I want to talk about one aspect of Covenant Theology that I believe deserves serious consideration. I understand that my reputation may alienate my sincerity here so I want to first add a few disclaimers. If you read this and say to yourself “that isn’t what I believe or that isn’t who I would associate with” then apparently I am not talking to you. Also, I have great friends, (30 minutes NE of me) who are much more brilliant than I am, who disagree with me in the issue of Covenant Theology. They are still brilliant men, but like all men are fallible. I do not fault them for that. All kidding aside, I have great respect for many “leaky dispensationalist”/ historic premil guys not so much for old school Scofield/Ryrie, two-ways-of-salvation guys. Although I do appreciate the Scofield/Ryrie group attempting to clean up that mess in the past 50 years, but they might want to look at the Lordship issue again. With that being said…
In the whole debate between dispensationalism and Covenant Theology the Covenant guys do have history on their side. I understand the historical grammatical argument that both sides take and you can deal with that on your own blog. Grudem used that same hermeneutic to come up with his “fallible” prophecy teaching. So there is room for error there.
However, the commonly held view that covenant theology was created by men like Cocceius in the seventeenth century is just not true. The early church Fathers used a lot of Covenantal language and as Scott Clark wrote, “They stressed the unity of the covenant of grace, the superiority of the NC of the OC that because Jesus is the true seed of Abraham, all Christians, whether Jewish or Gentile, are Abrahams children”. Most of you would agree with that statement.
While the Catholic/medieval Church began to redefine the term “covenant” it was that redefinition that Luther fought against during the reformation. Yet, others were already ahead of him in beginning to reestablishing the doctrine of the early church Fathers. John Calvin was a strong Covenant Theology guy teaching the covenant of works, redemption and grace.
And let’s face it any Baptist who uses and likes the term “reformed” wants to associate with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, yet it is so covenantal in its language I don’t know how anyone who considers themselves dispensational can say they adhere to it.
So basically this is all I am saying. For all of you out there who have some humility left and can admit we might be right. Remember, we have history on our side. If you are tired of being associated with LaHaye, Van Impe, Lindsey or the TBN charismatics when you know you don’t agree, come to our side. Its not bad company.
By the way, for the record, this is the first time I have taken a position on Covenant Theology.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
Scott glad to see you come to the position that I also came to many years ago. I’m in total agreement with you.
Pete
I’m going to sound terribly Catholic here…but the same men who tout the Cocceius myth are largely the same ones that either (a) hold to Kendall’s views which are easily debunked (see Paul Helm) and/or (b) haven’t a clue about the history of Covenant Theology itself. Dare I say they haven’t read Iranaeus if they really believe the Coccieus myth. CT goes back in some manner for at least that far. It’s not developed, but that’s equally true of a great deal of doctrine.
Yes, Cocceius could rightly be viewed in some respect, as the father of *modern* CT from the 17th century, but not CT itself. In fact his is preceded by many like Ursinus. It’s his version of CT, namely its completeness with respect to articulation that set a particular bar, and he wrote before Turretin…but he did not write in a vaccuum or out of touch with historical and biblical theology the past. Also, he was not alone, as he had contemporaries. In fact Turretin is often considered the one who set the bar, and it is often to his language that, when we differ among ourselves within CT, we defer on many things. Further Ames’ work helped frame the theology of the First Baptist Confession. Ames preceded Cocceius. All of this too is a highly caveated argument, because the Reformers, including Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger used covenantal categories in their work. Also, CT was given attention in the medieval period in the Franciscan Pactum theology, prior to the Reformation.
The accusation that modern CT is a late development has as much merit as the Arminian assertion that the Calvinist conception of God’s Providence is derivative of Neo-Platonism. To assert that, you have to trace the doctrine of God from at a minimum: Plato, Philo, Plotinus, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappacdoceans, Augustine, Boethisu, Anselm, Aquinas, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avencenna. That gets to early Scholasticism, then the Reformers, then Reformeds Scholasticism. To date, NOBODY, has connected all of those dots…but that doesn’t stop folks from trotting out the accusation. Ditto with statements about Coccieus. If they wish to make this accusation, they need to trace back through a number of individuals and not repeat Zane Hodges and others who repeat this myth ad infinitum. So, if folks wish to make the argument, let them…then proceed to ask them to trace their argument appropriately and watch it fall like a house of cards.
