The Theology of C.S. Lewis – An Unpublished Manuscript By Dr. Cornelius Van Til

In his book Reflection on the Psalms Lewis says: “In some of the Psalms the spirit of hatred … strikes us in the face like heat from a furnace mouth. In others the same spirit ceases to be frightful only by becoming (to a modern mind) almost comic in its naivete.”  Again he says: “One way of dealing with these terrible or (dare we say?) contemptible Psalms is simply to leave them alone. But unfortunately the bad parts will not ‘come away clean’; they may, as we have noticed, be intertwined with the most exquisite things.” ²

“We all find hatred in ourselves. We see this same hatred in the psalm-writers: only they express it in its ‘wild’ or natural condition.”

Once more Lewis asserts: “It is monstrously simple-minded to read these cursings in the Psalms with no feeling except of horror at the uncharity of its poets. They are indeed devilish.”

The Theologians

Now let us visit the theologians: “There were in the eighteenth century terrible theologians who held that ‘God did not command certain things are right because they are right, but certain things are right because God commanded them.’ To make the position perfectly clear, one of them even said that though God has, as it happens, commanded us to love Him and one another, He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another, and hatred would then have been right. It was apparently a mere toss-up which He decided on.”

If we seek Lewis’ standard for evaluating what a man may or may not hold to be true and right, we may read: “We must believe in the validity of rational thought, and we must not believe in anything inconsistent with its validity.”

However, we also hear that: “Our business is with historical possibility.” And further: “the sin, both of men and of angels, was rendered possible by the fact that God gave them free will; thus surrendering a portion of his omnipotence … because He saw that from a world of free creatures, even though they fell, He could work out … a deeper happiness and fuller splendour than any other world of automata would admit.”

Mere Christianity

Lewis propounds his own views in, among other places, his book Mere Christianity. According to Lewis, we must all start with a Law of Right or Wrong: “This rule of Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature.” Says Lewis: “Let us sum up what we have reached so far.… In the case of stones and trees and things of that sort, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything but a way of speaking.… But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts … a law which we did not invent and which we ought to obey.”

How far have we come now? “We have not yet got as far as a God of any actual religion, much less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law. We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to find out what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam.”

“Christians believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this world. Is this state of affairs in accordance with God’s will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say, and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?”

“Well, any mother can solve this puzzle. At bed-time she says to Johnny and Mary: ‘I’m not going to make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.’ Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer her children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which had left her children free to be untidy.… It is probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will.… If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. A free will is what has make evil possible. Why then did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—a world of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs … is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in the ecstasy and delight compared to which love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.”

“When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: ‘Why did God make a Creature of such rotten stuff that went wrong?’ ”

But why bother about such stuff and nonsense? Ask rather about the central message of Christianity.

“The central message of Christian belief,” says Lewis, “has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how He did this are another matter. A good many theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like. All sensible people will tell you that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good.… My own Church—the Church of England—does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further but I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced.”

And what, pray, is this “thing itself”? Lewis does not inform us, except to say that we are not to believe what Scripture says about it.

I find in Lewis no awareness of my need to accept the substitutionary atonement for my sins on the cross. Where is, “Christ and him crucified”? Where is “Christ and his resurrection”? Where is the natural man, “dead through trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1)? Jesus tells Nicodemus: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said unto you, ‘You must be born again.’ ” (Jn 3:7–8)

Does Lewis teach what the Apostle John teaches in the sixth chapter of his Gospel? “Truly, truly I say to you … who so eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:53–55).

How would Lewis react to these words of Jesus: “And they will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Mt 25:46)?

Again, where does Lewis acknowledge Malachi 1.2: “ ‘I have loved you,’ says the Lord. But you say, ‘How hast thou loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ says the Lord. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob and I have hated Esau …’ ” (Mal 1:2)

How does Lewis interpret the words of Peter spoken at Pentecost: “ … this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite counsel and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23).

