« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Missing Figures in the Perry Faith Two-Step: A Plea to Fellow Evangelicals

By: CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary)  |  August 19th, 2011 at 06:33 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

While the music started long before the hat was dropped in Charleston, the dance around the implications of Gov. Perry’s Christian faith is just entering full swing, and couples now flying around the floor can be expected to prance only more frantically until the last bar is played next November. Leon’s More Drooling Idiocy on Rick Perry’s Faith draws attention to the self-conflicted steps of some on the left, while among his commenters, aesthete does yeoman’s work at least attempting to keep the feet of those on right from tangling in inconsistency.

Distant generations of those holding the Evangelical faith bear a hearing among their nominal descendants before the floor gets more crowded. If you find yourself extremely glad that the Governor is as open as he is about his faith in Christ, and simultaneously extremely annoyed that he is getting publicly flayed about the same, it’s time to give an ear to wisdom from the past–that being both a Conservative and an Evangelical virtue!

It is probable–given the historical development of evangelicalism in America–that your biblical hermeneutic tends toward both dispensationalism and premillenialism. While I will not dispute the biblical merits or faults of those systems here, I will propose that they do not adequately equip their adherents to politically counter–without inconsistency–some of the frequent current arguments against the expression of the Christian faith by public officials. It is my hope that you the reader, if you have found it difficult to answer some of the charges highlighted in Leon’s post, take time to bone up on the Two Kingdoms model as it has been developed from Scripture in light of contemporary political realities by some of the best minds in the Reformation tradition–a tradition with which at least some of the well-honored founders of the Republic were much more conversant than many today.

While neither the purpose nor the format of this site will allow detailed theological interchange, I trust it may be fruitful to present several ways in which assumptions of the Two Kingdoms model are better equipped than those of dispensational premillenialism to confront certain types of attacks–at least for those who still hold rational persuasion among the most effective political tools.

Many dispensational-premillenial evangelicals view the American state through a lens which makes her appear, on the one hand, nearly indistinguishable from Israel between Sinai and Pentecost, and on the other, nearly indistinguishable–in theory at least–from the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven. Again, setting exegesis aside, the practical difficulties of maintaining this view are cumbersome in the political realm and lead inevitably to unanswerable charges of either inconsistency or hypcrisy.

A typical argument begins with a liberal accusing Christians of wanting to establish a Saudi-like theocracy; the evangelical responding–without really knowing why–that the Sinaitic code, while ideally to be upheld, would not be uniformly enforced; the liberal tauntingly pressing for details about whether children who refused to do their homework would be stoned; the Christian frustratingly acknowledging that the law of Christ has reduced the number and penalties of the statutes of Sinai; at which point the liberal probes “like those against homosexuality, right?”; then the Christian trots out Romans 1:24-28; only to be met with Romans 1:29-32 and the observation that, if gossips and boasters likewise deserve to die, they should be subjected to at least the same civil restrictions: why not ban gossips from marrying? and since there are so many heartless in the world who do not support the poor as commanded by Christ, why not provide a means of relief by taxation on their behalf? By this point the Christian may have begun to realize that he is on the horns of a polemical dilemma: to retort against immorality on the left is to cede hyprocrisy on the right, while to hunt for passages to counter those he has already referred puts him on the path away from rightly dividing the word of truth, treating it as only subjectively–which is to say, not at all–authoritative. At this point the probability is high that the Christian will either stomp off the dance floor or trip on his own spurs–neither outcome promoting persuasion; and given his likely Arminianism, he will be at least tempted to believe that the liberal is beyond the redemptive grasp of God in a way that he, thankfully, was not.

The Christian who has done his Two Kingdoms homework, however, can prance around a much wider and more accomodating floor. By hewing to the easily-exegeted fact that no nation on earth since Tisha B’Av–including these United States–has been in a redemptive covenant with the God who thundered at Sinai, he is able to answer the fearful liberal’s taunts with much more grace. Theocracy? No–that will not be repeated, the Prophet-Priest-King, to whom the entire ceremonial and civil economies of Israel pointed, having come and fulfilled all righteousness once for all time. This Christian will take pains to distinguish between the moral law as imprinted on humanity at creation and the particular stipulations of Sinai for Israel alone, the “church under age”. He will believe that the former is knowable by all–including the atheist liberal with whom he is conversing–and thus be able to fully acknowledge, rather than feel forced to defend or redefine–or worse, lie about–every accurate charge made by his antagonist. To paraphrase Luther, the fastest way to end an accusatory barrage by Satan is to agree with every charge, and then refer him to Christ who has paid for even more of one’s sins than were just mentioned. While the interlocutor may not be immediately persuaded to vote Republican, he will at least know that all who do so are not hypocrites or inconsistent, merely sinners like himself. And who knows? Maybe the strangeness of that encounter could lead to others in which a piece of radically Good News–of more import than even last Saturday’s announcement–could be proclaimed.

