|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 Main Menu PFRS Home Doctrinal Studies Progressive Dispensationalism Introduction PD Summary Pro-Disp 101 Pro-Disp 102 PD In Depth Kingdom Hope in the OT Kingdom Hope in Psalms Kingdom Hope in Gospels Kingdom Hope in Parables That Prophet The Abrahamic Covenant Heaven Destiny Origin Israel's Role The Mystery Revealed Paul & the Mystery Church in the OT - I Church in the OT - II Church in the OT - III Kingdom Hope in Hebrews Daniel's 70 Weeks Jesus & David's Throne Excessive Dispensationalism Dispensationalism's Future PD Debate Intro: Couch vs. Warner I. Opening - Warner I. Rebuttal - Couch I. Response - Warner I. Closing - Couch II. Opening - Couch II. Rebuttal - Warner II. Response - Couch II. Closing - Warner |
|
PFRS Home
>
Doctrinal Studies > Progressive
Dispensationalism > An Answer to Dr. John Master (Philadelphia Bible University) Copyright © Tim Warner
Dr. John Master, of
Philadelphia Bible University and a traditional
dispensationalist, has given a very honest and refreshing
assessment of the current debate between traditional and progressive
dispensationalists. Master's treatment
of the subject can be read at the following link, http://www.etsjets.org/meetings/2002/future-of.PDF.
I say
"refreshing" because when you scan the
internet for information on progressive dispensationalism, you find a
plethora of articles denouncing PD by traditional dispensationalists.
One quickly
gets the impression reading some of them that dispensationalists are
quite afraid of this development within their system, and are seeking
to squash it at all costs. There are few clear
and balanced expositions of progressive dispensationalism on the
internet. PFRS seems to be the lone exception. A fair treatment of PD
by the other side is virtually
non-existent. In most of the articles written by traditional
dispensationalists denouncing PD, the attempt seems
to be to scare the reader away from PD by linking it to amillennialism.
At the very least, these articles portray PD as teetering on the ledge
of that scary "slippery
slope" that leads to a-mill. The chief culprits in this scheme are Zola
Levitt and his theological staff, and other members of the Pre-Trib
Research Center, such as Thomas Ice and Mal Couch. In this
environment, Master's honest assessment of the current situation is
refreshing. In this article, I would like to engage Dr. Master's major
points. In particular, I
would like to take up his challenge to progressive dispensationalists
to address certain issues that he feels are problematic for our system. Master
has indeed
put his finger on the biggest problem within his own camp, traditional
dispensationalism. And that is the problem of the New Covenant
prophesied to Israel (Jer. 31), yet fulfilled (at least partially) in
the present dispensation. Before I attempt to answer his
challenge, I believe we should first consider his attempt at answering
the problem of
the New Covenant in traditional dispensationalism. This problem will be
the undoing of traditional dispensationalism, with its dualistic
programs for Israel and the Church. In his attempt to ease the problem for his side, Master claims Hebrews 8 does not actually state that the New Covenant has already superseded the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. He presents the novel idea that the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah itself (Jer. 31:31-34), when it was made through Jeremiah, made the Mosaic Covenant "obsolete" at that time, in a theoretical or prophetic sense. In other words, the writer of Hebrews was not claiming that in his day the coming of the New Covenant had made the Mosaic Covenant "old." Rather, Jeremiah's prophesying of the coming of the New Covenant is what made the Mosaic Covenant "old" in the sense that Jeremiah prophesied of its eventual demise. Master writes, "But does Hebrews teach the New covenant has replaced the Mosaic covenant and Christ now functions in heaven as the Melchizedekian high priest? I do not think Hebrews teaches this. If Hebrews did teach the present functioning of the New covenant, the book would be contradicting itself. First and most obviously, Hebrews 8:13 simply does not say the Mosaic covenant has been replaced by the New covenant. What it explicitly says is that, when the Lord spoke through Jeremiah about the New covenant, at the moment of the announcement of the New covenant’s replacing it, the Mosaic covenant became “obsolete” (pepalai,wken)." I must admit that this is a pretty imaginative attempt at resolving the dilemma presented by the New Covenant in Hebrews 8. But it does nothing to elevate the same problem in several other passages, such as Jesus' reference to His "blood of the New Covenant" at the Last Supper, or Paul's claim to being a "minister of the New Covenant" to the Gentiles (2 Cor. 3:6). One thing is for sure. Dr. Master has definitely overstated his case. While the grammar of Hebrews 8:13 might permit his view, it does not require it as Master claims. Master writes, "What it explicitly says is that, when the Lord spoke through Jeremiah about the New covenant, at the moment of the announcement of the New covenant’s replacing it, the Mosaic covenant became 'obsolete'." Does the text explicitly say this? No it does not. The NKJV reads, "In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete." Literally from the Greek this verse says, "in saying 'new,' He has made obsolete the old..." or "by saying 'new,' he has made obsolete the old...". This construction — the preposition "en" followed by the articular infinitive — can have one of two meanings in this verse, according to Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace. It can refer to contemporaneous time (as Master takes it), or to means, that is, the way in which the action is accomplished. 