Must not Lewis list Paul with the horrible theologians and Psalmists when the Apostle says:

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:13–24)

According to Lewis all depends on man’s free will; according to Paul all depends on God’s mercy.

Reflections on The Psalms DT. 4 L585

1. The case for Christianity 14M. 1 L5856

2. Beyond Personality 1D. 1 L585

3. Cu. Behavior QA. L585

Reflections on the Psalms (New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958

The Position Of Roman Catholicism

On the question discussed in this chapter, Roman Catholicism takes a position half way between that of Christianity and that of paganism. The notion of human consciousness set forth in the works of Thomas Aquinas is worked out, to a great extent, by the form matter scheme of Aristotle. In consequence a large measure of autonomy is assigned to the human consciousness as over against the consciousness of God. This is true in the field of knowledge and it is no less true in the field of ethics.

In the field of ethics this means that even in paradise, before the fall, man is not thought of as being receptively constructive in his attitude toward God. In order to maintain man’s autonomy—or as Thomas thinks, his very manhood as a self-conscious and responsible being—man must, from one point of view at least, be wholly independent of the counsel of God. This is implied in the so-called “freewill” idea. Thomas cannot think of man as responsible and free if all his actions have their ultimate and final reference point exclusively in God and his will. Thus there is no really scriptural idea of authority in Romanism.

It follows that Rome has too high a notion of the moral consciousness of fallen man. According to Thomas, fallen man is not very dissimilar from Adam in paradise. He says that while the sinner needs grace for more things than did Adam, he does not need grace more.  Putting the matter somewhat differently Thomas says, “And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz., in order to do and wish supernatural good: but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz., in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.” ⁷  In any case, for Thomas the ethical problem for man is as much one of finitude as it is one of ethical obedience. Man is naturally finite. As such he tends naturally to evil. He needs grace because he is a creature even though he is not a sinner. Hence God really owes grace to man at least to some extent. And man does not become totally depraved when he does not make such use of the grace given him as to keep himself from sin entirely. For in any case the act of his free will puts him naturally in grave danger. Fallen man is therefore only partly guilty and only partly to blame. He retains much of the same ethical power that man had in paradise. Ethical ability is virtually said to be implied in metaphysical ability or free will.

It follows still further that even the regenerate consciousness need not and cannot subject itself fully to Scripture. Thomas is unable to do justice to Paul’s assertion that whatever is not of faith is sin. His entire discussion of the cardinal virtues and their relation to the theological virtues proves this point. He distinguishes sharply between them. “Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.”  In respect to the things that are said to be knowable by reason apart from supernatural revelation the Christian acts, and should act, from what amounts to the same motive as the non-Christian. Faith is not required for a Christian to act virtuously in the natural relationships of life. Or if the theological virtues do have some influence over the daily activities of the Christian, this influence is of an accidental and subsidiary nature.

All in all it is clear that Rome cannot ask its adherents to submit its moral consciousness to Scripture in any thorough way. And accordingly Rome cannot challenge the non-Christian position, such as that set forth by Newman Smyth, in any thorough way.

A position similar to that of Rome is frequently maintained by evangelical Protestants. As a recent illustration we mention the case of C. S. Lewis.

Like Rome, Lewis, in the first place, confuses things metaphysical and ethical. In his book Beyond Personality, he discusses the nature of the divine Trinity. To show the practical significance of the doctrine of the Trinity he says: “The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us: or (putting it the other way round) each one of us has got to enter that pattern, take his place in that dance.”  The purpose of Christianity is to lift theBios or natural life of man up into Zoe, the uncreated life.  The incarnation is one example of how this may be done. In Him there is “one man in whom the created life, derived from his mother, allowed itself to be completely and perfectly turned into the begotten life.” Then he adds: “Now what is the difference which He has made to the whole human mass? It is just this; that the business of becoming a son of God, of being turned from a created thing into a begotten thing, of passing over from the temporary biological life into timeless Spiritual life, has been done for us.” ¹¹

All this is similar in import to the position of Aquinas which stresses the idea that man is, through grace, to participate in the divine nature.

