The Continuity of Theological Concepts: A New Covenant Reading of Old Covenant Texts
While studying and teaching Zechariah 9-14 near Beirut, Lebanon I was challenged to think about the meaning and relevance of those chapters to Lebanese believers who often suffer because of the animosity between Lebanon and the very nation and people who are mentioned in those chapters. Does an alleged promised restoration of Israel and Jerusalem bring comfort or chagrin to believers in Lebanon? After all, are not Arabic speaking believers and Jewish believers in the Middle East the true people of God? Are they not the ones who should expect to share in the triumph of God? Does present day Israel have a “favored nation” status that trumps the “holy nation” of the church (1 Pet 2:9-10)?
Furthermore, does not a similar conundrum exist for those of us who live in North America? Do these texts have anything relevant to say to a largely Gentile church? Do we simply rejoice because ethnic Israel is to be restored or do we rejoice because the triumph which the old covenant nation expected is the triumph that belongs to all of those who are children of God through faith in Jesus Christ? Admittedly, the question of relevancy should not be determinative in the understanding of biblical texts but it does raise questions that might not be raised otherwise.
Additionally, not only does the difficulty of finding relevance in Zechariah 9-14 to Lebanese and North American believers pose a challenge, but so does a careful reading of the New Testament. Reading the Old and New Testaments separately, one might conclude that two distinct and contrasting Bibles exist (Old Testament and New Testament) written to two distinct peoples (Jews and Christians) with only shared lessons of moral application or common interest in the promised Messiah. Otherwise, one might conclude that God has distinct purposes for Jews and Gentiles. While interpreting texts in isolation from the larger corpus of Scripture makes this conclusion textually possible, a canonical reading of the Bible questions whether it is theologically justifiable and whether it adequately represents the biblical-theological message of the Bible which centers in the restoration of God’s original purposes as presented in Genesis 1-2, distorted in Genesis 3-11, given new hope in Genesis 12, and consummated in the coming of the Messiah.
Admittedly, a “pre- New Testament” reading of Zechariah 9-14 and the Old Testament on its own may lead one to conclude that ethnic Israelites are the people of God, earthly Jerusalem is the city He has chosen, He is present in the Jewish temple, the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Gentiles will make their way to Jerusalem, the Messiah will come humbly on a donkey and in glory with a display of power, etc.
However, Christians cannot read the Old Testament on its own because it is not on its own. It is part of the Christian Bible which includes both Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is a book of introduction, preparation, and expectation; the New Testament is a book of conclusion, denouement, and fulfillment. The OT informs the NT by giving background, promises, and a developing story line. The NT finalizes the story line and sees promise come to fulfillment.
The OT helps us understand the NT by introducing theological concepts which are continued in the NT, such as God, creation, sin, redemption, kingdom, people of God, temple, holy city, enemies, exile and restoration, etc. The NT expands on these concepts often giving them new clarity in light of the full and final revelation that comes with the advent of Jesus Christ.
Though there is continuity of theological concepts, there is discontinuity in the contextualization of these concepts. I suggest that in both the Old and New Testaments God addresses His people in language and terms that they generally understood, yet retaining a bit of mystery, because the ultimate reality, which God brings in the triumph of the Messiah, defies the ability of human language to fully convey.
If in the future believing Jews of the old covenant see the New Jerusalem coming out of heaven and witness the triumph of God over all evil and enemies, would they say, “I’m disappointed that it did not turn out ‘literally’ as portrayed in the language of the OT.” No, they would likely say, “This fulfillment not only satisfies all which God promised but goes far beyond what could be expected. Thank you, Lord.”
As I read Zechariah 9-14 and similar texts in light of the New Testament I look for theological concepts that are continuous between the testaments and interpret them in light of the fuller and final revelation of the New Testament. For instance, the theological theme of “people of God” is represented primarily by Israel in the Old Testament. Yet, we understand in the New Testament that the true “seed” of Abraham were those who had the faith of Abraham, regardless of ethnicity (Rom 2; Gal 3; 1 Pet 2). The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New Jerusalem (Heb 12:18-24, Rev 21, 22). Furthermore, the New Testament even suggests that Abraham knew that the physical reality of “land and city” anticipated something more than earthly geography (Heb 11:10, 16; Rom 4:13). The theme of “temple as the place of God’s presence” in the Old Testament was primarily confined to the tabernacle and temple of ancient Israel; in the New Testament, Jesus is ultimately the temple (John 2:19—destroy this temple), believers and the church are the temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), and there is no need of a temple in the new order because God’s presence pervades everything (Rev 21:3, 22).
There are other shared themes such as the ultimate triumph of God, the defeat of enemies, the removal of sin, the transformation of nature, the restoration of the cosmos, the establishment of worship and holiness. In Zechariah 9-14 all of these concepts are portrayed in old covenant language at times exceeding the limits of that language, anticipating the inauguration of the greater realities of the New Covenant and ultimately the consummation.
Old Testament saints had a “two-age” view of history—the age in which they lived and the age to come. The age to come anticipated the advent of the Messiah and the Day of the Lord in which God’s people would be delivered and His enemies would be judged. The age to come was depicted in terms that related to the age in which they lived though the seed of old covenant concepts blossoms into the unforeseen beauty of new covenant realities.
The New Testament declares that “the age to come” was inaugurated at the first advent of Christ (Lk 1:67-80; Acts 2:29-36), that we live in the age that was anticipated (1 Cor 10:11—“on whom the end of the ages has come”), but, though the age has already come, it is not yet consummated, so we anticipate the consummation at His Second Advent (2 Thess 1:5-10).
