Tag: faith

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 5 (Answering Objections)

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

–continuing from part 4.

I thought that the fifth post would be the last, but Will Dudding brought up some objections in the comments of the last post. This has caused me to dig a little deeper, and in the end has only increased my confidence in this understanding of the land promise. So before drawing out the implications of this view of the land promise (and then concluding our series), I need to pause and answer some objections. Answering these objections will also serve to recap this series and help us gain an even better appreciation for how the land promise applies to us.

Answering Objections

Will’s comments focused on several questions relating to the specific promises made to Abraham. He focused on two places in Genesis where the land promise is specified, but I’d like to quote all the places the land promise to Abraham is mentioned:

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country… to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation….” “To your offspring I will give this land”. (Gen. 12:1-2a; 7)

“Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth…. Arise, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” (Gen. 13:14b-17)

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites”. (Gen. 15:18-21)

“I have made you the father of a multitude of nations…. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. (Gen. 17:5b-8]

“I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed…” (Gen. 22:17-18]

From reading these promises, it is easy to see why Will sees problems with my view. He sees unconditional promises made to Abraham, concerning a specific plot of land to be given to Abraham’s offspring to possess forever. He fears I am saying God has cast off Israel and replaced her with the Church, and that I am ignoring these “forever” promises, and turning them into a spiritual pseudo promise so I can say they are fulfilled. It’s as simple as this: Abraham’s descendants haven’t possessed this land, so the fulfillment must still be expected in the future.

To respond to these objections is a large task, because so many fundamental assumptions are wrapped up in them. Nevertheless, I will give this a try.

The Possession of the Promised Land

I am claiming that Joshua 21:43-45 declares that God fulfilled his promise to give the land to Israel. Nehemiah and Solomon also declare God did not drop the ball on any of his promises. In studying this further, I realize I neglected an important passage in 1 Kings.

Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and drank and were happy. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. (1 Kings 4:20-21)

The inspired author of 1 Kings certainly means to grab our attention here. He is proclaiming the promises concerning Abraham’s seed being as numerous as the sand of the sea, have been fulfilled. He is also pointing us to the exact dimensions of the land promised in Gen. 15, as being now inhabited and ruled over by Solomon. Of course, later in 1 Kings 8:56, Solomon will actually declare that all the promises have been fulfilled. So in one sense clearly, God declares through inspired authors of Scripture, that the Israelites did indeed possess the land. Hold with me here, as we go on to address some other objections.

The Inheritors of the Promised Land

Now the promises above stipulate that Abraham’s descendants will inherit the land. But we observed previously (in part 1) that the New Testament states that the very promise that Abraham would inherit the world, was given to all the spiritual descendants of Abraham (see Rom. 4:11-16). To expand on this, let’s note a few important passages below:

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Rom. 9:6b-8]

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. (Gal. 3:7)

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. (Gal. 3:16)

…you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3:28b-29)

…the Gentiles are fellow heirs… (Eph. 3:6a)

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:28]

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise [re: the land, see v. 13] 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. 4:16)

See how all the above verses go hand in hand with Rom. 4:16 (the last verse cited above). This is clear New Testament teaching here. Unequivocal. “Offspring of Abraham” = “those who believe in Jesus, who is the specific Offspring of Abraham”. We know that Abraham saw Christ’s day, and his faith was in a future deliverer (John 8:58, Rom. 4, Gen. 3:15). And so we know this New Testament assertion must mean something. If we believers are co-heirs with Abraham and descendants of him, than this seems to change how we are to view the promises made in Gen. Again, suspend disbelief until our next point.

The Nature and Concept of Land

When we talk of land, we must think in ancient terms. Land was always sacred, and vastly more important in ancient times than today. A King and his realm was totally tied up in his land. Like a King, so a god. It was assumed that deities were tied up to the land, and the god of the Canaanites wouldn’t hold sway in Nineveh. Remember Namaan? He gets healed of leprosy by Elisha the prophet and what does he request? A barrel full of dirt! He felt he needed part of the land to take back to Syria so that he could be a worshiper of Jehovah.

