This one was stumbled upon by accident and I confess I’ve not done much more than skim it. Jack Kelley at the Bible Prophecy Today website writes about animal sacrifice in the millennial kingdom. In the article he makes the rather astounding claim that when the millennial kingdom begins Jesus will re-institute the sacrificial system. The Jews will continue to be guided by the requirements of the law and will have none of the same assurances of salvation we enjoy as believers. With the church age ended at the rapture, the reign of the Old Testament law (returns? continues?).

Some of the things in the article caused rather bemused reactions from me, others caused a bit of agitation. I was a bit amused with the following image:

In the coming age, men on Earth will look up into the sky and see the New Jerusalem, home of the Church, in orbit nearby. It will be their source of light and though they’ll never be able to visit it, descriptions of its beauty and majesty will stagger their imaginations. All of creation will stand in awe of this display of the incomparable riches of God’s grace.

and angered by this one:

In an earlier study, The Nature Of Post Church Salvation, I made the case that post Church believers, whether Jew or Gentile, will not enjoy the seal of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their inheritance. Eternal Security is a blessing for the Church alone and ends with the end of the Age of Grace at the Rapture.

Can anyone really argue that the promise of assurance and security will someday come to an end? His “proof” comes from two passages (Rev. 14:12; Rev. 16:15) which seem to require both faith and obedience – something he seems to argue could only be required of those not part of the church: “…the Lord had John say that both obedience and faith will be required of Tribulation believers, whereas the Church is saved by grace through faith alone.” I trust any regular readers here will immediately recognize the enormous problem in this teaching. I won’t elaborate. Ask in the comments if it is not clear to you.

There is lots more. As I said, I just skimmed and I don’t want to tackle all the problems. I suspect this represents the more extreme end of dispensationalism rather than normative dispensationalism. We shall see.

You’ve most likely heard the gap illustration of salvation. Just to refresh your memory, it goes like this.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and caused a great void to open up between man and God. There was no way we could cross that void. It was a deep canyon with God on one side and man on the other.

Jesus gave the solution by crossing the canyon, something we could not do. He came among us and lived and died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. The cross then became the bridge between God and man, giving us the means to cross the canyon and reach God. Through the cross we can find God and salvation.

Let me suggest an alternate picture.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and all creation fell as though down a huge cliff. We stood at the bottom of that cliff with God at the top. Nothing we do would enable us to climb the cliff.

Jesus presented the solution by descending the cliff. He stepped down from high above and lived among fallen humanity. He died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. Through the cross he draws us to himself. Jesus then ascends back to God at the top of the cliff, taking us with him.

The difference in these two illustrations is enormous. In both of them God is the one who makes salvation possible. Man is helpless to make a way to God. But in the first God only makes salvation possible, not certain – and only in a world different from our own. In the first illustration Jesus creates a bridge we must walk across to be saved, but this ignores man’s inability to walk toward God. Dead in our sins, we neither have the desire nor the ability to approach God. We are enemies in rebellion against him. The first illustration is truly semi-Pelagian in imagining some ability remains in man so that he can walk to God. Perhaps some who present this illustration would include the Arminian notion of prevenient grace, the belief that God has enabled people to respond to him. This would take the illustration out of the realm of Pelagian heresy but it still leaves the person with an ability the Bible says we simply do not have.

The second illustration does a better job of presenting the biblical picture. It is not perfect, no illustration can contain everything, but it shows that man is not capable of any of the work to reach God.

God brings us to himself. He descends the cliff, does what is necessary to bring us into righteousness, then wraps his arms around us and carries us with him back into Heaven. This is what it means to be saved, to be found in the arms of Christ when he has returned to his heavenly home. “But wait!” you say “He was raised 2,000 years ago! I was not there, I could not have been risen with him!” Ahh but you were, dear saint. Thus we are told a few times in the New Testament, as at Ephesians 2:6, that God has raised us up with him and ​seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. In an event that is both very real and very mysterious, all the saints of God were raised with Jesus Christ. He carried us from the fallen world to the throne of his Father. This is the only way our salvation could take place.

Perhaps I should make some tracts.

The latest Ask Pastor John is well timed, I’ve had several comments and questions about paraphrase Bibles lately.

