This week I saw something that I haven’t seen in many years. Eight strangers picked to live in a house…MTV’s The Real World. …Taking eight strangers and forcing them to live in a mansion with one computer, one car, no cell phones, four bedrooms and one communal bathroom is anything but the real world, but that’s a different story, for a different day. Here’s a quick synopsis of the episode…There was an army veteran, a post-operation trans-gendered woman(?), an extremely metro-sexual Mormon, a muscle-man who’s life consisted of eating and working out, a dancer, a tattooed, artsy girl who looked freakishly like Julia Styles only with black hair, a black woman who didn’t seem to be in any of the scenes and a Cuban, gay, animal trainer. Everyone one of them had some version of this as their herald: “You need to be open-minded. You need to not be judgmental.” But at the same time they said that mono-theism, the belief in only one God, totally kills the party and ruins a society (sounds a little close-minded and judgmental to me).
Basically what they were saying is that what is right for you, and what is right for me, are totally different and we need to be accepting of your beliefs and my beliefs, that is, unless your beliefs are that my beliefs are wrong, then we don’t need to accept your beliefs, we need to condemn them for being intolerant and close-minded and judgmental. We need tolerance!
In a sense, The Real World producers were right; this is a picture of American society, at least in terms of people’s views of Truth, people’s understanding of epistemology—the branch of philosophy that deals with one’s understanding of Truth & Knowledge, does it exist, how can one come to know it? This can be seen even more clearly in an event that made history on January 20, 2009. The Inauguration of America’s first African-American President, President Barack Obama. Of course, this is not a political blog, and it is not my intent to comment on my, or any other’s political views. My one desire is to point out that Inauguration Day was highlighted by the word “tolerant.” This is to be the administration of tolerance! The modern American is to be characterized by an epistemological stance of relativity, subjectivity, individuality, plurality, TOLERANCE! We are to accept other’s beliefs as equally true and equally valid as our own in spite of the reality of the world, the fact that there is a single Truth.
A Christian begins a study of Theology with one belief. We believe there is Truth. And this Truth comes from the only source of Truth, God, the creator of all things (including Truth). If there is one solitary idea of Truth, then everyone’s views of what that Truth is, when they contradict each other, cannot be equally true, nor equally valid. For a Christian epistemology, the law of non-contradiction applies, which means that if what you believe to be true directly contradicts what I believe to be true, then either you are wrong, I am wrong, or we both are wrong and there still remains a Truth which is based on God and which can be learned.
There is Truth. God is the source of that Truth and because he is a God who communicates to his people, that Truth can be known. And we can achieve objectivity in our understanding of Truth. Truth isn’t what I feel might be true, nor what my culture tells me to believe as truth, nor is Truth determined by my circumstances. There is Truth, and it is not only a possibility to find said Truth, but it is the Christian’s responsibility to come to know Truth and to replace lies for Truth and in such, come to know the giver and standard of Truth, who is God.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
RANT & RAVE: WHO IS THE ISRAEL OF GOD?
This morning I heard a radio program on the last passage of the book of Galatians. As some of you may know, Galatians 6:16 is a cornerstone verse for Covenant Theology. It is the flour and milk of their bread and butter. Galatians 6:16 states: “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
From this passage they build a theology known as Replacement Theology. Even though the term “Replacement Theology” has in some Covenant circles taken on a negative context, for all practical purposes the Covenant position believes in Replacement Theology.
This pastor’s argument was two fold:
1. The Israel of God as used in this passage is appositional, meaning, it is another name for the same persons or group of people talked about in the first part of the verse. The Israel of God as seen here would be another name for “those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them…”
2. The peace pronounced to this group “those who will walk by this rule” is the promise of peace found in Psalm 125; therefore, the Church is the recipient of this Psalm, a Psalm written to Israel. And so, the Church must be Israel.
Now let us think about this…
Argument #1 - The Israel of God is appositional
Did you know that Israel is used 65 times in the New Testament? Care to guess how many times “Israel,” as used in the New Testament, is another name for the community of Christian faith, known as the Church?...Allow me to help you out. The answer is zero. There is not one time in the New Testament in which the authors of the gospels, epistles, letters and sermons call the Church “Israel.” Instead, each time “Israel” is used, it is in reference to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, namely, the Jews.
