Article: The Federal Vision and the Covenant of Works

It has been personally heard from (a) certain PRCA (Protestant Reformed Churches of America) pastor(s) that the Federal Vision affirms the Covenant of Work, as part of the PRC's polemic against the teaching of the Covenant of Works. My recollection on this matter at that point was that the Federal Visionists deny (not affirm) the Covenant of Works as traditionally formulated, though I did not have much proof then to dispute the allegation.

Recently, I chanced upon an article by a certain Dr. J. V. Fesko, pastor of Geneva OPC, entitled The Federal Vision and the Covenant of Works. Through this article, Dr. Fesko showed that Federal Vision DOES in fact deny the Covenant of Works, and such denial parallels the confusion of Law and Gospel within the Federal Vision movement. The PRCA minister therefore is in error with regards to the relation of Federal Vision with respects to the idea of the Covenant of Works. On a side note, it is interesting to note that the Federal Vision as least in the teachings of James Jordon on the "Adamic Covenant" sounds eerily similar to the PRCA's teaching on the Adamic Covenant.

Excerpts: The Closing of the American Mind

I have just finished reading the book by Allan Bloom entitled The Closing of the American Mind, and yes, it is rather dated, but the arguments against the New Liberalism are still valid. This book shows how the irrational, anti-logical nihilistic anti-philosophy of Friedrich Nietzshe and Martin Heidderger (early 20th century) paved the way for the near total collapse of Western culture and liberal education, and hints at its further workings through the emergence of its logical outflow, Postmodernism (cf Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida) in the late 20th century. Society then virtually self-destructs in our modern age as the poison of Postmodernism corrodes the entire society from the inside out. Allan Bloom himself is not a Christian though, and he obviously does not think too highly of religion (but of course he thinks more highly of them then the secularists do). In older times, Bloom would be considered a (Old-time) Liberal, but with the rise of the Nietzscheanized Left, he is considered a Conservative, maybe even at the Right.

Nevertheless, let us proceed with some of the very interesting quotes from this bok of his.

[On the influence of early 20th century German philosophy in America, and through them the world]

I do not believe any of these professors noticed the darker side of Freud and Weber, let alone the Nietzsche-Heidegger extremism lying beneath the surface. Or rather, if they did notice, they found it of autobiographical rather than scientific interest. It is amazing to me that the irrational source of all conscious life in Freud, and the relativity of all values in Weber, did not pose a problem for them and their optimism about science. Freud was very dubious about the future of civilization and the role of reason in the life of man. He certainly was not a convinced advocate of democracy or equality. And Weber, much more thoughtful than Freud about science, morals and politics, lived in an atmosphere of permanent tragedy. His science was formulated as a doubtful dare against the chaos of things, and values certainly lay beyond its limits. This is what the very precarious, not to say imaginery, distinction between facts and value meant. Reason in politics leads to the inhumanity of bureaucracy. ... Calculating reaons would end up in dried-up, heatless and souless administration of things without community-forming and sustaining values; feelings would lead to selfish indulgence in superficial pleasures; political commitment would likely foster fanaticism, and it was questionable whether there was enough value-positing energy left in man. Everything was up in the air, and there was no theodicy to substain him in his travail. Weber, along with many others in Germany under Nietzsche's influence, saw that all that we care was threatened by his insight and that we were without intellectual or moral resources to govern the outcome. We require values, which in turn require a perculiar huamn creativity that is drying up and in any event has no cosmic support. Scientific analysis itself concludes that reason is powerless, while dissolving the protective horizon within which men can value. None of this is perculiar to Weber or comes simply from his distressed personality, which he had at least partly because of the blea perspective that lay before him. There is no doubt that value relativism, if it is true and it is believed in, taes one into very dark regions of the soul and very dangerous political experiments. But on enchanted American ground the tragic sense has little place, and the early proponents of the new social science gaily accepted the value insight, sure that their values were just fine, and went ahead with science. ... Suddenly a new generation that had not lived off inherited value fat, that had not been educated in philosophic and scientific indifference to good and evil, came on the street representing value commitment and taught their elders a most unpleasant lesson.

