A Great Exhortation from 16 Centuries Ago

This morning in our fellowship I was greatly encouraged. First, in our responsive reading we read from Psalm 109. If I have ever truly believed in imprecatory prayers it is now. I truly believe that everyone there sincerely prayed this Psalm before the Lord today. Then our fellowship gathered around us and prayed for us.

Do not keep silent, O God of my praise! 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful Have opened against me; They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, And fought against me without a cause. 4 In return for my love they are my accusers, But I give myself to prayer. 5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, And hatred for my love.

6 ¶ Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand. 7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty, And let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder his labor. 12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him, Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out. 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15 Let them be continually before the LORD, That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth; 16 Because he did not remember to show mercy, But persecuted the poor and needy man, That he might even slay the broken in heart. 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him; As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him. 18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment, So let it enter his body like water, And like oil into his bones. 19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him, And for a belt with which he girds himself continually. 20 Let this be the LORD’S reward to my accusers, And to those who speak evil against my person.

21 ¶ But You, O GOD the Lord, Deal with me for Your name’s sake; Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. 22 For I am poor and needy, And my heart is wounded within me. 23 I am gone like a shadow when it lengthens; I am shaken off like a locust. 24 My knees are weak through fasting, And my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness. 25 I also have become a reproach to them; When they look at me, they shake their heads. 26 Help me, O LORD my God! Oh, save me according to Your mercy, 27 That they may know that this is Your hand—That You, LORD, have done it! 28 Let them curse, but You bless; When they arise, let them be ashamed, But let Your servant rejoice. 29 Let my accusers be clothed with shame, And let them cover themselves with their own disgrace as with a mantle. 30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; Yes, I will praise Him among the multitude. 31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor, To save him from those who condemn him.

Second, came during my study of Revelation 8. In all of Revelation we see the sovereign hand of God in protecting His people from those who seek their harm and pouring out judgment upon the wicked who oppose His people. During that study I was struck by this quote from Augustine who addressed pagans who claimed that God had failed to rescue His people from their enemies:

: “The whole family of God, most high and most true, has therefore a consolation of its own – a consolation which cannot deceive, and which has in it a surer hope than the tottering and falling affairs of life can afford. They will not refuse the discipline of this temporal life, in which they are schooled for life eternal; nor will they lament their experience of it, for the good things of life they use as pilgrims who are not detained by them, and its ills either prove or improve them.

As for those who insult over them in their trials, and when ills befall them say, ‘Where is thy God?’ [Ps. 42:10] we may ask them where their gods are when they suffer the very calamities for the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain they ought to be worshiped; for the family of Christ is furnished with its reply: Our God is everywhere present, wholly everywhere; not confined to any place. He can be present unperceived, and be absent without moving; when He exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for us an everlasting reward. But who are you, that we should deign to speak with you even about your own gods, much less about our God, who is ‘to be feared above all gods? For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the LORD made the heavens’ [Ps. 96:4-5] .” Augustine, The City of God, i.29

It is truly good to know that our God cares for us and has appointed us, not for wrath, though there may be trials and tribulations (these He has promised), but life and salvation. To Him be the glory forever and ever! Amen.

Finally, in our study of Galatians we covered 2:11-21. In speaking about Paul confronting Peter about not being straightforward about the gospel we spoke of our emotions (a disturbance of the intellect) determining our actions rather than our minds (knowing and understanding the Word of God as to what is right and what is wrong). Quite often, if not always, our sins are a result of us being led by our emotions rather than our minds. It seems Peter faced the same thing. He felt the pressure of the Jews, rather than doing what he knew to be right. We spoke of the fact that though Peter may have not said with his mouth anything about being a Jew to be justified or being circumcised to be justified, his actions betrayed the gospel. After all, Peter was given divine revelation concerning the gospel and the fact that there was now no longer the ceremonial uncleanness spoken of concerning the Gentiles. Paul addressed it and openly and publicly rebuked him for it, because his actions had compelled others to follow him such as Barnabas, a great evangelist of the church. God really did open my eyes to my own situation and once again I was repenting. I do not want the gospel to be maligned or distorted in the circumstances we are facing now. May God grant us the power of His Spirit to be straightforward concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ.

DSS Update 2-7

Before launching into my thoughts concerning paedo baptism, I wanted to give an update. Well friends, I have seen the face of DSS and it is ugly. It has been beaten with several ugly sticks. Every branch on the ugly tree was hit. It’s mother, or I should properly render it, father is ugly. I attempted to be forthcoming and give DSS a chance to prove to me they really were doing their job and nothing more. However, in just one day they have shown me that they are incompetent, unable to answer the simplest of questions without turning the tables on me and threatening legal action, and a clear practice of deception and above all a show of cowardice.

Denise and I are currently listed as “indicated”, which basically means that we are found guilty by these people. Mind you, they are an entity that has immunity. That’s right. They seem to be able to violate your constitutional rights, jump to huge leaps of illogic and proclaim that you are guilty. What is so ironic in this situation is twofold: (1) Those investigating us have small children that they neglect everyday, when they come to work for DSS (either leaving them at daycare or with someone else rather than caring for them as parents, while I try and make provisions for my wife to be at home with our kids (which DSS is in fact disrupting). (2) While the doctors at CMC who reported us (and they have to do this by law, go figure) go about their merry lives, they did absolutely nothing for my son. Did you get that? Nothing. Even the doctors now who we are made to see claim he is unhealthy because he doesn’t fall on a curve somewhere on their chart, yet CMC says there is no medical reason for this. So when I ask can he be healthy and small, the response is “No”. The answer given is, “Because he doesn’t fit on our chart.” And yet he continues to gain weight and be alert and mobile and happy. If this is such a life threatening issue and the child is in danger, then why wait 2 weeks in between visits? Shouldn’t he be admitted somewhere that can find out what is wrong as soon as possible? See?? Incompetence. So we are now in hold mode until our attorney files the paperwork.