Dance on!

As always, the good folks at The White Horse Inn have one of the best places to start for getting a handle on the classic doctrines of the Reformation. The broadcasts Applying God’s Law and Wisdom for Life and the Cross of Christ are among many intelligent, insightful, biblical and stimulating discussions which touch this on topic.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    CincoSolas: I am still waiting on your post that details how I misinterpreted Romans 1:18-32. I hope it is better than your work on Daniel.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    with my diagnosis rejected–even though recent threads have been upended by the swinging of doctrinal fists–and my positive remedy completely untouched.

    For those still on their feet, by way of summary, if even ostensible friends cannot employ a shared-common-ground hermeneutic with which to alone engage public-square issues, they will not stand a chance of convincing anyone who comes onto the floor with a real grudge. Last time I checked, although the conversion of sinners from death to life actually does require the Word of God enlivened by the power of the Holy Spirit, political persuasion requires–the ability and willingness to persuade.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    which came to mind after the above was hastily posted.

    Possibly the most enticing trap for the politically-minded Evangelical turns on his–likely–inconsistency in adhering to the ancient interpretive safeguard of sola Scriptura, having substituted in its place the deficient, but epidemic, practice of solo Scriptura, probably without any awareness of the radical difference between the two. Keith Mathison’s excellent The Shape of Sola Sciptura (2001) nails the defects of the latter and maps a return to the sanity of the former; this excerpt highlights the effect of the substitution on the self-silencing of the contemporary Evangelical in both evangelism and public discourse:

    An extremely significant problem with solo scriptura is the subjectivity into which it casts all hermeneutical endeavors. Ultimately the interpretation of Scripture becomes individualistic with no possibility for the resolution of differences. This occurs because adherents of solo scriptura rip the Scripture out of its ecclesiastical and traditional hermeneutical context, leaving it in a relativistic vacuum. The problem is that there are differing interpretations of Scripture, and Christians are told that these can be resolved by a simple appeal to Scripture. But is it possible to resolve the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture by an appeal to another interpretation of Scripture? The problem that adherents of solo scriptura haven?t noticed is that any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The only question is: whose interpretation? When we are faced with conflicting interpretations of Scripture, we cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve our difference of opinion as if it were a Ouija board. In order for Scripture to serve as an authority at all, it must be read, exegeted, and interpreted by somebody. In order for the Holy Spirit to speak through Scripture, some human agency must be involved, even if that human agent is simply one individual reading the text of Scripture.

    The adherents of solo scriptura dismiss all of this claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter. Yet this results in nothing more than hermeneutical solipsism. It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God.

    A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura, posted at The Highway

    By eschewing the ancient voice of the church–”No Creed but Christ!”–as witness to his scriptural interpretations, the Evangelical ends up doing exactly what he blames the Liberal for doing: positing himself as sole qualified interpreter of the Word of God. How can he expect to not be challenged and mocked? Better to learn to answer in the fashion of “You’ll find my position on that subject clearly laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapters 12 and 15, with which I’m sure you’re quite as familiar as I. Next question?” While the materialist–or Muslim–interlocutor may still find grounds for dismissing the position, at the very least all concerned will know that the Christian is standing on something more sustantial–as awesome as any army with banners!–than a mere subjective burning in his bosom; such knowledge could reasonably be expected to assure some that here is a man who will not judge any issue on his feelings of the moment.

    (An unrelated footnote to fellow Christians: why the apparent continual surprise, in many of your comments at this site, at the reaction of a materialistic culture to your existence and way of thinking? Weren’t we warned on good authority to expect precisely such?)

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The foundation of your argument seems to be contained in the following paragraph which I quote from your post.