Also, it would be an extremely rare case for the syntax of the verse to include “and upon the Israel of God,” as an appositional phrase. It would be so rare that it would almost be impossible. The two uses of the preposition “upon” would also beg the existence of two distinct groups; mercy and peace is proclaimed upon the community of faith, the Church, and upon the Israel of God. In so doing, Paul is accomplishing two things: 1. He is making a distinction between believing and non believing Israel. Believing Israel is now a part of the Church (Eph 2:11-22), while non-believing Israel are the ethnic Jews, the chosen people of God from the Hebrew Scriptures (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6). 2. Paul’s proclamation of peace upon both the Church and Israel showed that he was not anti-Semitic (9:1-5).
Argument #2 – Psalm 125 written to Israel now transferred to the new Israel.
(This one amazed me.) Let me quote to you Psalm 125.
Those who trust in the LORD are like Mount Zion, which cannot be shaken but endures forever. 2 As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people both now and forevermore. 3 The scepter of the wicked will not remain over the land allotted to the righteous, for then the righteous might use their hands to do evil 4 Do good, O LORD, to those who are good, to those who are upright in heart. 5 But those who turn to crooked ways the LORD will banish with the evildoers. Peace be upon Israel.
Do you see how Galatians 6:16 is a direct quotation or an allusion to Psalm 125? Perhaps if I re-quote Galatians 6:16... “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Still no? Yeah, neither can I, but here is what the pastor said, the words “peace,” “upon,” and “Israel,” exist in both. Three words! Three words!
The pastor (I won’t say who, because I am not mad at the pastor, just the position) went on to say that Psalm 125 was written to Israel, which is absolutely true. Then he said, that the church experiences the peace of God as stated in Galatians 6:16a. Correct again! And because Psalm 125 promises peace and Galatians 6, which is obviously, according to him, a direct quotation from this Psalm, promises peace, the Church must be the recipients of the peace promise of Ps.125 making the Church the replacement of the recipient of the Psalm, i.e. Israel. The Church is Israel. …Uhhh…. Wrong.
Did God promise peace to Israel? Yes. Did God promise peace to the Church? Again, yes! Can God only have one promise at a time? No. Does the church need to be Israel in order to receive a promise of peace? No! God can give a promise of peace to Israel, and give a promise of peace to the Church and the two groups can be distinct and fulfill the Word and the Truth of Scripture.
Why replace Israel with the Church, especially if you are going to admit that God still has a future plan for ethnic Israel as taught in Romans 9-11 and as outwardly held by some major voices in the Covenant world? It goes against a more complete biblical understanding of the plan of God. Any consistent understanding of the New Testament or the whole of Scripture demands a belief in the Church as well as Israel as two distinct groups which come together and share in the plan and purpose of God. One prominent Covenant theologian/pastor, when asked how this future of Israel plays into his theology, in which the Church has replaced Israel, said the Bible teaches a plan for Israel in the future…How that works in my system, I don’t know. It’s confusing (paraphrase mine).
In other words, the system is inconsistent. Replacement Theology is inconsistent, and because Replacement Theology is a major tenant of Covenantalism, Covenant Theology is inconsistent.
Look, this was the first time I’ve ever heard this Psalm 125 argument, but this is exactly the type of argument used all the time for the replacement of Israel. Here is the logic they use:
Premise: Israel is given a promise
Premise: The church is given a similar promise, or is allowed to play a part in the original promise.
Conclusion: Therefore, the church must have replaced Israel
(not exactly a sound argument)
To the replacement theologian, it is inconceivable that God would allow a promise to remain a promise to Israel and there be a promise given to the Church that looks the same or is part of the bigger original promise, without the Church being the real receiver of the original promise.
Let me give you an illustration that might help...
Little Bobby came over Monday wanting a sucker. I told him that I would give him one later in the week after I went to the store. Katie came over Tuesday, after I went to the store. I gave Katie a sucker. Did I give Katie the sucker I promised Bobby? No. I still have a sucker for Bobby. I gave Katie a sucker just like Bobby's sucker, but I still have a sucker waiting for little Bobby when He comes back to see me.