Please pray for us. I realize this is a sovereign work of God. I know His hand is in it. And yet there is both a righteous anger in me at what is being done to us in the name of “it’s for the best interest of the child”, and also I confess some fleshly anger. I realize that my sinful desires are not justified because of the sins of others. It is unacceptable and I have repented several times. Pray that my repentance might be genuine and that I would indeed honor the Lord. Please pray for Denise as well. It has been very hard on her being accused of such things. No one loves her children like she does and to be told that you are basically guilty of not loving your child because you don’t take them to the doctor for “well visits” is simply outrageous. Please remember R.C. as well. He is the one caught in the midst of all of this and unless something can be done legally, then we will probably have to have him endure some very uncomfortable procedures in order to demonstrate that DSS has absolutely no idea of what they are doing.

Brothers, thanks for your prayers and words of encouragement.

Dissing Dispensationalism 8: The Final Post

Ok, this will be the final response in regards to Dan’s post on dispensationalism.

21. "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Corinthians 1:20a). As if there's a dispensationalist that disbelieves this verse. I'd suggest that it's the decoder-ring set that disbelieves it. Dispensationalists believe that Christ will make good on all the Trinity's promises, as He carries out all the will of the Father, and is King of the mediatorial Kingdom. It's the CT's who would turn this verse to "For all the promises of God find their 'Ha-ha, fooled you!' in him," or "For some of the promises of God find their No in him."

Ok, this is a cheap shot. If you are going to slander CTs by saying “ha-ha fooled you”, then please provide the evidence and then respond to the material and the interpretation laid out from that. But don’t put words in their mouth. CTs do not say that God has fooled anyone, nor do they say that some of the promises of God are no in Him. Let’s actually hear a quote from a reputable CT theologian (tick, tock, tick, tock).
What is with the decoder ring thing? What Phillips fails to deal with is the fact that the New Testament, because it is progressive in nature as to its revelation, gives us the proper understanding of such things as Jew, Israel, the elect and the realities promises in types. From the dispensationalist point of view, they would rather hold on to the shadows and picture books, as it were, and not move on to the reality and true grammar and language. Thus, this becomes a problem when they attempt to understand the two covenants. Many, but certainly not all will actually state that Old Covenant believers actually merited God’s favor to some point through their obedience! They fail to see the continuity throughout all of Scripture which sees anyone who is saved is saved in the covenant of grace. With that said, I don’t think Dan falls into this category. He is Calvinistic for goodness sakes.
Finally, the fact that Dan tries to make Christ have two different kinds of kingdoms is simply a stretch here. I never read in Scripture where Christ spoke of two kingdoms that He was to rule over. If you ask me, this is where the decoder ring is needed, because you don’t find it in the Bible. Jesus simply spoke of the kingdom that was His and that it was given to Him by the Father and that it was from above.

22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. Sigh. Maybe if this is answered for the 950,000th time, it will go away? This old corker has been responded to and documented more times than a department-store "Santa" has said "Ho ho ho."
So what, exactly, are we talking about? Oh, you mean like this? "Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation -- as it is in the covenant of works --, from the curse of the law, and from the law as an extraneous power." Oh yeah, that's bad. What rotten dispensationalist wrote that? That "rotten dispensationalist" Louis Berkhof (ST, p. 291). Allis and others have made similar statements that, isolated, sure sound like offers of two methods of salvation. Statements capable of misunderstand and misrepresentation are not the sole provenance of dispensationalists. Golly, it'd be nice to wake up tomorrow to a world in which I can focus on the text, and not constantly see the discussion derailed by red herrings like this one. Could there be a reason why anti-dispies don't want to do that?

Actually, that’s not the point Dan. Neither would the quote you cited bear that either from Berkhof. Classic Dispensationalists do hold to two means of salvation. For instance, though many people nowadays count Dave Hunt as completely out to lunch, he would readily point to the fact that there is merit in law keeping or obedience in the Old Testament. Those of the Darby kind readily point to such things as well. As with any view, there are those who are conservative and those who are very liberal, so while there are those like Dan who would fight that tooth and nail, there are those who would easily embrace that.
Second, there are many both dispensational and not who would see two means of salvation and this comes out clearly in discussions that surround the death of infants, mentally incapacitated and also those who have never heard the gospel. Somehow, there are those, and the only ones I’ve talked to are dispensationalists, who would hold that all in the first two categories will be saved (SEE Safe in the Arms of Jesus by MacArthur (a dispensationalist). Clearly this is not the difference of Israel as nation under the Old Covenant and Israel as the Church in the New covenant, but the point ends up being the same: there is not the comprehensive understanding that throughout Scripture there is One overarching covenant and that is the covenant of grace. This covenant was not instituted in the Garden, nor at Sinai, nor specifically at the cross, but in eternity between the Father and the Son. This covenant was ultimately shown to men in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of the elect in the past, present and future are in this covenant, whether Jew or Gentile.
So, to this argument, Dan may disagree, but if he is honest, then he must concede that there are many dispensationalists who do hold that God has a different covenant TODAY with national Israel (whatever that actually is and in dispensationalism, it is actually the nation we call Israel) than he does with the True Israel, the church.

23. "Hey, I'm a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!" Suuuuure you do, Bunky. And I'm a muscular, slim 25-year old published author with multiple doctorates who pastors a successful church and teaches in seminary -- plus I have a full head of hair! It's really more than just a river in Egypt for you, isn't it, brother? When you tell me that Israel is the church, that only the prophetic curses have realtime fulfillment, but that the prophesied blessings are all spiritualized, you and G-H exegesis have long since gone the way of the Beatles. CT is your Yoko.