If you want to see this myth absolutely debunked, read Peter Golding’s book: Covenant Theology: The Key to Understanding Reformed Thought and Tradition. It’s only $12.99 at present and is available from Monergism Books @ http://www.monergism.com
I’d add that when it comes to church history and the argument that antiquity is not on our side, whoever/whatever “our side” might be, the argument itself generally assumes that if antiquity isn’t on your side by articulating doctrines and ideas the same way as they are articulated today. Aside from the obvious logical fallacy, the more specific problem here is that it fails to account for the nature of church history and historical theology. The church is not simply an institution, it is a living organism.
All things being equal, who understands more about any given academic topic: a toddler, a middle schooler, a teenager, an adult? The church in its early years should not be expected to articulate ideas and doctrines the way we do today. She was still working out whether or not God is a Trinity or a Modality. Just like a human being, she had to grow in her understanding. Vincent of Lerin was correct in that doctrine develops over time but remains historically connected to the past. This idealized and popularized Baptist version of church history that pretends they understood the same things we do about Scripture and theology is simply false, for the same reason that a middle school child has less understanding of, let’s say, mathematics than he will as high school or college student. They may understand bits and pieces today, but it takes time for them to learn, think, and articulate truth. The truths are still there, and they were always true, but that person’s understanding and articulation of them required several stages of development for him to develop the skills and experience necessary for him to understand these more developed concepts. Is this an argument for post-modernism or Vatican 2′s theory of development? No, because (a) Scripture is the final arbiter of these truths and biblical history shows very clearly that a generation may lose much or not understand something the past did or a past generation may not understand or misunderstand something a future generation understood properly. A cursory reading of the OT proves that much. Also (b) Vatican II represents a perversion of Vincent’s ideas, where truth is what the church says it is, no matter what the past might show. That’s not Vincent’s view at all.
Why try to convert the converted to such a “non-issue”? Why not go after the “non-reformed” guys on systematic theology, soteriology, etc.? It’s fine that you believe in CT (although I think it has flaws), but I see the “…please come to our side…” attitude as a waste of effort, focusing on making other Christinas conform to your “lens” you see scripture through, instead of focusing on right doctrine, etc. Shouldn’t we as Christians be focusing more on evangelism, discipleship and building community? The prayer of Jesus to the Father in John 17 is “that they may be one [the believers], even as we are one.” I feel that you guys are often found beating the Covenant Theology drum too loudly when there are other “instruments” to play…
It’s all well and good to talk of historical theology, linking our present convictions with heroes of the past, and we can benefit from a comparative analysis of systematics…but in the end, neither of these disciplines can settle the issues because all theology must be grounded in the text first. And before everyone assumes their particular system is axiomatically textual…remember that unless it is exegetically (NOT systematically) grounded, it is flawed. And let’s not forget that analogia scriptura does not mean “checking OT passages with NT systematics”. The analogy of scripture means letting the exegesis of EVERY text speak, then comparing what they yield. Real antinomies indicate a flaw in one’s exegesis on one or both passages in question. The idea that textual disagreements can be solved by simply reading larger theological concepts into other texts violates the purest textual comparisons. If we truly believe that scripture NEVER contradicts itself, then when two passages seem to present opposing views, we must first determine whether an actual contradiction exists…If one does, my textual work is flawed somewhere. If I find that no contradiction exists, but the comparison reveals an apparent dilemma in my systematic theology…then I must adjust my system, allowing exegetical theology to define all others, and not the other way around.
This is not an historical or systemics issue…it is an hermeneutical one. If your exegesis is dominated by an “airtight system” (dispensational or covenantal) that cannot be reshaped, your hermeneutic has already leaked.
Jerry,
Thanks for breathing some fresh air of sanity into this arena. I find your comments in the blogosphere always insightful, penetrating and wise. Thanks for the clarity of your thinking. We all need it.
Jerry, you know I agree with you. This post was meant as kind of a slight jab at some close friends, and nothing more.
I wouldn’t stand on any theology on mere historical backing alone, and I am not attempting to alienate anyone with that post.