    “Many dispensational-premillenial evangelicals view the American state through a lens which makes her appear, on the one hand, nearly indistinguishable from Israel between Sinai and Pentecost, and on the other, nearly indistinguishable?in theory at least?from the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven.”

    The crux of your post centers around your definition of “Dispensational Premillennialism” but the words simply do not mean what you claim they mean.

    Dispensationalism is the belief that God has dwelt with mankind through a series of dispensations, most notably the law given to Israel and the grace given in the church age. Dispensationalism is a strong rejection of the idea that the church or the United States is the new nation of Israel and thus the inheritor of the blessings promised to that nation in the Old Testament.

    Premillennialism is the belief that we live in an age prior to the 1000 year reign of Christ known as the millennial kingdom. It has nothing to do with the United States being the modern version of ancient Israel.

    Neither dispensationalism nor premillennialism necessarily believe that the church or the United States can usher in the reign of Christ upon the earth.

    Since the terms used in your post do not mean what you say they mean, your foundation is flawed and the construct you built upon that foundation is also flawed.

  • wonkish1

    Those preceding the Millennial generation aka Baby Boomlet aka the internet generation.

    Most commonly they are being referred to as Millennial’s though.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Scripture offers profound insight into not only the nature of man but the nature of his government as well. Scripture portrays government as either a tree or a beast. A nation (government) that acknowledges God and His law is portrayed as a tree that provides shelter and nourishment to its people. A nation (government) that rejects God and His law is portrayed as a beast – a beast has ferocity and power but no conscious.

    In Daniel, Nebuchadnezzer goes through a transformation from tree to beast then back to tree. When he accepts the council of Daniel and acknowledges God, he is a tree. But, when he begins to exalt himself above God, he is stricken by God and becomes like a beast. Only when he looks to heaven and acknowledges God is his sanity restored.

    A nation does not have to be in a redemptive covenant with God in order to enjoy the benefits of His moral law. Nor is the law of God invalidated by a nation that rejects that law. A nation that rejects God and His law will crumble and the government will become like a beast. Romans 1:18- accurately portrays the effects upon a society that rejects the knowledge of God. It is not a pretty picture.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    having explicitly rejected a confrontation with the system itself in this venue.

    Rather, my entire proposition took the form: “many, holding assumption X, simultaneously view Y in a certain light–and also find it difficult to consistently defend against attacks in the form Z.” I will gladly grant your assertion that certain aspects of view Y–the place of the U.S. in a biblical view of history–are not logically consistent with at least some of the strains of dispensationalism that have developed since Darby and Scofield; far be it from me to try to account for those inconsistencies. My point was to present an alternative to clear weaknesses in the discourse of the many holding to a dispensationalism as popularly preached; I gladly leave the attempt at reconciling actual practice to founding principles to those within the dispensational camp itself.

    (More to your reply below shortly).

  • westcoastpatriette

    How can believers have such different understandings of terms and their meanings? That’s just a rhetorical question as I believe I know the answer but want to throw in my one cent.

    I was under the impression that the term “premillenialism” was referring to the Second Coming of Christ and the so-called rapture doctrine–that is that premillenialists believe both events occur before the millenium or the thousand year reign of Christ.

    That is the only context I have ever heard anyone teach with regard to Premillinialism. It is always referred to as one of three positions the other two being Mid and Post Millenialism. Evidently, some are convinced of their positions–but obviously someone is wrong as all three can’t be right. I admit I don’t know.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    I had held off from linking examples on this site to illustrate my point, only to find that you have delivered your own, unasked and free of charge!

    The first 2 sentences of your final paragraph are indisputably true. But there is not a single nation on earth, including past or current Israel or the U.S., which has ever not, in the only sense that matters, rejected God and His law–not to mention the gospel of Christ. Your statement actually does project the covenantal terms with Israel forward and ignores the freedom of God to send deserved judgment and undeserved grace abroad to the nations as he sees fit until the time of the end. Safer to say with the Savoy Declaration (20:3)

    The revelation of the gospel unto sinners, made in divers times, and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God, not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men’s natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make or can so do. And therefore in all ages the preaching of the gospel hath been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening of it, in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God.