Consequently, New Covenant believers live between two worlds: having entered the kingdom (Col 1:13) but waiting for the consummate kingdom (Rev 11:15); having become part of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17), yet waiting for the consummate new creation (Rev 21); being seated in the heavens with Christ (Eph 2:6), yet living as strangers on earth (1 Pet 2:11); having witnessed the triumph of Christ over sin, Satan, and death (Col 1:13-15), yet awaiting the consummate world of righteousness (2 Pet 3:13); having tasted in the Spirit the inheritance to come (Eph 1:13-14), yet awaiting consummate glory (1 Pet 5:1).
jpdsr51 Bio
Dr. John P. Davis is currently Lead Pastor of a church plant in Philadelphia, PA. Grace Church of Philly is a gospel-centered city church seeking to reach people of all nations. John received the BA in Bible (Greek minor) at Bob Jones University, MDiv from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, the ThM in OT from Westminster Theological Seminary, and the DMin from Biblical Theological Seminary. His ThM thesis was on A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covt. in Dispensationalism. His DMin project/dissertation was on Common Factors in the Practice of Ongoing Personal Evangelism. John has pastored two other churches in PA and two in NY. Three were church-plants.
- 81 views
[James K] John, according to Eph 2, we have been brought into the covenants of promise originally made with the Jews. My hermeneutic believes that in its entirety. Your hermeneutic rewrites the promises and claims they are actually better.I’ve read the above and appreciate the journey they are on in the right direction. And, yes i do believe that the fulfillment is better than anticipated - a better King, a better Kingdom, a better people, and a better land/inheritance. Thanks for the input.
I would encourage you to do some research on the new creation model of eschatology. Russell Moore, Craig Blaising, Douglas Moo, and others are advocates. You would then understand what the New Creation actually is.
I have appreciated this discussion. Thanks.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
John,
I asserted that the continuity you recommend is really a discontinuity. In reply you state:
I wrote, “Such a method continuously teeters on the brink of Eisegesis with its in-built temptation to conforming texts to ones theological predilections.”
You said,
Next you write:
John:
Next you ask,
I am trying to say as much as I can within the word limit. Some things must go unsaid, including my appreciations for your article and positions.
Your brother, Paul
I asserted that the continuity you recommend is really a discontinuity. In reply you state:
…there is continuity of the concepts (temple, land, people, etc) but discontinuity in the expression of those concepts.This is strange indeed. The concept is static but what we say about it isn’t? How is that possible? If I express a concept I use language to describe an idea (at the very least). This language is either accurate or not. The concept “temple” for instance is (in the OT) a description of a physical building for worship. If “temple” is used to describe something else, it surely describes another concept (e.g. a. Jesus’ physical body; b. the church - which are themselves different concepts). Hence the concepts are altered. All that remains the same are the labels, which are used equivocally.
I wrote, “Such a method continuously teeters on the brink of Eisegesis with its in-built temptation to conforming texts to ones theological predilections.”
You said,
I believe I have stated clearly my conscious theological presuppositions in regard to interpreting Scripture within the context of the whole story of the Bible. If you tried to understand the OT apart from the NT you would not know who created the world, that Abraham was looking for an eternal city which God built. that he inherited the cosmos, the coming(s) of the Messiah, the heavenly Jerusalem, in what way Messiah sits on the throne of David, etc.Of course, and if you tried to understand the NT without the OT you’d be in a pickle too! This is understood by all. One cannot know the context of Bible story without first knowing what the passages say. This is why the analogy of faith must check but not control exegesis. Exegesis supplies the Analogy of Faith.
Next you write:
It is because of the NT that we accept the OT as the Word of God…No. The OT would be the Word of God if we never had the NT. Furthermore, we would be under obligation to accept it as such.
…and it is because of the NT that the OT becomes clear…The OT is very clear in much of what it says. That, e.g. is why Christ could appeal to it to corroborate His claims. The NT does clarify many OT themes through progressive revelation. It does not do it by changing the plain sense of the OT text. That maneuver can only be made by the imposition of a certain interpretation of the NT to alter the meaning of much that is in the OT. Hence, the discontinuity.
So yes, there is a priority of the NT for without it we do not have the Redeemer King and would either be Gentiles who were excluded or proselytes who would be worshipping in a Jewish temple.The false priority I spoke of was interpretive in nature (as described above). The NT has priority over the Old in the sense of doctrinal completion and clarification, not as a revisionary tool of the interpreter. The NT nowhere changes the land into heaven or Israel into the church, or abrogates the clear oaths of God in His everlasting covenants. These mutations can only be performed by reading exegetically dubious inferences into the Scriptures. God cannot lie (Tit.1:2) and His unilateral covenants cannot be annulled (Jer. 33:14ff.; cf. Gal. 3:15) or transformed to mean something other than what their wording states. E.g., In Gen. 22 God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took God literally because He took God’s covenant literally, even though that meant believing that God would raise the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). He did not reason “God couldn’t mean that. I must swap my hermeneutics.” Why? Because God means what He says. There is a direct continuity between what God says and what He does. If there was equivocation, that creates all kinds of issues theologically and philosophically.
John:
The integrity of the OT is undermined by reading it without the final and full revelation of the NT.Not having the NT does not affect the integrity of the NT, it just means we don’t have all God’s revelation (which is crucial). But I was in any case referring to the ability of OT readers to ascertain literal truth from it even when more information would often be needed from the NT.
Otherwise we read as those who searched the Scriptures without seeing Christ and are in need of Christ to open our eyes to understand the Scriptures.I am pretty sure Christ showed them what was actually in the text through G-H interpretation not through any redemptive hermeneutics. The information regarding Him was upon the surface of the text and did not require spiritualizing.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, every Christian to some degree reads the OT through Christian lenses. I am interested in what the human author intended in the OT texts but I am equally interested in what the Divine author intended and some of that I can’t know apart from the NT.You create a dichotomy between the human and Divine authors. Any difference between them is in the nature of qualitative/quantitative univocal understanding, not equivocation. The concepts remain unchanged. The progress of revelation adds information but the information itself does not undergo conceptual change. Perceptions of the literal may and do change, but not God’s meaning. The Bible is not a wax nose.
Galatians 3 makes it clear that Christ is the quintessential seed of Abraham, the only covenantally faithful Jew and therefore the inheritor of the promise to Abraham.You believe that the AC is not unconditional then? Could you show me a condition in Gen. 15? And if Jesus kept it for them surely Israel gets the land as per the covenant?
Next you ask,
[Paul Henebury] Likewise, the “New Covenant” in either Testament is the universal and unilateral means whereby the other Biblical Covenants are realized and fulfilled. It is not the same as the NT Canon. For example, Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:20) would have been incomprehensible to the disciples if such were the case.