So, Dan, I wanna hold your hand as we look at this claim you are making as we take a ride in our yellow submarine. Now while I might let you Drive My Car, I can’t stand by and let you broad brush the entire CT community with such language. For instance, I will readily admit that there are some who do take the view that you present. However, I find them to be in the minority, especially among conservative CTs.
There is no question that God poured out the exact curses He said He would in the Law upon Israel when they departed from Him. This was proven many times in the Old Testament, such as in the prophecies that Jeremiah revealed, Ezekiel spoke of and Daniel actually saw, not to mention the fact that ultimately God brought His judgment down upon Israel in 70 AD in finality concluding and bringing to an end the specific promises of that nation’s apostasy. With a Little Help from My Friends I’m sure we could pile up enough evidence to make this quite clear.
When Jesus comes in Matthew 5 and lays out the heart of the Law again, (NOTE: Jesus did not bring a different Law. He brought the same Law. While Moses delivered the Law to the people, it was God who gave the Law. Therefore, if we say that Jesus brought a different Law, wouldn’t that imply that there is some disunity in the Godhead?) then weren’t the blessings clearly outlined?
The problem is this crazy idea of “literal interpretation”. Literal by what standard? Maybe The Two of Us could Come Together and hash this out a bit. This is the biggest hurdle that people have, in my opinion. Let me give an example of the literal interpretation. Anyone reading in the Old Testament who came upon the words, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness” would have simply took this to mean that God was speaking of the nations that sprang from Jacob and Esau and that would be correct. However, the inspired apostle uses the CT method of interpretation and quotes the passage in favor of individuals. Now Dan is a Calvinist and readily agrees with the apostle Paul. However, is he being literal? I’ll leave that to be decided by the reader.

24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God. Wait -- isn't it complementarianism that does that? The Bible says, "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) , but complementarians teach that men and women are still distinct, even though they're in Christ, and have distinct roles. Calvinists/Reformeds tend to be complementarians, yet they affirm that men and women are distinct in Christ in one way, yet they affirm that they are one in Christ, in another way. Isn't that a contradiction? "But-but-but," sputters a Reformed complementarian, "that's stupid! You can be distinct, and yet one! Look at the Trinity! The Persons are distinct, yet they are one God! They have different functions, and there is an economy of relations, yet they are one! That's an inane criticism!"
Oh, I totally agree. It's inane. It's stupid. It's lame. So... why do you go for the same inane, stupid, lame line of reasoning when it comes to Israel?
I just keep wondering why the same people who have no trouble understanding why men and women can be distinct and yet one, fall all apart into hysterics and start doing horrible things to the Bible when it comes to Israel. Why can't Israel have a certain and sure ethnic future (as God promised, in the starkest and most undeniable terms, about a gazillion times), and yet be part of one people of God? Why do we have to turn God into a liar and a promise-breaker (see Jeremiah 31:35-37), in order to salvage some preconceived construct we made up?
Having said all that, I don't think it's fundamental to dispensationalism to make divisions as stark as some pioneers did, as if Israel's eternity is 'way over there, and the Church's is right over here, and never the twain shall mix. I don't tend to think that way, myself.

I think this is where Dan cannot see who Israel actually is. Paul spells it out plainly in Romans 9 that all who are of Israel are not Israel. The true Israel is the elect people of God. Those who were of national Israel but rejected God and were not Israel, but rather members of Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Babylon. They were apostates, and from the beginning when they left Egypt the unbelievers were cut off from their people, not a part of them. My question to Dan would simply be this, “What is the purpose of these promises to a geo-political entity today that calls itself Israel, but is completely apostate in biblical terms to the true God?”
Again, Dan simply misses the point of Jeremiah 31. Besides, did God make that covenant there with every single individual of the house of Judah, or was He referring to the house of Judah in the light of election? Interestingly enough, Gentiles are included in that covenant in the New Testament. I wonder if Dan thinks that Gentiles become ethnic Israel and are also recipients of that little sliver of land in the Middle East. I like to think of the words of Christ, that not a sliver of land is our inheritance, but the earth is.
As for his final comment, I don’t know what to say. It sure sounds like he makes a pretty big and stark division. He may see some mixing, but it is extremely small from what I hear.

25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible. Again with the being-more-spiritual-than-God sin. This is maybe one of the most damaging Reformed traditions (in the worst sense of the word): the insistence by some of putting perfectly innocent texts on the rack, and torturing them until they scream "Jesus!" This turns God into a Clintonesque, smooth-talking trickster. He fools His audience into thinking He's talking about Israel, but He's really talking about something they couldn't have conceived of. He offers them an egg and some bread, and then gives them a stone and a serpent. "I promise to bless you, I swear it. {Later} Oops, presto! Not really you at all! Someone else! But I do have a dandy curse just for you -- and this time, I really do mean you!"
Christ is indeed all over the Bible, directly or indirectly (Luke 24:27, 44, etc.). But to insist that a text is unworthy of God if it really talking about what it seems to be talking about is (A) to adopt a suicidal hermeneutic, (B) to make God into the worst unethical bait-and-switch salesman, and (C) to pour shame on the very hermeneutic of Christ and the apostles. If we abandon Scripture to adopt this hermeneutic, we invalidate Jesus' constant refrain to His enemies:
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)
If this decoder-ring hermeneutic were true, his enemies could justly and correctly have replied, "There is no way we could be judged by Moses' writings, or the prophets. God said 'Israel' and meant 'not ethnic Israel at all, but the Christian church.' He named cities, but didn't mean them. He promised full national restoration in the most specific terms, again and again, but never meant it. All His threats He meant exactly as He said them, and all His promises meant something totally unrelated. So no, Jesus, Your teaching turns revelation into obscurement, and gives us a perfect, bona-fide excuse for rejecting You. God didn't give us the right decoder-ring when He put out the garbled, encrypted code. It's not our fault."
Of course this is nonsense. Christ and the apostles treated the OT with full respect. Bethlehem meant Bethlehem, a donkey meant a donkey, Jerusalem meant Jerusalem, Israel meant Israel. It was because the OT was to be read as outlined in point #10, above, that Jews (and everyone) could then (and now) be held guilty before God: because they rejected the plain and clear sense of the text. What was bad for them is bad for us.
God forbid we "honor Christ" in theory by dishonoring Christ in practice.
This is the hermeneutic God saved me from in saving me from the cult of Religious Science, decades ago. We did the same thing, always finding "deeper meaning" that was in fact opposite meaning to texts we simply didn't like, because they didn't fit into our system. By the grace of God, the folks I'm criticizing don't do it to Christological, soteriological, or other passages. Only to prophetic passages. If they did the same across the board, they'd not be Christian.
It is not dishonoring to Christ to believe that He said what He meant, and meant what He said. The reverse is what dishonors Him, no matter how honorable the intent.