    Your reference to Romans 1:18ff is exactly in line with the example I gave of a hypothetical dispensationalist’s use of the identical passage! Neither the immediate context nor the whole testimony of revelation will allow the subjects of the passage to be anything other than the sum total of humanity. The passage can be a handy weapon to use against beastly materialists/sexual deviants/political liberals–but to do so undermines original sin and total depravity, and thence any need for a covenant of redemption.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Disregard everything I just said as I am mixing up the term “premillenialism” with the term “pretribulation”. I should have just stayed out of this discussion because it is not an area that I have much expertise or interest for that matter as it is tiresome to hear people debate/argue about who has the correct doctrine.

    So, sorry I commented at all.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    You miss the larger point completely.

    A covenant implies a direct agreement between God and nation – a contract entered into freely by both parties. That existed with the ancient nation of Israel.

    I refer to a larger principle. Romans 1:18-32 is address by Paul to “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” It begins a section that teaches the doctrine of total condemnation that ends with the declaration in ch. 3 that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God – including the Jews who are dealt with in ch. 2. So, yes you are correct, in that the condemnation is a universal condemnation.

    However, the passage does not end with just that point. In v. 18 Paul makes it clear that in their unrighteousness they suppress the knowledge of God and the suppression of that knowledge leads to futile thinking and the darkening of their foolish hearts. (v. 21) Paul is not talking about a covenant relationship because here he is dealing with the Gentiles who are not a part of the covenant. Yet, the Gentiles still possess a knowledge of God. The problem is that they suppress that knowledge and it leads to the corruption of their society. The corruption of their society is not a covenant response by God but simply the consequence of rejecting God and His law – not the Jewish law but universal law.

    A nation is blessed when it acknowledges God and His law because it is that acknowledgement that determines how society is structured. Acknowledgement of God and the knowledge of His law determines human worth and the underpinnings of a society. It establishes the worldview of the people and the state. It provides the standards of conduct and governance. When a state aligns itself up with the knowledge of God it lines itself up with the proper order of the universe.

    The benefit to the nation is not part of a direct covenant with God. It is simply a matter of consequences. I do not have a direct covenant with gravity but if I jump off a 10 story building the natural consequences are the same regardless.

    Nations rise and fall according to the will of God and HIs divine purposes. But that does not take away the personal responsibility of the nation or its people to acknowledge God and order themselves accordingly.

    And none of this has anything do with dispensational premillenialism, which does not teach what you claim it teaches.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The paragraph I quoted from your original post is an attempt to define the term dispensational premillenialism. I demonstrated that the terms can not be defined in such a way. Perhaps some dispensational premillenialists teach such a position but it is not one consistent with the terms nor one dictated by the terms.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    are not consistent with at least the earliest expressions of the hermeneutic itself. But you will be hard pressed to deny either that all of its original priniciples are maintained today by many who so self-identify, or, more to my point, that many who are comfortable with the label hold variants of the views I listed–as you have granted some might, inconsistently and not of necessity.

    I am certainly not asking you to own such as consistent adherents of Dabney and Scofield. There is, however, an aspect of classic dispensationalism which has allowed the views I mentioned to gain traction. As I mentioned in the OP, I will not debate the scriptural invalidity of that aspect here; I will, however, briefly mention it for the sake of consideration: since the parent system wrongly divides the redemptive work of God and wrongly elevates types, shadows and promises above their fulfiilment in Christ, it is nearly inevitable to produce similar misapplications of scripture in its adherents, notably in reference to the relations of individual Christians to their own nations and to the nation of Israel. The effects of this development are worth considering on site since they can negatively shape the public discourse of their adherents.

    (I have seen your exegesis of Romans below and hope to provide a short response briefly.)

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    beyond stating the common reformed counter—that all interactions between God and all of humanity are indeed under the terms of a covenant:

    1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

    2. The first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

    (Ch. 7 Of God’s Covenant with Man, Savoy Declaration of Faith, 1658)

    Your repeated insistence that the relationship between the gentiles and their Creator depend merely on consequence rather than covenant contradict the above ancient testimony of the church–(and as a covenantalist I get to add) Old and New Testament alike. Not that the Covenant of Works is the only one–but once that is disregarded it could be argued that the entire Gospel is made null and void. I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis’* insightful barb against the liberalising tendency to redefine the unpalatable in Scripture:

    You suggest that what is traditionally regarded as our experience of God’s anger would be more helpfully regarded as what inevitably happens to us if we behave inappropriately towards a reality of immense power. As you say, “The live wire doesn’t feel angry with us, but if we blunder against it we get a shock.”

