I have been very hesitant to look into eschatology at all since leaving SDA, but recently I have listened to a series of lectures by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (one of the co-hosts on White Horse Inn) entitled Amillenialism 101 (about a quarter down the page). This was a huge blessing, and it actually made sense of the eschatology of the New Testament. He also does a great job explaining covenant theology in some of the early lectures. He explains the different positions fairly and gives his defense for reformed amillenialism. If you have the time I would recommend this series to any and all!
After having gone through many of the other positions including being an avid dispensationalist with pre-trib rapture, I have come around to view Riddlebarger as close to what really makes sense. A variation on the theme is RC Sproul’s position of partial preterism.
Amillenialism starts with a covenantal context (i.e. the structure of the Bible is God’s sovereignly administered covenants with His people). In the fourth lecture of this series, Dr. Riddlebarger argues that covenant theology and amillenial eschatology go hand in hand. He says early on that much of the Biblical narrative is that of God either giving or enforcing His covenant. God speaks, and God acts to redeem sinful men and women. So, he argues, the Bible is not a book that is meant to answer all of our speculative questions about every little subject, rather it is a book of God’s redemptive plan through history. Thus, Christianity in its very essence is eschatological, since God is directing history toward a final consummation (the redemption of His people) through His redemptive plan and acts. If we limit eschatology to just future things, and don’t see Christ’s second coming as the final consummation of all things, we do ourselves a great disservice. If we disconnect eschatology from covenant, we limit it to basically just “signs of the end”. Riddlebarger argues that, understood correctly, eschatology is equally concerned with the past, the present, and the future.
So, since the entire Old Testament anticipates Christ, and Christ is the Redeemer of Israel and the Mediator of God’s covenant, we must read Scripture in this way if we are to make sense of it. We must put on our “Christ glasses” when we read the Old Testament, where He is shown in type and shadow. After the fall of all humanity (under Adam’s federal headship), the rest of the Biblical narrative is concerned with God’s sovereign redemptive plan and acts. So, Christ’s second coming is not just another step, rather it is the final consummation of all things where God’s people receive everything that has been promised them in the covenant. The sweep of history then becomes creation to new creation by way of redemption.
The reformed amillenarian, then, uses a specific methodology with specific operating assumptions and presuppositions (which we must constantly check and re-check in light of Scripture). To understand eschatology, we must understand the various covenants found in Scripture. From the very moment of the fall in Genesis 3, God immediately promises final redemption (Genesis 3:15). Right from the beginning, we know that God is going to redeem His people. Before the details of redemption begin to unfold, the outcome is already certain. God has decreed that He will save His people from their sin, so at the consummation there will no longer be any hint of sin or stain, the curse will be gone. All of the specifics throughout the story come in the form of covenant blessings or covenant curses. The suzerain-vassal treaty was an important part of everyday life in the ancient Near East. For example, if we look at the book of Deuteronomy, we realize that its literary genre is that of a suzerainty treaty. It is a treaty between the sovereign Lord Yahweh and His people. In this context then, a covenant can be defined as a relationship under sanctions. When the terms of the covenant are fulfilled, the servant receives the blessing promised. If the conditions are not met, the covenant curse is imposed (one already gets a sense of how this is going to work, i.e. the curse is either going to be borne by the person who broke covenant or by SOMEONE ELSE). Covenants in the Old Testament take two basic forms: covenant of promise (basically a royal grant, i.e. the King gives something because He is the King), or covenant of law (basically suzerainty treaties). Covenants of blessing or promise are covenants where God Himself swears the covenant oath to fulfill the terms of the covenant. In covenants of works or law the people swear the oath of the covenant. First, reformed Christians see a covenant of works in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17, Hosea 6:7). Blessing (life) is promised upon perfect obedience, and curse (death) is warned under disobedience. Next, the most prominent case of a covenant of promise is God’s covenant with Abram in Genesis 15 (which Paul calls “the Gospel"). God sovereignly approaches Abram and swears on His oath, takes the curse of the covenant upon Himself (Genesis 15:17), and gives the exact geographical region where this covenant is to be in effect (the promised land, to be inhabited by God’s people according to God’s grace, which Joshua saw as entirely fulfilled). This should cause bells to go off immediately, as we think of Christ suffering on the cross under the curse. Very quickly, it is easy to see that this perspective of the covenants makes perfect sense of Christ’s person and work, where a covenant