You know what Dan, there are some who do just that, but I don’t hear from them that often. Most will simply allow the New Testament apostles to interpret the Old. I wonder why the apostle Paul, an ethnic Jew, didn’t put hope in a future national geo-political revival. I wonder why the apostle Peter, an ethnic Jew, didn’t put hope in future land promises. I wonder why those of the early church who owned lands that were rightly theirs didn’t hold onto it because it was theirs by divine promise. I wonder………hmmmm. I really do think it’s because those things are yes in Christ and I as a Gentile believer have a yes in Christ and it is not to a piece of land, but to an inheritance that is incorruptible, kept in heaven for me by Christ Jesus. The New Testament apostles do not go the way of dispensationalists. If they were dispensationalists then they would hold up your mantra, but they don’t.

I welcome any additions. I hurriedly put this together to get it off my plate and move on to some other things.

Tagged

Ok,

So I'm back now and I'm already getting picked on:) JK. Nathan issued the tag this time and I found it very interesting. Well there were three books equal in distance from me and yes, all three are being read by me currently. They are Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology (I'm actually trying to use this as devotional material, go figure), Life and Letters of "Stonewall" Jackson by His Wife, and The Reformation Study Bible.

Rules are as follows:
1. Grab the book closest to you.

2. Open to page 123; go down to the fourth sentence.

3. Post the text of the following three sentences.

4. Name the author and book title.

5. Tag three people to do the same.

Here are my quotes, first from the Word of God:

In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I'm sure Nathan will appreciate that verse after our discussion the other day:)

From Reymond:

But how can we, on these grounds, continue to think of ourselves as significant persons? Why is it not now, on these ground, just as appropriate to think of ourselves as a mere "accident of nature" (as did Sir James Jeans in his The Mysterious Universe) or as "the gruesome result of nature's failure to take antiseptic precautions" (as did Sir Arthur Eddington in his New Pathways in Science)? And why is it not just as appropriate to regard the elephant as a more advanced stage of the evolutionary process since it has a thicker skin than man?

From Jackson:

I have more than once bowed down on my knees, and thanked our kind and merciful Heavenly Father for the prospect of restoring you to health again. Now, don't get impatient, and come off before you are entirely well... Yesterday Doctor Junkin preached one of his masterly sermons on the sovereignty of god, and, although a doctrinal discourse, it was eminently consoling; and I wish that you could have heard such a presentation of the subject. To-day I rode your horse out to your lot and saw your laborers. They are doing good work.

This is from one of Jackson's letters to his wife dated May 7th, 1859.

I will tag Hank Hilliard and Andrew Lindsey. I couldn't think of anyone else to tag.

Things as of late

Well, here I am for my few posts this month, LOL. I guess this will help a bit and get the bloodhounds off my trail that Gordon sent out. Thanks brother!

I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know that things have been a bit hectic around here lately. To make a long story short, all of the kids came down with something just before the end of the year and were sick for several days. R.C. caught it and was just as sick as they and lost a couple of pounds. He was small anyway, and so my wife took him to the doctor. The doctor then proceeded to recommend he be admitted to the hospital, which I thought was ridiculous and for every reason they gave that he should be admitted, I responded with the reasons for their judgment. Ultimately, we decided to allow him to be admitted. I felt as soon as his appetite came back he would be fine.

We admitted him thinking they would immediately start I.V.s and such, because they were talking about him dying, which really upset Denise and frankly just made me mad. They did absolutely nothing for him in the hospital and made us stay there from Thursday till Monday. That Friday, he got his appetite back and was the old R.C. in no time. Several case workers stopped by and the hospital reported us to DSS. Now we have a self pay bill in excess of $4000.00, DSS investigating us and several nurses coming by the house to weigh R.C. for about $125.00 a pop. I put and end to that last one the other day Anyway, in all of this, I am reminded that even though I was aggravated and Denise was afraid, that our God is sovereign. Mind you, at first, I was purely aggravated. I was not spiritual by any means.

However, God graciously brought a highly esteemed lawyer from our state, who argues at the Supreme Court level, and is also a very godly man to our acquaintance for some good advice which we took. So far we are waiting to hear the results of the investigation, but I feel pretty confident that things will go well. This presses upon me to believe and live the doctrines I preach and teach. Therefore, I can count all of this as God working it together for our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28), yes this is part of the all things

Of note also Denise and I celebrated 12 years of marriage Sunday. She is the most wonderful and beautiful woman in the world and can you really believe that the Father would bless me with such a bride? Unbelievable, but true: He has. We actually got to celebrate by going out to the Olive Garden, and we indulged quite a bit as well We dived into two appetizers and two entrees……….I was very close to sinning at that point.