The Covenant/Replacement Theologian would say that I gave the sucker to Katie and therefore there will be no sucker for Bobby. Then the major voices of Covenant Theology would admit, based on Romans 9-11, that when Bobby comes over again later this week, he still will get his sucker. Something isn't working here! How can Bobby have been replaced by Katie as the recipient of the sucker, but still get a sucker later during the week?
Why can’t you guys just be consistent? There is an entity in Scripture called the Church consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. We play a part in God’s plan to bring himself glory. And there is an entity in Scripture called Israel, a remnant of the Jews who will receive the promises made to the Israelites in the Old Testament when God chooses to fulfill his promises (Rom. 9-11).
It sounds like you guys/gals are reading a tradition into the text, rather than taking out of the text, the simple Word and Truth.
From this passage they build a theology known as Replacement Theology. Even though the term “Replacement Theology” has in some Covenant circles taken on a negative context, for all practical purposes the Covenant position believes in Replacement Theology.
This pastor’s argument was two fold:
1. The Israel of God as used in this passage is appositional, meaning, it is another name for the same persons or group of people talked about in the first part of the verse. The Israel of God as seen here would be another name for “those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them…”
2. The peace pronounced to this group “those who will walk by this rule” is the promise of peace found in Psalm 125; therefore, the Church is the recipient of this Psalm, a Psalm written to Israel. And so, the Church must be Israel.
Now let us think about this…
Argument #1 - The Israel of God is appositional
Did you know that Israel is used 65 times in the New Testament? Care to guess how many times “Israel,” as used in the New Testament, is another name for the community of Christian faith, known as the Church?...Allow me to help you out. The answer is zero. There is not one time in the New Testament in which the authors of the gospels, epistles, letters and sermons call the Church “Israel.” Instead, each time “Israel” is used, it is in reference to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, namely, the Jews.
Also, it would be an extremely rare case for the syntax of the verse to include “and upon the Israel of God,” as an appositional phrase. It would be so rare that it would almost be impossible. The two uses of the preposition “upon” would also beg the existence of two distinct groups; mercy and peace is proclaimed upon the community of faith, the Church, and upon the Israel of God. In so doing, Paul is accomplishing two things: 1. He is making a distinction between believing and non believing Israel. Believing Israel is now a part of the Church (Eph 2:11-22), while non-believing Israel are the ethnic Jews, the chosen people of God from the Hebrew Scriptures (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6). 2. Paul’s proclamation of peace upon both the Church and Israel showed that he was not anti-Semitic (9:1-5).
Argument #2 – Psalm 125 written to Israel now transferred to the new Israel.
(This one amazed me.) Let me quote to you Psalm 125.
Those who trust in the LORD are like Mount Zion, which cannot be shaken but endures forever. 2 As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people both now and forevermore. 3 The scepter of the wicked will not remain over the land allotted to the righteous, for then the righteous might use their hands to do evil 4 Do good, O LORD, to those who are good, to those who are upright in heart. 5 But those who turn to crooked ways the LORD will banish with the evildoers. Peace be upon Israel.
Do you see how Galatians 6:16 is a direct quotation or an allusion to Psalm 125? Perhaps if I re-quote Galatians 6:16... “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Still no? Yeah, neither can I, but here is what the pastor said, the words “peace,” “upon,” and “Israel,” exist in both. Three words! Three words!
The pastor (I won’t say who, because I am not mad at the pastor, just the position) went on to say that Psalm 125 was written to Israel, which is absolutely true. Then he said, that the church experiences the peace of God as stated in Galatians 6:16a. Correct again! And because Psalm 125 promises peace and Galatians 6, which is obviously, according to him, a direct quotation from this Psalm, promises peace, the Church must be the recipients of the peace promise of Ps.125 making the Church the replacement of the recipient of the Psalm, i.e. Israel. The Church is Israel. …Uhhh…. Wrong.