[Notice the link to the late great debauched Weimar Republic; precursor to Nazi Germany]

The image of this astonishing Americanization of the German pathos can be seen in the smiling face of Loius Armstrong as he belts out the words of his great hit "Mack the Knife". As most Amerian intellectuals know, it is a translation of the song "Makie Messer" from The Threepenny Opera, a monument of Weimar Republic popular culture, written by two heroes of the artistic Left, Bertolt Brecht and Jurt Weill. There is a strange nostalgia among many of the American intelligentsia for this moment just prior to Hitler's coming to power, and Lotte Lenya's rendition of this song has long stood with Marlene Dietrich's singing "Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuss auf Liebe eingestellt" [It is a tad bit erotic in German] in the Blue Angel as the symbol of a charming, neurotic, sexy, decadent longing for some hazy fulfilment not quite present to the consciousness. Less known to our intelligentsia is an aphorism in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, a book well known to Brecht, entitled "On the Pale Criminal", which tells the story of a neurotic murderer, eerily resembling Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, who does not know, cannot know, that he committed murder out of a motive as legitimate as any other and useful in many important situations, but delegitimized in our pacific times: he lusted after "the joy of the knife". This scenario for "Mack the Knife" is the beginning of the supra-moral attitude of expectancy, waiting to see what the volcano of the id will spew forth, which appealed to Weimar and is American admirers. Everything is all right as long as it is not fascism! With Armstrong taking Lenya's place, as Mai Britt took Dietrich's, it is all mass marketed and the message becomes less dangerous, although no less corrupt [Perverse is the better word]. (pp. 150-152)

...

[Hypocrisy of the Nietzsheanized Left]

Here again we live with two cotradictory understandings of what counts for man. One tells us what is important is what all men have in common; the other that wat men have in common is low, while what they have from separate cultures give them their depth and their interest. Both agree that life, liberty, and the persuit of property, i.e. the interests of health and preservation, are what men share. The difference between them is the weight they give to being French or Chinese, Jewish or Catholic, or the rank order of these particuilar cultures in relation to the natural needs of the body. One is cosmopolitan, the other is particularistic. Human rights are connected with one school, respect for other cultures with the other. Sometimes the United States is attacked for failing to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to impose "the American way of life" on all people without respect for their cultures. To the extent that it does the latter, the United States does so in the name of self-evident truths that apply to the good of all men. But its critics argue that there are no such truths, that they are prejudices of American culture [Yes, I am sure THAT view is an American prejudice also]. On the other hand, the Ayatollah was initially supported by some here because he represented true Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating human rights. What he does is in the name of Islam. His critics insist that there are universal principles that limit the rights of Islam. When the critics of the U.S. in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights, are the same persons, which they often are, they are persons who want to eat their cake and have it, too.

Why, it might be asked, can't there be a respect for both human rights and culture? Simply because a culture itself generates its own way of life and principles, particularly its highest ones, with no authority above it. If there were such an authority, the unique way of life born of its principle would be undermined. The idea of culture was understood to be the shallow and dehumanizing universality of rights based on our animal nature. The folk mind takes the place of reason. ... (pp. 191-192)

...

[More inconsistency in New Liberalism]

It is Nietzsche's merit that he was aware that to philosophize is radically problematic in the cultural, historicist dispensation. He recognized the terrible intellectual and moral risks involved. At the center of every thought was the question "How is it possible to do what I am doing?" He tried to apply his own thought the teachings of cultural relativism. This practically nobody does. For example, Freud says that men are motivated by desire for sex and power, but he did not apply those motives to explain his own science or his own scientific activity. But if can be a true scientist, i.e. motivated by love of the truth, so can other men, and his desciption of their motives is thus morally flawed. Or if he is motivated by sex and power, he is not a scientist, and his science is only one means among many possible to attain those ends. This contradiction runs throughout the natural and social sciences. They give an account of things that cannot possibly explain the conduct of their practitioners. The highly ethical economist who spaks only about gain, the public-spirited political scientist who sees only group interest, the physicist who signs petitions in favor of freedom while recognizing only unfreedom — mathematical law governing moved matter — in the universe are symptomatic of the difficulty of providing a self-explanation for science and a ground for the theoretical life, which has dogged the life of the mind since early modernity but has become particularly acute with cultural relativism. (pp. 203-204)

...