    My dear Malcom, what do you suppose you have gained by substituting the image of a live wire for that of angered majesty? You have shut us all up in despair; for the angry can forgive but electricity can’t.

    (C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcom, 1963)

    With this background I’m piggybacking, Kipling, to your earlier example of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which works well to illustrate my point about the dispensationalist’s incessant urge to misapply Scripture. You stated:

    Scripture portrays government as either a tree or a beast. A nation (government) that acknowledges God and His law is portrayed as a tree that provides shelter and nourishment to its people. A nation (government) that rejects God and His law is portrayed as a beast ? a beast has ferocity and power but no [sic] conscious.

    Well, Scripture portrays government in many ways–all ultimately in reference to Jesus Christ rather than Nebuchadnezzar. Without that perspective, how can any liberal Democrat–since I am looking to political implications of our speech, after all–not demand to know why, then, since to you this passage is apparently definitive, the U.S. government should not be required–since compliance with the law of God is inevitably of beneficial consequence–to be the largest entity in its realm, to be ceaselessy interventionist, to fully fund the arts, and to provide shelter and food to all citizens desiring the same, since:

    The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. Its leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the heavens lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it. (Daniel 4:11-12, ESV)

    A dispensationalist hermeneutic–whether classical or derived–simply cannot address that charge as simply, as consistently, without injury to the unity of the Scriptures, and without consequent diminution of the eternal glory of Christ, as a more covenantal one can.

    * Yes, poor Lewis was too frequently on or over the edge of orthodoxy, but in his strong points, occasionally brilliant.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    “you will be hard pressed to deny either that all of its original priniciples are not maintained today by many who so self-identify”

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    In your original post, you refer to the specific covenant between God and Israel thus stating:

    “Many dispensational-premillenial evangelicals view the American state through a lens which makes her appear, on the one hand, nearly indistinguishable from Israel between Sinai and Pentecost, and on the other, nearly indistinguishable?in theory at least?from the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven.”

    Now you refer to the “first covenant made with man [Adam].” The two covenants are not the same.

    My point is that dispensational premillenialism does not teach that the United States has become the new Israel or that the even the church has become the new Israel and thus can lay claim to the promises of God. What you refer to is usually consider covenant theology and dispensationalism rejects it.

    I use Nebuchadnezzer because he is an example of a gentile [pagan] government that God blesses when that government acknowledges God. Nebuchadnezzer also goes between the two depictions of government – beast and tree – thus providing a good illustration of the point.

    The depiction of government as a tree does not lead to the nanny-state. A tree naturally provides those things by being a tree. It does not micromanage the lives of the animals nor does it develop programs to feed those animals. Democratic capitalism (traditional definition) is exactly the type of tree that provides the benefits as a byproduct of its existence.

    All governments and societies organize themselves according to their view of God. Even atheistic societies organize themselves according to their atheism. I am not calling for a theocracy. Jesus said that my kingdom is not of this world. What I am saying is that a society that organizes itself with an acknowledgement of God will be a better society. A society that does not organize itself with an acknowledgement of God will eventually become a beast and oppress its people.

  • Andrew_D

    Your post is simply wrong. It is precisely dispensational, premillennial Christians who can most easily deal with the moral issues, political issues, etc….

    Historically speaking it is the Calvinist who has been most interested in setting up a theocracy and building the kingdom of God on earth. Arminians and weak Calvinists – both in the majority Southern Baptist and Methodist traditions are most inclined towards dealing with the issues that you laid out. You grossly mischaracterized the truth, and actually flipped it upside down. If you had been writing your article about kingdom theologians, postmillenialists, and Hyper-Calvinists I might have agreed with you.

    Also, never yet met a premillenialist or dispensationalist who thinks that America is Israel.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    that two conjoined hermeneutics, held to some degree by most evangelicals–and yourself

    do not adequately equip their adherents to politically counter?without inconsistency?some of the frequent current arguments against the expression of the Christian faith by public officials

    While disagreeing from the outset with my characterization of the typical behavior of their adherents when attempting to address criticism of public expression of the Christian faith, you have several times made my actual point by applying the very type of response I was describing: namely a reference to biblical passages selectively wrenched out of context in an unlikely attempt to convince a secularist critic.