In fact don’t think for a second that knowing men like yourself, Dr. MacArthur, and the friends I referred too, whom I have great respect for your exegetical ability even beyond my own, didn’t wiegh heavy on me for the last couple of years as I have continued to work through this theology.
St. Brainstine, I have no desire to convert anyone to anything other than faith in Christ.
In defense of Scott’s stated purpose in this post, he acknowledged I understand the historical grammatical argument that both sides take … Grudem used that same hermeneutic to come up with his “fallible” prophecy teaching. So there is room for error there.
So he (and I for that matter) agree with everything the Jerry said. Scott’s thoughts were more of poke in the ribs to some of his Dispensational friends who readily admit that the dispensational hermeneutic has flaws just like the covenental hermeneutic does. But since both hermeneutics (and all hermeneutics) are flawed (primarily because no exegete is infallible) then why not at least use the most historically respected hermeneutic. Again, he knows why… its just a question that should be asked.
For me, there came a time that I was both a respector and user of the dispy hermeneutic and the covenental hermeneutic, because both have their strengths and weaknesses. Eventually, I became convinced from exegetical study and theological reasoning that CT was more consistent, more grammatically accurate, and more theologically sound. So rather than call myself a Dispy exegete who respects my Covenant colleagues, I realized that it would be more accurate to call myself a CT exegete who respects my Dispy colleagues.
Some may think it does not matter. They have a right to that opinion. But my love for the text demands of me to develop my hermeneutic, test it, improve it, and never stop striving to be more Biblical.
That’s due to lack of practice.
Scott -
I certainly don’t take issue with your posting a salvo in the direction of specific individuals. It’s your blog…do what you want.
But just a help or two…
You said, “In the whole debate between dispensationalism and Covenant Theology the Covenant guys do have history on their side.”
The history of what? Systematic theology? Hermeneutics? Statements like these are not your best foot forward, because without narrowing your field of research the statement is fallacious. Have you settled the issue of which clear set of interpretive principles were universally used among Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers? What about clearing up the matter of who were the actual allegorists in church history? Point being, that just because one can find related theology in the early church doesn’t attest to the soundness of contemporary systems or hermeneutics.
As far as Grudem’s miscue on prophecy, it doesn’t help your claim because he has already been soundly challenged as to his misapplication (at least on one of his “pet” passages) of a universal principle of Greek grammar (though to date he has not responded), and therefore, the culprit of his “fallible” prophecy view is not the grammatico-historical method, but his unsound use of it.
You said, “For all of you out there who have some humility left and can admit we might be right.”
I agree that over-dogmatism is a sign of pride, and that we all must invite cross-examination in order to bring clarity. And yes, you may indeed be right. But I would caution your particular blog on this issue, however, because several of your pro-covenantal posts have sweepingly intimated both the ignorance and theological blindness of anyone outside Covenantalism. You might want to save such strong language for a doctoral work in these disciplines. I have no quarrel with your convictions…but would like to see your site remain the helpful forum it continues to be.
Just a clarification…
I wasn’t intending to imply that only doctors of theology can decide these things, simply that we who are still grappling with intermediate theology should not presume to speak as though “Masters to the uninitiated.”
Jerry,
Amen and Amen (because I too like your blog).
That is, I amen to Jerry because I like FIDE-O’s blog along with other like-minded persons whom I hopefully speak for.
Bret, I will get to that, but right now I am working on a sermon from Matthew 8 on why you should love your mother in law.
You know the only reason I posted this was to see if you were still alive. I couldn’t really tell from your blog.
Seriously, though I am currently working through Romans 11, but I will let you know what I come up with.
Jerry, if I at all came across as “Masters to the uninitiated.” that was not my intention. Trust me I approach this subject with much humility, because I know with whom I disagree. The three guys I picked on could, if they chose to destroy me, and I understand that.
However, while most of what I said was in jest, including the crack about those left with humility, I do take this seriously. Mostly looking at the practical application. The one thing I always want to know when looking at any theology is the “so what”. How is this going to affect me walk?
Also by history, I just meant John Calvin. ;>)
I knew this would happen eventually. The debate will be whose interpretive principles are more sound. Dr. Thomas famously has compared the pre-70′s to the post-70′s definitions. One exegete smuggly says to the next in reference to his exegesis, “You can’t do that to the text!” And the other says, “Based on whose rules?”