Much has been made about the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC. More young people, and not a few older pastors, are embracing a theology of salvation that closely resembles that which was taught by John Calvin. 

The label Calvinism is a convenience. Use the word and people (sometimes) know (sort of) what you are talking about, though to my surprise I see several people claim the title Calvinist who really aren’t very Calvinistic in their thinking. But the label tends to imply something untrue: that people have studied the teachings of John Calvin and have devoted themselves to those teachings. The truth is that Calvinists are those who have studied Scripture and have drawn conclusions from Scripture similar to the conclusions drawn by John Calvin.

What we have in the SBC is not a resurgence of Calvinism but a resurgence of Scripture. Conservatives won the struggle in the 80’s and 90’s to move the denomination away from liberalism, but too many conservative pastors did little more than give lip service to the Bible, failing to use the Bible any more than the liberals. I attended a revival service several weeks ago during which the preacher talked a lot about how important the Bible is but he never once faithfully unfolded Scripture. He used a few springboard text and filled his long sermon with personal anecdotes. This can also be seen in most of the material that comes out of Lifeway. I often get angry when I look at how they handle various texts. Irresponsible, shallow, misleading, sour milk, frequently missing the point, using the word of God as a springboard to the things they want to talk about. These things happen too often in the SBC but by the grace of God this pattern just might be changing.

Again, what we have in the SBC is not a resurgence of Calvinism but a resurgence of Scripture. We have people faithfully studying the Scriptures. The end result is their theology looks like that of John Calvin. But these people are also talking about and teaching the Bible with greater faithfulness. This in itself can be a challenge to churches that are not used to well grounded biblical preaching but it is a challenge we must push through if we are to grow in the Lord.

Praise God for the resurgence of the Bible in the SBC. May it continue and may it spread.

Where is the world headed? What will be the high point of the history of the world? Estimates of the age of the universe vary, anywhere from 6,000 years to 15 billion years or so. Whatever the case, in that time God has done many, many amazing acts. Creation, protection, overthrowing mighty rulers, raising the dead, walking on water, healing the sick, talking donkeys, saving people from sin and death, etc etc. The history of the world is absolutely packed with the wonders of God’s glory and grace. What will be the high point?

I would say there isn’t really a high point, that it all just keeps growing greater and greater. At some point the history of creation will come to an end (sort of, not really – it will all be made new) but our experience will not end. I believe our enjoyment of God will only grow throughout eternity and thus the glory God receives from us will grow. There will be no high point, just newer and newer heights of delight and glory.

Having that in my mind I am a bit astonished at what Ryrie sees as the high point of history. It is possible he is drawing a line between temporal history and eternal history, drawing out the high point of creation history before the end of all things, but I don’t think he makes this distinction. Nonetheless, if the question is limited to temporal history, I would say the high point has already passed, that it took place at the cross. In all of human history, in the time before God finally closes his work on earth, the cross is the moment when God was most glorified.

So, in the span of eternity there is no high point, in the span of world history the cross was the high point.

Ryrie says the high point of history is found in the millennial kingdom. The significance of the millennium is it stands as the climax of all that has happened: “The entire program culminates, not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God’s program for the ages.” (108)

The presence of the comma before the second clause causes some confusion. Is Ryrie specifying that the high point of history, not including any consideration about eternity, is found in the millennial reign, or is he saying that the high point is found in history, not in eternity, and it is the millennial reign? I believe he is saying the latter. Earlier in the book Ryrie makes this statement: “Concerning the goal of history, dispensationalists find it in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth, whereas the covenant theologian regards it as the eternal state.” (21) There he makes a clear distinction between the dispensationalist view of temporal history and the covenant theology view of the eternal. He goes on to say that the dispensationalist does not minimize the importance of eternity but he never really says what he thinks God is doing in eternity. Perhaps that will come later.

It seems very strange to me to see all that God has done in history, all his mighty acts including the infinite value of the gift of the precious Son of God, finding their culmination, their goal, their end in a period that will only last 1000 years. This greatly undervalues the importance and majesty of God’s work. It may well be that I am missing something, I’m still new to the details of dispensationalism and still have a lot of reading to do, but I believe I have presented Ryrie accurately.

