theology

Premillennialism and Consistency in Hermeneutics-Walvoord

/ Richard Bargas / 1 Comment

The debate between premillenarians and other millenarians hangs to a large extent upon the principles of interpretation of Scripture which each group employs. This is commonly recognized by all parties. The amillenarian Albertus Pieters states, “The question whether the Old Testament prophecies concerning the people of God must be interpreted in their ordinary sense, as other Scriptures are interpreted, or can properly be applied to the Christian Church, is called the question of spiritualization of prophecy. This is one of the major problems in biblical interpretation, and confronts everyone who makes a serious study of the Word of God. It is one of the chief keys to the difference of John Walvoordopinion between Premillenarians and the mass of Christian scholars. The former reject such spiritualization, the latter employ it; and as long as there is no agreement on this point the debate is interminable and fruitless.”3 In principles of interpretation the crux of the controversy is revealed.

The premillennial position is that the Bible should be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical and historical meaning in all areas of theology unless contextual or theological reasons make it clear that this was not intended by the writer. Amillenarians use the literal method in theology as a whole but spiritualize Scripture whenever its literal meaning would lead to the premillennial viewpoint. This is obviously a rather subjective principle and open to manipulation by the interpreter to sustain almost any system of theology. The conservative amillenarian claims to confine spiritualization to the field of prophecy and interpret other Scriptural revelation literally. Thus a conservative amillenarian would accept literally passages teaching the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection of Christ, and similar doctrines. They would denounce as heretics anyone who would tamper with these fundamental doctrines—as Origen, the father of amillenarianism, most certainly did. Conservative amillenarians would, however, feel perfectly justified in proceeding to spiritualize passages speaking of a future righteous government on earth, of Israel’s regathering to Palestine, and of Christ reigning literally upon the earth for a thousand years. Their justification is that these doctrines are absurd and impossible and that therefore they must be spiritualized. The wish is father of the interpretation, therefore, and amillennial interpretation of Scripture abundantly illustrates this.

-You can read the whole journal article at http://walvoord.com/article/150

Pastor like Paul, part 1

/ Richard Bargas / 4 Comments

“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.”

‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:10-11‬ ‭ESV‬‬

New York Magazine ran an article in January this year entitled “Yet Another Person Listens to GPS App and Drives Car Into Lake.” The story reads:

“A driver in Vermont steered his car right into Lake Champlain on Friday. The driver says he was using navigation app Waze, which apparently insisted that driving into the lake was the right way to go. “The app directed the drivers to turn onto the boat launch near the Coast Guard station,” the Burlington Free Press reports. “By the time they realized what was happening, the car had slid 100 feet onto the lake. The three people in the car managed to climb out.” Another passenger in the car described conditions as “dark and foggy.” The car remained at the bottom of the lake before it could be retrieved by divers. A Google spokesperson said that it would be “impossible to comment here without seeing the user’s driving file,” and that the company hadn’t “received permission to do so.” She also reminded people that while using Waze, they should still “use all environmental information available to them to make the best decisions as they drive.” As in, if it looks like a lake and quacks like a lake, don’t drive into it because it’s a lake. The unnamed driver certainly isn’t the first person to blindly follow technology to a watery end. In June 2017, there was a guy who drove into a lake in Massachusetts and blamed his GPS. He’s joined by a woman in Ontario who similarly navigated into a pond and … blamed her GPS.”[1]

The first nine verses of 2 Timothy 3 contain a detailed description of false teachers who seek to lead people astray spiritually. The warnings signs are there and we need to be vigilant. But now in the next two verses, Paul is going to turn things around and point to a positive example–himself. Paul is a faithful leader, one who will assure that Timothy is on the right path.

This call by Paul to Timothy to continue to follow his example acts as a strong counteraction against the false teachers from vv. 1-9. The activities of the deceivers are to be replaced by the continue example of timothy as he followed the Apostle Paul.

The verb “followed” (‘fully known” in KJV) means to give careful attention to something, “to conform to someone’s belief or practice by paying special attention, to follow faithfully, follow as a rule.” [2]

We are going to begin seeing how Timothy had been doing this with the Apostle Paul. Paul had been ministering for years, but there was a need for Timothy to continue to be faithful to practice what had been modelled for him so that he would be able to set an example for those who would follow him in the Church because Christian faith depends upon not only faithful discipleship, but on faithful disciples who continue in the pattern they have received.

1. Follow the Same Doctrine

The word here is “teaching” meaning that Timothy was well aware of the content of Paul’s doctrine. This teaching is the basis of everything else that will follow.

Everyone has doctrine, and the content of that doctrine affects one’s conduct, aim in life, faith, patience love, steadfastness and how they handle persecutions and suffering. Paul knows that if Timothy, or anyone veers from biblical doctrine in even a small way that this could lead to a massive shift in everything else.