    Let me be more explicit about the Daniel passage. To some degree, your synopsis echoes that of Calvin’s commentary. The difficulty comes when the passage–an allegory itself descriptive of a particular individual at a peculiar moment in the unfolding drama of redemption–is re-allegorized to serve as a foundational text for the unique superiority of a form of government which would not arise until about 2,200 years had elapsed. Let’s say you have fended off the critical attacks I posed earlier. Once you have extracted your nugget:

    Democratic capitalism (traditional definition) is exactly the type of tree that provides the benefits as a byproduct of its existence.

    how can you possibly defend against the charge that the passage was actually exactly about Nebuchadnezzar, which must mean that the zenith of government is the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom model! (Hmmm–maybe some on the left have been reading it that way! But I digress).

    Dr. Kim Riddlebarger illustrates this bent of dispensationalists to selective acontextual exegesis with this example, similar to your own, as well a more constructive alternative:

    those who heard the Book of Revelation read in the churches, and who were steeped in the Old Testament, would have immediately understood what John was talking about, because they knew to find the explanation of the symbol in the Old Testament.

    For many of our dispensational friends, however, this is not the case. They take John to be trying to describe some modern technology which did not exist in the ancient world. Hal Lindsey, for example, thinks John saw a Bell UH-1 Huey helicopter and since such a thing was beyond his comprehension, John described this amazing flying thing as looking like a locust–which, in a way, it does. But is John trying to describe an as yet unknown technology? Or is he using an image drawn from the Old Testament to make a point about the suffering of God’s people before Christ comes back?

    I would say that the key to understanding John is to go back to the Old Testament and see what locusts do when they swarm–they destroy everything. Joel presents locusts as a form of judgment. Lindsey, on the other hand, says this is a picture of a modern technology unknown to the ancients. But it is obviously a judgment motif, because that is how the figure appears in the Old Testament.

    One of my primary concerns with the dispensational hermeneutic is that the Old Testament “interprets” the New Testament. … According to dispensationalists, Daniel lays out the basic prophetic pattern and then John follows along behind in the Book of Revelation.

    Reformed amillennarians hold that Daniel was told to seal up the scroll, because he could not understand these things before the coming of Christ. John is ordered to open that same scroll in the Book of Revelation because he will tell us–in the clearer light of the coming of Christ–about those things to which Daniel had been referring, but which were still hidden in type and shadow until Christ came. Now that Jesus has indeed come, and has died for our sins and was raised from the dead before ascending on high, John is given this vision to explain to God’s persecuted people how Christ’s triumph over death and the grave impacts the future course of history so as to bring all things to their final consummation.

    This is why I think Walvoord and the dispensationalists have it backwards. The Apostle John tells us what the prophet Daniel means, not vice-versa.

    Back to the OP’s proposition that a Two Kingdoms model better equips one to handle contemporary secular attacks without inconsistency or frustartion, how would old Neb be handled in that light? Primarily by not using the passage in the secularist’s hearing at all. Why–for shame of its implications? Not at all! Rather because it was never intended–by its author–for use as a defining text for a socio-political system inconceivable to its original hearers.

    Here’s how the passage would be interepreted for use within the church, however (not forgetting, dispensationalist friend, that that means from Adam to the Last Day on this side!)–short version: the people of God, still smarting under his long-threatened judgment under the curse of expulsion from the land, with no temple and no king, are now subject to one of the tyrants of the world, who in the sovereignty of God nevertheless provides relative protection in comparison to the harsh early days of the exile, and it is clear that Messiah’s appearance will not occur in their lifetime … and then without warning this foul king is humbled into the dust at the pleasure of Yahweh. In his mercy God thereby extends additional comfort to the Babylonian Jew, the 1st C. Roman Christian, the 21st C. Chinese Christian–none of whom, I assure you, read the passage as a blueprint for Democratic capitalism.

    As far as your final paragraphs, Kipling, you are still attempting to make a direct correlation between acknowledgement of God and blessing which has never been promised in such terms outside of the Sinaitic covenant. Would you really rather have been, say, a late 15th C. Spanish Jew than a 21st C. New York Jew? Which society acknowledged God more?