At this rate, we come to an impasse. We can’t play the game because we can’t agree on the rules. The problem is that each side absolutizes its rules and overly reacts to what the other side says.
It is sad really. The amazing thing is this usually happens only to the acedemics. The average-Joe theologian utilizes the best rules of both sides and plays “the game.” He grows in his knowledge of Scripture and relationship with its Author. He can understand the strengths and weakness of both Dispensationalism and CT, his systematic Calvinistic theology is strengthened, and his life and ministy is blessed.
In the mean time, acedemics “dig in” to their hermeneutic rules… the progressive dispensationalists go one way, the evangelial missiologists go another way, evangelical feminism that way, open theism another, and new revised schools of hermeneutics pop up all the time.
So I highly respect the “doctors of theology” but am thankful that in my ministry environment I am able to not be pressured to over-react to the latest fads of hermeneutical error. I do not want to be neither literal to a fault nor allegorical to a fault. I want to remain balanced in my objective approach to the text and subjective love for the Lord. (Calvin taught us how that is possible.) I want to be right — and objective truth is the means to that end. May I be humble enough to search the unsearchable Scriptures and discover that eternal truth.
Thanks for the clarification Scott…
May men like Drs. Thomas and Farnell continue to keep this issue on a front burner for us. May the knowledge of the Text be our goal, and sound hermeneutics be our means. May we discover how to get both CT and “whatever-you-may-call-yourself” to agree upon the rules of the game and then get busy about the work of rightly dividing the word, line upon line, precept upon precept. May noone feel unworthy to participate but rather may we all feel the necessity to participate! Thankfully God has graced us with both the academics and the unlearned… O how marvelous the Body of Christ! Lets stand and sing “Amazing Grace.”
There is a much better discussion on distinctions between Elders on Jason’s “HornsWoggle” post. Which, by the way I first thought was a Harry Potter reference that I didn’t get.
Jason -
Appreciate your heart.
You said, “The problem is that each side absolutizes its rules and overly reacts to what the other side says.”
Perhaps the above is true to an extent. But I don’t think the “impasse” is as simple as two sides trying to dictate the rules.
All of this seems to come down to two main issues:
(1) Which “rules” CAN BE CONSISTENTLY applied to any piece of literature (regardless of genre) without altogether destroying the perspicuity of “meaning”.
(2) Which “rules”, when applied as above, are able to demonstrate a clear, inductive line of thought to one’s exegetical theology.
If we oversimplify the debate into two camps playing by two equally legitimate sets of rules, we imply that meaning can have two inherent origins. I don’t believe that both sides are playing by “equally legitimate rules” at all points. We all may have flaws in how we apply the list of principles we forward, but our poor skills are no excuse for assuming that both camp’s rules are the “right” way to find objective meaning.
Granting that we all are inconsistent at times, how meaning is derived CONSISTENTLY is the crux of the issue. In other words, if one determines meaning in a contemporary context (everyday life) differently than one’s study of ancient literature, there must be demonstrable reasons (or assumptions) to justify such alterations. The discovery of objective meaning must be governed by the same proven principles for any human communication.
With all due respect, I believe that meaning is inherent within the authorial (divine and human) intent of normal human language. Human language has inherent characteristics (diachronic and synchronic) through which meaning is conveyed. If someone’s “rules” for finding meaning includes the freedom to deliberately apply the rules inconsistently and flexibly, they cannot claim a system that can guarantee access to intended meaning (let alone communicate in any meaningful way today). It’s as simple as that. So…no…I don’t think the debate is about two camps “dictating” the rules of the game. I think it is about various believers trying to discover the intended meanings of scripture—one camp’s “rules” can be applied more consistently across all biblical genres without doing violence to normal human language…and the other camp’s rules, while similar, have theological additives that, when applied to some texts, ultimately determine meanings beyond normal human language. The net effect of the latter is the flexibility of all rules of human language for which there is no known universal safeguard.
With utmost brotherly love,
Jerry
Postscript –
The fact that grammatico-historical exegetes have been inconsistent vis-à-vis the “literal” vs “figurative” issue does not mean that the set of principles is flawed as a clearer path to meaning.
Jerry,
Thank you for your gracious responses.