Not long ago I read the sermon by the famous liberal pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick, entitled “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Fosdick, like many theological liberals, didn’t think that doctrine was a bid deal—as long as we can all just love one another and get along. Now remember, this was preached back in 1922, and yet it sounds like many liberal theologians today.

Read what he said in that sermon about those who would do what Paul said to Timothy, and guard the trust of doctrine:

“It is interesting to note where the Fundamentalists are driving in their stakes to mark out the deadline of doctrine around the church, across which no one is to pass except on terms of agreement. They insist that we must all believe in the historicity of certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord; that we must believe in a special theory of inspiration…; that we must believe in a special theory of the Atonement—that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner; and that we must believe in the second coming of our Lord upon the clouds of heaven to set up a millennium here, as the only way in which God can bring history to a worthy [finale]. Such are some of the stakes which are being driven to mark a deadline of doctrine around the church…. It was a wise liberal, the most adventurous man of his day—Paul the Apostle—who said, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up.” [3]

To Fosdick, and those like him, correct doctrine cannot be known and it is unbelievable and unacceptable for anyone to fight for such things as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, miracles and the physical return of Christ. To him, love trumps everything else. Since Fosdick called the Apostle Paul a “wise liberal” like himself, let’s test that and see what Paul actually wrote about doctrine:

  • “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” (Romans 16:17, ESV). Paul is warning the church in Rome that there are divisive men who want to argue—not about the truth, but cause division and obstacles to the doctrine already received by the church at large. They want to bring change to doctrine—it is not doctrine dividing here, it is heresy that is bringing division! Must a Christian sit back and do nothing while the truth is attacked? We must be on guard, Paul warned!
  • When addressing those who were immature in the faith, Paul wrote, “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14, ESV). What tosses the immature around? It is the changing of doctrine that Paul warns against. It throws the spiritual children of the church to the ground hoping to drag them away into the surf to drown them. It is human schemes and craftiness that wants to sound like reasonable dialogue and Christian love, but it is destruction masked as love.
  • “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,” (1 Timothy 1:3, ESV). When Paul was made aware of false teachings in the Ephesus, he didn’t call Timothy to get along with them because they simply had a difference of opinion. He didn’t say, sit down and get to know them. Paul, the supposedly wise liberal called upon Timothy to rebuke them and command them to stop teaching this “different doctrine.”

You see, Paul was not a theological liberal! He was a fundamentalist—he held to the doctrine as delivered to him by Jesus Christ himself. He believed it all, every word!

And this doctrine he had taught in every church, synagogue, marketplace and home he could. And that was what Paul told Timothy to do himself. “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13, ESV)

Paul’s ministry was a Christ-centered ministry because it was a Bible-centered ministry. Liberalism wants to put a wedge between people and the Bible because the devil knows that if people are taught the Bible they will be taught about Christ.

Paul told Timothy—you know that as you followed me, that I have taught the Bible—I read it, I explain it, I apply it. Do the same. His word to Timothy is his word to us as well. Read it, explain it, apply it.

[1] http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/01/waze-app-directs-driver-to-drive-car-into-lake-champlain.html

[2] BDAG, parakoloutheo.

[3] http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/

Don’t Forget Who Our Real Enemy Is!

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“It may help to be reminded of some of the important doctrines to which dispensationalists subscribe wholeheartedly. After all, dispensationalists are conservatives and affirm complete allegiance to the doctrines of verbal, plenary inspiration, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, eternal salvation by grace through faith, the importance of godly living and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the future coming of Christ, and the eternal damnation of the lost. Those who are divided from us in the matter of dispensationalism or premillennialism may remember the areas in which they are united with us. As already noted, some doctrines are more important than others, so it particularly behooves us not to cut off our fellowship from those who share similar views about these important doctrines. There are few enough these days who believe in the fundamentals of the faith, and to ignore those who have declared themselves on the side of the truth of God is unwise. Something is wrong with our circles of fellowship, sense of priority, or doctrine of unity when conservatives view fellow conservatives as the opposition party and then find their theological friends among those who are teaching and promoting error.”—Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Kindle loc. 4236.

The Abuse of Theology and Christian Scholarship

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

I HAVE SEEN GOD USE good theology to liberate lives. But I have also seen people misuse theology, resulting in abuse, hard hearts and pain. One thing that I have become concerned about in theological studies is the temptation to make overly strong divisions: between academics and the church, between theology and life, between truth and love. In the past the task of theological reflection was often intertwined with the experience and character of the theologian, so that the result was an organic connection between themes like prayer, humility, suffering and community and the act of “doing” theology. My worry is that in our day, for many of us, we have unintentionally cultivated what might be called theological detachment: such a view produces a divide between spirituality and theology, between life and thought, between faith and agency.—Kelly Kapic, A Little Book for New Theologians, Kindle Loc. 41.

The Sanctity of Marriage, part 2

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

pexels-photo.jpg

For part 1 of this post, see here.