Did God promise peace to Israel? Yes. Did God promise peace to the Church? Again, yes! Can God only have one promise at a time? No. Does the church need to be Israel in order to receive a promise of peace? No! God can give a promise of peace to Israel, and give a promise of peace to the Church and the two groups can be distinct and fulfill the Word and the Truth of Scripture.
Why replace Israel with the Church, especially if you are going to admit that God still has a future plan for ethnic Israel as taught in Romans 9-11 and as outwardly held by some major voices in the Covenant world? It goes against a more complete biblical understanding of the plan of God. Any consistent understanding of the New Testament or the whole of Scripture demands a belief in the Church as well as Israel as two distinct groups which come together and share in the plan and purpose of God. One prominent Covenant theologian/pastor, when asked how this future of Israel plays into his theology, in which the Church has replaced Israel, said the Bible teaches a plan for Israel in the future…How that works in my system, I don’t know. It’s confusing (paraphrase mine).
In other words, the system is inconsistent. Replacement Theology is inconsistent, and because Replacement Theology is a major tenant of Covenantalism, Covenant Theology is inconsistent.
Look, this was the first time I’ve ever heard this Psalm 125 argument, but this is exactly the type of argument used all the time for the replacement of Israel. Here is the logic they use:
Premise: Israel is given a promise
Premise: The church is given a similar promise, or is allowed to play a part in the original promise.
Conclusion: Therefore, the church must have replaced Israel
(not exactly a sound argument)
To the replacement theologian, it is inconceivable that God would allow a promise to remain a promise to Israel and there be a promise given to the Church that looks the same or is part of the bigger original promise, without the Church being the real receiver of the original promise.
Let me give you an illustration that might help...
Little Bobby came over Monday wanting a sucker. I told him that I would give him one later in the week after I went to the store. Katie came over Tuesday, after I went to the store. I gave Katie a sucker. Did I give Katie the sucker I promised Bobby? No. I still have a sucker for Bobby. I gave Katie a sucker just like Bobby's sucker, but I still have a sucker waiting for little Bobby when He comes back to see me.
The Covenant/Replacement Theologian would say that I gave the sucker to Katie and therefore there will be no sucker for Bobby. Then the major voices of Covenant Theology would admit, based on Romans 9-11, that when Bobby comes over again later this week, he still will get his sucker. Something isn't working here! How can Bobby have been replaced by Katie as the recipient of the sucker, but still get a sucker later during the week?
Why can’t you guys just be consistent? There is an entity in Scripture called the Church consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. We play a part in God’s plan to bring himself glory. And there is an entity in Scripture called Israel, a remnant of the Jews who will receive the promises made to the Israelites in the Old Testament when God chooses to fulfill his promises (Rom. 9-11).
It sounds like you guys/gals are reading a tradition into the text, rather than taking out of the text, the simple Word and Truth.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Where to Begin?
They say a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single footstep. What they don’t tell you is that the first footstep is the most difficult, intimidating footstep you will take on the entire journey. This is where we begin. Step one…step one…step one… ok, I give up. What is step one? I guess before we begin we need to know where to begin.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2). “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). I guess this tells us that we should start with Theology Proper—the study of who God is—otherwise known as Trinitarianism.
But did you notice the parentheses? We are beginning here by quoting Scripture. We are assuming Scripture is Scripture, so perhaps we should start with Bibliology—What is Scripture?” Even then, we have to determine what this Scripture means and so alongside Bibliology, we should study Hermeneutics—How do we interpret Scripture? How do we determine its meaning?” But even this assumes that it has a meaning, which leads us not down a theological road, but the road of Epistemology—the study of Knowledge, the study of Truth. The study of how Truth and Knowledge are acquired and whether it is even possible to attain Knowledge and Truth.
This is where it all begins. Is there Truth? Epistomology. Step 1: Determine where to begin…check.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2). “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). I guess this tells us that we should start with Theology Proper—the study of who God is—otherwise known as Trinitarianism.
But did you notice the parentheses? We are beginning here by quoting Scripture. We are assuming Scripture is Scripture, so perhaps we should start with Bibliology—What is Scripture?” Even then, we have to determine what this Scripture means and so alongside Bibliology, we should study Hermeneutics—How do we interpret Scripture? How do we determine its meaning?” But even this assumes that it has a meaning, which leads us not down a theological road, but the road of Epistemology—the study of Knowledge, the study of Truth. The study of how Truth and Knowledge are acquired and whether it is even possible to attain Knowledge and Truth.