1 While Master's interpretation is a possibility, it is by no means a certainty. It is just as grammatically correct to see this clause as referring to means. The former covenant was made "old" BY his calling this covenant "new." This interpretation is strongly supported by the context, as we shall show. Hence, the proper translation is not "when he said, 'new'..." as Master seems to think (referring to contemporaneous time with Jeremiah). Rather, "by saying 'new,' he has made obsolete the old." In other words, the writer of Hebrews was explaining that the use of the word "new" in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31 is what guarantees the Mosaic Covenant's obsolescence. When the writer of Hebrews continues by saying, "He has made the first obsolete," he used the perfect tense. That means a completed action in the past with continuing results to the present. The Mosaic Covenant was already obsolete when Hebrews was written, but not in Jeremiah's day. It was made obsolete by the coming of the New Covenant through Christ. If Master's interpretation of the clause is correct, then the Old Covenant actually became obsolete in Jeremiah's day. Why then do all the prophets following Jeremiah constantly exhort Israel and Judah to follow the Mosaic covenant (eg. Mal. 4:4)? The proof that Master's interpretation is in error comes from the context. Master has failed to notice the context which clearly names Christ as the current administrator of the New Covenant at the time of the writing of Hebrews. The quote of Jeremiah 31 contained in Hebrews 8 was presented to support the writer's point, that Christ had already inaugurated this "better covenant," and was currently its "minister." "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: 'Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah'— ..." (Heb 8:6-8 NKJV). Notice the verb "has," underlined above, which is a perfect indicative verb. Again, the perfect tense indicates a completed act with continuing results. So, Christ had already obtained a "more excellent ministry" than Moses' when Hebrews was written. Notice the verb "is" underlined above. This verb is present indicative, and indicates the present continuous status of Christ as the mediator of this "better covenant." Finally, notice the verb "was" underlined above. This is also perfect indicative, completed in the past with continuing results. In short, the "better covenant" had already been established, and the results were continuing when the author of Hebrews penned this text. There is no question that the "better covenant" in verse 6 is the "New Covenant," because the writer immediately quoted Jeremiah 31 in support of his argument that Jesus was currently the mediator of this "better covenant," which had already been established on better promises. Master simply cannot postpone the New Covenant until the Millennium without violating the context. Master points out that the Mosaic Covenant seems to have been present in the writer's day, since he spoke of the sacrifices, priestly offices, using the present tense. That is true only because the Temple was still standing, and the Jewish priesthood was still offering sacrifices in Jerusalem when this book was written prior to AD70. But, the fact that unbelieving Jews did not understand the Mosaic Covenant was obsolete, and consequently continued to offer animal sacrifices, does not in any sense establish the idea that the New Covenant had not yet come. The writer of Hebrews seems to anticipate the prophecy of Jesus regarding the imminent destruction of the Temple and priesthood with the words, "about to vanish away." What is abundantly clear from this passage is that the New Covenant had already been established, that Jesus was its current administrator, and that all remnants of the Mosaic Covenant were about to disappear with the impending destruction of the Temple that Jesus so clearly prophesied (Luke 21:5-6). In addition, Dr. Master seems to have overlooked the fact that the prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 is quoted again in chapter 10. "And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,' then He adds, 'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' Now where there IS remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh," (Heb 10:11-20 NKJ). The words in blue above are direct quotes of Jeremiah 31, regarding the New Covenant. The writer of Hebrews clearly taught that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were made obsolete by the once-for-all offering of the body of Christ. It was through this offering, not the animal sacrifices, that we are "perfected forever" (permanently) as opposed to the animal sacrifices that could never take away sin. The writer then said that the Holy Spirit witnesses this to us, and proceeded to again quote the same prophecy of Jeremiah regarding the New Covenant that he quoted previously in chapter 8. He interpreted the clause from Jeremiah, "their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more," as