It is a foregone conclusion that the ethical problem cannot be fairly put on such a basis. Perhaps the most fundamental difference between all forms of non-Christian ethics and Christian ethics lies in the fact that, according to the former, it is man’s finitude as such that causes his ethical strife, while according to the latter it is not finitude as such but created man’s disobedience of God that causes all the trouble. C. S. Lewis does not signalize this difference clearly. Lewis does not call men back with clarion voice to the obedience of the God of the Bible. He asks men to “dress up as Christ” in order that while they have the Christ ideal before them, and see how far they are from realizing it, Christ, who is then at their side, may turn them “into the same kind of thing as Himself,” injecting “His kind of life and thought, His Zoe” into them.

Lewis argues that “a recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity.”  Why does he then encourage men to hold that man is embroiled in a metaphysical tension over which not even God has any control? Lewis says that men are not likely to recover the old sense of sin because they do not penetrate to the motives behind moral actions.  But how shall men ever be challenged to look inside themselves and find that all that is not of faith is sin if they are encouraged to think that without the light of Scripture and without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit they can, at least in the natural sphere, do what is right? Can men really practice the “cardinal virtues” of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude in the way that they should, even though they have no faith? No Protestant ought to admit such a possibility.

Lewis seeks objective standards in ethics, in literature, and in life everywhere. But he holds that objectivity may be found in many places. He speaks of a general objectivity that is common between Christians and non-Christians, and argues as though it is mostly or almost exclusively in modern times that men have forsaken it. Speaking of this general objectivity he says: “This conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, and Oriental alike, I shall henceforth refer to for brevity simply as ‘the Tao.’ Some of the accounts of it which I have quoted will seem, perhaps, to many of you merely quaint or even magical. But what is common to them all is something we cannot neglect. It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”  But surely this general objectivity is common to Christians and non-Christians in a formal sense only. To say that there is or must be an objective standard is not the same as to say what that standard is. And it is the what that is all important. Granted that non-Christians who hold to some sort of something somewhere above man are better than non-Christians who hold to nothing whatsoever above man, it remains true that in the main issue the non-Christian objectivists are no less subjective than are the non-Christian subjectivists. There is but one alternative that is basic; it is that between those who obey the God and Christ of Scripture and those who seek to please themselves. Only those who believe in God through Christ seek to obey God; only they have the true principle in ethics. One can only rejoice in the fact that Lewis is heard the world around, but one can only grieve over the fact that he so largely follows the method of Thomas Aquinas in calling men back to the gospel. The “gospel according to St. Lewis” as well as the “gospel according to St. Thomas” is too much of a compromise with the ideas of the natural man to constitute a clear challenge in our day.” –

From Chapter 3 of Christian Theistic Ethics

Bibliography:

1. Originally published at Presupp 101 – https://presupp101.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/the-theology-of-c-s-lewis-by-cornelius-van-til/

Is Jesus Reigning Now? An Exegesis of Matthew 19:28

“Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” – Matthew 19:28

What is “the regeneration” in Matthew 19:28? Is Jesus sitting on His throne now? Or is this something that will occur in the future?

I contend that our Dispensationalist friends like to try to insert their presuppostions into this passage, and try to assert that Jesus will not sit on the Throne of David until some point in the future. I believe one reason why this view is so popular is mostly because most modern translations render the word “regeneration” as “new world” or “renewed world”. It can certainly mean that, but this passage is not talking about the age to come, or the new heaven or new earth. Rather, it is talking about the regeneration, or Jesus’ resurrection/renewal from the dead. This Greek word is “παλιγγενεσία” or “paliggenesia” when transliterated. In this context, it means “renewal or restoration of life after death”. This word is only used twice in the NT, here and in Titus 3:5, and it means regeneration as in being raised from death to life.

In this passage, Jesus was talking about being raised from death to life, meaning His resurrection. He was saying, “Truly, I say to you, in the regeneration, or after I have been raised from death to life, the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, and when you enter the regeneration, you will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We know this is how Jesus meant this, because as promised, those who were martyred for their testimony for Christ are already sitting on thrones, judging, and reigning with Christ.