[Beginning of irrationalism and the slide into Post-Modernism]

... Up to Nietzsche, the neglect of and contempt for Plato and Aristotle was the result of a belief that what they tried to do could be done much better. That is why Socrates was always in good repute. He was the skeptical seeker after the way to knowledge by means of unaided reason. He was not tied to any solution or system and thus could be seen as the originator and the inspirer who did not constrain the freedom of posterity. The current contempt for Plato and Aristotle is of an entirely different kind, for it is allied to contempt for Socrates. He corrupted them; they did not pervert him. We did not progress from Socrates, but he marked the beginning of the decline. Reason itself is rejected by philosophy itself. Thus the common thread of the whole tradition has been broken, and with it the raison d'etre of the university as we know it. (p. 311)

...

[On the growing fascism of the Nietzscheanized Left]

[Speaking of the sixties era] ... The fact that in Germany the politics were of the Right and in the United States of the Left should not mislead us. In both places the universities gave way under the pressure of mass movements, and did so in large measure because they thught that those movements possessed a moral truth superior to any the university could provide. ... The New Left in America was a Nietzscheanized-Heideggerianized Left. The unthinking hatred of "burgeious society" was exactly the same in both places. A distinguished professor of political science proved this when he read to his radical students some speeches about what was to be done. They were enthusiastic until he informed them that the speeches were by Mussolini [I guess the expressions on their faces are worth a lot]. ... (p. 315)

...

[Now, let the Liberals eat their own medicine]

[In a 60s Student uprising against the university]... These American professors were utterly disarmed, as were many German professors, when the constituency that they took for granted, of which they honestly believed they were independent, deserted or turned against the. Students and colleagues wanted to radicalize and politicize the university. To fulminate against Bible Belt preachers was one thing. In the world that counted for these professors, this could only bring approval. But to be isolated in the university, to be called foul names by their studnts or their colleagues, all for the sake of an abstract idea, was too much for them [Serve them right for their double standardness!]. They were not in general strong men, althought their easy rhetoric had persuaded them that they were — that they alone manned the walls protecting civilization, Their collapse [capitulation to the demands of the masses; students lording over teachers] was merely pitiful, although their feeble attempts at self-justification frequently turned vicious. ... (p. 318)

The piper would henceforth play the tune called by the students, and they [the students] were not even paying. (p. 327)

...

[The disgraceful behavior of the natural scientists, and the consequences of the error of affirmative action]

... [Natural scientists] are pretty sure of what they are teaching. They cannot deceive themselves that they are teaching science when they are not. They have powerful operational measures of competence. And inwardly they believe, at least in my experience, that the only real knowledge is scientific knowledge. In the dilemma that faced them — mathematicians wanted, for example, to see more black and women hired but could not fnd nearly enough competent ones — they in effect said that the humanists and social scientists should hire them Believing that there are no real standards outside of the natural sciences, they assumed that adjustments could easily be made. With the profoundest irresponsibility, scientists went along with various aspects of affirmative action, assuming, for example, that any minority students admitted without proper qualifications would be taken care of by other departments if they did not do well in sciences. The scientists did not anticipate large-scale failture of such students, with the really terrible consequences that would entail. They took it for granted that these students would succeed somewhere in the university. And they were right. The humanities and social scientists were debauched and grade inflation took off, while the natural sciences remain largely the preserve of white males. Thus the true elitists of the university have been able to stay on the good side of the forces of history without having to suffer any of the consequences. (p. 351)

Hobbes said that if the fact that two and two makes four were to become a matter of political relevance, there would be a faction to deny it. (p. 354)

P.S.: By the way, Freidrich Nietzsche was the one who coined the phrase "God is dead", not to say that God as a person was dead, as some naive Christians may think he though, but that the concept of God and the divine is for all purposes 'dead' in his mind. This of course did not give him a very optimistic view of things, but that's for another time.

Resource on learning Greek

I have been busy reading quite some books recently, and I have recently spend another SGD300+ buying various books. So, anyway, I have gotten an interesting book from my previous Amazon.com purchase.

I would be slowly going through this introductory book so that I can learn and not just browse through it. After all, it's another language. Looks rather interesting though. (I've just finished the alphabet, the pronunciation of the alphabets, the accents and the breath marks). And it is linked to Miami International School, which do offer some courses for credit also. So this DOES indeed look interesting. As a side comment, my brief 2 year exposure to German (I've since forgotten most of it by now) would help, especially with the pronunciation part. Υ (υ) is pronounced very similar to the German pronunciation of üpsilon (Y), and especially the first syllable (mit der umlaut).

Oh, I will continue with the charismata series soon, Lord willing.