How do correlate the above statement with “The Old Covenant, that is, the MC, has been replaced with the New Covenant, but this does not affect the Abrahamic Covenant,” if the New Covenant. as you say, is the means by which the other covenants (I assume you include the Abrahamic) are realized and fulfilled? Does not Jesus establsih the NC with the apostles, the church (New Israel ??)? Or are you saying he means, “This is the new covenant in my blood, not all of the new covenant, only the soteriological portion of it.”I’m not sure what you are saying here, but as to the last sentence, I believe Christ made the NC with the Church and shall make the same NC with Israel. The NC is the way of entrance into the blessings of the AC for the church now and Israel later.
I am trying to say as much as I can within the word limit. Some things must go unsaid, including my appreciations for your article and positions.
Your brother, Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul responds: This is strange indeed. The concept is static but what we say about it isn’t? How is that possible? If I express a concept I use language to describe an idea (at the very least). This language is either accurate or not. The concept “temple” for instance is (in the OT) a description of a physical building for worship. If “temple” is used to describe something else, it surely describes another concept (e.g. a. Jesus’ physical body; b. the church - which are themselves different concepts). Hence the concepts are altered. All that remains the same are the labels, which are used equivocally.
John’s response: The essence/concept of ‘temple’ is not architectural structure but the ‘presence or dwelling place of God.’ NT writers use words intentionally not equivocally.
Paul responded: The OT would be the Word of God if we never had the NT. Furthermore, we would be under obligation to accept it as such.
John’s response: Essentially that is true, but practically apart from the full and final revelation which established the OT as authoritative for Christians, I, as anon-Jew, would have no reason to accept it as the Word of God.
Paul Responded: The OT is very clear in much of what it says. That, e.g. is why Christ could appeal to it to corroborate His claims. The NT does clarify many OT themes through progressive revelation. It does not do it by changing the plain sense of the OT text. That maneuver can only be made by the imposition of a certain interpretation of the NT to alter the meaning of much that is in the OT. Hence, the discontinuity.
John responds: Again we somewhat agree. I do not see the meaning as altered but expanded (sensus plenior) and informed by the greater context of the complete canon.
Paul responded: The false priority I spoke of was interpretive in nature (as described above). The NT has priority over the Old in the sense of doctrinal completion and clarification, not as a revisionary tool of the interpreter. The NT nowhere changes the land into heaven or Israel into the church, or abrogates the clear oaths of God in His everlasting covenants. These mutations can only be performed by reading exegetically dubious inferences into the Scriptures. God cannot lie (Tit.1:2) and His unilateral covenants cannot be annulled (Jer. 33:14ff.; cf. Gal. 3:15) or transformed to mean something other than what their wording states. E.g., In Gen. 22 God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took God literally because He took God’s covenant literally, even though that meant believing that God would raise the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). He did not reason “God couldn’t mean that. I must swap my hermeneutics.” Why? Because God means what He says. There is a direct continuity between what God says and what He does. If there was equivocation, that creates all kinds of issues theologically and philosophically.
John’s response: Your response here (revisionary, mutations, swap hermeneutics, equivocation) is an unwarranted caricature (perhaps not intended by you) of those who hold an equally high view of Scripture and who are wrestling with the relationship of NT to OT, and what they believe are unsatisfactory answers to the challenge. I am glad you have it figured it but some of us still wrestle with Gal 3, I peter 2:9-10, how OT essence/concepts are concretized in the NT, the announcement and presence of the kingdom in the gospels, the union of Jew and Gentile in one body, etc).
Paul said: Not having the NT does not affect the integrity of the OT, it just means we don’t have all God’s revelation (which is crucial). But I was in any case referring to the ability of OT readers to ascertain literal truth from it even when more information would often be needed from the NT.
John’s response: Integrity is “an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting.” Again, The integrity of the OT is undermined by reading it without the final and full revelation of the NT.
Paul said: I am pretty sure Christ showed them what was actually in the text through G-H interpretation not through any redemptive hermeneutics. The information regarding Him was upon the surface of the text and did not require spiritualizing.
John’s response: Ha!
Paul said: You create a dichotomy between the human and Divine authors. Any difference between them is in the nature of qualitative/quantitative univocal understanding, not equivocation. The concepts remain unchanged. The progress of revelation adds information but the information itself does not undergo conceptual change. Perceptions of the literal may and do change, but not God’s meaning. The Bible is not a wax nose.
John’s response: I don’t disagree with you here. There is no conceptual change. Yes, it is not a wax nose but revelation is a seed that blossoms over time as in from Gen 3:15 to Heb 2:910.
Paul said: You believe that the AC is not unconditional then? Could you show me a condition in Gen. 15? And if Jesus kept it for them surely Israel gets the land as per the covenant?
John’s response: That God would fulfill the Abrahamic pomise/covenant in Christ is unconditional. Participation in the covenant was based upon faith/faithfulness as the history of ancient Israel’s relationship to the land showed until Christ, the ever faithful One comes and in whom now are who believe inherit the promise in him. Believing Jews (and Gentiles) get more than the ancient land, they get the New Creation.
Paul, than you for your interaction with my article and helping me to clarify a few things. Blessings, JOHN
For anyone who would like to continue this discussion you can email me at johndavis@gracechurchphilly.org
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
The relationship of the church to the Abrahamic covenant to the New Covenant and the Church is handled clearly and well in Dwight Pentecost,s book “Things to Come” which came out in the 1960s. The following books are some among many that may be helpful if they have not been read.
“Continuity and Discontinuity,” Editor John S. Feinberg, Crossway Books, 1991 has some good discussions by scholars.
“A Case For Premillennialism, A New Consensus,” Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, Moody Press, 1992
“A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism,” Arnold D. Ehlert, Baker Book House, 1965.
“Israel and the Church, The Origin And Effects of Replacement Theology,” Ronald E. Diprose, Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, Italy, 2004.
I would merely make the following observations.
