Today, I am attending “The Cross of Christ: Redemption Accomplished” Conference in Anaheim, California with R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan.
Last night I got a chance to spend some time with Dr. Sproul and talk about eschatology. I mentioned to him that I felt like in his book “The Last Days According to Jesus” that he really didn’t let his readers know which eschatological camp he was in: Premil, Postmil, or Amil. He laughed heartily and replied, “That’s right, because I don’t actually know. I see valid points in all of them and weaknesses, too.” R.C. made sure that I knew that he was a partial preterist who viewed this age in a very positive way. He talked about how the church in the West is filled with apostasy and liberalism but in other parts of the world the church is doing great. When he spoke of these matters he sounded like an Amillennialist. But he said that when it came to Romans chapter 11 that he agreed with Charles Hodge and believed that there was something in the future specially for the ethnic Jews of Israel. His view of Romans 11 was similar to Historical Premil. He then apologized to me for being confused. Now that was humbling. If it were not for Dr. Sproul quite possibly I could still be an Arminian – so don’t apologize to me, Dr. Sproul. In fact, to confess that some theology confuses you encourages me and reminds me that we all approach the Bible from the same place – a place of desperate need for God’s wisdom!
The service last night was a Q&A session with Dr. Sproul. Here are some of the answers he gave. There were more questions than what I have listed below and, of course, Dr. Sproul’s answers were longer than what I have given below. But I thought you may enjoy this abridged version.
Q – How do you feel about current supernatural works of the Holy Spirit?
A – I feel good about the Holy Spirit miraculously doing His work of bringing men to salvation… But concerning miracles as defined theologically I am a cessationist…. Miracles in Scripture were used by God to verify and authenticate agents of revelation and to verify the divinity of Christ… God is not doing such miracles today.
Q – Are Arminians saved?
A – The real question is whether they are safe… Saved? Most are, barely… really the debate between Calvinists and Arminians is an intramural debate among Christians.
Q – Why is tension between Reformed Christians and Conservative Evangelical over the doctrine of predestination?
A – There has been tension in nearly every century for 2000 years so we shouldn’t be alarmed… The good news is Conservative Evangelicals believe that there is a biblical doctrine of predestination. The issue is what is the definition… Some are upset with this doctrine because it seems to cancel human free will and it seems to make God unfair and unloving… Arminians never get charged with their gospel making God look unrighteous. But Paul knew that his definition of predestination would bring that charge, so he anticipates the charge in Romans 9 by asking, “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!”
Q – Is Israel still an entity in God’s plan or has Israel been replaced by God?
A – Yes… but Dispensationalism is flat out wrong!
Q – How do you feel about last nights game between Pittsburg and Miami?
A – It reconfirmed the grace of God.
Q – The church is always under attack, but what do you see as the most dangerous?
A – Hostility of the secular culture and those who want to use the power of the state to mute and marginalize the church… the secularization of worship… but always the greatest enemy of the church is not from without but within, the false teachers.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Mark, the Jeremiah 31 text deals with the New Covenant. If the Jerusalem portion was completed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, then so was the New Covenant. It doesn’t work no matter which way you cut it up.
The land promise is repeated in nearly every prophet, who all came after Joshua. So to say that the promise was fulfilled in Joshua is to say that God made various land promises.
Your problem is trying to make Joshua fulfill, or complete the promise. Was he in all the land? Yes. Did that do away with the promise? No. The promise wasn’t that they would come into the land. The promise is that God’s people would be in the land FOREVER.
I quoted the Jeremiah portion for you. The city would be inpenetrable. If any army could come and destroy a city’s most significant structures, salt the fields, etc, it isn’t an inpenetrable city. Unless you are willing to just ignore specifics in favor of mysticism (like amills must do), your points are all moot.
Irenaeus ii,
Glad you know I am almill. I did not know that.
My points are moot to you, due to your lack of understanding. You are reading your theology into scripture to make scripture fit what you believe. I am not trying to make Joshua fulfill or complete the promise. I quote what GOD said. No just one verse but a series talking about the land promise.
The OT prophets are not rehashing the land promise GOD gave Abram and fulfilled with Joshua. The OT prophets are talking about the exiles returning. Not all of Israel was in captivity. Unlike the promise made to Abram, where there were not any of Israel in the promise land, with the exiles there was a remaining portion.
You tie the New Covenant with the land. The OT prophets did not. Jer 31 talks about two issues. The New Covenant and the restoration of Jerusalem. Also to use your arguement, the New Covenant ended in 1948. If the covenant and land are tied. Does not make any sense.
You also added to scripture. GOD did not say inpenetrable. HE said not plucked up or overthrown. Jerusalem has not been destroyed. You confuse what happen to carthage with jerusalem. The Romans razed carthage and salted the fields. Not so with Jerusalem. Temple destroyed, yes fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus.
Of course you do realize that GOD does make more than one promise. The covenants with Adam, Noah, Abram, David, Jesus to name some.
I have never argued that the people of GOD were ever out ofthe land after Joshua. There has always been a portion of the people it the land. The promise was not done away with, but fulfilled. To be done away with would be forfeit.
So no, I am not a mystic or gnostic. Amazing how I have to defend myself from such attacks.
I do not have special insight, I just do not parse, cut and paste scripture to make it fit theology. I do not take one verse out of context or a series of verses out of context to prove a theological position.
Well, this has just about been beat to death. Oh, looks like just a bit of life left.
