Understanding the Land Promise: Part 5 (Answering Objections)

–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.

Appreciating and Assessing Fundamentalism

Nine Marks Ministries, a conservative evangelical ministry aiming to strengthen churches by emphasizing Biblical rather than pragmatic approaches to ministry, recently released their March/April 2008 e-journal. This month the topic was unity and separation, with an emphasis on fundamentalism.

The journal was kind to fundamentalism. While it recognized a need to balance separation with unity, it gave fundamentalists like Dr. Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) and Dr. Mark Minnick (pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC and NT faculty member of Bob Jones University) an opportunity to defend their fundamentalist viewpoint.

The journal brought together some of the best articles on the issue of Biblically-based separation and unity. I particularly thought that the articles by Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, and Wayne Grudem were excellent. See this link where Justin Taylor provides links to all the articles in the journal. Or download the pdf version of the journal. Also, don’t miss out on the audio lecture by Iain Murray (of Banner of Truth) on “George Whitefield and Catholicity” (catholicity meaning Christian unity with the universal church).

Perhaps the most interesting part of the journal was the “Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum on Fundamentalism“. It is a round-table discussion of sorts, where 19 different men were asked to answer this question: “What can we learn from the Christian fundamentalists?” For the most part, the answers focused on the positive contributions fundamentalism has made to evangelicalism. And while the faults of fundamentalism were sometimes mentioned, the overall feel of the discussion was one of a great appreciation for fundamentalists.

Ben Wright, a pastoral assistant at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC (home of Nine Marks Ministries), at his blog Paleoevangelical (which I would consider a reforming fundamentalist blog), asked for people to comment on which round-table answer they thought was the best. Ben of course expects his commenters to choose his own answer, as he contributed both to the roundtable and the journal (providing one article). I thought the idea was fun and could encourage some good conversation on these matters.

As I thought about responding, I felt I should just make my response into a post. So here goes….

I think the two best overall answers were Bob Johnson‘s and Carl Trueman‘s. And I appreciated some phrases and thoughts from other answers. I should also note that I learned a new derision of fundamentalism: “No fun, all da**, and not enough mental”. I should say that this was given tongue in cheek, and the 2 contributors who mentioned it were not bitter at the “fightin’ fundies”. I still thought it was funny, even though I recognize it is not true of many good fundamentalists I know.

Besides that line, I thought the following quotes were worthy of consideration:

…What it does is reassert a lost world, a once intact but no-longer-taken-for-granted cultural reality. In doing so, it both romanticizes the past and radicalizes the present with its overlay of psychological defiance and cultural militancy. Herein lies its danger to followers of Jesus: the cultural overlay grows more and more alien to the call of Jesus to his disciples…. (by Os Guinness)

In a day when Protestants seem to be as easily impressed by smooth-talking television preachers, beautiful liturgies administered by women and gays, or smart popes, we could use Fundamentalist suspicion. (by Darryl Hart)

I also was pleased to see someone make the same point I did about the place of the Gospel as it relates to extreme separation.

Sometimes, their practical applications appear to be as important as (or even more important than) the gospel. (by Matthew Hoskinson)

So what are your thoughts on the journal, or the round-table discussion?

King James Only Research Center

Introducing my newly redesigned King James Only Research Center.

I’m really excited about the redesign. The site is now a normal website rather than a website-wannabe using blog software.

The site is very user-friendly with simple built-in navigation. And it includes a site blog, where I hope to blog about additions to the site and other KJV-only related finds I come across.

I still have more work to do with the site, but I’m satisfied with the new design, and feel I have the infrastructure in place to finally fill out my own writings on the topic.

If you have linked to the KJV Only Debate Resource Center in the past, please update your link to the new site: http://www.freewebs.com/kjvonlyresearch/index.htm and edit the name to the new site name: King James Only Research Center. Some may not have linked to the old site, because it was difficult to use. I hope the new design will bring more visitors and encourage more to link to what I hope is a useful resource.

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

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.

Piper & Carson on Essential Doctrines

Recently we’ve been debating the idea of whether certain doctrines should be considered fundamental or essential, and others merely secondary. Most Christians and even fundamentalists do admit that there are essential doctrines that are more important than others. However, as my last installment of my church’s elder confession of faith shows, this doesn’t mean other doctrines are not important.

With these thoughts on my mind, I was surprised to find a recent discussion of this very topic from my church’s most recent conference. At the 2008 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors, they had a panel discussion on a variety of topics. One of the questions was “What makes a doctrine essential?” John Piper and D.A. Carson did a good job discussing that question. I took the conference video (available for download), and tried to cut it down to just this question: unfortunately, during the last 2 minutes, the audio and video are a little out of sync, but not too much.

 

Update: I should also note that I thought Carson’s warning about “being prophetic from the margins” was similar to my contention that majoring on the minors belittles the Gospel. Also, if anyone can’t view the video online, or download the original video, they can read the transcript.