Just to clarify, I too do not believe that both sides are playing by “equally legitimate rules” at all points. When you used quotes in that sentence it seemed to me that you were implying that I said that or believe that. I do not.
I agree that there is only one set of legitimate rules. But do you know anyone who dares claim that their “set” is perfect?
Of course not. Dispys argue among themselves over grammatical issues as do CT’ers.
Which brings me to my point again.
As grammatico-historical-literal exegetes, none of us have “arrived” at a perfect hermeneutic. Which is why I am glad I know men like yourself, and Bret, James, and Stacy.
Glad to play a part…
But remember, neither of us has disputed that there are gaps in our respective systems, only that any set of interpretive principles, to be consistent, must not ever do violence to normal human language. Your Covenantalism derives meaning in some OT passages, not from the normal human language, but from theological frameworks in the NT (CT’s definition of “progressive revelation”). You claim this is a legitimate path to meaning in the OT, but cannot produce a set of universal parameters that safeguard the rest of scripture’s corpus against spiritualization, allegory, and hyper-typologicalism (no small confusion in church history).
So let’s not default to the “none-of-us-are-perfect” trump card. I resonate with you as a fellow-exegete, Jason, but your distinctly covenantal posts draw many sweeping theological conclusions which you call “exegetical” without actually demonstrating a “normal human language” path to your views. In fact, I could spiritualize many of the same passages you reference, coming to outlandish conclusions, and your hermeneutic would be no defense against me.
Continuing the dialogue…Friend!
Scott–
Yes, you may be right. Yes, I am tired of being associated with LaHaye, Van Impe, et al. But as Jerry has so eloquently said (paraphrased), “What saith the text of Scripture?” And the text for such issues as Israel and eschatology may be so compelling that the distaste for dealing with the above associations is worth it.
Bill Isley
Jerry,
You play a huge part for which we are all very grateful. Thank you for your dialogue.
Concerning my comments, I am not playing a “trump card” to say lets not dialogue. My “none-of-us-are-perfect” is an arguement precisely for dialogue. It is possible that only guys like us (not only us, but guys LIKE us) can have such a dialogue because we understand each others firm commitment the five solas — in this case sola Scriptura.
I am reminded how Dr. Thomas warned us all against letting things like philosophy influence our hermeneutic. Such striving for interpretive integrity is what makes such efforts vital to the continuing revival of sound preaching.
All I ask of my colleagues is to be careful not to make broad brush accusations that my theology is not as sound as your theology because I am smarter than you.
Of course, tongue-in-cheek statements, friendly pokes, and such are not my concern. Without having fun with one another some of this would be just too boring for me.
But the trump card that think is the worse among brothers is the “I am more educated than you so shut up” card. Your comments have graciously communicated your belief that I cannot back up my theological conclusions. Well, excuse me, if we all have to be as good with the languages as Calvin himself then we all need to shut up. And we not just stop talking about CT but also about any passage or any part of theology. I am sure you don’t absolutely mean it that way.
No, in my posts I have not given detailed exegetical proofs. Why? because that is not my purpose on this blog all the time. For example, I didn’t give extensive exegetical arguments when I wrote about calvinism, justification, faith, or evil — and there was no problem.
But I spoke for a few months on my CT views and now unless I figure out how to make my keyboard type Greek, I have made a grievous error.
Listen, brothers, I am fully aware that many of my colleagues believe that sound hermeneutics will only lead to Dispensationalism. I respectfully disagree. I use to be a Dispensationalist and now I am not.
So here is what we shall do. If I write something that someone thinks is incorrect, prove it. Thats how it has worked on Fide-O. If one thinks I have become hyper-typological, please, respectfully show me. Don’t just say I have — show me.
I have written posts about how I believe that the doctrine of imputation is essentially related to CT’s Covenant of Works. I have spoken on my views of Judaism, Israel, Antinomianism, and CT. I have been very open and honest about which Baptists are CT, which CT theologians and Dispy theologians I like, and what strengths and weaknesses I see in both camps.
So, my anti-LSU friend, if you feel I have departed from “normal human language” at any time, I would welcome your input and trust your motives.
This blog has been an effective place to do just that. Pastors, students, and Christians from all walks of life come here to read in plain language theological debates and issues.
