Tag: Theology

Reformation Week Book Giveaway & More

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

This is the week before we celebrate Reformation Day. 493 years ago, on the night before All Saints’ Day, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. Everyone entering the church for the next day’s festivities, would be sure to see his theses, and the door often served as a community bulletin board. Today, we look back to that event, on October 31, 1517 as perhaps the single event most responsible for the start of the Protestant Reformation.

In honor of Reformation Day, I plan on posting several related posts. On the Wednesday after Reformation Day, I’ll be giving away a copy of A Reformation Reader by Denis Janz (Fortress Press). Between now and then, I’ll have a series of posts highlighting selections from the Reformer’s works, and possibly a few Reformation-themed book reviews interspersed in there.

A Reformation Reader gives you multiple excerpts from Reformation era documents, and some historical analysis. It sheds light on the era of the Reformation and while one may not always agree with the author’s conclusions, the selections make for excellent reading. This copy is furnished courtesy of the kind folks at Augsburg Fortress Press. Feel free to read my review of the book, too.

To enter the contest, fill out the form below. If you subscribe to this blog or follow me on Twitter or Facebook, you get additional chances to win. You can subscribe or follow me now, in time to get the additional entry, too. UPDATE: You can post an update to your blog, Twitter or Facebook page publicizing this giveaway for an additional entry, too.

I’ll be updating the tally on which Reformer is the most popular too, in the comments below. Early on it’s John Calvin in the lead ahead of Luther and Huss.

 

This contest is now closed. The winner was announced in this post.

 

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.

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.

Recommended Resource on Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford has turned several of his essays into books by means of Lulu.com’s self-publishing capabilities. His essays are excellent and several of them got me thinking regarding the problems of dispensationalism. Pitchford’s books are available for free .pdf download so I encourage you all to check them out.

One of his newest books is Themes in Theology vol. 4, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Several of his best essays are in there. You can download the book here, or purchase a print copy here. I’d also encourage you to read the first two essays for sure: Is Dispensationalism Biblical? and Land, Seed and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant. He also includes an appendix with a Scripture verse list on the topic.

One other note about Nathan, he is going to be a guest on Scott Oakland’s ReformedCast podcast tonight. You can listen live at 6pm Central, or get the free download later. He will be sharing his transition from Baptist to Presbyterian. That’s one area I still disagree with Nathan. The show will be worth listening to, however, as I’ve found the Baptism debate is beneficial and can increase your understanding of those in the Church who disagree with your particular position.