We also spent the past weekend with Jerry Johnson (from the Apologetics Group) and his wonderful family in Draper, VA. We enjoyed seeing the snow fall as we drove up and really took in some great fellowship and relaxing there on the mountain. I also received a copy of Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology from him for my birthday and a copy of The Coming of the Kingdom by Herman Ridderbas, as well as, began reading a copy of Gordan Clark’s work A Christian Philosophy of Education. We also engaged in some very beneficial discussion of the covenants and the issues regarding paedo-baptism for which I am profoundly thankful. I may post on that in the future.

With that said, I hope to get back to posting a bit more. I haven’t been online as much since all this started and that has not been a bad thing However, I see that my name still comes up in discussions, usually by the Incrediblogger himself. Anyway, I thought I would take the time and let you all know what was going on just in case you might get worried. Be on the lookout Gordan, I am going to change the photo in the near future. I think the Jack Bauer look will be appropriate

You want me to do what???

OK,

I know that most of the time there is serious stuff on here, but I got this from my boss this morning and nearly fell off the chair at the sight of this dog's face. This is truly hilarious! Everyone have a great weekend!

Revelation Seals - Gospel Comparisons

Revelation Seals Gospel Comparison

I told Hank I was going to put up a short comparison of the seals of Revelation with birth pangs spoken of by Christ in the Gospels. This comparison is taken from the book by David Chilton titled, Days of Vengeance. I would love to have some interaction with this chart if there is disagreement.

Revelation 6
1. War (v. 1-2)
2. International strife (v. 3-4)
3. Famine (v. 5-6)
4. Pestilence (v. 7-8)
5. Persecution (v. 9-11)
6. Earthquake; De-creation (v. 12-17)

Matthew 24
1. Wars (v. 6)
2. International strife (v. 7a)
3. Famines (v. 7b)
4. Earthquakes (v. 7c)
5. Persecutions (v. 9-13)
6. De-creation (v. 15-31)

Mark 13
1. Wars (v. 7)
2. International strife (v. 8a)
3. Earthquakes (v. 8b)
4. Famines (v. 8c)
5. Persecutions (v. 9-13)
6. De-creation (v. 14-27)

Luke 21
1. Wars (v. 9)
2. International strife (v. 10)
3. Earthquakes (v. ha)
4. Plagues and famines (v. llb)
5. Persecution (v. 12-19)
6. De-creation (v. 20-27)

Along these lines, my friend Gordan has posted his perspective in regards to the first four seals of Revelation from the historicist position.

Dissing Dispensationalism 7

Continuing with the dispensational post from Dan Phillips.
15.

I know some big names who used to be dispensationalists, and aren't. Really? I know some big names who used to be Christians, and aren't. I know some big names who used to be Calvinists, and aren't. Besides, when I hear a guy like [big vaunted amill expert "ex-" author] open his mouth on the subject, it's easy to see why he's an "ex." No evidence of a clue about dispensationalism in what I see him saying now.
When Peter, all full of himself, tells Jesus "We have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:69), Jesus replies, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil" (John 6:70). I take it that our Lord saw Peter as relying on the consensus; so Jesus throws back at Peter, in effect, "...and what if your consensus becomes a consensus of one? What will you do then?" When Judas left, was Jesus less the Messiah and Holy One? (To be clear, my only point in this is that the issue is the Word and truth and what I, myself, do with it, and not how many are voting for an interpretation of it. Some -- in fact, I'd say most -- of the finest, holiest men and women who ever cracked a Bible were not dispensationalists.)

Yeah, this is another silly argument against anyone. However, I am always interested in what it is that changes a person’s thinking that they leave a certain belief system for another, not just dispensationalism. What does get me here, though, is those finest, holiest men and women, from Dan’s perspective evidently lost total faith in the perspicuity of Scripture when they chose to go down the road of non-dispensationalism. Ironic isn’t it?
I am in total agreement with the statement regarding the individuals responsibility to the Truth and the Word. As I stated in a previous post, let God be true and every man a liar, even if that means me.
16.

Dispensationalism is divisive. Just what Arminians say about Calvinism. I don't care from divisive. Everything Biblical is divisive to someone. My only concern: is it Biblical?

And to this I offer a hearty “Amen!” and that in the literal sense However, it is divisive in a way that Dan didn’t mean it. See, I can tell the difference between what is literal and what is not. It is divisive in how it divides up the people of God. See the previous posts for that interaction between the Church and Israel. Specifically not that glaring passage in Ephesians 2 and following (emphasis mine)
11 ¶ Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh——who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 ¶ For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
1 ¶ For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
What dispensationalism does is make a future where the work of Christ and the gospel of Christ, in fact, tear these two apart again. Not only that, but they want to erect a real literal Temple, in spite of the fact of what the New Testament calls a Temple. Something that they do fail to realize is two things. The Temple was part of the old covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant, and the writer of Hebrews tells us that the old covenant was put away in order to establish the new (Heb. 10:9). Second, if this Temple were to be built in the future, since classic dispensationalists would hold to animal sacrifices being instituted, would there also be a veil re-erected? What would that imply? Isn’t that a complete undoing of the work of Christ and the gospel?
17.

Dispensationalism is defeatist. Dispensationalism is just what you are when you treat all the Bible respectfully. That's defeatist? Let's see: man cannot solve his own problems, Christ must deliver His saints personally, must personally come in power, grace, and glory to set up His kingdom, human sin and rebellion are shown to be absolutely inexcusable, and Christ reigns forever to the eternal glory of the Triune God. Hunh. Sounds like Calvinism to me. But then again, happy-face Christianoids think Calvinism is defeatist. Guess there's a little Pelagius in everyone, eh?