When you say, cannot produce a set of universal parameters,, I don’t know if you are talking about me personally, or if you are challenging all CT theologians. When you say, I could spiritualize many of the same passages you reference, coming to outlandish conclusions, and your hermeneutic would be no defense against me I don’t know if you are again challenging me to defend the Scripture or if you are asking CT theologians as a whole. If you are saying, “Dear brother, I can intellectually destroy you” then I am surprised. Because I know that is not the way you approach theological discourse. I am sure in your church you would not tell a gentleman who is CT that he either converts or be destroyed! In fact, we could all just compare our theological muscles and go home. Or we can help one another grow stronger. I am sure that is what your desire is.
So maybe on your blog which is exclusively about discussions concerning “expository thoughts” you could post your “set of universal parameters” and prove to me how in any area I may have broken a rule of interpretation.
I have spoken up. I’ve put my thoughts out there and would be glad to defend any of them. I at times I have changed my views to be more biblical (from Dispy to CT for example). And I know that some of which I write nobody cares or sees the relevance. But I have read some of their stuff… and well…
Together we have defended the integrity of Scripture against errors. Take Charismatic errors for example. We took aim at that issue from a grammatical angle, historical angle, and a theological angle. My point? You added to that defense in ways that were simply brilliant, and you did so from a theological basis, not just grammatical. Grammatical issues are not the end-all, it is a necessary part of the means to the end. And I stress necessary. But it is not the only means. So if someone is weaker than you in the handling of the grammar, are they just out of the game? Of course not.
In the end, my problem with Dispensationalism is not only a grammatical issue. You want to go “there” and that is valid. But I have dealt with it on my blog in different ways. I have dealt with how it effects our soteriology and ecclesiology. The grammar debates are usually centered around eschatology and I dealt with that in only one or two posts, but primarily my purpose on Fide-O is a defense of the Gospel. So I am not as concerned if you think that a physical, literal Israel is the end goal of Biblical promises, but how that effects your ecclesiology and soteriology is of utmost importance to me.
So my point is that if your grammar rules are kept, your hermeneutics are practiced, but your conclusions are inconsistent with the Gospel — what do you do? Some say the inconsistencies are OK, just let the text say what it says. I say, “No, it is not OK.” Either my rules weren’t so perfect, or my practice of those rules weren’t so sound.
As you know I am preaching through the Gospel of John. I have respected theologians that I love to read that conclude: “Concerning some passages John is teaching Arminianism and others he is teaching the sovereignty of God. My hermeneutic requires me to allow that.” I disagree. I believe in and practice exegetical studies on every passage to the best of my abilities, but if my exegesis concludes in inconsistencies theologically, I keep working to find and correct my errors.
So, lets help one another do that better. And for that to happen we must be brave enough to say what we believe and why.
Thank you for your help.
Jason –
Thanks again for the time…
You said, “So my point is that if your grammar rules are kept, your hermeneutics are practiced, but your conclusions are inconsistent with the Gospel — what do you do? Some say the inconsistencies are OK, just let the text say what it says. I say, “No, it is not OK.” Either my rules weren’t so perfect, or my practice of those rules weren’t so sound.
As you know I am preaching through the Gospel of John. I have respected theologians that I love to read that conclude: “Concerning some passages John is teaching Arminianism and others he is teaching the sovereignty of God. My hermeneutic requires me to allow that.” I disagree.”
I suspect that what you mean by “conclusions…inconsistent with the Gospel” is any text that, if taken in the normal-human-language sense, “contradicts” the redemptive theological framework you’ve presupposed from other texts. In other words, I could react the same way you do IF my hermeneutics, when applied consistently to a text, yielded a conclusion that actually contradicted the Gospel of grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone. On the other, WHAT IF my hermeneutic yielded a conclusion THAT ONLY SEEMED to contradict certain assumptions I’ve added to my systematic gospel-framework? Should I automatically reject a normal-human-language exegetical conclusion in favor of a spiritualized, “assumed”-typological, or allegorical sense? Wouldn’t it be better to first compare the details of each pertinent text again (exegetically, theologically, etc.) to check whether an actual contradiction exists at all? Perhaps, as you rightly posit, I’ll find a flaw in my textual work that led to an actual antinomy. Or, perhaps I’ll find that the previous Gospel-framework of my systematic theology had developed a life of its own, with a tendency to carry assumptions into the study of other texts.
