Wednesday, October 17, 2007

No Longer a "Dispy"

A couple months ago, I wrote a post in which I stated that my position on the end times is amillennial, and one of my readers requested that I explain how I came to that conclusion. Well, we just happen to be doing a four week overview of the major eschatological positions in Christian Ed., so I thought this might be a good time to start the process of my explanation (especially now that I have all these very helpful hand-outs for reference). Like many people, I "grew up" as a dispensationalist...I believed all the teachings about the secret rapture and a seven-year tribulation period, followed by the return of Christ and his one thousand year reign on this earth. I remember being captivated by a series of films that were popular years ago that promoted this view, and I sure didn't want to be around to see the mess on the freeways directly following the secret rapture (not to mention the horrible judgments of the tribulation)! ;) In recent years though, I became exposed to other views of the end times, which caused me to jettison the teachings of dispensationalism. Now using some of my class notes, here are a number of reasons for doing so:
  • I believe in both literal and figurative interpretation of the Bible.
  • "Israel" may mean either literal, physical descendants of Jacob or the figurative, spiritual Israel, depending on the context of the passage.
  • "Israel of God" in Gal. 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Gal 3:29, Rom. 2:28-29, 9:6, Phil. 3:3.
  • God has always had only one people, the Church gradually developed throughout the ages.
  • The church began in the Old Testament (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the New Testament.
  • Some Old Testament prophesies are for literal Israel, others are for spiritual Israel.
  • God's main purpose in history is Christ and secondarily the Church.
  • The Church is the culmination of God's saving purpose for the ages.
  • The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Christ and spiritual Israel.
  • The eternal covenant of redemption was within the Trinity to effect election.
  • God made a conditional covenant of works with Adam as representative for all his posterity.
  • God made a covenant of grace with Christ and His people, including Adam.
  • The "New Covenant" of Jeremiah 31 is the same as in Luke 22; both are for spiritual Israel according to Hebrews 8.
  • God's program in history is mainly through related covenants.
  • All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.
  • Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel but has gradually been accepted by spiritual Israel.
  • Believers in all ages are all "in Christ" and part of the Body and Bride of Christ.
  • Old Testament laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the New Testament.
  • The Old Testament sacrifices were fulfilled and forever abolished in Christ.
  • Christ fulfilled the covenant to Abraham, and there is no future for literal Israel.
  • Christ alone sits on the throne, and His saints rule under Him.
It's important to understand that the whole Bible is eschatological in the sense that it progressively reveals God's redemptive plan from eternity past, culminating with Christ's return for His Church at some point in the future. It's all about Christ - not literal Israel!


4 comments:

  1. I hope your "reader" has time to respond at some point. I will LOVE reading you two.
    grannyof9

    ReplyDelete
  2. What exactly are you implying?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's good stuff. I get a little sideways on the spiritual kingdom only idea, but that may just be semantics. I've been reading a lot of N.T. Wright recently and he really draws out the concept of Christ as the embodiment of "true" Israel. The intent of Matthew's gospel seems to be to show Jesus' life as a recapitulation of Israel's history and that he is the culmination of what Israel was inteneded to be. I would be interested to see your thoughts on this post. (don't know how to paste the link in html)
    http://davidpfield.blogspot.com/2007/10/optimistic-amillennialism.html
    He discusses the difference between amills and postmills. He's a professor in England who I met earlier this year and I think this post is really a lecture outline of sorts, but he says some interesting things. Maybe a "part II" could cover some of your thoughts on the amil/postmil concept.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeremy, I plan to do a part II...hopefully later this week.

    ReplyDelete