In Revelation 20:4, John said, “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”

This passage is not talking about the New Creation. Rather, it is talking about life after death. John Gill, the English Baptist preacher interpreted this passage in a very similar way. In his exposition, he stated that this was “not in the resurrection of the dead, or at the last judgment, but in the new state of things” (1). The Geneva Bible margin notes stated, “the regeneration is understood to mean that day when the elect will begin to live a new life, that is to say, when they will enjoy the heavenly inheritance. (2)”

This passage couldn’t be clearer. Jesus, after the regeneration (being raised from death to life), ascended and was “given all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). He is currently reigning (Rev. 20). He has been “given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; [and] His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:14).

Bibliography: 

(1) See John Gills Exposition of The Scriptures, Matthew 19:28 note.

(2) See Geneva Bible, Matthew 19:28 note.

Identifying the Abomination of Desolation – A Partial-Preterist Understanding

“Most Bible prophecy interpreters believe that Jesus was referring to the Antichrist who will do something very similar to what Antiochus Epiphanies did. This is confirmed by the fact that some of what Daniel prophesied in Daniel 9:27 did not occur in 167 B.C. with Antiochus Epiphanies. Antiochus did not confirm a covenant with Israel for seven years. It is the Antichrist who, in the end times, will establish a covenant with Israel for seven years and then break it by doing something similar to the abomination of desolation in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.¹” – S. Michael Houdman

“The Antichrist, the man of lawlessness, “the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, … takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4). He is “the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (vv. 9–10). That is the abomination of desolation. ²” – John MacArthur

What is the abomination of desolation? According to most Futurist interpretation, in the end times period an Antichrist figure will rise to authority. The Antichrist will make a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, and three and a half years into this agreement, he will break that agreement. Upon breaking this agreement, the Antichrist will enter into a rebuilt third Jewish temple, and there he will reveal himself and claim to be God. Futurist interpreters refer to this displaying or revealing event as the abomination of desolation. Though this seems to be the most popular position taken among Christians today, it suffers from several major exegetical errors. In this article, I will make the argument that a clear reading of the Olivet Discourse reveals that the abomination of desolation should not be understood as something that will have future fulfillment, but rather as something that has already occurred in the past.

Timing The Abomination

The first exegetical error relates to the timing of the abomination of desolation. Futurists like John MacArthur claim that this is an event that must find future fulfillment ³. However, Jesus in Matthew 24:15-34 makes it abundantly clear that this event was something that the generation He was speaking to would see come to pass. He states, “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. . . Truly, I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The Greek word for generation is γενεά or “genea”. This word is used twenty-seven times in the Gospels, and whenever it is used it always means the contemporary generation that is being spoken to. Jesus was clearly saying this current generation that he was speaking to would not pass away until they saw the things he was describing take place.

Gary DeMar in his book Last Days Madness affirms this view. He states, “a careful reading of Scripture will show that the abomination of desolation mentioned by Jesus was an event that would be fulfilled during the lifetime of His disciples. ⁴” Baptist preacher John Gill noted this as well. He wrote, “This is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before [v. 34], relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and the end of the world; but that all belongs to the coming of the son of man in destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state. ⁵” Those who understand this event as something to occur in the future must ignore the clear and literal nature of Jesus words. As DeMar reminds readers, “Jesus said, ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” ⁶. Thus, the abomination of desolation was something that occurred within the first century, and should not be understood as something that will occur in the future.

Rome Surrounds Jerusalem

Now that the ground work has been laid in regards to the timing the abomination, we will now focus on the identity of the abomination. Not only does Jesus indicate the timing of the abomination of desolation, but he also reveals its identity as well. DeMar notes, “by comparing Luke 21:20-21 and Matthew 24:15-18, we can pinpoint when the abomination of desolation was to appear. ⁷” Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.” (Luke 21:20-22 ESV). Luke stated that people would know that Jerusalem’s desolation had come near, when they saw the city surrounded by armies. Did this generation ever see a day when the city was surrounded by armies? As of matter of fact, they did.