Mediator’s perfect obedience (required by a covenant of works) is imputed to all He represents, and He removes the curse (earned by their disobedience to the covenant of works) from them, thus earning them the blessings of the covenant of promise. The Sinaitic covenant then, is part of the overarching covenant of grace (as evidenced by the administration of it, i.e. sacrificial atonement for sin, priesthood, the tabernacle, etc., all types of Christ), but the Ten Commandments are a republication of the covenant of works from the Garden (i.e. their inhabitance of the land is no longer by grace but by obedience). To be clear, people were still saved by grace through faith in the Savior to come, but their disobedience to the covenant of works was punished by expulsion from the land (just as Adam was expelled from the Garden upon his disobedience). We see therefore that Israel’s sin was continually exposed by the fact that they were repeatedly expelled from the land, but God still saved His own by grace through faith in their Savior, who was revealed to them under type and shadow. Extremely important to notice, therefore, is the continual promise of God through the prophets of a NEW COVENANT (which is a covenant of promise, not of law, thus we see why Paul always shows continuity with the Abrahamic administration and discontinuity with the Mosaic). The Mosaic economy of the covenant passes away (although the Law remains to show us our need for the Savior) with the Advent of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant (and the land promise is universalized, meaning that God’s covenant is now administered throughout the entire earth). So we see how the covenant of grace, first given in Genesis 3:15, unfolds throughout the Bible.
This gives us the covenantal perspective that is the internal architecture of Scripture. This really is a great series of lectures, and highly recommended!
My above synopsis of Dr. Riddlebarger’s lecture on covenant theology is in stark disagreement with Adventist theology on several points. First, Adventism argues that the structure of the Bible is “great controversy”. With this hermenuetic, it is impossible to see the internal architecture of the Bible as God’s sovereignly designed and directed plan of redemption which is never in doubt. It is akin to the error of the Epicureans who saw everything as contingent. Second, amillenialism sees the second coming as the final consummation of all things where God raises the dead, judges the world and makes all things new. Adventism sees the second coming as one step in the process of final consummation.
The historic creeds at least imply amillenialism. For instance, the Apostles’ Creed says this: “… He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there He will come to judge the living and the dead (that’s everyone).” The Nicene Creed reads similarly: “… He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead (again, that’s everyone)...”
To view eschatology from an amillenial perspective is truly to see the second coming as our “blessed hope”, where God raises the dead, judges the world and makes all things new.
My above synopsis of Dr. Riddlebarger’s lecture on the covenant theology is in stark disagreement with Adventist theology on several points. First, Adventism argues that the structure of the Bible is “great controversy”. With this hermenuetic, it is impossible to see the internal architecture of the Bible as God’s sovereignly designed and directed plan of redemption which is never in doubt. It is akin to the error of the Epicureans who saw everything as contingent. Second, amillenialism sees the second coming as the final consummation of all things where God raises the dead, judges the world and makes all things new. Adventism sees the second coming as one step in the process of final consummation.
The historic creeds at least imply amillenialism. For instance, the Apostles’ Creed says this: “… He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there He will come to judge the living and the dead (that’s everyone).” The Nicene Creed reads similarly: “… He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead (again, that’s everyone)...”
To view eschatology from an amillenial perspective is truly to see the second coming as our “blessed hope”, where God raises the dead, judges the world and makes all things new.
Nate
Amen Nate.
Thanks for giving us such a clear synopsis of the covenants and the overarching covenant of grace. With this perspective many things become clear.
Do you agree with Riddlebarger’s view that the Decalogue is still binding on Christians?
I believe that the Decalogue rightly understood in the context of the entire Bible is binding, and the Sabbath becomes a beautiful symbol of God’s work of salvation and grace, as we enter His rest 24/7 every day of the week. To reduce the Sabbath to the legalistic keeping of either Saturday or Sunday is a terrible mistake. The Law is upheld by the work of Christ and the 4th commandment represents Christ’s work for us.
I believe that many former SDAs (including myself) get involved in the pre-millennial views because it is an easier transition out of Adventism. Also, the influence in America to adopt these views is very strong. The Calvary Chapel movement attracts many former SDAs, and Chuck Smith (a great man of God) has had tremendous influence. This is also true of John MacArthur. Mac has actually made some quite disparaging statements about amillenialism, but he gets along well with the amils and gets invited to their common conferences.