Of course, Jehovah declares that he is the One True and Living God. He alone is God. And He owns the whole Earth. Nevertheless, land is integral in how God relates with his people. Adam and Eve needed an Eden. A place where they fellowshipped with God. If you note Abraham’s wanderings, the only places he builds altars are in the land God was giving him. Fellowship with God stemmed from being on His land.

Throughout Deuteronomy, a constantly reoccurring idea is that these laws are to be obeyed, “in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess — as long as you live in the land” (Deut. 12:1 NIV). Obedience is intricately connected to the land. And the land was a good land. “A land flowing with milk and honey”. This points out that the land is a new paradise — a place of communion with God and blessing. And throughout Deuteronomy it is clear that God is graciously giving this to the Israelites, even though they are exhorted to take it.

The land is intimately tied up with God’s redemptive work toward Israel. At the conclusion of laws regulating life in the land (Deut. 12-25), there is a powerful ceremony highlighting the importance of Israel viewing themselves as stewards of God’s land (Deut. 26:1-11). We will explore the nature of the land further as we look at conditionality and a few other topics in the next post.

Our Time is Short

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I just found out that, Larry Lawton, a regular commenter on my blog, passed away this Sunday. He was a close blogging acquaintance and online friend. He frequently commented over at Sharper Iron.

He leaves behind a wife and young son (2 years old, or so, I think). His obituary is here. From this Sharper Iron discussion, I learned he died of an infection coupled with his having no spleen. He was just 37 years old.

I know Larry loved Jesus and loved studying the Bible. He was a good father and cared for his family, even as he pursued theological education. He will be missed.

Larry’s death reminds us that our time is short. It also calls us to face the realities of life and death. It argues that we should all live with eternity in view, as we have no sure bet that we will be here tomorrow, next week or next year.

Recently, my oldest daughter, has been learning about death. Her friends’ grandfather died a few weeks ago, and then on Saturday we attended the funeral of her great grandmother. She’s been growing through all of this and her simple faith is encouraging. As we drove away from the funeral, Saturday, she made up a song, and the words go something like this:

When someone dies, I won’t be afraid.

I won’t worry. I won’t be sad, I’ll be happy.

I’ll just trust in God.

In the face of death — and I can only imagine how hard this must be for Larry’s wife and family — we all can do no better than follow the advice of my daughter’s song. Since Larry knew Christ, let’s not worry or fear, let’s trust in our God!

The Concept of "Fundamental Doctrines": Modern Reductionism or Historic Protestant Doctrine?

~ fundyreformed ~ 45 Comments

Often I labor to reply to important questions in the comments on my blog, only to have my thoughts buried and hidden in the weeds, so to speak. So I thought I would craft today’s reply into a post.

I’ve been debating with Pastor Kent Brandenburg on the appropriateness of ranking doctrines as fundamental/essential and secondary/tertiary. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives a positive treatment of this: he terms it “Theological Triage“. Brandenburg contradicts this view, believing it belittles the importance of all doctrine, and our obligations to hold to sound doctrine and separate from those who don’t. I side with Mohler, as well as John Piper and D.A. Carson (and others), and recently posted my belief that excessive separation actually belittles the Gospel.

In the debate, which has included “Grace” defending my view, and “Truth Unites…and Divides” who recently joined the fray, three basic points have been raised against my view. This “ranking” of doctrines is a new-fangled doctrine, it finds no support in Scripture, and it ignores the Biblical call for separation from false doctrine. I will respond briefly to all these points, yet major on the first one.