First, from the standpoint of Biblical theology, which views revelation within the time and historical context, the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed the Hebrew scriptures. They are by the Jews for the Jews. We must ask how they saw the the prophets when the Revelation was given them. What was the intent that God had in giving them that revelation at that time. We must seek to see the revelation through those Hebraic eyes. Then we can seek to see what the NT revelation adds to that understanding.
Second, All of the scriptures are given to us through the entrustment given to the Jews. Paul alludes to this trust given them at Romans 3:1-2. All of the “Messiah called Apostles” were Jewish. It required their authorship and/or approval for acceptance of the NT scriptures. The transition books of Luke and Acts were given through inspiration of a Gentile but accepted only because of the Apostolic relationship and approval. The NT is indeed Hebraic oracles given the assembly that was to be built by the Messiah. His selected Apostles were the foundation and the Messiah as the chief cornerstone. Donald Diprose observed; “It is the presupposition of the entire New Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel” (p.181).
Third, from a Christian historical standpoint, Donald Diprose makes a strong case for early Christian Premillennialism later replaced by integration and adaption of Hebraic ritual to the church. Prejudice against the Jews brought replacement theology which started to seriously distort Christian theology. Christian theology would be Japhetic instead of Semitic.
Fourth, from Augustine on we have the gradual acceptance of a Christian theology built upon heresy. Augustine, the alleged great church theologian, was wrong on just about everything. He was wrong on Justification, Baptism, Communion, means of Grace, and the hope of the church. His triumphalism of the church was the foundation for church involvement in government, using physical force for conversion, and all sorts of Ecclesiastical imperialism.
Fifth, Medieval theology was a convergence of Paganism and Christian thought. Neo Platonism and Aristotelian thought became an integrated foundation for Christian theology. Prejudice against the Jews brought persecutions to them. The church was God’s elect and Jews were God’s cast offs. European theology was pagan, wrong, and heretical.
Fifth, The Reformers of the magisterial reformation brought many back to Justification by faith alone and attempted to see the scriptures alone. However, they looked at scripture through the glasses of Medieval theology. They still revered Augustine. They still saw a gentile church which had little to do with rejected Judaism. They expressed strong prejudice against the jews and saw no literal kingdom in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the Medieval Evangelical groups and later e “radical Reformists” (AnaBaptists) did see a literal kingdom. The AnaBaptist endeavors to go beyond the magisterial reformation were met with extreme persecution by the Catholic church and by the those called Reformers. The “magisterial Reformers” certainly did much good but fell far short of real a real Biblical theology. European Reformed theology changed quickly at Dort and morphed into even more convoluted thought in the progress of English Puritanism.
Sixth, the Christian theology of Europe was far from Biblical Hebraic foundations. It was also a theology of the elite clergy. Only the clergy had good access to the scriptures. There was no mass distribution of the scriptures. The invention of the movable type press in 1450 improved things but it would that a couple centuries before there would be an adequate access to the scriptures by many Christians.
Seventh, a new land, a new mobility, and a new access to the scriptures brought drastic changes in the seventeenth century. Spiritual Awakenings in England and America brought new converts, new churches and new insights into scripture. The European Calvinism was challenged by many who wanted a restoration that was based on the scriptures alone. There was also a Bible Onlyism theology that involved many of the non Clergy believers. The Plymouth Brethren arose in Ireland and new groups in america. Awakenings continued into the Eighteenth century.
Eighth, from the dissemination of the Bible and Spiritual awakenings there arose a new emphasis
on the normal face value interpretation of scripture. This brought about a more literal eschatology for the Christian churches. The Hebrew scriptures were taken less allegorical and more literally. The Kingdom was again seen as a Hebraic promise that must be taken seriously and was still a hope for Israel. This also resulted in attempting to see where the Christians fit into this. The Hebrew scriptures promised Israel a Kingdom but also tribulation. The portrayals of that tribulations were terrible and obviously have not taken place. Since such was confirmed by the Messiah to Israel in the Olivet discourse, where would the yet future (at that time) Christian church fit in? The answers were seen in the NT last revelation in the book of Revelation and also some other NT passages. The emerging result was a viewpoint that would be labelled as “Dispensationalism.” It respected the covenants of God seen in scripture, endeavored to consistently interpret the scriptures literally, acknowledged progressive revelation, and put together the puzzle of Christian hope anchored in Hebraic promises.
Ninth, while there was definite Premillennialism in the early church, and some definite fragments of later Dispensationalism, the theology of Dispensationalism as a constructed theology rightly emerged in the Nineteenth century. The problem is not such a late emergence, but the long centuries of paganism and prejudice that was called Christian theology in Europe. Such prejudices, and even persecutions, prevented a more objective and spiritual study of all the scriptures. The Clergy theology of Europe, and also the early colonies, had much that was good but prevented that which was better. A salvation reformation occurred in the sixteenth century. A fuller Biblical perspective reformation occurred in the Nineteenth century. The questions of the Jews, the church, the kingdom and the tribulation were being asked and the answers put together.
And the fullest revelation of all is my forty foot long Dispensational Chart. :bigsmile:
“Continuity and Discontinuity,” Editor John S. Feinberg, Crossway Books, 1991 has some good discussions by scholars.
“A Case For Premillennialism, A New Consensus,” Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, Moody Press, 1992
“A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism,” Arnold D. Ehlert, Baker Book House, 1965.
“Israel and the Church, The Origin And Effects of Replacement Theology,” Ronald E. Diprose, Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, Italy, 2004.
I would merely make the following observations.
First, from the standpoint of Biblical theology, which views revelation within the time and historical context, the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed the Hebrew scriptures. They are by the Jews for the Jews. We must ask how they saw the the prophets when the Revelation was given them. What was the intent that God had in giving them that revelation at that time. We must seek to see the revelation through those Hebraic eyes. Then we can seek to see what the NT revelation adds to that understanding.
Second, All of the scriptures are given to us through the entrustment given to the Jews. Paul alludes to this trust given them at Romans 3:1-2. All of the “Messiah called Apostles” were Jewish. It required their authorship and/or approval for acceptance of the NT scriptures. The transition books of Luke and Acts were given through inspiration of a Gentile but accepted only because of the Apostolic relationship and approval. The NT is indeed Hebraic oracles given the assembly that was to be built by the Messiah. His selected Apostles were the foundation and the Messiah as the chief cornerstone. Donald Diprose observed; “It is the presupposition of the entire New Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel” (p.181).