    Which brings me to your–completely mistaken–charge about confusion of covenants on my part. When people start talking about a different topic, a word they used earlier might now refer to a different species…

    In that light, since all of humanity–Israel and the goyim alike–has always been subject to the Covenant of Works, your “consequences” theory is known to all in the formula “good things happen to people who do good” and “bad things happen to people who do bad”: no biblical reference is needed for that, since it is written on the conscience of all who have ever lived. The problem, however, is that the formula can take no account of either the effects of original sin or the one hand or the kindness of God which leads to repentance on the other. The former shuts the entire world up under sin so that there is no one who does good, and the latter opens the way for a gospel which alone justifies the ungodly.

    But neither of these aspects, which are truly revealed only in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, can be either dispensed or interpreted by any government–no matter how tree-ish. Consequently, the Christian in public life should know that policy bases can be framed in terms understandable by the non-Christian without either compromising his faith or improperly dividing the word of truth*.

    * Yes, the dig is intentional.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    I fully agree that I could have shot very similar rubber bands at the 3 groups you list at the end of your 2nd paragraph, but proportion and scale dictated the direction I aimed: in many years at this site I can only recall explict self-identification of 2 or 3 other Calvinists of any stripe, and those highly unlikely to have been from the minorities you list, while I am sure I have read dozens if not scores who were certainly Arminian in whatever they were commenting and thus more likely to be DPs than anything else.

    As far as “the Calvinist … most interested” that is undeniable, but again my point was to address a probable majority of evangelicals at this site. Your use of “historically” is doubly appreciated. First, since I believe it could be well argued that fine-tuning of the 2K model over the centuries has, if anything, reduced that tendency below any levels it ever exhibited. Second, since the OP was not directed toward the explicit doctrine of primitive DPism but the current praxis of what appears to be many of their heirs.

    That both Kipling and you seem to have missed the implication of my deliberate use of “nearly indistinguishable” is clear; obviously the DP does not, and if faithful to his doctrine can not, think “that America is Israel”. My point was not that a DP would become a theonomist in terms of policy, but rather–due to reasons listed upthread concerning selective exegesis–has a tendency to extend purely Sinaitic blessing/curse principles not only to current national Israel but to America as well. My hunch is that this tendency has grown since 1948–while the U.S. is (DP-wise) under a different dispensation than Israel, it would still be in its best interests to behave as Israel was/is bound to in preparation for when Israel becomes the center of attention again.

    Here’s the question. What share of recent (past 10 years or so) public promotion of 2 Chronicles 7:14 would you say has been by DPs?

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    First, I have not not referenced “biblical passages selectively wrenched out of context.” If so, then please cite the passage and the context I disregarded.

    Second, in reference to the passage in Daniel, you have wrenched it out of the context of Daniel and the context of Scripture as a whole. The tree v. beast analogy is used not only in Daniel but in Judges, throughout the Old Testament, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and in Revelations.

    In Daniel it is used in Ch. 4 and again in Ch. 7. The analogy and the principle thus does not refer simply to Nebuchadnezzar.

    Third, I did not say that Scripture said that democratic capitalism is the perfect form of government. The key is the acknowledgement of God not the form of government. A monarchy that acknowledges God – like that of Nebuchadnezzer – will enjoy the blessings of God. A democratic capitalistic government that does not acknowledge God will not enjoy the blessings of God but suffer the consequences of their own actions. The argument I made about democratic capitalism being a fit for the tree analogy is personal observation – not Scripture.

    Fourth, you state:

    “How can you possibly defend against the charge that the passage was actually exactly about Nebuchadnezzar, which must mean that the zenith of government is the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom model! (Hmmm?maybe some on the left have been reading it that way! But I digress).”

    I can defend it quite easily because the theme of a good government that acknowledges God runs throughout Scripture. It is used to refer to Nebuchadnezzer in Ch. 4 and to the gentile empires that will follow in Ch. 7. It is used to refer to the eventual reign of Christ – who comes for the stump of Jesse (tree analogy) – and it refers to the ultimate beast (world government) that precedes the second coming of Christ.

    It does not mean that the Neo-Babylonian empire is the zenith. I never said anything about zeniths. The key is the acknowledgement of God not the form of government. You should note that the Neo-Babylonian empire is condemned under Belshazzar – same form of government as under Nebuchadnezzer but not the acknowledgement of God.