referring specifically to the redemption that we now have on account of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. This is clearly the realization of this part of Jeremiah's prophecy in their day by those who experienced forgiveness through Christ. Finally, the "new" and "living way" of salvation is obviously a reference to the "new" covenant. There is no alternative than to conclude that the writer of Hebrews fully believed the New Covenant was being realized in his own day. We applaud Master for a valiant attempt at resolving the dilemma of the New Covenant within traditional dispensationalism. But, his attempt fares no better than the former attempt by some, claiming there are two New Covenants, one for Israel and one for the Church. It is simply untenable to deny the establishment of the New Covenant of Jer. 31 at the first coming of Christ. Unless traditional dispensationalism can resolve the New Covenant dilemma, it is doomed. Answering Master's Challenge to Progressive Dispensationalists The problem that Master postulates for progressive dispensationalists is in reconciling the prophecies of the Millennium, which he says indicate the presence of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant reinstated. Master thinks that such prophecies of a restored Temple and sacrificial system indicate the presence of the reinstated Mosaic Covenant in the Millennium. He thinks that this is an obstacle to progressive dispensationalism, because we claim that the realization of the OT promises come only through Christ and the New Covenant. We are happy to address the issue for Master regarding animal sacrifices in the Millennium. However, the problem with this reasoning should be immediately apparent. If, as Master claims, the New Covenant is not in place now, and is reserved for the Millennium exclusively, and especially to the nation of Israel as distinct from the Church, how can the Mosaic Covenant be made obsolete at all? Jeremiah clearly said that the New Covenant would supersede the covenant given on Mt. Sinai. And Hebrews 8 says that the term "new" implies that the Mosaic Covenant's becoming obsolete. Even in Master's traditional dispensationalism, the New Covenant is predominant in the Millennium. How then can the Old Covenant continue in the Millennium even in Master's dispensationalism? If Master puts the inauguration of the New Covenant at the beginning of the Millennium, he must also put the superseding or passing away of the Old Covenant there also. He then has the same problem that he has claimed for PDs -- how to explain the animal sacrifices in the OT prophecies of the Millennium! The problem that Master raises is a not really problem at all. The premise of his argument is flawed. The Mosaic Covenant will never be reinstated. It is, and will always be, obsolete. The error that Master makes is in assuming that the presence of animal sacrifices indicates a return to the Old Covenant. Not so. In fact, if you compare the feasts and sacrifices in the Millennium prophecies, you will find that they are different than those prescribed in the Law of Moses! The Law prescribed very specific details regarding the Tabernacle. They are different regarding the Millennial Temple. The Law prescribed very explicit instructions for the priests. They are different in Ezekiel's prophecies of the Millennial Temple and priesthood. The Law prescribed very specific feasts. They are different in the Millennial prophecies. While it is true that there will be feasts similar to those prescribed by the Law, and even called by some of the same names, some of the feasts will never be celebrated again. Under the Law of Moses, the Tabernacle (or Temple) was off limits to Gentiles. But, in the Millennium ... Isa 56:7 7 Even them [Gentiles] will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. (KJV) Question: When in the history of the world has the Temple been a "house of prayer for ALL PEOPLE?" Answer: NEVER! One might argue that the word "people" in Isaiah 56:7 does not necessarily have to mean everyone, but could refer to all of Israel. However, we find Jesus interpreting this passage a bit differently, when he cast out the merchants from the Temple. Jesus said, "My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." (Mark 11:17) Here the word "nations" is the Greek word "ethnos" (from which we get "ethnic") which is the word normally translated "Gentiles" in the New Testament. According to Jesus, Isaiah's prophecy predicted a future time when the physical Temple would be a place of prayer for ALL NATIONS [Gentiles]. This is a prophecy of the Millennium, as Zechariah 14 describes, where all nations will come to keep the festivals. This was strictly forbidden under the Old Covenant. As to the alleged problems created with passages such as Heb. 10, where Christ's atonement is "once for all," and there is no need of further sacrifice for sins, one must recognize that not all sacrifices were "atonement" sacrifices. Technically, the atonement sacrifice was done only once a year, on the "Day of Atonement," the most holy day of the year under the Old Covenant. On the 10th of Tishri, the high priest took the blood and entered into the Holy of Holies, and sprinkled the Ark of the Covenant. It is the "Day of Atonement" that Hebrews has in view when referring to Christ's atonement being "once for all." It is not feasts like Passover, or Pentecost, or Tabernacles. The description of the event is clearly stated in Hebrews, and fits only the "Day of Atonement." Heb 9:22-28 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (KJV) It is clear, by the reference to the priest entering the Temple once a year with blood, that this passage is speaking of the "Day of Atonement." The Feast of Tabernacles [Zech 14] and the Passover [Ezekiel 45] will be celebrated in the Millennium. But NOT the Day of Atonement. Notice all the Festivals that will be celebrated in the Millennium in the following passage. And notice the absence of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and the Day of Atonement. Ezek 45:21-25 21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering. 