P.S. Yes, I am still working full-time and NOT in full-time ministry, so I wouldn't be that fast.

Excerpts: Christianity and Liberalism (Updated)

Here are some good quotes from John Gresham Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism (1923), written in the wake of the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the late 19th/early 20th century. Just FYI, the Modernist/Liberal position (very much alive today) denies cardinal Christian doctrines like the Inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the sinfulness of Man, and the Gospel en toto.

... The consiousness of sin was formerly the starting-point of all preaching; but today it is gone. Characteristic of the modern age, above all else, is a supreme confidence in human goodness; the religious literature of the day is redolent of that confidence. Get beneath the rough exterior of men, we are told, and we shall discover enough self-sacrifice to found upon it the hope of society; the world's evil, it is said, can be overcome with the world's good; no help is needed from outside the world. (p. 64)

... The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task — she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinguish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible — especially in the life of Jesus — something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He. (p. 68)

... For if one thing is plain it is that Christianity refuses to be regarded as a mere means to a higher end. Our Lord made that perfectly clear when He said: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother ... he cannot be my disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). Whatever else those stupendous words may mean, they certinaly mean that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of all other relationships, even the holiest of relationships like those between husband and wife and parent and child. Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them. Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism [Marxism/Communism]; but if it is accepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a unified nation, in a slow but satisfactory way: but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity: Christianity will promote international peace; but if it accepted in order to promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteous in order that all those things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well. (p. 151-152)

[J. Gresham Machen (1923), Christianity and Liberalism, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. Bold added]

As it can be seen, such words are still relevant to us nearly one century on. Human nature hasn't changed, and these words are perhaps even more pertinent to us today than they are then. Machen would be spinning in his grave just knowing the state of Evangelicalism today; not to mention the state of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination which he helped founded (Federal Vision anyone?)

Update: My friend Vincent has posted a good post enunciating the points and arguments made by Machen on the importance of doctrine, which is found in chapter 2 of the book. So do look at it.

Thoughts on Dispensationalism on the topic of Israel

[continued from here]

The Dispensationalist view of Israel and the Church is shown through quotations of the the leaders of the movement like Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, and Chafer. Williams in this book states that the Dispensationalist view of Israel and the Church is necessitated by their view of the Church as an essentially transcendent, heavenly and invisible entity. Since the Church is heavenly, the way to harmonize such an idea with the very "earthly" promises found in the OT to Israel is to "put these things in their respective places [and] arrange them in order (p. 89). And therefore "the Darbyist metaphysical distinction between Israel and the church is the sine qua non of classical dispensational theology" (p. 90). Israel thus

... is ordained by God as the center of all His dealings with the earth. All God does in the history of the world, He does with Israel in view. Israel belongs to the eath and participates fully in its affairs. She is never associated with heaven in the Bible. She is, rather, always related to the earth. ... Israel is above all others in the reckoning of God. She is always at the center of the divine counsels regarding the earth, and she continues as the elect earthly people of God forever. (p. 90)

As for the church, she is

a parenthesis in the plan of God. Stricly speaking then, the church has no place in the divine plan. By the term parenthesis Scofield and Chafer meant that the church is not to be found in the pages of the Old Testament and that the church constitutes an interim in the midst of God's dealigs with Israel. The church is a temporary arrangement inhabiting the time between the Old Testament Jewish kingdom and the millennial Jewish kingdom. This view of the church as a parenthesis is the ineitable result of the contention that the covenants which promise Israel a land, a kingdom, and an eteral king are unconditional and yet await fulfilment. The church is but a stop-gap between the historical kingdom of David and his successors, which ended long ago, and the Davidic kingdom of the future which was promised to Israel by God, and will yet be established by the returning Messiah when the church is removed from the world. (p. 107)

This of course carries with it many implications, some of which are not biblical. One such implication is that Israel is saved by God not by faith in Christ's sacrifice but by works, since Israel is totally metaphysically separate from the Church and thus Christ's atoning sacrifice is not supposed to factor into Israel's salvation. This charge of course is denied by the Dispensationalists, but this is more because they recognize such a position as heresy rather than they being logically consistent with their stated theological paradigm.