There is so much harm done by the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture and the theology that a person can have a SECOND CHANCE to be saved if you miss the rapture. This doctrine also came from a young woman’s dream, Margaret MacDonald, back in the 1830’s just before the time of Ellen White.
I never understood the pre-trib rapture. It amazes me that so many Christian groups can find so many ‘cultic’ things and ‘aberrant doctrines’ with SDAs and other unorthodox denominations but such a doctrine that was basically started by one man (JN Darby) and has virtually no biblical support whatsoever is accepted by many of these same ‘cult finders’. (Slam the IJ ‘started by EGW and the pioneers in the mid-19th century” while supporting the secret rapture started by JN Darby in the mid-19th century. Kind of a double standard here I think)
I can’t understand how some can rail against the exegesis of the IJ in Daniel, but not see the utter transparency of using ‘two in the field and one shall be gone’ as evidence of a secret rapture. I also can’t understand how the 70th week of Daniel (which was a prophecy for Daniel’s people in captivity in Babylon) can be wrenched completely out of context and thrown 2500+years in the future. What a gross distortion of context!
Yes, the exegesis of Daniel 8:14 is faulty, however there is just as much biblical distortion out there in other areas of the Christian faith that seem to go unnoticed. The secret rapture is definitely one of them. (2 Corinthians 5:8 also comes to mind ; )
I never understood the pre-trib rapture. It amazes me that so many Christian groups can find so many ‘cultic’ things and ‘aberrant doctrines’ with SDAs and other unorthodox denominations but such a doctrine that was basically started by one man (JN Darby) and has virtually no biblical support whatsoever is accepted by many of these same ‘cult finders’. (Slam the IJ ‘started by EGW and the pioneers in the mid-19th century” while supporting the secret rapture started by JN Darby in the mid-19th century. Kind of a double standard here I think)
I can’t understand how some can rail against the exegesis of the IJ in Daniel, but not see the utter transparency of using ‘two in the field and one shall be gone’ as evidence of a secret rapture. I also can’t understand how the 70th week of Daniel (which was a prophecy for Daniel’s people in captivity in Babylon) can be wrenched completely out of context and thrown 2500+years in the future. What a gross distortion of context!
Yes, the exegesis of Daniel 8:14 is faulty, however there is just as much biblical distortion out there in other areas of the Christian faith that seem to go unnoticed. The secret rapture is definitely one of them. (2 Corinthians 5:8 also comes to mind ; )
I don’t want to get into the debate about the Rapture, etc., but even if you were correct in what you say, one major difference and reason why the countercult apologists “rail against the IJ” as cultic is because it changes and destroys the Gospel and the atonement of Christ, and presents a false gospel. It is a salvational issue. The timing of the Rapture is not, and Christians are free to disagree on such non-essentials, without breaking fellowship over them.
I don’t want to get into the debate about the Rapture, etc., but even if you were correct in what you say, one major difference and reason why the countercult apologists “rail against the IJ” as cultic is because it changes and destroys the Gospel and the atonement of Christ, and presents a false gospel. It is a salvational issue. The timing of the Rapture is not, and Christians are free to disagree on such non-essentials, without breaking fellowship over them.
Jeremy
Come on Jeremy, let’s get your anti-SDA hat off for a moment or two shall we? I am not speaking about the merits of the IJ as a doctrine. I am simply comparing it from an exegetical perspective in using Daniel 8:14 as a reference point. This is usually a starting point for people who rail against the IJ regardless of the meat of it. “It’s not even exegetically derivable!” they scream. This is my point and my comparison with doctrines such as the secret rapture, not the theological truths of the doctrines.
Must you constantly bring it all back to the “evils” of Adventist doctrine? Can’t you be somewhat subjective for once instead of always going off on your anti-SDA tirade? It really gets tiring.