In A.D. 62 Vespasian invaded and took Judea ⁸. Seven years later, Rome surrounded the city of Jerusalem in an identical way as spoken of by Luke. They would overtake and burn the Jewish temple. As the sanctuary of the temple was burning, Roman legionnaires set up symbols of Rome in the temple and offered up sacrifices. DeMar notes, “The Jews would have viewed this action as the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision when the burnt offering ceased and the abomination of desolation was set up. Luke’s description of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, which would have been Roman armies – appears to affirm this theory of a Roman abomination. ⁹” This event was reminiscent of what Antiochus Epiphanes did to profane the temple and altar more than two centuries before. When Rome overtook Jerusalem, it brought with it many abominations and desolation. This event fits perfectly within the generation time-frame that Jesus mentioned in his discourse.

Answering Objections

One popular objection against the Preterist interpretation of this generation can be seen in the writings of Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye. Ice and LaHaye claim that Matthew 24:34 should be read this way: “The generation that ‘sees’ these things will not pass till all is fulfilled” ¹⁰. DeMar answers this objection in a convincing manner. DeMar writes, “Notice that they substitute ‘the’ for the near demonstrative ‘this’ which changes the focus of the passage from a specific generation – ‘this generation – to any generation but the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. ‘This’ always refers to something that is near, either in time or distance. ¹¹”.

Another objection to the Preterist interpretation is in regards to the “strong covenant” that the Antichrist will supposedly make with Israel. It is argued that this prophecy could not have found it’s fulfillment in the first century with Rome, because there was not a covenant affirmed with Israel (Dan. 9:27), thus pointing forward to an Antichrist and future fulfillment. This view can be seen in the writings of S. Michael Houdman: “It is the Antichrist who, in the end times, will establish a covenant with Israel for seven years and then break it by doing something similar to the abomination of desolation in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem”. However, this argument is based upon faulty exegesis of Daniel 9:27. Dr. R.C. Sproul notes, that it is the “anointed one” (Jesus Christ) who makes the strong covenant with the people of Israel, not an Antichrist figure ¹².

Conclusions

It is clear from reading the text that the abomination of desolation cannot be something that occurs in the future for two reasons. First, Jesus clearly said that “this generation would not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). But most importantly, Jesus identifies the Abomination that causes Desolation as Roman armies that would surround Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and destroy the temple just as prophecied (Luke 21:20-21; Matt. 24:15-18). As noted by Gary DeMar, the Jewish people who lived during this time understood this event to be the abomination of desolation. Conclusively, Thomas Newton in 1755 echoed these same conclusions that we draw in this article: “It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, all these things shall be fulfilled in this generation.

Bibliography:

1 Houdman, S. Michael. “What Is The Abomination Of Desolation?” Got Questions. Accessed November 14, 2014. http://www.gotquestions.org/abomination-desolation.html#ixzz3Iysd3e1Ed.

2 MacArthur, John. “The Abomination of Desolation.” Grace To You. Accessed November 14, 2014. http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ012313/the-abomination-of-desolation.

3 See Matthew 24:15 note in the MacArthur Study Bible.

4 DeMar, Gary. Last Days Madness. 4th ed. Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Press, 1999. 101.

5 Gill John, An Expostion of the New Testament, 3 vols. London: Matthews and Leigh, 1809. 1:296.

6 DeMar, Gary. Is Jesus Coming Soon?. 3rd Printing. Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Press, 2006. 23.

7 DeMar, Gary. Last Days Madness. 4th ed. Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Press, 1999. 102.

8 DeMar, Gary. Is Jesus Coming Soon?. 3rd Printing. Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Press, 2006. 6.

9 Ibid., 42.

10 LaHaye Tim, Ice Thomas, Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2000. 1040. see note on Matt. 24:34

11 DeMar, Gary. Is Jesus Coming Soon?. 3rd Printing. Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Press, 2006. 24.