1. I couldn’t care less about what happened in 1948. That date means nothing to me. Please quote where I said it did.
2. I never said you were amill.
3. You do not understand anything I have said, apparently. It is probably my fault.
irenaeus ii,
1. Your never said 1948. Read my post. I said to “use your argument”. The argument you put forth linking Jersualem to the New covenant. The only other time in history, since Erza, where the jews returned to Jerusalem in great numbers after being exiled was in 1948. You maintain that Ezra did not fulfill Jer 31. Even though scripture shows the fulfilling of the time. The only other time is 1948. Though even since Ezra Jerusalem has not been destroyed. Since you reject Ezra and the secular 1948, you must hold to a future destruction of Jerusalem and a future rebuilding? Since Jerusalem has existed for the 25 centuries since Ezra and Jer 31 has not been fulfilled. Which means that the nation of Israel must be destroyed again? And the jews scattered in exile again? And then GOD fulfills Jer 31?
2. You linked me to mystics and amills by stating “Unless you are willing to ignore specifics in favor of mysticism (like amills must do)”. A backhanded way of placing the amill label on me.
3.I do understand everything you have stated. I use to hold the same position on Jer 31. Until deeper and thorough studyof scripture and history revealed I was wrong.
This horse is about ready for the glue factory.
A friend of mine posted this and I thought it was worth passing on.
Having dealt with this issue more often than most non-attorneys (and being
asked about it even more often), I am always troubled when these issues
arise because they tend to be discussed in almost apocalyptic terms.
I think the actual facts seldom are as simple as our quick responses may
assume them to be. It appears that what we have here is a professed believer
(Mr. Vance) engaging in sinful actions against a brother in Christ (slander
and character assassination in general). The two are not members of the same
church, therefore there is no recognized body of elders to whom they might
automatically submit their dispute.
I do not know to what extent letters, calls, or conversations were exchanged
between them. I would certainly object to a lawsuit being filed with no
contact whatsoever. I am willing, for discussion sake, to assume that a
reasonable effort was made and Mr. Vance would not retract. Certainly, he
has shown no signs of a willingness to retract in what little I have read.
Likewise, I do not know how much or how persistently Mr. Vance has slandered
his brother. For purposes of this note, I assume what I have read is
accurate and that many slanders have occurred and that they have not been
repented of nor have they ceased.
It may be that I am wrong in this and that Mr. Vance did no slander, so this
discussion must not be seen as condemning him, but as addressing the
accusation itself and the question of filing a lawsuit.
Okay, so here we are. A professed Christian is engaged in a pattern of sin
against a brother in Christ and will not repent. What is the wronged brother
to do?
At the first level of analysis, the wronged brother should accept the wrong,
attempt to resolve it through personal effort and intervention of mature
believers, but faced with the choice of legal action or accepting the wrong,
he should accept the wrong. I think all of us would agree that where a
single event is in view, this is the right response. “Why not rather be
wronged?”
However, persistence in sin makes this a different problem. The reason for
not suing over a wrong is the shame it brings to Christ, but where a
professed Christian persists in public sin, Christ is shamed thereby,
without regard to whether a lawsuit is filed. Where the sin consists of
slandering a brother, Christ is doubly put to shame, both by the sin of the
slanderer and by the harm to the reputation of the brother, both of whom
publicly bear the name of Christ.
Further, the sin of slander against a brother is not a minor thing. This is
not a matter of money or property. Slander is among the sins which, pursuant
to 1 Cor. 5, justify rejecting a man from treatment as a brother at all.
“But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls
himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a
slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” A
slanderer is a fool (Pro. 10:18). Slander is condemned as one of the great
sins which come forth from man to show his evil nature (Matt. 15:19) and
“slanderers” is one of the condemnations pronounced upon men in the great
list of man’s sin. Rom. 1:30.
We should not set aside the sin of slander casually. Paul makes clear that
when slander is personal, he would answer kindly (1 Cor. 4:13), yet those
who persist in slander have no grounds for claiming Christ or any part in
the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:10).
It is hard to overstate the evil of slander. James 4:11 says that when we
slander a brother, we judge the law itself and are thereby lawbreakers. We
are to rid ourselves of all slander (1 Peter 2:1).
Yet further, God has ordained governments among men to stand against
evil-doers, including those who do evil while claiming the name of Christ.
Rom. 13.
Faced with a man who professes Christ, yet who persists in slander which is
incompatible with a regenerate heart, contrary to the commands of God, and
damaging to the work and name of Christ on earth, I believe a Christian
might be justified in calling upon the law to perform its function of
deterring evil. In the same way, if a neighbor who called himself a
Christian attacked my children and refused to stop attacking them, I could
call the police and I could also initiate a legal action for a restraining
order and, I believe, I would not be in violation of 1 Cor. 6. Again, if a
man professing Christ repeatedly set fire to my house, I could call the
police and initiate legal action against him.
The profession of Christ by an unrepentant slanderer who repeatedly slanders
someone whom he should see as a brother in Christ does not insulate him from
the law nor require all believers to sit idly by while his sin destroys
their lives and their ministries, while also bringing shame upon Christ.
As I say, I do not know if Mr. Vance is guilty of such slandering.
But neither am I prepared to say that a Christian must lay aside the
protections of the law merely because a wrongdoer professes Christ.
As for asking for money, I suspect (given the nominal amount named) that
this is a necessary element in local pleading requirements (some states
require you to state an amount in order to seek any legal remedy, even an
injunction). The statement of an amount does not actually mean that their
goal is to get money. Commonly, in such cases, once an injunction issues,
the rest of the case goes away.
The shame in this case goes much deeper than the mere filing of a lawsuit.
Jim Allen