I never understood the pre-trib rapture. It amazes me that so many Christian groups can find so many ‘cultic’ things and ‘aberrant doctrines’ with SDAs and other unorthodox denominations but such a doctrine that was basically started by one man (JN Darby) and has virtually no biblical support whatsoever is accepted by many of these same ‘cult finders’. (Slam the IJ ‘started by EGW and the pioneers in the mid-19th century” while supporting the secret rapture started by JN Darby in the mid-19th century. Kind of a double standard here I think)
I wonder how can you miss the fact that dispensationalism doesn’t teach that Jesus will stop his intercessory work a short time before his second coming leaving the believers without a Mediator and implicitly without a Savior (Hebrews 7:25). This doctrine is the new version of the Shut Door that even today’s adventists rejects as heretical, still projecting this shut door into the future. Also the IJ is a new version of the initial Shut Door teaching about the sanctuary, which was a reinterpretation of Miller’s message that failed to deliver what it promised. The entire package is built like an old jewish archeological site, over the ruins of failed enterprises having a built-in denial of God’s grace when sinners needs it most. While a deficient doctrine, dispensationalism doesn’t contain those elements that make IJ a denial of God’s grace and salvation in Christ.
guibox - 01 March 2010 02:47 PM
I can’t understand how some can rail against the exegesis of the IJ in Daniel, but not see the utter transparency of using ‘two in the field and one shall be gone’ as evidence of a secret rapture. I also can’t understand how the 70th week of Daniel (which was a prophecy for Daniel’s people in captivity in Babylon) can be wrenched completely out of context and thrown 2500+years in the future. What a gross distortion of context!
Well, if you don’t understand, how do you think you are qualified to give an informed opinion? I’m afraid that you’re in the old adventist tradition that criticizes other churches without taking the time and effort to understand the reasons. In a sense, that works in the advantage of the evangelical churches because this limits adventists’ ability to persuade dispensationalists is severly limited.
On another side, unfortunately, it is said that the dispensationalist teachings give fuel and courage to adventists in thinking that they are in a much better position in regard to eschatology than the alternative that’s on the market, and this perception gives them confidence that, even if their view has weak points, the alternative is much worse, not even worth to consider and evaluated as a possible alternative.
Coming back to the subject at hand, the 2500 years jump in the future is justified by the fact that in the prophetic perspective Jesus first coming and second coming was presented in the Old Testament prophetic language as a single event without a hint that the coming of kingdom in Christ’s humiliation and humble status is different than the coming of this kingdom in glory. A simple reading of the messianic prophecies of the OT will suffice to realize that what we today see as two distinct events. No wonder the Jews expected Messiah to institute a power kingdom. And because this didn’t happen because the Jews reject the kingdom by rejecting the King, dispensationalists believe that the coming of the kingdom was postponed, and this creates the gap. And this gap theory, based on the exegesis of Romans 11 and other texts leads to the reinterpretation of Daniel 9 and the reading into the text of this gap.
A similar gap is read into Daniel 8 by adventists: after the historical empires who activate at the local level and in a time-frame limited to the ancient near-east area, suddenly a new empire appears that goes from earth to heavens, and instead of the earthly sanctuary in an earthly Jerusalim an attack on the heavenly sanctuary is postulated without any internal and exegetical reasons. What is missing in the picture is that Daniel 9 was not meant by early adventists (millerites) to stand alone as the single textual proof for the year 1844 as fulfillment of prophecy, but together with other 14 proofs. This means that the interpretation of Daniel 8 is informed by the other 14 lines of biblical data, similar to the way in which Romans 11 is the essential biblical data that informs the interpretation of Daniel 9. The difference is that adventists deliberately found the other 14 proofs inadequate and renounced them being left with few if any theological reasons to read a jump from earth to heaven and from 2300 literal evening and mornings to 2300 years which cannot be confirmed in any other place. The millerites didn’t have this problem and dispensationalists have also no problem when they argue for a gap in Daniel 9 based on their Romans 11 exegesis. In order to prove them wrong Romans 11 should be addressed first and as Riddlebarger pointed so well, and also their doctrine of covenants. While dispensationalists err, their errors have just the appearance of stupidity for an uninformed mind, and nobody should take their arguments lightly. Their system of belief has gain respect and should be dealt adequately, a respect that the adventist theology only can dream to gain.
Come on Jeremy, let’s get your anti-SDA hat off for a moment or two shall we? I am not speaking about the merits of the IJ as a doctrine. I am simply comparing it from an exegetical perspective in using Daniel 8:14 as a reference point. This is usually a starting point for people who rail against the IJ regardless of the meat of it. “It’s not even exegetically derivable!” they scream. This is my point and my comparison with doctrines such as the secret rapture, not the theological truths of the doctrines.