The first two attributes of God-ordained and blessed marriage are related and are best understood together. Marriage marked by a relationship that is both heterosexual and monogamous demonstrates the glorious design of God in creation. In Genesis 2:18, when the Lord saw that it was not good for man to be alone, he created for Adam from his side a solitary woman (Gen 1:22). At this point of creation, God potentially could have made another male, several males, several females, or an animal that would have been an alternative to this single woman that He chose to create as the perfect mate for Adam. But in the Lord’s infinite wisdom He made a woman from the side of the first man. By defining this attribute of marriage for humanity the Lord ruled out the possibilities of adultery, homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory and bestiality. One man and one woman were all that God made in the Garden when he declared that it was “very good” at the close of the seventh day of creation (Gen. 1:31).

The boundaries of marriage restricted to a couple that are both heterosexual and monogamous are not simply one option among many. Neither is this simply a construct agreed upon by society in the past that has become outdated and impractical in our modern era. Because God established these parameters in the beginning with the first man and woman, they are binding upon all humanity for all time. John MacArthur writes, “From the very first marriage, that of Adam and Eve, God has joined together every husband and wife. Marriage is first of all God’s institution and God’s doing, regardless of how men may corrupt it or deny or disregard His part in it. Whether it is between Christians or between atheists or idolaters, whether it is arranged by parents or by the mutual desire and consent of the bride and bridegroom, marriage is above all the handiwork of God…”[1]The pattern for marriage was established in the first marriage. Thus it excludes all illicit relationships outside of this pattern, including adultery, homosexuality, polygamy and polyamory. Every corruption of the divine order for marriage is willful and open rebellion against the Creator. As Paul address the church in Rome, a church that undoubtedly saw similar desecration of marriage, he wrote: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen”[2](Rom 1:24-25, ESV).

The third attribute of God-glorifying marriage is implied in what has been said above regarding Eve being made for Adam. Marriage was designed by God for the lifetime of each of the marriage partners. The Bible is explicit regarding God’s desire for the commitment of marriage and speaks against such sins as polygamy, polyamory, adultery, divorce and fornication. Each of these sins strikes at the heart of God’s intention for marriage between one man and one woman for life. Although the practices of polygamy, concubinage and divorce were tolerated to a certain extent because of the hardness of man’s heart, the Lord Jesus stressed that “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8). Such sins as sexual immorality, including prostitution, fornication and adultery have always been an abomination to the Lord (Ex 20:14; Lev 20:10, 14; Matt 15:19; 1Cor 6:18; 1Thes 4:3).

The subject of divorce is a particularly difficult issue that needs to be understood in light of God’s intentions for marriage. Whereas there is no debate among fundamental Bible churches regarding the sinfulness and reprehensible nature of sexual immorality, polygamy, adultery, or homosexuality, there are different views regarding divorce and what is allowable. These differences exist among Bible believing brethren not in spite of, but becauseof our commitment to the authority of the Word. Simplistic answers do not help as we seek to minister and guide hurting families that have struggled in any of these areas of sin, including divorce.

Two biblical facts regarding divorce are agreed upon by all—God hates divorce (Mal 2:16) and divorce was never His intention for marriage (Mk 10:11-12) because it is the destruction of the one flesh union that was created in the marriage covenant (Gen 2:24). Where disagreement occurs among well-intentioned brethren is regarding the question of whether there is anyallowance for divorce. But even among those who believe that divorce is sometimesallowable, such divorces are restricted to two possible reasons: sexual immorality and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (Matt 5:32; 1Cor 7:15) and is not allowable for just any cause (Matt 19:3).

An additional issue regarding divorce must also reconcile the biblical texts regarding remarriage and whether it is allowable or not (cp. Matt 5:32; Mk 10:11-12; 2Cor 6:14). These matters regarding divorce are not simple because individual situations vary and wisdom in the application of Scripture is necessary. Whatever a person or church concludes about divorce and remarriage, it must be done with a thorough commitment to scriptural truth along with grace in understanding that there are other views that must be recognized with respect and charity.

Seeking to Remain Biblical in Our Changing World

All Christians committed to the inerrant infallible Word understand that these matters are of immense importance to our world as we seek to minister to those who repent and turn to Christ as their only hope. Christ calls His Church to faithfulness to His Word while navigating the new challenges to marriage that we are encountering in our ever changing world. Our commitment to the Scripture’s standard must always remain as unchanging as the Word itself, and we must resist every effort to capitulate to the culture for the sake of expediency or to gain the esteem of the world. This will take wisdom, added care, grace and patience, but it is our responsibility if we intend on ministering to those in our hurting world without compromise.

With Christians not only teaching what the Bible says about marriage, but also living it out before a watching world, Christ will be glorified as we paint a picture of His love for the Church and our submission to Him (Eph 5:22-33). This will be a powerful testimony added to our loving care for those that are in need of the message of gospel.

[1]John MacArthur. The Divorce Dilemma, Day One Publications, Leominster, England, (2009), p. 39.

[2]The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), Ro 1:24–25.