People need to be warned concerning the abhorrent teaching of John Hagee. One particular error that he has become notorious for is what is called the “Two Covenant Theory”, teaching that the Jews are covered under the Old Testament covenant and really do not need to be evangelized. Despite the fact that he has often attempted to deny that this is what he teaches, an examination of his teaching proves otherwise. I am not going to go into detail his various statements over the years right now, but just listen to his advertisement for his book “In Defense of Israel” in this video clip below.
But Scripture tells a different story concerning Christ and salvation. The book of Hebrews was written to exhort the Hebrews to embrace saving faith through Jesus Christ. The whole book is a plea to embrace Jesus as their Savior.
Unfortunately, it appears that those who espouse this dual covenant theory believe that the passages in Romans 10 & 11 mean that there is a remnant in Israel saved by God’s election and relation to Abraham, and not by the cross of Christ. Essentially, men like Hagee believe that Jesus came to provide a covenant of grace for the Gentiles, but the Jews are covered by a separate covenant of election.
But that is not at all what those passages mean. This philosophy is an attack on the very Gospel that was preached by Jesus and the apostle Paul. In fact, Paul had “great sorrow and unceasing grief” because of the rejection of Jesus by his Jewish brethren (Romans 9:1-8). Paul’s desire and prayer was for their salvation through Jesus Christ (Romans 10:1-4).
Furthermore, the salvation spoken of in Romans 11 is yet future as God deals with His people at the approaching of the second coming of Jesus Christ. This is when God will remove the blindness of their hearts so that they will receive Jesus as their messiah. Incidentally, this does not mean that every single individual will be saved simply because they are Jews. Salvation is dependent on the individual placing their trust in Christ, and it is clear in Scripture that just as there are Gentiles who will not be saved due to their unbelief, so there will also be Jews who will not be saved because of their unbelief as well. The phrase “and so all Israel will be saved” in verse 26 is in no way meant to imply that all Jews are saved simply because of their ethnic background.
It is amazing just how many people fall prey to false teaching. Just because someone may sound authoritative and has become popular, does not mean that they are correctly teaching from Scripture. All teaching must be scrutinized by the text of Scripture, and false teaching should be exposed as such.
Showing posts with label Eschatology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eschatology. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Some Thoughts on the Eschatological Controversy
Since the controversy that has ensued due to John MacArthur’s opening message at the Shepherd’s Conference, my interest in eschatology has been piqued once again. I am amazed at all the controversy that has been stirred up as a result of MacArthur’s message. But I am interested in exploring the differing views on eschatology once again. There are good men, sound men of the faith, who hold to differing view on this matter. And we need to be careful concerning the charges of heresy leveled at those embracing the differing views. This included those in the “Reformed” camp who refer to those of us who embrace the pre-millenial view, and refer to it as “cultic” and heretical. I find it interesting that for so long I have heard those charges made from those in the amillenial and postmillennial camp against premillenialists , and now that the tables have been turned, they cry foul.
One thing that has gotten really irritating is the range of definitions that you hear on what it means to be “Reformed”. I have read many comments in this recent controversy that include things like “MacArthur really isn’t reformed” and even the notion expressed in a comment thread on another blog, that John Piper is really not “Reformed” either. If being “Reformed” in their strict definition means that one MUST embrace the amillenial position, then I really do not fit their definition either. The sad thing is that I do embrace most of Reformed theology and I am in substantial agreement with Reformed theology, but apparently for many that will not suffice.
Rather, I am compelled to abide by the teaching of Scripture and to teach accordingly by my convictions as I see revealed in the text of Scripture. One simply cannot blindly embrace a theological view independent of Scripture, but weigh everything in light of the inspired text of the Bible. We must always be ready to change our theology if we find it is out of step with the Bible, not bend the Bible to fit our theology.