Third, from a Christian historical standpoint, Donald Diprose makes a strong case for early Christian Premillennialism later replaced by integration and adaption of Hebraic ritual to the church. Prejudice against the Jews brought replacement theology which started to seriously distort Christian theology. Christian theology would be Japhetic instead of Semitic.
Fourth, from Augustine on we have the gradual acceptance of a Christian theology built upon heresy. Augustine, the alleged great church theologian, was wrong on just about everything. He was wrong on Justification, Baptism, Communion, means of Grace, and the hope of the church. His triumphalism of the church was the foundation for church involvement in government, using physical force for conversion, and all sorts of Ecclesiastical imperialism.
Fifth, Medieval theology was a convergence of Paganism and Christian thought. Neo Platonism and Aristotelian thought became an integrated foundation for Christian theology. Prejudice against the Jews brought persecutions to them. The church was God’s elect and Jews were God’s cast offs. European theology was pagan, wrong, and heretical.
Fifth, The Reformers of the magisterial reformation brought many back to Justification by faith alone and attempted to see the scriptures alone. However, they looked at scripture through the glasses of Medieval theology. They still revered Augustine. They still saw a gentile church which had little to do with rejected Judaism. They expressed strong prejudice against the jews and saw no literal kingdom in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the Medieval Evangelical groups and later e “radical Reformists” (AnaBaptists) did see a literal kingdom. The AnaBaptist endeavors to go beyond the magisterial reformation were met with extreme persecution by the Catholic church and by the those called Reformers. The “magisterial Reformers” certainly did much good but fell far short of real a real Biblical theology. European Reformed theology changed quickly at Dort and morphed into even more convoluted thought in the progress of English Puritanism.
Sixth, the Christian theology of Europe was far from Biblical Hebraic foundations. It was also a theology of the elite clergy. Only the clergy had good access to the scriptures. There was no mass distribution of the scriptures. The invention of the movable type press in 1450 improved things but it would that a couple centuries before there would be an adequate access to the scriptures by many Christians.
Seventh, a new land, a new mobility, and a new access to the scriptures brought drastic changes in the seventeenth century. Spiritual Awakenings in England and America brought new converts, new churches and new insights into scripture. The European Calvinism was challenged by many who wanted a restoration that was based on the scriptures alone. There was also a Bible Onlyism theology that involved many of the non Clergy believers. The Plymouth Brethren arose in Ireland and new groups in america. Awakenings continued into the Eighteenth century.
Eighth, from the dissemination of the Bible and Spiritual awakenings there arose a new emphasis
on the normal face value interpretation of scripture. This brought about a more literal eschatology for the Christian churches. The Hebrew scriptures were taken less allegorical and more literally. The Kingdom was again seen as a Hebraic promise that must be taken seriously and was still a hope for Israel. This also resulted in attempting to see where the Christians fit into this. The Hebrew scriptures promised Israel a Kingdom but also tribulation. The portrayals of that tribulations were terrible and obviously have not taken place. Since such was confirmed by the Messiah to Israel in the Olivet discourse, where would the yet future (at that time) Christian church fit in? The answers were seen in the NT last revelation in the book of Revelation and also some other NT passages. The emerging result was a viewpoint that would be labelled as “Dispensationalism.” It respected the covenants of God seen in scripture, endeavored to consistently interpret the scriptures literally, acknowledged progressive revelation, and put together the puzzle of Christian hope anchored in Hebraic promises.
Ninth, while there was definite Premillennialism in the early church, and some definite fragments of later Dispensationalism, the theology of Dispensationalism as a constructed theology rightly emerged in the Nineteenth century. The problem is not such a late emergence, but the long centuries of paganism and prejudice that was called Christian theology in Europe. Such prejudices, and even persecutions, prevented a more objective and spiritual study of all the scriptures. The Clergy theology of Europe, and also the early colonies, had much that was good but prevented that which was better. A salvation reformation occurred in the sixteenth century. A fuller Biblical perspective reformation occurred in the Nineteenth century. The questions of the Jews, the church, the kingdom and the tribulation were being asked and the answers put together.
And the fullest revelation of all is my forty foot long Dispensational Chart. :bigsmile:
Thanks for the promotional brochure on dispensationalism, but I’m still not buying. Though, I thank you for being honest in your concluding confessional statement in bold print :)
Blessings, JOHN
Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
To trivialize Bob’s rather well argued response, whether one agrees with it or not, as a “promotional brochure on dispensationalism” is either the kind of condescension that admits you have no response hence you will mock it and your position of seriousness as a theologian has been deliberately abandoned for such a self-serving volley or it is the kind of arrogance that refuses to acknowledge the merit of others. On the other hand it may merely be a jest that we can take with the expectation that you will be following it up with a response in kind or at least with some degree of sober treatment of at least a few of the elements contained in his narrative rebuttal.
Of course thinking the best, only, of the Davis family, I look forward to your more full response and understand the tease toward Bob.
Of course thinking the best, only, of the Davis family, I look forward to your more full response and understand the tease toward Bob.
@Alex,
I also look forward to a “more full response” from John, because I have read been following the comments with a lot of interest. However, as an observer, I wouldn’t say that it was completely unfair or condescending of John to characterize Bob’s nine points as a promotional brochure on dispensationalism. I think it is quite fair. Brochures aren’t bad things, they are just a little impersonal and don’t always answer the questions being asked.
I think Bob’s nine points seem to be answering a question kind of like “Why I am a Dispensationalist and why you should be one, too.” These points didn’t particularly get into the nitty gritty of the passages that have been discussed, nor did they really advance the interaction — they kind of shore up some of the justifications already made; and yet you call for John to interact with them point by point more fully.