12 See Daniel 9:27 Note in the Reformation Study Bible.

Dispensationalism: A Brief History & Critique of Darbyism

(Author: Colin Pearson – Originally posted at The Bible Thumping Wingnut)

Dispensationalism (hereafter DT) has several primary tenets. Ryrie wrote that the sine qua non of DT are as follows:

1. Doxological view of history. This is the view that all of human history from creation to consummation is ultimately for God’s glory. With this, all Christians agree.

2. Literalistic hermeneutic. Most Christians would agree in principle with this concept, that scripture ought to be understood as it presents itself. DT maintains in particular that the Old Testament prophecies concerning the nation of Israel must be understood in a literal fashion, i.e., not spiritualized to mean something other than what they appear to say on the surface. By this they mean that they must be fulfilled by ethnic, national Israel.

3. Ongoing distinction between two peoples of God: Israel and the Church. It is this tenant that truly separates the system from the rest of Christianity. In order for the Old Testament prophecies concerning the nation of Israel to be fulfilled in a literal fashion (2.), there must be a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. This principle is actually what drove John Nelson Darby to conceptualize a Pre-Tribulational rapture for this reason: If the Church and Israel are both on the earth at the same time, God cannot fulfill promises to Israel without neglecting the Church and vice versa.

In contrast to Covenant Theology (hereafter CT), when the New Testament authors utilize an Old Testament prophecy and apply it to the Church, DT understands this to be secondary to the ultimate fulfillment, which must be literal.

Traditionally, DT maintains that the Church was a mystery in the Old Testament. By this, they mean that the Old Testament does not speak of the Church in any way and that no prophecy explicitly references the Church. The Church, in DT, obtains blessings because of God’s promise to Israel rather than (as CT holds) in fulfillment of them. So when a New Testament author utilizes an Old Testament prophecy and applies it to the Church, DT maintains that this cannot be the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy but rather a spiritual application of it. The true fulfillment must be found in future Israel, according to DT.

The third of the sine qua non (according to Ryrie) is an ongoing distinction between the two peoples of God: the Church and Israel. This is both a serious theological problem and an entirely anachronistic concept. Before Darby in 1830, no one conceptualized this distinction. It had always been understood throughout Church history (and especially among the apostolic fathers) that the Church IS Israel.

At this point, it’s necessary to address the common accusation by DT that every other system is a form of “Replacement Theology.” By this, they mean that non-DT systems wrongly believe that Israel has been replaced as God’s chosen people by the Church. This is first and foremost a confusion of the opposition. We do not suggest that the Church has replaced Israel but rather that the Church is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel. I will elaborate on that more below. Second, this accusation of “Replacement Theology” is somewhat ironic since it is DT that believes Israel has been “set aside” and, essentially, replaced by the Church during the Church Age.

Now, when I say that the Church is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel, we have to understand how the term is used in the NT as well as the OT. The Greek term for church is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). It is derived from terms meaning, lit., “called out ones,” and means “assembly” or “congregation.” In fact, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (which was in use in the first century) called the Septuagint (LXX), the term ἐκκλησία is used to translate the Hebrew word which refers to the assembly of Israel. So the term “Church” is not even new to the New Testament, so it could not be a new concept either. What is strange about the New Testament Church is not that some other entity has become God’s chosen people but that God’s chosen people now includes Gentiles. Thus, Israel is not replaced but rather expanded from primarily those of Jewish descent to include people from every tribe, tongue, nation, and people.

Now a problem arises at this point which is addressed thoroughly in scripture because the issue came up in the early church: How can Gentiles be God’s people if they are not becoming Jews? Of course, by “becoming Jews” they would mean becoming circumcised, following the dietary restrictions, partaking in the festivals, adhering to the dress-code, participating in ceremonial washings, and taking part in the temple worship and sacrifice system. All these things were what, to the mind of the first century Jew, separated them from everyone else. It was a dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile.