Anyway, the probem of Israel is a hot issue, with Dispensationalists typically calling Covenant Theology "replacement theology" and therefore we who embraced it do not love the Jews and are "anti-Semitic". When facing this charge, we must avoid a knee-jerk approach. The fact is that many Reformed folks have throughout history paid lip service to their professed non-discrimination against Jews and are quite anti-Semitic in their words and actions (Think of Martin Muther's polemic against the Jews for example). And even to this day, many non-Dispensational Christians are willing to believe the Palestinian propaganda machine in demonizing the nation of Israel and think that Israel is the aggresor and is "oppressing the Palestinians". So the charge of anti-Semitism is valid to some of the professed adherents of Covenantal Theology among others. Of course, this does not mean that the Dispensationalists are true Jew lovers. Consistent Dispensationalists like John Hagee deny that Jews need to be saved by the Gospel as they are already saved because they are Israel. Since the Scriptures states that ALL need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, there being no difference between Jew and Gentile (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:12-15), such a heretical view is in fact truly anti-Semitic, as it condemns unbelieveing Jews to an eternity apart from Christ.

It would be good here to differentiate between the two beliefs called Zionism and Christian Zionism. Zionism is just the support of the state of Israel and love for the Jews. 'Christian Zionism' on the other hand links Christianity and Zionism into a strange hybrid. As defined by consistent Dispensationalists like John Hagee, this has become heresy; a strong delusion indeed.

The biblical view is that of expansion, that Israel as the Covenant people in the OT has expanded to the Church in the New Covenant which is made up of elect Jews and Gentile alike. The key passage for this issue that should be looked at is of course Rom. 11:11-24, which reads

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Rom. 11:11-24)

When we read this passage, we can know that Jews who reject Christ are likened to native branches of an olive tree that are broken off because of their unbelief, while Gentile believers are likened to wild branches grafted into the olive tree. The olive tree represent the true Israel of God; the true Covenant people of the Church of God. The means of rejection is unbelief, while of ingrafting is faith (Rom. 11:20). Therefore, we can see that Israel is the fallen Covenant people. Therefore, all Jews today are born Covenant breakers, by rejecting the Covenant of Grace prefigured in the OT. As Paul states, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers as regards election (Rom. 11:28b).

So the biblical understanding of modern Israel is not that they have "fulfilled the purposes of God and are therefore now the same as other ethnic groups". Rather, they are Covenant breakers facing the wrath of God for their sins. Under Covenant Theology, which is 'Expansion Theology' rather than 'Replacement Theology', they are regarded similarly to backslidden Christians and unbelieving children of believers. Unbelieveing Jews are to be called to repent of their unbelief and turn to Jesus Christ, who is prophesized in the Old Testament which they have, whom they have rejected.

So therefore, contra the claims of Dispensationlism, Covenantal Theology is not anti-Semitic. Rather, we who hold to Covenantal Theology should love the Jews and expressed such a love in evangelism. For as Paul said, "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. 9:4b-5). Yet they are cut off because of their unbelief in Christ, and therefore we are to call them back to the true faith they have rejected since the time of Christ.

As a matter of fact, therefore, I do believe that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church, but not metaphysically like the Dispensationalists. The distinction rather is one based on the Covenant. Israel consists of the Church during the Old Covenant era while they became Covenant breakers who are therefore cut off from the Covenant (broken branches) in the New Covenant era. Also, it is not a total distinction but a partial functional one. In the spirit of Puritan revivalist post-millenialism, it is my contention that the Scriptures do teach an end-time revival in which Israel as a corporate body would turn to faith in Christ, a teaching that can be seen in Rom. 11:25-31, which states

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. (Rom. 11:25-31)

Verses 25 to 26 seems to indicate that God has partially hardened Israel in order that the fullness of the Gentiles would come in, after which all Israel would be saved. Verses 31 further shows that such a hardening works out for God's glory, so that God's mercy would be seen in salvation to be not based on ethnicity (in that Jews would boast they are saved because they are the descendents of Abraham), but rather by grace alone (Sola Gratia).

In conclusion, it can be seen that the proper biblical response to the issue of Israel is NOT Dispensationalism or its consistent position in the heresy called 'Christian Zionism'. Rather, Covenantal Theology with its notion of the expansion of the Covenant to the Gentiles is the answer — leading to true love for the Jews in evangelizing them to the fulfilment of their formerly rejected biblical heritage in faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior. And to this we must do, not to follow the heresy of Christian Zionism into supporting the Jews unconditionally while not evangelizing them, or to follow and believe the anti-Semitic propaganda spat out by the Palestinians and their symphatizers.