Secondly, I don’t think John trivialized Bob’s post any more than Bob already trivialized the whole of European Theology from day one to the present. What comes out in much of the discussions on these topics is the fact that there are nuances and subtleties that need to be dealt with in the whole history of this subject, as well as the hermeneutics used to examine it, whether they have Judaistic roots, European roots or American roots. Also, comments that constantly refer to covenant theology as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” have, in my opinion, a tendency to trivialize; but no-one’s complaining.
As John said in another post, there are some things to really grapple with. However, the “dispensationalist response” seems to have, more often than not, this tendency to dismiss or trivialize anything that has gone before — or that goes on any where else in the world. I do believe that America has been blessed; yet I am not sure I believe that nothing was clear or knowable until there was an American Theological Tradition to finally rediscover the plain truth of scripture that was in front of our noses all along (there may be a slight caricature in there). And if there is any condescension around to be found, I tend to see it more in the sentiments along the lines of “a plain, simple, honest reading, by good, plain, simple, honest, hardworking folks will inevitably lead one to Dispensationalism.” I personally find this whole kind of argument and presentation to be a little circular, and self-serving (and thus “brochure-like”); because this attitude seems to be what it takes to read the scriptures in the way that dispensationalists are determined to read them. If this is warranted from the whole of scripture, I am all for it. But like John, I don’t quite buy it.
I am really looking forward to more discussion on this, and lots more and full responses on both sides.
I also look forward to a “more full response” from John, because I have read been following the comments with a lot of interest. However, as an observer, I wouldn’t say that it was completely unfair or condescending of John to characterize Bob’s nine points as a promotional brochure on dispensationalism. I think it is quite fair. Brochures aren’t bad things, they are just a little impersonal and don’t always answer the questions being asked.
I think Bob’s nine points seem to be answering a question kind of like “Why I am a Dispensationalist and why you should be one, too.” These points didn’t particularly get into the nitty gritty of the passages that have been discussed, nor did they really advance the interaction — they kind of shore up some of the justifications already made; and yet you call for John to interact with them point by point more fully.
Secondly, I don’t think John trivialized Bob’s post any more than Bob already trivialized the whole of European Theology from day one to the present. What comes out in much of the discussions on these topics is the fact that there are nuances and subtleties that need to be dealt with in the whole history of this subject, as well as the hermeneutics used to examine it, whether they have Judaistic roots, European roots or American roots. Also, comments that constantly refer to covenant theology as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” have, in my opinion, a tendency to trivialize; but no-one’s complaining.
As John said in another post, there are some things to really grapple with. However, the “dispensationalist response” seems to have, more often than not, this tendency to dismiss or trivialize anything that has gone before — or that goes on any where else in the world. I do believe that America has been blessed; yet I am not sure I believe that nothing was clear or knowable until there was an American Theological Tradition to finally rediscover the plain truth of scripture that was in front of our noses all along (there may be a slight caricature in there). And if there is any condescension around to be found, I tend to see it more in the sentiments along the lines of “a plain, simple, honest reading, by good, plain, simple, honest, hardworking folks will inevitably lead one to Dispensationalism.” I personally find this whole kind of argument and presentation to be a little circular, and self-serving (and thus “brochure-like”); because this attitude seems to be what it takes to read the scriptures in the way that dispensationalists are determined to read them. If this is warranted from the whole of scripture, I am all for it. But like John, I don’t quite buy it.
I am really looking forward to more discussion on this, and lots more and full responses on both sides.
Corrections: Point seven of my prior post should read eighteenth and nineteenth centuries not seventeenth and eighteenth.
John, thank you for the suggestion about a brochure perhaps I will make a quick read brochure using this historical summary and then add the Biblical arguments in a summary fashion for Premillennialism and its logical Pre Tribulation rapture of the church. I would have them passed out at Westminster Seminary east and west.
My purpose in that post was not to make arguments for Dispensationalism. They should be made from the scriptures alone. My purpose was to assert the possible reasons why such a theological system as Dispensationalism was not formerly brought forth until the nineteenth century. The history of fragments alluding to principles later in the Dispensational system can be found scattered in the early church and later. Premillennialism is very substantially found in the churches and writers of the first three centuries. I give no references in my summary. I do give books that some reading here may wish to read if they have not already done so. There is a much larger availability of a Bibliography available for reference.
Donald Diprose book was his doctoral dissertation and is scholarly. His arguments and conclusions are well referenced historical facts and hard to refute. Arnold Ehlert’s book is small but concise and packed with Bibliographic references that allude to different evidences of early Dispensational principles among some writers. Ehlert had a TH.M from Dallas and a MSLS and PHD both from USC. He was librarian at Dallas, then at Fuller Seminary, and later at Biola- Talbot where he greatly enlarged the library. He was a Bibliophile of great reputation. I was acquainted with him as a student and later adjunct faculty at Biola where he was of great help a couple times.
My purpose in my post was merely to take the often used arguments for the recentness of Dispensationalism and a Premillennialism off the table. The best historical scholarship gives good evidence for prior early views and reasons for the late progress of systemized doctrine with regard to eschatology.
It is always wonderful to hear of missions work and compassion for other peoples. The Lebanese certainly have great hardship. They also have that which may give them antagonism toward Israel. The Jewish people have also had centuries of persecutions and hardship. We should pray that the Spirit of God will work among all middle eastern peoples and also the hardened hearts of the Jewish people. The Jews are in the land in unbelief. This may be a preparation for fulfilled prophecy but is not of itself fulfilled prophecy. God has promised to give them the land in belief when “every person will know Him” as stated at Jeremiah 31 and seen miraculously done in Zechariah. Christ is the only answer for all. Unfortunately the depravity of man is often manifested in the ways of false religion that involves the religiosity of a fabricated Christianity and practice that makes the Lord Jesus Christ himself unattractive.
My forty foot Dispensational chart comes with my presentation that includes fireworks and people snatched away by suspended wires. Great show. Popcorn is often sold. :bigsmile:
John, thank you for the suggestion about a brochure perhaps I will make a quick read brochure using this historical summary and then add the Biblical arguments in a summary fashion for Premillennialism and its logical Pre Tribulation rapture of the church. I would have them passed out at Westminster Seminary east and west.