Point well taken, but don’t you agree that a starting point doesn’t imply to be the central point of disagreement?
I mean, do you think that the criticism, if ever, should start from the foundation and take care of what is built on that foundation afterward? For example, I will not bother to criticize the theory of evolution but I will ask how this theory of evolution explains the apparition of life on the earth and there is no explanation respecting the standards that even scientists established for a theory to be accepted. The theory of evolution cannot explain the apparition of life, even if it pretends to explain the evolution of life better than the creationists do. Still, why bother with evolution if it cannot explain the apparition of life, beside a “by chance” statement and some attempts that cannot be considered scientifically adequate but only theoretical possibilities.
In the same way the IJ has the 1844 and the exegesis of Daniel 8 at its basis. And if this basis cannot be established firmly, why discuss the IJ itself? As a starting point, if someone wants to take issue with the IJ, the exegesis of Daniel 8 is the normal choice. But not the exegesis of Daniel 8 is what makes the IJ heretical and the SDA Church preach another gospel, what is built on Daniel 8 constitutes another gospel. Just because somebody criticizes the adventist exegesis of Daniel 8 while having holes in his exegesis of Daniel 9 doesn’t constitute another standard because he doesn’t think that the adventist exegesis of Daniel 8 is heretical in itself, but it’s only the basis for a heretical gospel.
guibox - 01 March 2010 03:56 PM
Must you constantly bring it all back to the “evils” of Adventist doctrine? Can’t you be somewhat subjective for once instead of always going off on your anti-SDA tirade? It really gets tiring.
Jeremy made the necessary distinction that was missing in your statement that conflated the IJ with the exegesis of Daniel 8 in order to appear that if you classify the adventist exegesis of Daniel 8 as heresy consistency requires to classify the dispensationalist exegesis of Daniel 9 as heresy and both groups should receive the cultic label. If you will not bring constantly your anti-anti-SDA tirade, Jeremy and I will not bother you with the real evils of the adventist doctrine.
I don’t want to get into the debate about the Rapture, etc., but even if you were correct in what you say, one major difference and reason why the countercult apologists “rail against the IJ” as cultic is because it changes and destroys the Gospel and the atonement of Christ, and presents a false gospel. It is a salvational issue. The timing of the Rapture is not, and Christians are free to disagree on such non-essentials, without breaking fellowship over them.
Jeremy
Come on Jeremy, let’s get your anti-SDA hat off for a moment or two shall we? I am not speaking about the merits of the IJ as a doctrine. I am simply comparing it from an exegetical perspective in using Daniel 8:14 as a reference point. This is usually a starting point for people who rail against the IJ regardless of the meat of it. “It’s not even exegetically derivable!” they scream. This is my point and my comparison with doctrines such as the secret rapture, not the theological truths of the doctrines.
Must you constantly bring it all back to the “evils” of Adventist doctrine? Can’t you be somewhat subjective for once instead of always going off on your anti-SDA tirade? It really gets tiring.
You’re missing my point. I’m saying that even if you’re right about the pre-trib rapture being exegetically unsound, and even if the apologists agreed with that, why would they waste a lot of time railing against something that they see as very insignificant and irrelevant, when it comes to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, which is what they are focusing on?
By the way, are you sure you want me to be “subjective”?
Very quickly, it is easy to see that this perspective of the covenants makes perfect sense of Christ’s person and work, where a covenant Mediator’s perfect obedience (required by a covenant of works) is imputed to all He represents, and He removes the curse (earned by their disobedience to the covenant of works) from them, thus earning them the blessings of the covenant of promise.
Nate, I found that the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience is often the missing element in the presentation of the gospel and its absence gives fuel to the adventist accusation that evangelicals preach “cheap grace.” They understand rightly that not only the curse of the law must be removed, but also positive obedience is required in order to obtain the blessings of eternal life. When they hear that God’s salvation is obtained without the condition of obedience, they feel that something is missing in the picture and perceive all the affair as a disparaging of the law. In a sense, if only Christ’s removal of the curse is what Christ did for us, we are required to satisfy the requirements of the covenant of works in order to obtain the blessings. And if this requirement is not satisfied, either by personal obedience or by the obedience of another, the grace of blessing disregards justice and it is indeed “cheap grace”, it is antinomianism, more subtle but still present.