Well, I have to say, that this charge also comes to some of the a-mil crowd as well. Uh, Bunky, LOL (JK), I am not dispensational and I treat all the Bible respectfully. So stop it. Just stop it. That isn’t a valid argument from Dan either.
I agree with part of his statement (ie. Man cannot solve his own problems, Christ must deliver His saints personally). The next part is only partial. I do believe in a time when history will end and we enter the eternal state and the kingdom is delivered up to the Father according to 1 Corinthians 15, but come on Dan, if you are literal here, then surely you would recognize the apostle Paul’s words from Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. Now what kingdom is this? Is it yet future. Does the Son not have his kingdom? Was Paul and all believers not translated, past tense, into this kingdom with Christ as our King? What is this future setting up of “His kingdom”? That kingdom has been established and Christ will reign till all His enemies are put under His feet and then He delivers the kingdom up to His Father. If we take 1 Corinthians 15 literally, we do not come up with your scenario.
He then says, “human sin and rebellion are shown to be absolutely inexcusable.” So do we have to wait for this future kingdom for that to be shown? I thought that was shown in the garden and for that matter every day as Paul stated in Romans 1 that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness. We don’t need a future kingdom to show us that.
Christ reigns forever? I thought that kingdom, from the dispensationalist’s point of view, was only a literal 1000 years.
That is not Calvinism. Nor is it a bit of Pelagianism. The only way defeatist can truly be given to the dispensationalist is if indeed they are the types like we witness in the “popular” dispensational culture who are every second thinking they are seeing biblical prophecy fulfilled and are ready to throw in the towel and jump to the clouds. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am quite happy to go be with the Lord as well, but as long as He keeps me here I am quite happy to be here for that is a blessing as well and I take that promise to children obeying their parents from Ephesians 6 as a literal blessing so my time on earth is great, whether in tribulation or not. The point is, Paul was the same way and saw living as unto the Lord and going to be with the Lord as even better, but he did not think being here was terrible.
18.

Dispensationalism is fatalistic. Funny criticism, coming from Calvinists. If Calvinism is not fatalistic (and it isn't), neither is dispensationalism.

Yeah, I think I agree on this point too. Of course, I have not heard this argument, as well as, many that Dan presents here. It is amazing though how this could be a valid argument since usually, but not always, such as in Dan’s case, dispensationalism comes from Arminians. As a matter of fact, it’s roots are in Arminianism (ie. Darby, Scofield, etc.).
19.

Dispensationalism is escapist. Hm, I hear a similar complaint about the Gospel all the time. "So let me get this straight: you sin and sin and sin, and then just believe in Christ, and it's all gone? But some humanitarian who isn't a Christian goes to Hell? How convenient." Viewed from one angle, yep: salvation is convenient. More than convenient, it's glorious, it's stupendous, it's amazing. When you think of all that Christ accomplished for His people on the Cross, all He rescued us from, and delivered us to -- yep, pretty darned convenient.
The pre-tribulational Rapture is small potatoes compared to that great salvation, a fortiori. It's hard to understand shrugging at God's hot fudge sundae, but then carping when He reaches out to place a cherry on the top. Compared to the deliverance from Hell in which all Christians believe, deliverance from the great tribulation is just really nice of God. But certainly not non-credible, on the lame grounds that it is "escapist." What kind of criticism is that from a professedly sola Scriptura guy, anyway?

I would say that you first must prove the pre-trib rapture and honestly I just haven’t seen it. I bet it’d take one of those long books by Dr. So and So that Dan mentioned to actually convince someone of it, since you can’t derive it from any passage of Scripture in its immediate context.
In light of Jesus’ prayer in John 17, it does seem very interesting how this would all fit together. There Jesus prayed,
"I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
Maybe, we should make a distinction between dispensationalists and hyper-dispensationalists. In all honesty, I know dispensationalists that are truly “escapists” and I know some who are not, though when you get them started on the pre-trib rapture stuff they might cross the line
I give a hearty “Amen!” when Dan references the great salvation that Christ won for us. There is not doubt that is where our focus is and should be upon, but Dan cannot tell me that those out front in the popular dispensational arena, such as Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, Thomas Ice and others are doing that. Dan maybe doing just fine concerning that, and for that I am thankful.
20.

Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ. This is yet another one of those oft-heard criticisms that is amazingly ironic to hear from Calvinist lips/pens. It is precisely the criticism Arminians of all stripes make of Calvinist evangelism. "You're telling this non-elect guy that if he believes in Christ he'll be saved, even though he'll never believe and never be saved, because he's not elect." We Calvinists reply that the offer is absolutely genuine: if the man repents and believes, he will be saved.
So was the presentation of Christ to Israel.
I genuinely wonder, since such otherwise-smart people keep making this stupid criticism -- what do you think would have happened if Israel had, en masse, repented and believed in Christ at the First Advent? Nothing? Nothing would have been different? What if Adam had never sinned? What if Noah had swatted those two mosquitoes? What if, what if, what if?
I've got another. What if we left off the what-if's, and contented ourselves with the text of Scripture? Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be Reformed?