A couple qualifications are in order. First, I unequivocally affirm that we are obligated to obey all of God’s commands and accept all of Scripture as authoritative. Whatever God teaches in His Word, we must believe and obey. However, Scripture teaches that we are fallible and fallen creatures. And God-given common sense affirms that good people disagree and fail to understand one another on any number of subjects. People vary in terms of their backgrounds, intellectual prowess, and even how they reason and learn. So it is no wonder that good Christians often disagree on various points of doctrines. Is it a sin to be wrong? My answer is “not necessarily”. I believe on some issues like Baptism, for instance, good Christians out of a desire to follow Christ, and with Scriptural reasoning and proofs, hold to an incorrect view of Baptism (only 1 view can be the truth) and yet are not guilty of conscious sin.

A second qualification relates to the importance of doctrine. In affirming the primacy of fundamental doctrines, I am not negating the importance of secondary and even tertiary ones. As my own church’s elder affirmation of faith (one of our elders is John Piper) affirms, it is right and good to hold firmly to secondary doctrines and yet still pass beyond those boundaries and extend Christian fellowship at appropriate times. There are different purposes for various organizations and there are different levels of fellowship [1]. When I am warning against “excessive separation”, I am specifically aiming at an extreme sectarianism which allows little to no fellowship at all with any but those who agree on virtually every point of doctrine and practice.

A New Doctrine?

Does the concept of “the fundamentals” stem from the fundamentalist controversy of the late 1800s, early 1900s? Is it a new doctrine that carefully cloaks a reductionist view of Christianity? Is it all about cutting the Bible down to size so we can comfortably hold to the essentials while living how we please?

Frankly, no. The idea of fundamental non-negotiables can be seen as far back as the Apostle’s Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed and so on. Perhaps it can be traced back even more. With the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church and her treatment of church dogma and papal bulls as equal in authority with Scripture, it is no surprise that a complete unanimity of doctrinal belief was levied on one and all. But with the Reformation, the concept of fundamentals of the faith which are necessary for salvation, was once again advanced.

Many Protestant writers grappled with this concept in the 16 and 1700s, as they sought to explain how Protestantism can enjoy real unity across denominational lines yet without Roman Catholicism’s unanimity. I came across an article in an online Catholic encyclopedia which details the key figures in the ongoing debate on this subject between the RCC and Protestantism. Of course the article is written from a Catholic perspective, but it makes clear that both the concept and the phrasing “fundamentals” were used almost from the very onset of the Reformation.

Further historical proof is this article on John Wesley, which shows he also held to a fundamental approach. He emphasized a “catholic (i.e. universal) spirit” and sought to have unity with other Christians despite differences on what he termed “opinions” (see especially section 3). Additionally, John MacArthur draws heavily from Herman Witsius’ Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (from the mid 1600s) as he discusses this very issue in his book Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see pg. 108-117). I recently linked to a 3-part blog series by MacArthur on how to determine if a doctrine is essential, which is a summary from the above book.

Is It Scriptural?

My critics claim this doctrine has no basis in Scripture. I grant that it is largely inferred from Scripture. Yet such inference doesn’t necessarily render it moot. More on that later.

I recently cited a list of commentaries proving that the phrase in 1 Cor. 15:3 “first of all” (KJV) or “of first importance” (ESV) [same Greek words here: en protois] can refer to importance rather than time-order. In fact the conservative Greek scholar A.T. Robertson asserted this. My list also showed that this is no new interpretation of that verse, as several older commentators like Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry understood this verse as teaching that the Gospel is “of first importance”.

Scripture goes on to explain the Gospel as being chiefly important. Paul wanted to preach nothing but Christ crucified, and vowed to boast only in the cross. This certainly implies that the Gospel is the main and most important thing.

Jesus similarly held that on the greatest and second-greatest commandment (to love God, and to love one’s neighbor) all the law and the prophets hinged (Matt. 22:34-40). He further taught that God desires mercy more than sacrifice (Matt. 12:7; see also in a similar vein, David’s assertion in Ps. 51:16).