Some thoughts on Dispensationalism and the Church (Ammended)

I have recently been reading this book, and am still reading it. Basically, this book discusses classical Dispensationalism and critiques it. That said, this book is not an easy read. The author seems have some theological view which inform his critique of which he does not seem to be exactly explicit about it (nevermind arguing from Scripture; this is an academic historical book more than a biblical theological book). For example, his criticism of the 'strict determinism' of Dispensationalism sounds strange unless he is an Arminian or Open Theist, unless he further clarifies his charge. That said, this is not the issue I would be posting about.

I would like to muse about two topics here: namely Ecclesiology and Israelogy, which we shall go through later. Williams aptly utilizes primary source material from the leaders of Dispensationalism — John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer and others, and showed the development of their views and the implications it had on various topic. On the topic of Ecclesiology, Williams showed the development of Darby's view of the "church in ruins" mentality, which is of course an important element in the Dispensational ecclesiology. Since I was accused before of being a Darbyist, I would like to take some time talking about my view of Ecclesiology, which is much different from the classical Dispensational view on this matter.

The classical Dispensationalist view as exposed in this book is that the Church is fundamentally invisible, and that this invisible church (which consists of true believers) is a transcendent and 'heavenly' entity, having absolutely no relation whatsoever to the earthly visible church. Chafer is quoted (p. 70) as stating that "the local church is no more than the assembly of professed believers in one locality". Therefore, there is a fundamental and metaphysical disconnect between the Visible and Invisible Church. It is also stated that "the church, as the body of christ, exists only in heaven" (p. 76), and therefore "God does not 'call-out' a church per se, but individual persons, their sum constituting the body of Christ" (p 77).

After reading all this, I can see why my stated views may seem to be similar to Dispensationalism on this topic. Yet I totally reject such views as being unbiblical. The problem therefore with people who think of me in such a manner is their judgmentalism in making all sort of assumptions about what my view on especially this particular matter is based on the little that they know about me, and imputing all manner of false and sinful motives to my actions. Yet a cursory look at several of my posts on Ecclesiology, especially the article which I have posted on Church Polity, should have told anyone without any axe to grind that my views are NOT the same as Darbyism. I do not think of the Visible or the Local Church as unimportant, and those who think I do are plainly judgmental, period.

Before going through this topic, it is good to look at the various theological terms that describe the Church.

Invisible Church: The sum total of all true Christians, elected by God before the foundation of the earth who have already confessed the true faith

Visible Church: The visible communion of all believers who professed the true faith

Universal Church: The visible communion of all believers who professed the true faith across all denominational lines and national, ethic, socio-economic and political boundaries

Local Church: The gathering of a group of professing believers as an expression of the Visible/Universal Church

Institutional Church: The Visible Church as it is expressed in institutions/hierarchy/ organizational structures, and especially focused on the leaders in such institutions.

The differences between the Visible Church and the Universal Church is more on the emphasis placed in the latter on the fact that the Church as a body is transnational, transethnic etc.; more on anthropological distribution. The contrasting pairs are therefore the Church Invisible vs Visible, the Church Universal vs the Church Local, and the Church Institutional vs the Priesthood of all believers.

The first pair to look at is the Invisible/Visible contrast that marks the Church. The Invisible Church is the sum total of all the elect who have made a true confession of Christ, while the Visible Church is the sum total of all professing believers of Christ. Therefore, the contrast is one between confession and profession; between what is invisible and what is visible. Over and against the Dispensationalists, the Invisible Church is not just some transcendent, heavenly reality, but is a present 'earthly' reality, though the exact number of the elect are not known to us but to God alone; the difference is horizontal rather than vertical. The aim of course is to make the Visible Church consists of the Invisible Church only, and thus that all who profess Christ should truly confess Christ also. Yet, we do know that there are false believers in our midst (cf 1 Jn. 2:19) but this is something we have to bother with only when they express their unbelief. In the meantime, all who profess Christ should be treated as genuine Christians, unless they prove otherwise.

The next contrasting pair is between the Church Universal and the Church Local. The contrast is therefore one of acknolwedging that the Church is gathered not in one place only, but there are local expressions of the Church as groups of believers gather separately for whatever reasons (ie geography, language, culture, doctrinal). Such a contrast is therefore a present factual reality, as it is impossible for all Christians everywhere to congregate in one place to perform all the functions of the Church.