This is where it all begins. Is there Truth? Epistomology. Step 1: Determine where to begin…check.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Noble Intent?
Some blog as a journal, while others blog for fun. Some blog to share their ideals and to try to convince the world. I am sure there are as many reasons to blog as there are blogs, which means there are a bazillion and three reasons out there to blog. As we begin this journey together, the reader should know and understand the reason for, and the purpose of Word & Truth. Perhaps in so doing, you, the reader, will be able to judge my intent as noble.
Really there are two reasons for this blog and surprisingly, neither of them is because “I needed something else to do.” Reason number 1: Word & Truth provides an opportunity to discuss theology and more importantly to build a Systematic Theology. As such, it will provide a springboard for discussing modern theological issues which shape one’s understanding of God. This is the primary purpose for this blog and I pray that the reader can learn and grow as we dive into the clear cool waters of the wonderful world of Theology.
Reason # 2: From time to time issues so overwhelm me that I just need to vent. Call it stress relief, call it journaling, call it rants and raves; “a rose by any other name.” Right? Word & Truth will provide an opportunity to talk about the latest issue that crosses my plate, or the most frustrating things that I find in the local church.
My hope is this: I would like to build a theological structure that will allow in-depth, consistent discussions of Scripture and Theology, but that takes time. In the meantime, there will be periodic Rants and Raves, concerning everything under the Sun.
So there is the purpose for Word & Truth, so come back often or better yet, subscribe to the blog and tell your friends.
Grace and Peace.
Really there are two reasons for this blog and surprisingly, neither of them is because “I needed something else to do.” Reason number 1: Word & Truth provides an opportunity to discuss theology and more importantly to build a Systematic Theology. As such, it will provide a springboard for discussing modern theological issues which shape one’s understanding of God. This is the primary purpose for this blog and I pray that the reader can learn and grow as we dive into the clear cool waters of the wonderful world of Theology.
Reason # 2: From time to time issues so overwhelm me that I just need to vent. Call it stress relief, call it journaling, call it rants and raves; “a rose by any other name.” Right? Word & Truth will provide an opportunity to talk about the latest issue that crosses my plate, or the most frustrating things that I find in the local church.
My hope is this: I would like to build a theological structure that will allow in-depth, consistent discussions of Scripture and Theology, but that takes time. In the meantime, there will be periodic Rants and Raves, concerning everything under the Sun.
So there is the purpose for Word & Truth, so come back often or better yet, subscribe to the blog and tell your friends.
Grace and Peace.
Friday, January 9, 2009
A Blog Born Out of Frustration
Word & Truth is a blog created to discuss Scripture and Theology in an attempt to add another voice into the ever-growing, ever-progressing, theological conversation. As the administrator of this blog, I feel a duty to the potential reader to give at least a broad idea of the direction I will be taking, and in so, present to you the theological positions which I am committed to and which I hope to represent in my writing.
As mentioned previously, this blog is born out of what I hope is a holy frustration. Generally speaking, my frustration is with the Church. Christian's have but one calling, to make disciples (Matt. 28:19-20). On the whole, most churches have confused evangelism with discipleship and therefore, we have converts who are theologically ignorant; fair-weathered Christians who leave their Christian lives at the drop of a hat, or who cannot stand up to the increasingly relativistic, secular world or worse, are subject to manipulation by cults who prey upon their untrained, immature Christian mind.
Also, it needs to be stated that I am absolutely committed to both Reformed, Calvinistic, Theology as well as Dispensational Theology. I find that other views are inconsistent (another cause of frustration). These theological positions most fully satisfy the teaching of Scripture, allow one to be completely consistent, and serve towards bringing the most glory to God, which is both the unifying theme of Scripture and the final end of all history; “so that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor. 15:28).
With this inaugural blog, let us hold fast to the faith and peaceably seek to present the Word and Truth in an accurate, God honoring way, and with a willingness to learn, grow and honor the Tri-une God in the process.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)