My purpose in that post was not to make arguments for Dispensationalism. They should be made from the scriptures alone. My purpose was to assert the possible reasons why such a theological system as Dispensationalism was not formerly brought forth until the nineteenth century. The history of fragments alluding to principles later in the Dispensational system can be found scattered in the early church and later. Premillennialism is very substantially found in the churches and writers of the first three centuries. I give no references in my summary. I do give books that some reading here may wish to read if they have not already done so. There is a much larger availability of a Bibliography available for reference.
Donald Diprose book was his doctoral dissertation and is scholarly. His arguments and conclusions are well referenced historical facts and hard to refute. Arnold Ehlert’s book is small but concise and packed with Bibliographic references that allude to different evidences of early Dispensational principles among some writers. Ehlert had a TH.M from Dallas and a MSLS and PHD both from USC. He was librarian at Dallas, then at Fuller Seminary, and later at Biola- Talbot where he greatly enlarged the library. He was a Bibliophile of great reputation. I was acquainted with him as a student and later adjunct faculty at Biola where he was of great help a couple times.
My purpose in my post was merely to take the often used arguments for the recentness of Dispensationalism and a Premillennialism off the table. The best historical scholarship gives good evidence for prior early views and reasons for the late progress of systemized doctrine with regard to eschatology.
It is always wonderful to hear of missions work and compassion for other peoples. The Lebanese certainly have great hardship. They also have that which may give them antagonism toward Israel. The Jewish people have also had centuries of persecutions and hardship. We should pray that the Spirit of God will work among all middle eastern peoples and also the hardened hearts of the Jewish people. The Jews are in the land in unbelief. This may be a preparation for fulfilled prophecy but is not of itself fulfilled prophecy. God has promised to give them the land in belief when “every person will know Him” as stated at Jeremiah 31 and seen miraculously done in Zechariah. Christ is the only answer for all. Unfortunately the depravity of man is often manifested in the ways of false religion that involves the religiosity of a fabricated Christianity and practice that makes the Lord Jesus Christ himself unattractive.
My forty foot Dispensational chart comes with my presentation that includes fireworks and people snatched away by suspended wires. Great show. Popcorn is often sold. :bigsmile:
I am glad you have a sense of humor and are not thin skinned. Please share a bit of that humor with Alex. I meant no offence. I simply didn’t see where your response directly interacted with anything I wrote. Perhaps it would have fit better in response to my earlier artilcle (http://sharperiron.org/my-journey-out-of-dispensationalism). I am sure that we disagree on alot of these issues but I sense from your post that you share a common desire to see Jew and Gentile come to Christ. Let’s rejpice together in that Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[rrobinson] @Alex,
I also look forward to a “more full response” from John, because I have read been following the comments with a lot of interest. However, as an observer, I wouldn’t say that it was completely unfair or condescending of John to characterize Bob’s nine points as a promotional brochure on dispensationalism. I think it is quite fair. Brochures aren’t bad things, they are just a little impersonal and don’t always answer the questions being asked.
I think Bob’s nine points seem to be answering a question kind of like “Why I am a Dispensationalist and why you should be one, too.” These points didn’t particularly get into the nitty gritty of the passages that have been discussed, nor did they really advance the interaction — they kind of shore up some of the justifications already made; and yet you call for John to interact with them point by point more fully.
Secondly, I don’t think John trivialized Bob’s post any more than Bob already trivialized the whole of European Theology from day one to the present. What comes out in much of the discussions on these topics is the fact that there are nuances and subtleties that need to be dealt with in the whole history of this subject, as well as the hermeneutics used to examine it, whether they have Judaistic roots, European roots or American roots. Also, comments that constantly refer to covenant theology as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” have, in my opinion, a tendency to trivialize; but no-one’s complaining.
[jpdsr51] I am glad you have a sense of humor and are not thin skinned. Please share a bit of that humor with Alex. I meant no offence. I simply didn’t see where your response directly interacted with anything I wrote. Perhaps it would have fit better in response to my earlier artilcle (http://sharperiron.org/my-journey-out-of-dispensationalism). I am sure that we disagree on alot of these issues but I sense from your post that you share a common desire to see Jew and Gentile come to Christ. Let’s rejpice together in that Blessings, JOHNI too look forward to more responses and I will happily admit that I don’t anticipate mounting superior responses or those worthy of accompanying Jeff Brown and others but I certainly am happy to recognize the value of all arguments. But if I believe I have a contribution, I will make it.
As to anyone with thin skin, well when one gives a person the benefit of the doubt and then called thin skin, it appears a handy mirror might solve such investigations. But let’s move on.
IMO Bob’s response addresses a more fundamental issue in the argument. Granted it is not a direct response to the premise(s) in the OP but to that upon which they are built. And as to the examination of European theology or any other historical category of theology, certainly were are obligated to fairly investigate its construct but it does not take away from the observation by Bob, rather that in making the observation we ought to pursue its clarity and he did not indicate there is not more to be said, rather that he was making a point that those of the New Covenant persuasion seem to dismiss or ignore certain aspects of the theology’s development that did impact its content.
And I understand why such an instinctive approach ensues when NC arguments are made and those rejecting it respond more broadly or fundamentally. It is because there is more than a textual argument contained in all textual assertions by NC believers and that substance is their theology’s historical development, a development they insist, often, qualifies them as superior to dispensationalism. Therefore, as Bob pointed out in another post he is addressing more basically…
used arguments for the recentness of Dispensationalism and a Premillennialism off the table…which are used by many to excuse themselves from its attendance.
Perhaps it is true that the fundamental response and not a direct response warrants another thread. I don’t believe so but I can see it being a disservice to the author’s intent of the OP if it trends too long in that direction.
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
And thus the debate goes on, and will, no doubt, without end. Some posts are thought-provoking. Some are puzzling. Nevertheless, I am thankful to see this discussion on SI. Thanks for posting John’s article, and thanks to all who have responded.
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Alex Guggenheim]Fair enough. I certainly wouldn’t want to generalize and tar all the responses with the same brush (which is why I threw in the caricature comment); it is just a feeling I have having read through a couple of years worth of related threads on this topic in a short space of time.