That doesn’t mean that presenting Christ’s active obedience as imputed to us this will remove the “cheap grace” refrain, it will just invalid what was a valid objection until that point.
Gabriel, I take it from your vehement defense of the pre-trib rapture that you are an advocate of it. If so, I make no apologies when I say that you have no basis to stand on in your criticism of exegeting Daniel 8:14. Both the 2300 years and the futurization of Daniel 9 in explaining the rapture are both far removed from and a gross neglect of the historical context of when and who they were written for which is the primary focus in covenantal prophecy which Daniel 8 and 9 are..
I wish, wish, wish that I could find Lee F Greer’s excellent exegesis of the Levitical covenantal interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9. It blows everything else I’ve ever read out of the water.
Gabriel, I take it from your vehement defense of the pre-trib rapture that you are an advocate of it. If so, I make no apologies when I say that you have no basis to stand on in your criticism of exegeting Daniel 8:14. Both the 2300 years and the futurization of Daniel 9 in explaining the rapture are both far removed from and a gross neglect of the historical context of when and who they were written for which is the primary focus in covenantal prophecy which Daniel 8 and 9 are..
I wish, wish, wish that I could find Lee F Greer’s excellent exegesis of the Levitical covenantal interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9. It blows everything else I’ve ever read out of the water.
Guibox,
I will let Gabriel answer for himself, but he does not hold to the pre-trib rapture and is in the amillenial camp of solid Reformed theology.
What I see so harmful in the pre-trib rapture is the doctrine of a SECOND CHANCE for salvation if one can refuse the mark of the beast, which means that if you miss the rapture, then you can gain salvation by works. I see this as serious error.
Gabriel, I take it from your vehement defense of the pre-trib rapture that you are an advocate of it. If so, I make no apologies when I say that you have no basis to stand on in your criticism of exegeting Daniel 8:14. Both the 2300 years and the futurization of Daniel 9 in explaining the rapture are both far removed from and a gross neglect of the historical context of when and who they were written for which is the primary focus in covenantal prophecy which Daniel 8 and 9 are..
I wish, wish, wish that I could find Lee F Greer’s excellent exegesis of the Levitical covenantal interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9. It blows everything else I’ve ever read out of the water.
.Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha , ha, ha, ha , ha, ha, ha, ha.
Read this thread and the continuation of the discussion on the next page. In them I made a case that reformation soteriology (TULIP) doesn’t fit with dispensationalism and why dispensationalists usually are hostile to calvinism. My comments at that time were perceived as divisive since I said that the evangelical churches that surround me are hostile to calvinism and I pointed to what I think is one big root of opposition. Some dispensationalists go as far as classifying calvinism as heresy. Just some excerpt from my posts at that time:
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 24 January 2009 11:38 AM
We may say that eschatology is a secondary issue, still it’s a difficult problem for those who want to believe in the Doctrines of Grace as members of a dispensationalist denomination. This problem persists even when the leader of the church is himself a Calvinist. John MacArthur and his church are a perfect example, he’s both a Calvinist and also a dispensationalist. [...]
Embracing the Doctrines of Grace will lead people to see that election and predestination is individual, that God has one people, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, and that his promises apparently made to ethnic Israel were intended to be fulfilled only in respect with a remnant, and they were fulfilled when Christ came. There is no future fulfillment, a restoration of the earthly kingdom of Israel in the millennium. That conclusion about eschatology is the natural outcome of the Calvinistic exegesis of Romans 9.
I don’t have reformed churches in my city. I have only pentecostal, baptist, and some kind of evangelical churches, and all are Premillennarian Dispensationalists, like MacArthur. By default, these churches will feel threatened by the reformed interpretation of Romans 9. It strikes at the heart of their eschatology. The Doctrine of Grace and the reformed hermeneutic are a threat to them.
And this brings me to my initial question: can the Doctrines of Grace be extracted and planted in different contexts? Are these contexts neutral or hostile? Can this movement in the right direction survive? Or is doomed to failure because of hostile contexts? Is it essential for those involved in this movement to move forward and adopt a more consistent view with the doctrines of grace in secondary aspects, or they can remain happily in this condition thinking that they can influence further generations toward adopting Calvinism?