In Ephesians 1 through 2:10, Paul addresses the many blessings that were given to Israel—”the first to hope in Christ” (“Men of Israel” in Acts 2)—and then applies these blessings equally to the Gentiles—”you also when you heard the word of truth.” He continues this argument throughout the entire book, calling Jew and Gentile to be as one in Christ, explaining that this massive influx of Gentile believers was foretold long ago. The means by which this would occur was veiled until the cross. But see how Paul highlights that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

(Ephesians 2:11-22)

Those things which separated Jew from Gentile were all types and shadows of Christ. Now that the substance had come, the shadow gave way to the Light. This dividing wall was removed by the blood of Christ, and so Jew and Gentile are one. Gentiles were once strangers and aliens (lit., foreigners) of Israel, her covenants and promised blessings, but now Gentiles have been made fellow citizens (of Israel) and members of the household of God, having been grafted into the single Olive Tree, the corporate assembly of Israel. He made the two into one new man: the Body of Christ, the Church.

Paul reiterates this same concept when discussing why there were so many apostate Jews. The implicit question was this: If God promised to save Israel, and many Israelites are not saved, has God’s promise failed? Paul’s answer is this:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

(Romans 9:6-8)

Ishmael was descended from Abraham, his seed according to the flesh, but Ishmael received none of the blessings promised to Abraham’s seed because he was not a child of the promise. Who now are children of Abraham? Paul’s argument explains:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’

and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’

there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

(Romans 9:22-26)

This prophecy was originally made to Israel and concerning Israel, yet Paul here uses it as proof that both the called Jews and the called Gentiles are heirs of this promise. Who then are the children of Abraham? Who are the Jews?

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

(Romans 2:28-29)

Israel of promise had always been a spiritual identity, not a physical one. For many Gentiles were included in the corporate body of Israel in the Old Testament, including Rahab the Cannanite, the prostitute who aided the spies in Jericho; Ruth the Moabitess, wife of Boaz and great-grandmother of King David; Caleb the Kenizzite, one of the two faithful spies sent into the land of Canaan; and Obed-edom the Gittite, the man who kept the Ark of the Covenant in his house for three months. These all became Jews not by changing their ethnicity but by changing their religion. It was always a spiritual people, but beforehand the nation was a geo-political entity; now it is a spiritual entity:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(1 Peter 2:9-10)

Peter applies all these terms used explicitly of Israel and even quotes a prophecy pertaining specifically to Israel and applies this to the church. Just in case it was not clear enough:

And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

(Galatians 3:29)

Christians are the seed of Abraham, not those who are biologically related to him.

Bibliography: 

This article was shared with the permission of the original author. The original link can be found here:

(1) http://www.biblethumpingwingnut.com/#!Dispensationalism-A-Brief-History-Critique-of-Darbyism-By-Colin-Pearson/c16h1/1

The Application Of God’s Law Is Not Sharia Law

One common argument launched against Theonomists is the application of God’s Law would be like Sharia Law. A few months ago, Christian Street Preacher – Tony Miano tweeted, “I believe Theonomy is more akin to Islam than Christianity.” Another person has said, “Theonomists go beyond just preaching God’s Law. They want to legislate holiness, and force pagans into submission or else. This is not Scriptural at all. Reminds me of what Muslims are doing with Sharia Law.”

These are uneducated accusations and misrepresentations of what Theonomists have taught and believe. If these people had spent any significant amount of time reading what Theonomists have written on the application of God’s Law, these accusations would never have been leveled in the first place. However, people unfortunately do not read what Theonomists have written for whatever reason, and uneducated accusations like these keep rearing their ugly heads. These accusations are uneducated and misleading because the God of the Bible is not the false god of Islam, and God’s Law is not applied by force like Sharia Law.