That ends the main part of my post, what follows is me following out loud a train of thought. Jump in if my reasoning is faulty somewhere.

Here is another question/observation. Dispensationalists distinguish God’s work with Israel from God’s work with the church. The rapture would separate the church so that most (not all, assuming some people are saved after the rapture) Christians are not (physically?) present during the millennial reign. The millennium fulfills God’s promises to Israel, bringing about the powerful, secure, mighty nation of Israel with God on the throne. So what does the cross have to do with the millennium? Does the death of Jesus Christ have a specific purpose for the millennial kingdom? If God’s purposes for the church and for Israel are distinct, and the church is made up of those who have become the children of God through the death of Christ, I’m not sure what role the cross would play in the millennial kingdom. That would make Ryrie’s claim all the more astounding since he would be saying the goal of history involves something that has nothing to do with the cross. Am I making any sense?

I do want to note that Ryrie is clear that dispensationalists believe there is only one way of salvation. There is not one way for Jews to be saved and another for Christians. All who are saved receive salvation only through Jesus Christ by faith, so even those Jews who experience salvation do so only because of Jesus.

Whatever the case, this whole notion strikes me as very odd and it reduces the significance of God’s work. The kingdom of God is eternal, not temporal, and entrance into the kingdom is through the cross. Those in the kingdom will be in it forever and will forever grow in their delight of God, giving him increasing measures of glory.

Somewhere along the way my website decided to oppose itself. I have a “Subscribe to feed” link at the top that sends a user to my feed via Feedburner but I also have an RSS feed defined in the code that had been pointing visitors to the local RSS feed.

I would prefer people subscribe to my blog through Feedburner. The main reason for this is to make things more flexible if I ever decide to change blogging software. Another reason is it helps give me some idea of how many people are reading this site.

So, if you subscribe to my RSS feed please make sure it is through Feedburner.

It has been over a month since I wrote my post Blogging the System of Scripture, starting off my examination of dispensationalism vs covenant theology. Three things have slowed me down. First, I’m busy. Second, I’m a slow reader. Third, I’m still not entirely sure of the best way to blog through my study. I will probably do more of what I am doing here: the occasional short (or not so short) post addressing things I’ve come across. To start things off I’ve been making my way through Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism and I have a few thoughts.

First on the book itself. On the whole I appreciate Ryrie’s tone. I believe he is trying to be fair when he discusses covenant theology. I’ve already come across too much writing on both sides that seems to distort and slander rather than disagree fairly and with respect.

That said, Ryrie does one thing I hoped he wouldn’t do. He is spending far too much time talking about covenant theology. I expect him to address places where he thinks covenant theology is wrong and dispensationalism is right, but so far the amount of material devoted to covenant theology has been excessive and somewhat repetitive. He could say what he does with fewer words, but I’d prefer it if he said less about why covenant theology is wrong and more about why dispensationalism is right.

He does talk mostly about dispensationalism, of course, so I have some things to discuss.

One item that has come up several times is that dispensationalism always interprets the Bible literally while covenant theology does not. Ryrie acknowledges that those in the covenant theology camp may have a generally literal approach to the Bible but he says there are times when they must spiritualize passages in order to remain covenant theologians. He says the dispensationalist “admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy.” (93) Later he adds “Classic dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.” (97)

By way of example he mentions the Old Testament prophecies which speak of the establishment, prosperity, and security of the nation of Israel. Covenant theologians “are saying that these promises have been inaugurated and begun to be fulfilled now in the church age and will be consummated in the new heavens and new earth (the already/not yet concept)” while dispensationalists believe the promises will be fulfilled during the millennial reign of Christ. (100)

He stresses that all of the Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally, by which he means at face value. But there are some passages that it seems would be difficult to interpret from a dispensationalist perspective. I will mention two. The first is Isaiah 53:10 and the second is Ezekiel 37:26-28.

[esvbible format="inline" reference="Isaiah 53:10"]Isaiah 53:10[/esvbible]

The face value meaning of this passage is that the person spoken of in Isaiah 53 will have physical children.

How can this be taken at face value rather than recognizing that this is fulfilled in a spiritual sense? Would the dispensationalist argue on the side of Dan Brown that Jesus had children? Or, since the dispensationalist sees the fulfillment of many of these prophecies coming during the millennial kingdom, will Jesus have physical offspring during that time?