    Nice snark but but little substance in your criticism. It was pretty easy to defeat your assumption.

    5. Your quote from Dr. Riddlebarger refers to the reformed amillennarians. Amillennarians are not premillennialists. Nor are they necessarily dispensationalists. Once again you confuse your terms. Those terms do not mean what you think they mean.

    6. Now to your paragraph on how the passage should be interpreted. You state:

    “and then without warning this foul king [Nebuchadnezzer] is humbled into the dust at the pleasure of Yahweh.”

    The passage is a distortion of Daniel 4. Nebuchadnezzer is clearly warned by God in a dream about his impending judgment. Daniel interprets the dream to make sure the King understands. Nebuchadnezzer clearly understands the reason for his judgment. He actually says so in a personal testimony recorded in v. 34-37.

    7. You state that I am “attempting to make a direct correlation between acknowledgement of God and blessing which has never been promised in such terms outside of the Sinaitic covenant.”

    Yes, yes I am. By way of example, I refer you to Abraham and the patriarchs, to Noah, and to all the Old Testament saints who acknowledged God and trusted in Him prior to the giving of the law and the Sinai covenant. The promise even predates the Sinai. I refer you to Exodus 15:26, which predates the law of Sinai in ch. 19.

    8. You referred directly to the covenant with Adam which is not the same as the covenant with Israel. The word is the same but the covenants are not.

    9. I never said good things happen to people who do good and that bad things happen to people who do bad. That is a simplistic statement that is wrong. It is also not supported by Scripture. Good things often happen to bad people – we call it common grace. Bad things often happen to good people because they do good things – prime example of Christ. Jesus, Paul, Peter, and James all warned of suffering for doing good. Here again you try to pass off a common fallacy as Scripture.

    Scripture is quite clear that no one does good. Romans 3:9-20 which also portions of the Old Testament.

    10. The Covenant of Works failed. Works cannot save us. That is why we are now under the Covenant of Grace in which our salvation depends upon faith. The law simply shows us where we fail. Even Abraham was justified by his faith.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    it is clear that further cross-posting will profit anyone at the site. I fail to see how I have falsely accused you, but if you would like to pursue that privately in relation to your specific charges I would be glad to oblige. The only one of your 10 points which will admit both a short and non-interpretive answer is number 5: Riddlebarger actually introduces “reformed amil” in contrast to, rather than in support of, the dp position; so no, I was not confused.

    You have repeatedly demonstrated, without offering any positive alternative, the post’s charge that the typical American evangelical, when confronted with concerns and challenges from non-Christians in the public square, is prone to respond with a decontextualized biblical passage rather than two-kingdoms-informed wisdom of greater power to persuade–or at least define. The former can be as easily mishandled by a hostile critic, the latter, much less so, since it begins by acknowledging a vast common ground in the way that the former does not–even though it should.

    My persistent fear of the wrath of Moe constrains me to draw to a close.

    In hopes of obtaining a positive effect, however, I am quite curious to know, granted that we have both established a fundamental disparity between our interpretive principles: are you in agreement or disagreement with the two-kingdoms model I have urged evangelicals at this site to adopt–as an alternative to the exegetical wars which seem hardly capable of convincing even our friends, much less our opponents, in a public setting as this? Would you say that your hermeneutic already incorporates the model, or would admit it, or would not be reconcilable to it?

  • Andrew_D

    Seriously, you are way out on an exegetical limb here. This is hardly the forum to get this deep – makes us theologians look bad. “DP” and “2K,” really? I am well versed in theology, but it makes me queasy to argue on your platform.

    Your final question is so ambiguous and statistically vague, that I dare not answer it.

    Your original point as I understand it (for someone whose been through seminary with very close to a 4.0 GPA, you can believe that I’ve listened to a lot of vague, dry, and incomprehensible lectures) is that “DP”s as you call them are in an intellectual bind when they defend Biblical morality. This is simply not the case.

    I have several points to make.

    1. Your posed Romans argument is highly unlikely to ever occur.

    2. If it does there is a multitude of Scriptural evidence to defend against gay marriage.

    3. The liberal interpretation of the Roman passage is completely bogus on its face, and a simple exegetical process will prove that.

    4. Your post is so murky, contains so much misuse of terms, it can rightly be called snarky.