Matt. 23:23 speaks of the “weightier provisions of the law” as the ESV phrases it. The Pharisees were scrupulously tithing of their herbs, yet were neglecting “justice and mercy and faithfulness”. The word “weightier” can signify either “burdensome/difficult” or “weighty/important”. Calvin interpreted the passage with the latter idea–justice, mercy, and faithfulness were “principal points of the Law” and tithing was “inferior” in comparison. And indeed, the smallness of the herbs in question seems to point to the triviality of their scruples in comparison with these more important matters. Such is a common interpretation of the passage today (see D.A. Carson’s commentary in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary set, as but one example).

These specific proof texts are coupled with arguments that MacArthur explains at length. Scripture explicitly ties certain doctrines with eternal life, and more strongly condemns deviation from others. D.A. Carson, in a lecture on doctrinal causes for divisions in churches (obtainable here for 99 cents), illustrates how in 1 Corinthians, Paul responds in varying degrees to different doctrinal problems. He most strongly reacts to the resurrection question, and the communion problem, as well as the expulsion of the wayward brother. But his reactions to other problems are tempered and more moderate. Obviously this plays in with how important Paul sees the various doctrines in view. Again, I encourage you to read Carson’s entire lecture (transcript) on this point.

Suffice it to say that Scripture generally conveys the idea of a varying level of importance of doctrines. And while this is generally inferred, it remains valid. The Gospel is chiefly important. And doesn’t common sense confirm this? Who would disagree that the Gospel is not most important? Can we not find cause for fellowship/participation in the gospel with our fellow believers? Are not the commands to have unity and avoid schisms in the church important?

What about Separation?

This article has run on too much to discuss this point in depth. I need to treat this at length in the future. For now suffice it to say that every time “doctrine” is mentioned as important, are we to conclude every single particular point that Paul taught? Or the chief body of truths over which we are to contend: the faith once delivered? Many times the separation passages explicitly attach themselves either to a denial of the Gospel, or sinful practice. And while we talk of separation we must talk of unity too. Even in Rom. 16, Paul tells us to separate from the contentious and divisive among us! So unity is so important we should separate over it. Paradoxical thinking, I dare say.

I know that one’s view of the church comes into play here as well. Some Baptists hold that only a local church is revealed in Scripture. No universal church idea exists. Such a view is a minority and I believe a stretch, even for Baptists. Most do not hold to this view. And those who do, often act as if each local church is totally independent and doesn’t need anyone else for anything. I submit a faithful reading of the book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, does not permit such thinking.

Hopefully this will end the debate around here for a while, until I open up the subject at a later time.

Footnote:

[1] See also “Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?”, by Wayne Grudem, published in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (ed. by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003]), pg. 365. Chapter is available online in PDF, and DOC.

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.

We Believe (#11): Living God’s Word by Meditation and Prayer

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

Part 11 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.

Living God’s Word by Meditation and Prayer

We believe that faith is awakened and sustained by God’s Spirit through His Word and prayer. The good fight of faith is fought mainly by meditating on the Scriptures and praying that God would apply them to our souls.

We believe that the promises of God recorded in the Scriptures are suited to save us from the deception of sin by displaying for us, and holding out to us, superior pleasures in the protection, provision, and presence of God. Therefore, reading, understanding, pondering, memorizing, and savoring the promises of all that God will be for us in Jesus are primary means of the Holy Spirit to break the power of sin’s deceitful promises in our lives. Therefore it is needful that we give ourselves to such meditation day and night.

We believe that God has ordained to bless and use His people for His glory through the means of prayer, offered in Jesus’ name by faith. All prayer should seek ultimately that God’s name be hallowed, and that His kingdom come, and that His will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. God’s sovereignty over all things is not a hindrance to prayer, but a reason for hope that our prayers will succeed.

We believe that prayer is the indispensable handmaid of meditation, as we cry out to God for the inclination to turn from the world to the Word, and for the spiritual ability to see the glory of God in His testimonies, and for a soul-satisfying sight of the love of God, and for strength in the inner man to do the will of God. By prayer God sanctifies His people, sends gospel laborers into the world, and causes the Word of God to spread and triumph over Satan and unbelief.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 11.1 – 11.4. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.