Oh, and regarding commentators who think “John is teaching Arminianism [alongside] the sovereignty of God”, I agree with you….Absurd! But let me add that the above is NOT the result of consistently applying a normal-human-language hermeneutic, because John never uses language that remotely suggests free-will theism or pelagianism. He does, however, clearly articulate both the universal call to repent and believe, and God’s sovereign, electing love.
Again, thanks for the interchange,
PS – Reading over my comments, I don’t know where you got the idea that I suggested any academic pecking order between us. I certainly want to rightly represent our Lord in these things. Thank you for the gentle reminder to be careful about condescension. Please forgive me if I sounded like I thought more highly of myself than I ought.
Jerry, thanks for taking the time to have this discussion. I know for a fact that many greatly appreciate our conversations. And like I said, I appreciate your graciousness even in disagreement. Thank you for clarifying your motives for others to learn how to have such a discussion in a Christian spirit.
Concerning your last comment, when you pointed out that the “the Gospel of grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone” are matters we will not compromise is exactly what I has been my motivation in this whole Dispy/CT debate. All of my posts on CT have been about sola fide, imputation, justification — and other doctrines that go to the heart of the gospel. Israel as literal vs spiritual is not the main issue — it is just part of the discussion as we discuss the ultimate issues of the Gospel from Genesis to Revelation. So, we agree as to how and why we keep our hermeneutic accountable.
You also said, “Should I automatically reject a normal-human-language exegetical conclusion in favor of a spiritualized, “assumed”-typological, or allegorical sense?” I say- of course not. But I realize that many Dispy’s believe that is exactly what CT’ers have done. That we have let our system of theology trump our exegetical work. It is just not true. I understand that you think I have done that, but it is just not true.
For example, in one of my posts about Romans 9 I quoted Paul when he said, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.” My interpretation was: Israel is being used here both in a literal and spiritual way as Paul explains that although one may be physically a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob they are only truly the Israel of God if they had faith in Christ. Ishmael was an offspring of Christ, but God only recognized Isaac as a son. (“Take your son, your only son…) Now, here the normal-human-language is that Abraham only had one son, but we know that is not true. My point: just because I recognize the spiritual sense of a verse does not mean that I have a flawed hermeneutic.
The same can be said of narrative of Genesis 3 based on epistle of Galatians 3:16. Or consider the narrative of Genesis 16 in light of Galatians 4:24ff. Paul himself spiritualized the whole narrative. The typological and allegorical sense of the Genesis narrative seems to be THE POINT, the purpose, the whole reason it is in the Bible.
And you know that I could list nearly every passage in Hebrews, every chapter in Romans, most of 2Corinthians, the polemic of John in his Gospel… on and on. The point: my literal-grammatical hermeneutic REQUIRES me to interpret passages spiritually, to focus on the allegorical, and explain the typological. The rules of hermeneutics REQUIRES me to read these passages and exegetically note the allegorical and typological. The marvelous power of the text is that it is rooted in historical and physical, it is written in normal-human-language, but its message IS SPIRITUAL – EVERYTIME, ALL THE TIME. You know that it is not ultimately a book about history, science, literature — IT IS ALL about Christ. And that is the sum and substance of the New Covenants glory!
Now, I understand that some Calvinist-Dispensational-Exegetes are jumping up and down and screaming like Tom Cruize on a couch that my rules of hermeneutics are flawed. And I will quickly agree that I am more flawed than you shall ever know and even if I had a perfect set of hermeneutic rules, I would mistakenly misapply them as I strive for perfection. But before we just so quickly say that if my hermeneutics were more sound then I would be Dispensational, I think it is more helpful to the masses of pastors and theologians out here preparing to teach our people this week that we think about what we are saying.
And here is what I am saying: I don’t care if you are CT or Dispy; I care if you are getting the Gospel right. And when CT gets it wrong I will deal with it with all of my strength — look out paedocommunionists!! And when Dispys get it wrong, I will deal with it — look out millennarians!!
I am glad we have taken time to show both sides of this argument. And may we continue to keep each other balanced, accountable, orthodox and true to the text! May we preach Christ!!