The last contrasting pair is between the Church as an Institute and the Priesthood of all believers. This recognizes the difference between the leaders and the official beliefs of a Church, and the individual believers that make up the Church.

Now, the problem with Dispensationalism seems to be the inability to differentiate between the Church as an Institute, and the Visible Church. Dispensationalism sees the waywardness of the Institutional Church and throws away the biblical concept of the Visible Church in favor of their version of the 'transcendent, heavenly and invisible church'. Others who place a huge emphasis on the Local Church identifies the Institutional Church with the Visible Church and therefore the Institutional Church is at best not to be criticized, in an attitude reminiscent of New Evangelicalism. According to one website [link since withdrawn — see Update at end], the Spirit of Darbyism can therefore be characterized by:

• a. Rightness of one’s view, anyone with differing view is apostate
• b. Unteachable spirit
• c. “church in ruins” mentality – “lone-ranger” Christian – never associated with any church (extreme anti-denominationalism)
• d. Profess to serve the “universal” church, but only in terms of seeking out heretics/heresy
• e. Self-appointed "watchmen" of Christendom
• f. All over WWW – discussion boards, blogs, etc
• Local churches could do with less of such!
• Congregations should be taught lessons on pride/humility
• Preachers should be faithful and continue to teach sound doctrine

Before we go even further as to why such a definition is erroneous, let us affirm that the Visible Church will always be around contra the claims of Darby that the "chuch is in ruins".

In Mt. 16: 18, it is written:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Christ has promised to build His church on the rock of Peter's Confession (that He is the Christ), and He promised that the gates of hell will NOT previal against the Church. The Church will never be destroyed because Jesus is the one who is protecting her and preserving her. Therefore, both the Insivisble Church and the Visible and the Universal Church will always exist even to the very end of time itself.

That said, we must notice that this promise was never made to any particular Local church, Denomination, or any type of Christian groups. And therefore, while the Church Universal will never fall, the local churches can and do fall. Simiarly, the promise does not apply to the Institutional Church as well, as if Christian leaders and denominaions are infallible.

The failure to differentiate between the Visible Church and the Institutional Church is actually one of the hallmarks of Church-ianity, which identifies any visible form of the Church as the Visible Church and invest into it the promises of Christ in Mt. 16:18. Such a mis-identification causes harm ultimately to the cause of Christ. For exampe, some may think that that the failure to associate with any denomination or mainstream Church authority (a "lone ranger" mentality) is erroneous, yet the entire idea of a denomination is part of the Institutional Church and Church-ianity. We will ignore part d for its demonstrates a lack of charity and judgmental assult of other's characters as if such a person know what for example I do in the time I am not blogging (Curiosly enough, more than 50% of my blog is talking about various doctrines, songs etc and not naming heretics, yet it seems that there are people who are especially adept at seeing only the things they want to see). Part e is an attack on all Discernment ministries in particular, and all discerning Christians in general. Worst of all, it is a blatent attack on Scripture which tell us to be Bereans (Acts 17: 11), to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4:1) and it behaves as if false doctrines and teachers are not present in the Church. With regards to the difference between the Visible Church and the Institutional Church, Discernment ministries and all of us who function as watchmen and apologists are critcal of much of the Institutional Church and various local churches, yet, at least for me, we embrace the Visible Church. Like the Reformers, we have in mind the reformation of the Church in which the Visible Church would be purged of the dross and the heretics within her, however many they may be, and the elect of God called and matured in the faith as they join the Visible Church in its expression of biblically minded Local churches (not just any Local Church), with the result being the reform of the entire Institutional Church. We are not interested in revolution in which all church bodies would be destroyed and a new church order established (which was the error of the Anabaptists btw). Therefore, those who criticize us as having the Spirit of Darbyism is in fact bearing false witness against all people of discernment. It is no wonder that such persons, because of their identification of the Visible Church with the Institutional Church, will leave heretics alone rather than contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

So contrary to the assertion of that article, local churches need more of such people, not less. The congregation do need to be taught about pride and humility, yey to do so biblically, knowing that a false humility that refuses to contend for the faith is not true humiltiy at all, but is actually pride masquerading as 'humility'.

With this let us look at the idea and concept of Israel within Dispensationalism and within the Bible.

[to be continued]

*Update*: The key antagonist for this post has apologized for his behavior in this, and as such, the site link is removed.