The passage must be understood as referring to spiritual offspring. Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are able to be the children of God. This is not immediately obvious in the text, and probably was not how the Old Testament saints understood the passage, but it becomes clear in the New Testament. Ryrie argues in favor of progressive revelation but nonetheless frowns on the idea that New Testament passages reveal spiritual interpretations to Old Testament promises.

[esvbible format="inline" reference="Ezekiel 37:26-28"]Ezekiel 37:26-28[/esvbible]

Ryrie says that dispensationalists believe the Old Testament promises regarding Israel will be fulfilled during the millenial kingdom (I will have another post soon dealing briefly with the dispensationalist view of the significance of the millennial kingdom). The dispensationalist, taking this passage at face value and placing its fulfillment in the millennial kingdom, is faced with an immediate problem. The millennial kingdom is millennial, it lasts 1000 years. Ezekiel tells us about a promise for the future of Israel that is eternal. There is no temporal limitation on the promise in this passage. This is not an oddity: many of the Old Testament promises regarding Israel are eternal in scope.

If we accept the dispensationalist view of a literal, face value reading of Scripture and we agree that these prophecies are positioned in the millennial kingdom then we have the odd condition of an eternal promise somehow fitting in a literal 1000 year period.

I think it is more fitting to avoid Ryrie’s distinction between a literal interpretation and a spiritual interpretation. The distinction is rather between different kinds of literal interpretation. The dispensationalist wants to interpret these passages in an isolated, face value fashion. I want to interpret them while including understanding from other parts of Scripture. Part of the dispensationalist error here is believing the Bible separates into different economies or dispensations and that the promises in one do not necessarily fit into another. There is a distinction made between physical Israel and the spiritual people of God so the promises of the New Testament do not help us when trying to understand the promises made specifically to Israel. I think this does a disservice to Scripture as an unfolding whole. As I mentioned before, Ryrie defends the notion of progressive revelation, but I don’t think he does it justice when one part of the Bible is in a sense cut off from another. He argues that dispensationalism does a better job of showing the unity of Scripture but theirs is a strange unity.

In that last paragraph I’m summarizing a number of other arguments made in the book. This post is already long enough so I won’t examine those arguments in detail. Perhaps that will come another time. Next in this series will be a brief look at the significance of the millennium.

Al Mohler writes about the Virgin Lips Movement, a growing trend among young people to save not just sex for marriage but to also save the first kiss. Mohler presents part of the rationale of this movement:

While sexual abstinence until monogamous marriage is the biblical standard, these young Christians see virginity as requiring more than reserving sexual intercourse for marriage.  They see kissing as an act of physical intimacy — a gateway drug to greater physical intimacy and involvement.

Sound crazy? When my wife and I first started dating we set the ground rules for our physical relationship. We could hug, we could hold hands, nothing more. Kissing was out. Our first kiss was on our wedding day. I had dated girls prior to Sandra and did not have virgin lips but I wanted to do better with Sandra.

When we dated we were attending a small Christian college in a very conservative part of Mississippi. There of all places, what we did should have found support. But it was quite surprising to see the level of incredulity we faced when people learned we would not kiss. Since then the response among Christians has been more or less the same. Christians agree not to have sex but seem to have difficulty seeing that when dating couples kiss that in itself is an act of sexual intimacy even though it is not intercourse itself. Just how far are you willing to go in sexual activity? Mohler says:

As any minister who works with youth and young adults knows, the “how far is too far question” is a constant.  The Virgin Lips Movement represents a determination to stop that train before it leaves the station, so to speak.

What makes kissing easier to justify is that it is not always an act of sexual intimacy. But in a dating relationship how can it be considered anything else? What feelings – physical and emotional – are stirred when a couple kisses? Why is it that a certain kind of kissing is considered first base on the road to having sex?

Too often Christians are willing to follow the letter but not the spirit of God’s commands. Thus you have questions like “how far is too far?” or “how much can I get away with?” For many Christians the answer is kissing is okay, anything more is too far. But a growing number of Christians are recognizing that even kissing is going too far, that the first kiss should be saved for the wedding day. Anything else is playing with fire in a world full of gasoline.