To see clearly how opposed to dispensationalism I am, here is the end of another of my posts:
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 25 January 2009 01:35 PM
My point is that you can’t take the Doctrine of Grace and plant them in any context. It’s like putting new wine in old wineskines.It destroys the skins. You can’t interpret Romans 9 and talk about individual election FOR SALVATION and present blessings enjoyed by Israel and came to an entirely different understanding of Romans 11 than dispensationalists, destroying completely their arguments about a future literal, political, kingdom of Israel. If Romans 9 speaks about current election for salvation it results that “all Israel will be saved” inevitably will mean that ethnic Israel’s salvation consists in the same salvation we currently enjoy: from the condemnation and power of sin. No future for ethnic Israel in an earthly kingdom. Sorry, it can’t be. Dispensationalists will resist the reformed interpretation of Romans 9-11 and will see it as the greatest threat, if they are conscious about what’s at stake.
While I’m disagreeing stronly with dispensationalism, I took time and energy to understand them and their hermeneutics and approach to the Bible in order to address their real position and not a straw man. Riddlebarger’s lectures and his two books A Case for Ammilenialism and The Man of Sin were excellent in bringing me to a solid covenant theology and ammilenial position.
You don’t know why you disagree with the dispensationalists and you evidently don’t even bother to understand the dispensationalist position. All you were able until this point was to express your disdain for it. And you went so far as to label me as dispensationalist despite of the clear evidence to the contrary. I was perceived as divisive for my position that dispensationalism is hostile to calvinism and and now I’m labeled as being dispensationalist.
What I find highly problematic is that you accused me of being a dispensationalist in spite of saying clealry that dispensationalists err in their approach on this thread. Perhaps you had not read the other threads, but while I can’t expect you to be aware of the others, I don’t know why I’m accused implicitly of lying about my eschatological position. Please don’t do this again.
Thanks for giving us such a clear synopsis of the covenants and the overarching covenant of grace. With this perspective many things become clear.
Do you agree with Riddlebarger’s view that the Decalogue is still binding on Christians?
I believe that the Decalogue rightly understood in the context of the entire Bible is binding, and the Sabbath becomes a beautiful symbol of God’s work of salvation and grace, as we enter His rest 24/7 every day of the week. To reduce the Sabbath to the legalistic keeping of either Saturday or Sunday is a terrible mistake. The Law is upheld by the work of Christ and the 4th commandment represents Christ’s work for us.
I believe that many former SDAs (including myself) get involved in the pre-millennial views because it is an easier transition out of Adventism. Also, the influence in America to adopt these views is very strong. The Calvary Chapel movement attracts many former SDAs, and Chuck Smith (a great man of God) has had tremendous influence. This is also true of John MacArthur. Mac has actually made some quite disparaging statements about amillenialism, but he gets along well with the amils and gets invited to their common conferences.
There is so much harm done by the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture and the theology that a person can have a SECOND CHANCE to be saved if you miss the rapture. This doctrine also came from a young woman’s dream, Margaret MacDonald, back in the 1830’s just before the time of Ellen White.
Thanks again Nate.
Stan
Hey Stan,
Thanks for your kind words. I know that Gabriel could express what I’ve said above much more precisely and elegantly.
I agree with Riddlebarger in the sense that the Law itself isn’t abolished. If the Law is abolished then we have nothing to point us to our need for a Savior. However, I think that the modern continental reformed churches (such as Riddlebarger’s) have basically taken a Scottish reformed view of the Sabbath (even if their creed doesn’t take that view). All the Belgic confession says on the subject is that all the types and shadows from the Mosaic economy have passed away with Christ’s first advent (which is consistent with Calvin’s exegesis of the fourth commandment). The Westminster says that Sunday has replaced Saturday as the new covenant Sabbath. Even though I disagree with Westminster on this, I have to say that the Presbyterian church I am a member of is much more even-handed with the Sabbath issue than Adventism ever was in my experience.
I definitely agree with you Stan that dispensationalism is a serious error. The thing I find most serious about it is the fact that classic dispensationalists have supported the idea of different ways of salvation during the different dispensations (a clear denial of Hebrews 11). Their hermeneutic is flawed. They assume that the Old Testament prophecies of Israel returning to the land have to be literal (which Riddlebarger argues is actually a literalistic interpretation), therefore when the writers of the New Testament interpret those passages differently they have to explain it away. We have to allow the New Testament writers to be our infallible interpreters of the Old Testament (as they undoubtedly are).