23 And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering. 24 And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah. 25 In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil. (KJV) The "Passover" was a one day feast that began the seven day "Feast of Unleavened Bread" (Lev. 23). So, in the above passage, since the "Passover" continues for 7 days, it is clear that the entire Passover/Unleavened Bread/Firstfruits festivals are being kept. However, what is not mentioned is Pentecost, which was 50 days after the Sunday (Firstfruits) following Passover. Also, of the feasts of the 7th month, Trumpets (Tishri 1), the Day of Atonement (Tishri 10), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Tishri 15-21), only the feast of Tabernacles is mentioned. Christ fulfilled the "Day of Atonement," and His once for all atonement makes this feast obsolete. Jeremiah makes it clear that the "Day of Atonement" will NOT be celebrated in the Millennium. Jer 3:14-17 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: 15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. 17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. (KJV) The "ark of the covenant" was THE icon of the Mosaic system. It was the most holy item in all of Judaism, and contained the original 10 commandments (Law). It was only "visited" once a year by the High Priest, when he sprinkled the blood on it, making ATONEMENT for the people. The rest of the time, it simply sat there in the Holy of Holies behind the veil never seeing the light of day. When Jeremiah wrote "neither shall that be done any more," he was saying that the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement [Tishri 10] will not be done any more. Then he tells us why! Because, in place of the "ark of the Covenant," the Lord's Throne will be there! In other words, in OT times, the "ark of the Covenant" was TEMPORARY and a SUBSTITUTE for the physical presence of the Lord on His Throne in His Holy Temple! God has been on His Throne in the Heavenly Temple, as described in Revelation. And the Temple on earth was just a copy or representation of the Temple of God in Heaven (Heb. 8:5). The "ark of the Covenant" was the representation of the Throne of God. The priest going into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle blood on the ark was a symbol of Christ's entering the Temple in Heaven with His own blood! Heb 9:12 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (KJV) Isn't it great how all this fits together so nicely! In the Millennium, the priests will not be restricted from entering the Temple except once a year, as they were under the Law of Moses! The Throne of the Lord will be in the Holy place, and the veil will be OPENED! People, including Gentiles, will have full access to the Lord on His Throne! They will come to Jerusalem to worship, and bring their offerings to the Lord. The sacrifices offered will NOT be atonement for sin. Christ took care of that once and for all. However, there will be many sacrifices as offerings of praise, and memorials. Actually, this is what the Passover was, a memorial of God's deliverance from Egypt, as well as a prophecy of the crucifixion. And the Feast of Tabernacles was a memorial of the trek through the wilderness, as well as a prophecy of the Millennium! These Festivals will be grand feasts, in memorial of what God has done for us, just as we now keep the "Lord's supper" as both a memorial of the crucifixion, AND a prophecy of the Millennial Kingdom, when we will sit down and dine with Jesus Himself. Luke 22:15-20 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (KJV) You can see both the memorial aspect of the Lord's supper here as well as the prophetic aspect. All of the Jewish Festivals were the same way. And, once we are on the other side of the second coming of Jesus Christ, what was "prophetic" will then be "memorial!" It seems to me that all of the sacrifices mentioned in relation to Ezekiel's Temple would have to be commemorative, looking back to what has already been accomplished, in the same way we celebrate the crucifixion with bread and wine. Some might object that any sacrifices of any kind would be blasphemous. But, what were the sacrifices to begin with? Did the the OT "atonement" sacrifices actually atone for sins in the first place? The writer of Hebrews says no! They were simply a reminder of Israel's need of a Savior! Heb 10:1-4 1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there IS a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (KJV) His point is NOT that the sacrifices can no longer atone for sin, once Christ died. His point is clearly that they never could atone for sin in the first place! If they could, then there