Ok, here Dan does not give a good response to what I think I understand is the argument. I think he means to say that there are those who say that dispensationalists say that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel at His first coming and that if the nation had received Him as King then there would have been this geo-political establishment that dispensationalists want. This is implied in the term offer.
The problem is at what point does Jesus offer such a kingdom? It is true He is was and is King, but even before Pilate He reiterated the fact that His kingdom didn’t derive its authority from this earth. It is not a carnal kingdom. When the people came to make Him King, He rejected that (Jn. 6:15), not the other way around. As I pointed out in my post on Psalm 2, God never stopped being King of Israel when they asked for a human king. This should be understood here as well. Jesus did not need the permission of the nation to be King.
Dan, rightly uses the word presentation when referencing Israel. We need to understand this. Just as Gordan Clark was hit with this concerning the presentation of the gospel over half a century ago, we should be clear on this as well. Christ was presented to the nation Israel as King. Their rejection of Him didn’t keep Him from being King and it didn’t keep the kingdom from coming either! The same is true with the gospel. The gospel is not an offer in the sense that we use the word. Though those who wrote the confessions used the word, they had the idea of presentation, not a cordial “will you or will you not?” The gospel is a command.
As to the comment in regards to “what-ifs”, that has been my sentiment for so long that I am in total agreement with it. It is amazing the even well meaning Calvinists often bring this into the equation as though it will have any bearing upon anything. There are not what ifs. There is only what has happened, what is happening and just as in both of those things, the sovereign God of history has determined what will happen in the future. SDG

Dissing Dispensationalism 6

Next up from Dan’s post.

9.

It isn't a spiritual hermeneutic. Gosh, this one's such a hanging curveball. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Where to start? First, take off that "Plato is my homey" T-shirt, so we can talk. Oops, didn't see that "The Docetists are my crew" T-shirt underneath. Off with that too.

So, tell me: the resurrected body of Jesus -- carnal? Or spiritual? I'll play the Jeopardy music while you look up 1 Corinthians 15:44f. (Hint: God made matter. He's really okay with matter. Matter matters. Sin ruined matter, the regeneration will redeem it.)

Finally, if none of that helped you out of your decoder-ring quagmire, this thought: try not to be more "spiritual" than God, 'kay? When God said Messiah would come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), He knew it meant "house of bread" -- but He meant the city anyway. I imagine what a CT would have done with that, before fulfillment: "What God is really saying would have been perfectly clear to the Jews. It was symbolic. Messiah would come from 'the house for bread,' from the storehouse of God's spiritual nourishment, and He would give life, as bread does. Those wooden literalists who look for fulfillment in an actual city are perverting the Word to their carnal imaginations."

Trying to out-spiritual God is really stupid.

Do I get to use the Bunky name here?:) JK. Look, obviously there are those things which are carnal and those things which are spiritual. Simply put let’s recap those others that are spiritual though they were spoken of with carnal language. Remember those? The temple from John 2, the new birth from John 3, the living water from John 4, John 6 the bread come down from heaven. In every one of those passages the hearers thought just like Phillips, but in everyone, they were wrong.

Spiritual hermeneutic is not the issue here. Literary hermeneutic is. For those who understand this is where we get the term literal from. When we speak of something literal, we don’t mean normal, we mean words used in the natural context of the kind of literature read. For instance, most of us clearly understand that when we read poetry, we would read it literally, right? Of course, but in that literal reading, we would understand the use of symbolism and imagery. I am not saying dispensationalists don’t do this, but there are times when they cannot see in apocalyptic writings that imposing a literal interpretation that doesn’t go with that sort of literature brings about all sorts of problems.

Is out-spiritualizing God the real issue here? Of course no one is even trying to do that. I don’t know of any a-mils or post-mil theology that views matter as evil, sin tainted, but not evil in and of itself.

10.

Dispensationalists are antinomian. Bologna. I'm the former, and yet I'm not the latter. (In fact, gutless-gracers say I'm a legalist.) Makes just as much sense as saying amillennialists are Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholics are amillennial. Not only is there no necessary connection between dispensationalism and gutless-grace insanity, but the very hermeneutic that produces dispensationalism also deals howling, shrieking death to antinomianism.

While I do know some dispensationalists who are antinomian, I also know some reformed folks who are also, at least in my opinion. This again is not a good argument against dispensationalists in general. This would be specific to the person.

11.

We should interpret the Old by the New. In itself, fine. Show me where the New says the Old is a lie, a fake, a trick -- because that's what replacement theology makes it. What I read in the New Testament is Jesus Christ severely blaming unbelievers for not accepting what's there in plain sight (Matthew 16:1-3; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47). I don't see Him saying, "I really can't blame you for not seeing this -- who could have? It was totally hidden from everyone!"

One hears, "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed." Given the interpretive violence some folks do to the Word, a more appropriate version I've heard might be, "The Old is by the New restricted; the New is on the Old inflicted."

What is this about replacement theology? Where did that come from. Has he really read CT? I am sure he has. This sounds like some Arminians who attack Calvinists to me. Change what the CTs actually say and then “Gotcha!” That’s not to hard to do. There have been several statements already that I could have done that with Dan’s words, but I don’t think that would be fair to him. His lack of understanding our position concerning the differences in the nation of Israel and the Church and the identical nature of the spiritual Israel of the Old Testament with the Church of the New Testament is simply disappointing.

As he responds to the words of Christ and I agree with part of his point. He fails to also take into account these words from Matthew 13,

"13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ 16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 "for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Seems to me Dan should take that into account.

12.

You can't take everything literally. Do you mean that literally? Of course you do. {pause}

See number 9 response here. BTW both sides do thisJ

13.

Dispies are over-literal. Have you actually heard a dispensationalist lay out his hermeneutic? People who offer "over literal" as a seriously critique of dispensationalism have seemingly never read a book dealing with hermeneutics, written by a responsible dispensationalist. Try this for an interpretive principle:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental and axiomatic truths, clearly indicate otherwise

It's a totally dispensational hermeneutic, and it's an equally dandy Reformed hermeneutic -- or should be. There's quite the chasm between saying "Of course God isn't literally a 'rock'," and saying "Mount Zion -- oh yeah. Has to be the universal Christian church!" Dispensationalists are what all Reformed folks would be, if they were consistent in their hermeneutics.