Jehovah And Allah Are Not The Same

The God of the Bible is a different God than the false god of Islam, and they have entirely different laws. The God of the Bible is perfect, holy, just, and good (Lev. 11:44; 2 Thess. 1:6; Psalm 136:1). Thus, His Commandments and Laws which proceed from Him are perfect, holy, just, and good (Psalm 19:7; Rom. 7:12; 1 Tim. 1:8). The application of His Law in society leads to holiness, justice, and goodness. Compare this to the false god of Islam. The Qur’an states that Allah is the best of deceivers (Sur. 3:45), and the application of his commandments cause hatred, and animosity until the Day of Resurrection (Sur. 5:14). The results of the application of his law is evident throughout the places in which it has been applied. The application of his law has not brought holiness, justice, or goodness like the God of the Bible’s Law. Rather, it has brought destruction, hatred, animosity, and oppression just as promised.

Since the God of the Bible is entirely different from Allah, and His Laws are entirely different, it cannot be said that His Laws if applied would have the same outcome as Allah’s law. Greg Bahnsen has said God’s Law is a reflection of His unchanging character (1). If God’s Law is a reflection of His character, then to assert that God’s Law is bad or tyrannical when applied is equivalent to arguing that God is bad and tyrannical, thus misunderstanding the nature of the God of the Bible. To assert such a thing is nothing short of blasphemous. Conclusively, these two laws serve entirely different purposes; the Law of God to set apart His people by making them holy, and to bring freedom, justice, and goodness. The Law of Allah serves the purpose of bringing people into submission to Allah by means of oppression, destruction, hatred, and animosity.

God’s Law Is Applied Differently Than Sharia Law

The Law of God is also applied differently than Sharia Law. Sharia Law is imposed top-down upon societies, whereas God’s Law is not. God’s Law is applied bottom-up. Applying God’s Law begins with applying it to self, then to the family, and so on. Thus, to say that Theonomists want to force God’s Law upon pagans is false. Theonomists seek to preach the Gospel to pagans and see them come to know and love Christ and keep His commandments, which are not burdensome (John 14:15; 1 John 5:3).

Gary North has also noted that this is the way that Theonomists see God’s Law applied. When speaking of “top-down theocracy”, North calls it “Satan’s version of Theocracy” (2). North goes on to say, “In contrast to this sort of theocracy is the ideal of a Christian holy commonwealth. It is fundamentally decentralist. Its bedrock presupposition is self-government under the law of God. This is what Jethro told Moses he must do, and Moses did: “and thou shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work they must do” (Ex. 18:20). All government begins with self-government. All discipline begins with self-discipline. All men stand alone before God on the day of judgement; they are personally responsible to God (3).

Conclusively, the critics of Theonomy level false charges against Theonomists. Theonomists do not seek to impose top-down theocracy upon the people. Theonomists seek to preach the Gospel, see people come to know Christ, and self-govern themselves under and according to the Law of God. Theonomists likewise believe that top-down theocracy is evil. To argue otherwise shows ones ignorance on the matter.

Conclusions

Although critics of Theonomy level charges of wanting to impose a type of Sharia Law upon societies, these charges are false. The application of God’s Law is not Sharia Law for two main reasons. First, The God of the Bible is not the false god of Islam, and His Law is perfect, just, and good which means its application is perfect, just, and good. To argue otherwise is treading on blasphemous grounds, misunderstanding the nature of God. But most importantly, God’s Law is not applied by force like Sharia Law. God’s Law is mainly applied through regeneration. The Gospel is preached to pagans, and they are regenerated and come to love the Lord. They then seek to follow Jesus’ own words, and keep His commandments (John 14:15).

As the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed in societies, we believe as the prophet Habakkuk said, “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” As a result, people will self-govern their lives under the Law of God by keeping Jesus’ commandments. Theonomy is a result of faithfully preaching the Gospel and taking part in the Great Comission. Theonomy is not a result of top-down imposition.

Bibliography:

(1) Bahnsen, Greg. “What Is Theonomy?” Covenant Media Foundation. April 1, 1994. Accessed November 1, 2014. http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe180.htm.

(2) North, Gary. “Bottom-Up Theocracy.” Christian Reconstruction Vii, no. 5 (1983). Accessed November 1, 2014. http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/cr/8309.pdf.

(3) Ibid.