would have been no requirement for it to be done every year. So, even in OT times, the sacrifices were never intended to actually make atonement, but to be a reminder to Israel of their sins on a yearly basis. The sacrifices all pointed forward to Christ. The problem for Israel was that they attached too much meaning to the sacrifices, and failed to realizing their PROPHETIC significance. So, they expected that there was some merit in the blood of "bulls and goats" that cleansed their sins. Consequently, they rejected the only real atonement for sin. If the animal sacrifices were never actually "atonement" for sins, and were prophetic in nature, then what is really the problem with a sacrifice that is offered as a memorial of the fulfillment of this prophetic type? Nothing! Is it a sin to observe the Passover now, to kill a lamb, and eat it with your family remembering God's deliverance from Egypt? Of course not! But, when one recognizes the prophetic aspect of the passover, and how it points to Christ, and one celebrates the Passover in faith, and in worship of Christ, it's meaning is full. Those who argue that such things are blasphemous on the grounds that Christ died once for all should apply the same principle to the Lord's Supper! Does not celebrating using wine and bread do the same thing? Yes it does! It is symbolism pointing to Christ! Did not Jesus Himself say He would observe Passover with His disciples in the Kingdom? Luke 22:15-16 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. (KJV) There is no problem here for progressive dispensationalists, because the Law of Moses will never be reinstated. Rather, in the Millennium, some feasts will be observed by the Gentiles as reminders of what Christ has done for us, just as we now use the bread and wine for the same purpose. The Future of Dispensationalism This article was written as a response to Master's thinking on where the current debate is headed. One thing is for sure. Traditional dispensationalism is losing adherents at a rapid rate. Many conservative seminaries are no longer strictly holding this position. Progressive dispensationalism is very quickly replacing traditional dispensationalism. Sure, there are some hold-outs, who think that traditional dispensationalism is orthodoxy itself, and will defend it with their dying breath. But, the younger generation is not so locked into tradition. They can see the glaring problems in this system, and are gravitating toward the system that has resolved these issues without giving up on premillennialism. Even many amillennialists, who formerly were dispensationalists, are switching back to premillennialism because of progressive dispensationalism's resolving the problems within dispensationalism. This author has heard from several. It was these problems that drove many former dispensationalists over to the Covenant Theology / amillennial camp in the first place. But, that camp has its own problems, particularly with the way it handles most prophecy using allegory. As we stated in the article on the dangers of excessive dispensationalism, the reason for propping up this dying system is the precious pre-tribulation rapture. Just look at who is making the most noise about progressive dispensationalism. It is the members of the Pre-Trib Research Center. Traditional dispensationalism was constructed to prop up pre-tribulationism. And without the dualistic thinking (the alleged dichotomy between God's program for Israel and the Church) of traditional dispensationalism, pre-tribulationism is surely going to fall by the wayside. There is no passage of Scripture that directly teaches a pre-tribulation rapture. It is based solely on inferences founded in this dualistic premise. As traditional dispensationalism crumbles, so too will pre-tribulationism. The question is, what will take its place? There are two systems that are growing rapidly among Evangelical Christianity. The first is Progressive Dispensationalism, which takes Scripture at face value. This system is a return to the theology of the earliest Christians, as found in the writings of primitive Christianity. The other system is preterism, which is the path to apostasy. Preterism is swallowing up many churches today, and leading them into apostasy. Why? Because the pastors and members of these churches are ill prepared to answer the problems of traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism. Augustine's amillennialism, and the Covenant Theology that goes along with it, has set the stage for preterism to overtake the weak. Why? Because of the allegorical methodology of amillennialism is employed even more consistently by preterists. Sadly, it is to the point of denying even the resurrection of the body which is our Christian hope. The hope of the Church is replaced with mystical nonsense. So, what does the future hold for Evangelical Christianity? It holds two things: A return by some to the primitive Faith, and the slide by the rest into apostasy. The "conservatives" will be progressive dispensationalists (premill), "looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing". The liberals will be preterists -- (you already have all the prophecies fulfilled in some mystical fashion now. Christ is not coming back to earth). Traditional dispensationalism is going by the wayside. And so is futurist amillennialism. Notes: 1. Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, pp. 595-6
|
|