310281160
Rating: 5 of 5 stars

I’m guessing that many who will read this review will be younger evangelicals who are aware of the Emerging Church movement. Many are intrigued with the idea of doing church differently. We’ve awakened to inadequacies in the church our parents raised us in. For people like us, the generational appeal of the Emergent movement is strong. Polarizing doctrines along with the conservative-liberal divide turn us off. A welcoming community of large-hearted lovers of Jesus sounds both authentic and attractive.

This desire for authentic Christian fellowship is not wrong by itself. Doing church in new and tantalizingly different ways isn’t either. Luther, Wesley and Moody attest to that. Yet the newness of the Emergent movement is often all that is needed for it to earn sharp and stinging conservative rebukes. Such smug dismissals only prove the point of these “postmodern innovators” , as Michael Wittmer dubs them. Conservative Christians today are infected with a rampant modernism that assumes it has arrived. With everything figured out, conservative Christianity has no room for postmodern Emergent craziness.

Put me down as one conservative who doesn’t think we’re above criticism. I tend to see the Emergent movement as reacting against some very real deficiencies in some versions of conservative Christianity. Before reading Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough, I wouldn’t have been able to articulate all of this exactly. I couldn’t put my finger on exactly what it was that seemed right about the Emergent phenomenon. With Michael Wittmer’s book, however, I’m much more equipped to think through the all the ramifications of the postmodern innovations so popular today.

Wittmer isn’t afraid to listen to the postmodern innovators. Listen and learn. From what I can gather from reading the book, Wittmer hails from a staunchly conservative background. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is intimately familiar with independent Baptist fundamentalism like I am. From such a background it is easy to see how many of the Emergent criticisms would hit home.

Post-moderns claim we conservatives often love the sinner’s soul more than his body. We aim for conversions more than lasting social change. We care more about deathbed conversions than good works and justice. Our churches are not welcoming and inviting to the unchurched, and our world-view comes off too cocky and self-confident. We have everything figured out and don’t struggle with doubt or pain. We care more about scientific and logical proofs for inerrancy than we do for the Bible’s overarching themes and meta narrative. We’re too quick to distance ourselves from the world than be friends to publicans and sinners.

There’s more. Must you believe something to be saved? Are people good or bad? Is Homosexuality acceptable biblically? Doesn’t penal substitution turn the cross into divine child abuse? Does Hell really last forever, and would a loving God really send anyone there? Is it really possible to know anything for certain? These questions and more are raised, and carefully dealt with in Wittmer’s book.

As one can see, with the Emergent movement, valid criticisms and sincere questions often get muddled together with a more radical revision of the fundamentals of the faith. In light of how many postmodern innovators are quick to embrace full fledged inclusivism (the idea that people will likely be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ), and their lack of owning up to virtually any non-negotiable beliefs, it is easy to see why many dismiss the movement as a whole, out of hand.

The strength of Wittmer’s approach lies in his patient hearing out of both sides. He sketches the conservative view and the postmodern reaction. Then he paves a middle ground that holds to a high (conservative) view of Scripture while appreciating insights from the postmodern position. He argues for a both/and approach which often does more justice to the Bible than either extreme. While he ends up defending conservative doctrines, he is not afraid to challenge conservative methods and motifs.

Such a discussion could easily become tedious and overly philosophical or theological. Wittmer’s writing style is so clear and lucid that with the help of illustrations and personal anecdotes, he makes the discussion fun to read. His many charts help convey his point even more clearly. The diagrams capture the discussions well, summarizing the perspectives of each side along with his middle ground approach.

Postmodern innovators and Emergent church leaders are not likely to change course as a result of this book. What I hope happens, is many a young evangelical is equipped and encouraged to opt for a conservative Christian approach that aims to both believe and live life here on earth well. As Wittmer puts it: “Genuine Christians never stop serving because they never stop loving, and they never stop loving because they never stop believing.”

If you are looking for a helpful introduction to the postmodern/Emergent church discussion, look no further than Don’t Stop Believing. And if you are concerned for a friend, or even for yourself, about the doctrine-is-optional appeal of postmodernism, pick up this book. You will be challenged, and encouraged in the faith.

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

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.

Clarifying Calvinism

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

5pointPhil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs fame), just finished a superb series of posts entitled Clarifying Calvinism. The series is posted over at Grace To You’s blogizine Pulpit Magazine.

He starts out by exhorting younger, web-savvy Calvinists to get their theology from books not blogs (a wise piece of advice, I’d admit). Then he discusses hyper-Calvinism and gives a balanced treatment of Arminianism.

The best part of the series are his last three or four posts which center on one little verse which encapsulates Calvinism’s doctrines: 1 John 4:19 “We love him, because he first loved us.” If you have some time, I’d encourage you to give the series a quick read.