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
But while I am speaking about my feeling (and it is just that, my feeling), there are two sides to this particular argument (let’s call it the tenure and pedigree of the one theological approach vs. the tenure and pedigree of the other); and I am not sure that both can be treated equally as though there were some one to one correlation with some kind of points system. What I mean is, I don’t think both sides can proffer up how many theologians wrote how many books at what point in history and see who comes out ahead.
Of course, I don’t think anyone is actually doing that, at all. However, one gets (I get) the feeling sometimes, that on the Dispensational side of the debate, that if a few names and books and dates can be put up, well, that has answered it, then, hasn’t it? Case closed. Dispensationalism seems to feel a little defensive about their academic and historical position, so, whew, find a few pieces of data, and job done.
But, I don’t feel that the “other side” of this debate (whatever it’s being called, CT, or a flavor of CT or whatever), is relying on its precedent in quite the same way. I think it is more like they are:
a) saying, “looking at the whole of scripture together, these are the conclusions we come to, without shoe-horning them into a preconceived system”…. “AND to bear this out, it seems that many/most theologians throughout history (be they our kind of theologians or not) have followed this sort of approach and had similar conclusions.”
b) thinking there is a bit of a cautionary flag here: any pointing at the relative lack of tenure and pedigree of the Dispensational system, is not to say, “hey, name me some historical figures because I am unconvinced by the more contemporary ones.” It is rather saying something more to the effect: “what makes this system a relatively recent phenomenon, and why are more and more people in our circles questioning it?”
If this is the case, then no amount of names and dates and books are really going to be enough. Some deeper analysis and grappling with the issues raised are in order. Part of the problem of course, is that this call for deeper grappling in a way plays right into the hands of the Dispensationalist presuppositions (like, hey all you guys suddenly enamored of CT are falling away in the end times, listening to what you want to hear, and not standing firm with the faithful minority). But of course, it is precisely that kind of response marks an attitude/approach and is perhaps related to cultural bias that is at issue and that many have raised, and that is why maybe the debate seems to go round and round. It is a major thing that seems to be a blind spot of dispensationalists, and which they refuse to examine. This is just my feeling.
I’ve probably been too long out of the thread for this to fit in anywhere, but nonetheless.
A couple of observations on Charlie’s response to my last post (40 or so ago).
I think it’s safe to say that though the early church guys who were premil. had a different view of the Abrahamic Cov’t (which I grant mostly because I have no idea… but it sounds likely), they arrived at premil. belief by reading the Bible and interpreting key portions of it in a very similar way that modern premil’s do. That is, they took much of the same prophetic material mostly literally and, lining it all up, came to the conclusion that Christ returns before a millennial reign.
So, for now, I’m going to hang on to my belief that the dissimilarities between ancient premil’s and modern dispensational ones has been overstated pretty often in arguments against dispensationalism.
As for Abraham… I’m not sure that my own premillennialism rises and falls on my view of that covenant. Indeed, though dispies make much of the AC (rightly, in my view), I’m not sure how many of them would see it as the linchpin for arriving at premillennialism.
Theoretically, I could know nothing at all about the promises to Abraham but arrive at premil. convictions just by reading Revelation.
General observation about the thread: I much appreciate the amount of thought that has gone into many of the posts.
A couple of observations on Charlie’s response to my last post (40 or so ago).
I think it’s safe to say that though the early church guys who were premil. had a different view of the Abrahamic Cov’t (which I grant mostly because I have no idea… but it sounds likely), they arrived at premil. belief by reading the Bible and interpreting key portions of it in a very similar way that modern premil’s do. That is, they took much of the same prophetic material mostly literally and, lining it all up, came to the conclusion that Christ returns before a millennial reign.
So, for now, I’m going to hang on to my belief that the dissimilarities between ancient premil’s and modern dispensational ones has been overstated pretty often in arguments against dispensationalism.
As for Abraham… I’m not sure that my own premillennialism rises and falls on my view of that covenant. Indeed, though dispies make much of the AC (rightly, in my view), I’m not sure how many of them would see it as the linchpin for arriving at premillennialism.
Theoretically, I could know nothing at all about the promises to Abraham but arrive at premil. convictions just by reading Revelation.
General observation about the thread: I much appreciate the amount of thought that has gone into many of the posts.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Alex Guggenheim]BTW,
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
I said the “dispensationalist response”, not “dispensationalism”; and I thought the context was clearly this discussion and others like it, here on Sharper Iron; sorry if that wasn’t immediately clear.
Also, I said “dismiss or trivialize”, not “twist”. Makes a bit of a difference, I think (unless you are just exhibiting your sense of humor ;) ). Dismiss, as in “Christian Theology in Europe” from Augustine to the present, or many of the books and writers referenced by Charlie or Joseph, for example. …and it’s true that dismissing shouldn’t be considered a rebuttal of substance.
[rrobinson]Well if you want to keep it in the context of SI discussions then I probably cannot plead my case seeing all kinds of ideas get equal treatment here :). But thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.[Alex Guggenheim]BTW,
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
I said the “dispensationalist response”, not “dispensationalism”; and I thought the context was clearly this discussion and others like it, here on Sharper Iron; sorry if that wasn’t immediately clear.
[rrobinson] Also, I said “dismiss or trivialize”, not “twist”. Makes a bit of a difference, I think (unless you are just exhibiting your sense of humor ;) ). Dismiss, as in “Christian Theology in Europe” from Augustine to the present, or many of the books and writers referenced by Charlie or Joseph, for example. …and it’s true that dismissing shouldn’t be considered a rebuttal of substance.You’re right, of course, you did not say “twist” and I am at fault here. And worse, I do not recall if I simply meant to quote both “twist or trivialize” with the belief I read it as such or if I sub-consciously read “dismiss” as “twist” and then simply used it as if you had said it, or if I meant to use the word myself without quotes and only attribute to you the use of “trivialize”. I misquoted you, my error, please pardon me thank you for you grace on the matter.
As to dismissing European theology here at SI, while I am sure there exist some who simply do this, I believe that those who take issue with much of its content are willing to argue, in detail, their case with respect to all points.
Featured Resource
Discussion