But we also need to beware of another error. That is the error of ignoring what others have gleaned from Scripture, especially those who have gone before us. God has ordained that there be teachers in the church, teachers who are dedicated to studying the text of Scripture and have a desire to help others understand what God has given us in the divinely inspired text of Scripture. This, of course, is not some secret knowledge only revealed to the one teaching, but the same truth that is accessible to every believer. It is foolish, in fact potentially downright dangerous, to ignore what others have gleaned from Scripture. I believe that it ultimately leads to spiritual arrogance. While additional insights are often gleaned over time, we need to be careful of some “new” truth that no one else has ever seen. It could be something that has been previously overlooked. But it also could be that we are looking at something the wrong way. That can lead to theological error. We need to be careful about new “truth”. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon wisely said, "I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach. The two words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true, for truth is as old as God himself".
Rather than clinging to the solid theological foundation that we have as a result of the efforts of the reformers and building upon it, the church has developed the propensity to set aside solid theology in favor of new found fads and methods. This has left the church wide open and vulnerable to error.
I believe that it is extremely beneficial to consider the teaching of those who have gone before us and understand how they drew the conclusions they have. This is not a case that just because many men down through history have held a particular viewpoint that it makes them automatically correct, nor does that make them the final authority. But we still need to understand their conclusions. We must also discern what is a primary or a secondary doctrine. On matters of primary doctrine that strike at the very core of the Christian faith, we had better cling tightly to the truths that have been established; on matters of secondary doctrine, we need to exercise grace, especially when it comes to more obscure subject matter, such as the finer points of eschatology. This is not to say that eschatology is unimportant, but there are valid reasons for men drawing different conclusions on those matters.
We need to take the time to carefully consider what Scripture teaches and be willing to adjust our theology in light of what we discover. We also need to consider the differing views and be careful to avoid misrepresenting those who hold to opposing views. This is one reason that in light of the current controversy, my interest has been piqued concerning the subject of eschatology, particularly amillenialism. One book that I am reading from the amillenial perspective is Kim Riddlebarger’s book, “A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times”. This book has been recommended by many. I doubt that I am going to be persuaded into the amill camp, but I am enjoying reading the book so far and gaining a better understanding of the amillenial position rather than hearsay from secondary sources. I want to gain a more thorough understanding, rather than abide by someone’s overly simplistic definition.
I just hope that in matters of more secondary importance, believers can be more inclined to exercise more grace toward one another. This does not mean that we cannot have strong opinions concerning our convictions. It is certainly acceptable to teach according to our convictions and I believe that we should. But we also should exercise restraint before leveling charges of heresy against each other.
One thing that has gotten really irritating is the range of definitions that you hear on what it means to be “Reformed”. I have read many comments in this recent controversy that include things like “MacArthur really isn’t reformed” and even the notion expressed in a comment thread on another blog, that John Piper is really not “Reformed” either. If being “Reformed” in their strict definition means that one MUST embrace the amillenial position, then I really do not fit their definition either. The sad thing is that I do embrace most of Reformed theology and I am in substantial agreement with Reformed theology, but apparently for many that will not suffice.
Rather, I am compelled to abide by the teaching of Scripture and to teach accordingly by my convictions as I see revealed in the text of Scripture. One simply cannot blindly embrace a theological view independent of Scripture, but weigh everything in light of the inspired text of the Bible. We must always be ready to change our theology if we find it is out of step with the Bible, not bend the Bible to fit our theology.
But we also need to beware of another error. That is the error of ignoring what others have gleaned from Scripture, especially those who have gone before us. God has ordained that there be teachers in the church, teachers who are dedicated to studying the text of Scripture and have a desire to help others understand what God has given us in the divinely inspired text of Scripture. This, of course, is not some secret knowledge only revealed to the one teaching, but the same truth that is accessible to every believer. It is foolish, in fact potentially downright dangerous, to ignore what others have gleaned from Scripture. I believe that it ultimately leads to spiritual arrogance. While additional insights are often gleaned over time, we need to be careful of some “new” truth that no one else has ever seen. It could be something that has been previously overlooked. But it also could be that we are looking at something the wrong way. That can lead to theological error. We need to be careful about new “truth”. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon wisely said, "I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach. The two words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true, for truth is as old as God himself".
Rather than clinging to the solid theological foundation that we have as a result of the efforts of the reformers and building upon it, the church has developed the propensity to set aside solid theology in favor of new found fads and methods. This has left the church wide open and vulnerable to error.