Well, I’ll give him a C for effort here. The problem comes in the principle itself with that word literal. Again, I wonder how Dan would handle passages that are apocalyptic, even in the Old Testament which seem to speak to the utter destruction of the world, when in fact just a particular nation is being addressed (ie. Babylon). What does he do with passages in the New Testament that clearly spell out the interpretation of Mt. Zion or the New Jerusalem. I mean, I continually come back to this: Why would someone continue looking backwards towards the carnal, when the spiritual reality, interpreted for us by the inspired apostles tells us this? I simply don’t get it.

14.

I think Hal Lindsey is stupid, and I like to make fun of him. Really? I think Harold Camping is stupid and, well, he is pretty easy to parody. Is this helpful?

I completely agree with both of these commentsJ And no, neither one is helpful.

Dissing Dispensationalism 5

As you can see these are short comments, because as best I can see it, there really isn’t any meat to get into here. But Dan was complaining that no one actually addressed his points, so I am giving it a try. If you don’t know or haven’t seen the his post, you can find it here.

7.

But the Reverend Doctor Professor _____ wrote a 600-page book destroying dispensationalism! Yeah. Have you ever noticed that it takes an awful lot of very detailed, sophisticated argumentation to "prove" that a passage doesn't mean what it says? If we're talking about the meaning of yom in Genesis 1, I can say "It means a day" in four words -- but it'll take hundreds, or even tens of thousands to "explain" that yom doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to mean. Once, I was asked if I could explain what a prophetic OT passage meant. "Sure," I replied. "Means what it says." That was my complete answer, and everyone knew exactly what I meant by it. Ohh boy, but that ticked off a guy whose obnoxious new girlfriend was Covenant Theology. But you know, before I was a Christian, I was in a cult whose answer to every uncongenial passage was, "We have to look for the deeper meaning." Funny how the "deeper meaning" was always the precise opposite of what the passage said, and exactly in harmony with what our cult believed. I left that sort of gameplaying behind with my conversion, and anything that even smells like it to me, smells.

I agree with the first part. Just because someone writes a long book about something doesn’t mean he has accomplished the task he set out to do.

And, yes, I’ve heard that argument before from those against Calvinism too. That doesn’t make the point. While I certainly wouldn’t use the specific argument he addressed, I do think it rather arrogant to deal with the claim on such a level. First there are greater minds than both of ours and to push aside a valid response, such as Dr. So and so’s book on the subject without fully dealing with it is just ridiculous. I wonder how much Dan has had to take steps and long talks to engage those who are opposed to him concerning Calvinism. I’m sure, if it’s like the rest of us, it takes a long time and lots of illustrations and Scripture and metaphors and so on. This doesn’t mean the texts don’t mean what they say.

No one, as far as I know, is looking for a “deeper meaning”, so don’t lump CTs in with that. BTW, speaking of cults, I can point to almost every cult there is in America (Mormon, JW, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) today and at their heart they have a form of dispensationalism. That is not an argument against dispensationalists, but it is a glaring contrast of the impact that the theology spun out, which coincidentally all these groups, minus RCs, came about at just after the rise of dispensationalism. Hmmmm. I smell a rat!

Speaking of game playing: the whole idea behind a future Tribulation with a pre-trib rapture is rather spurious, don’t you think? Try actually pulling that out of a text in its context. It will never happen.

8.

You can't prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the New Testament alone! Um, Bunky? Three words? "Plenary verbal inspiration." Dispensationalists do what all Reformed folks say they do: they believe in the whole Bible. Sort of got that idea from Jesus. So, just as no Reformed guy worth anything would accept such a demand as "Prove sovereign-grace election solely from 1 Chronicles 1:1," so no dispensationalist who believes in the principles of the Reformation should rise to the demand, "Prove every detail of your system from 1/3 of the Canon!" There is no passage that teaches everything that every other passage teaches. If so, God would have inspired a Bible with one verse.

Or perhaps a better statement would be that God did inspire a Bible with one verse. It's just a really, really long verse. And so, no believer in Reformed principles should indulge in trying to impose such a faulty premise. It's simply not Reformed to do so.

First, let me say that I completely cracked up at the “Bunky” line. That was too funny.

However, maybe Dan would like to comment on Psalm 2:7-9 and ask if it means what it says it means. Of course, I believe it does mean what it says it means. However, it would take some explaining for some who would not understand how it is used, such as MacArthur, who Andrew Lindsey pointed out sees this “begotten” part as the incarnation, rather than the apostle’s view which is the resurrection. Again, the problem that I see is that while he is saying the Bible is “one really, really long verse”, he in fact, does separate it out. The issue for those of us who are not dispensational is this: The New Testament interprets the Old Testament (or at least I speak for myself). This is because of the fact that the Old is the shadows and pictures and the New is the fulfillment of those things.

In reality, some things were not fully revealed in the Old Testament, thus the reasoning behind shadows, pictures and allegory and then in the New Testament we see that revelation in fulfillment. Dan then gives us the argument concerning plenary verbal inspiration. I certainly agree with the point he makes concerning interpretation or proof from only a section of Scripture. The problem is not as simple as he makes it though. The issue being brought up is that the NT affirms the promises fulfillments in Christ, not a geo-political entity.

While I understand his point and how it would go against the argument he stated, I don’t understand how it would addressed real questions in regards to what the New Testament affirms specifically against dispensationalism that I would raise. Therefore, if the NT denies to the dispensationalist their interpretation of the Old Testament they would do well to abandon their interpretation, no matter how much they cry foul.