I believe that it is extremely beneficial to consider the teaching of those who have gone before us and understand how they drew the conclusions they have. This is not a case that just because many men down through history have held a particular viewpoint that it makes them automatically correct, nor does that make them the final authority. But we still need to understand their conclusions. We must also discern what is a primary or a secondary doctrine. On matters of primary doctrine that strike at the very core of the Christian faith, we had better cling tightly to the truths that have been established; on matters of secondary doctrine, we need to exercise grace, especially when it comes to more obscure subject matter, such as the finer points of eschatology. This is not to say that eschatology is unimportant, but there are valid reasons for men drawing different conclusions on those matters.
We need to take the time to carefully consider what Scripture teaches and be willing to adjust our theology in light of what we discover. We also need to consider the differing views and be careful to avoid misrepresenting those who hold to opposing views. This is one reason that in light of the current controversy, my interest has been piqued concerning the subject of eschatology, particularly amillenialism. One book that I am reading from the amillenial perspective is Kim Riddlebarger’s book, “A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times”. This book has been recommended by many. I doubt that I am going to be persuaded into the amill camp, but I am enjoying reading the book so far and gaining a better understanding of the amillenial position rather than hearsay from secondary sources. I want to gain a more thorough understanding, rather than abide by someone’s overly simplistic definition.
I just hope that in matters of more secondary importance, believers can be more inclined to exercise more grace toward one another. This does not mean that we cannot have strong opinions concerning our convictions. It is certainly acceptable to teach according to our convictions and I believe that we should. But we also should exercise restraint before leveling charges of heresy against each other.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Amillenialists in an Uproar
Well it seems that the amillenial folks are all stirred up as a result of the opening session of the Shepherd’s Conference, where John MacArthur delivered the message on "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist." Now, I was not there to hear what MacArthur said, but if everything I have heard is true, I think that I would have taken a little different approach to the topic, even though I am in substantial agreement with MacArthur. But I am not sure if it is more of a case that the amill crowd had taken things a bit too personal.
While I disagree with the amillenial view, I do not see it as rank heresy. It is certainly within the realm of biblical orthodoxy, though I disagree with the arguments in favor of the view. I still find merit from Scripture for the premillenial view.
But there have been plenty of charges railed against those of us who hold to a premillenial view from the amillenial camp. And the disagreements have not always been expressed in very gracious terms. Last year, Jason Robertson over at Fide-O went the amillenial route. I am certainly appreciative of the fact that Jason has taken the time to express his eschatological views on his blog. It has certainly been helpful in gaining an understanding of the amillenial position, even though I do not agree with his view. But I think that it is important to explore and discuss this subject and understand the differing views. I have been in several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, where the only view that was taught was the dispensational premillenial view, and it seemed that anyone who even hinted at another view such as amillenialism, was almost considered a rank heretic.
I still hold to a dispensational premillenial view of eschatology because I see support for it from Scripture. I will share my thoughts in some upcoming articles.
For discussions on the subject of MacArthur’s message, you may want to check out these articles.
Tim Challies
Founder’s Ministries
Fred Butler
While I disagree with the amillenial view, I do not see it as rank heresy. It is certainly within the realm of biblical orthodoxy, though I disagree with the arguments in favor of the view. I still find merit from Scripture for the premillenial view.
But there have been plenty of charges railed against those of us who hold to a premillenial view from the amillenial camp. And the disagreements have not always been expressed in very gracious terms. Last year, Jason Robertson over at Fide-O went the amillenial route. I am certainly appreciative of the fact that Jason has taken the time to express his eschatological views on his blog. It has certainly been helpful in gaining an understanding of the amillenial position, even though I do not agree with his view. But I think that it is important to explore and discuss this subject and understand the differing views. I have been in several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, where the only view that was taught was the dispensational premillenial view, and it seemed that anyone who even hinted at another view such as amillenialism, was almost considered a rank heretic.
I still hold to a dispensational premillenial view of eschatology because I see support for it from Scripture. I will share my thoughts in some upcoming articles.
For discussions on the subject of MacArthur’s message, you may want to check out these articles.
Tim Challies
Founder’s Ministries
Fred Butler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
