All Things Seen & Unseen

We should remind ourselves that our title text comes from the 'letter-essay' written by the apostle Paul to the Roman church around AD 55-57 from Corinth.  This consideration needs to be emphasised; we too quickly imagine that Paul was writing to us when it is more accurate to say that Paul was writing to his contemporaries in the first century AD in the capital city of the Roman Empire. He was not writing to 1 21st century disciples.

Gal 3.16 In the above verse, the apostle Paul says, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He [God] saith not, And to 'seeds', as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed', which is Christ. The verse is crucial because it clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the Seed of Abraham. Paul points out that the promises were made to Abraham and to a single offspring or descendant or 'seed' (the Christ). Importantly for those who believe in Christ, they are said to be 'the children of Abraham' (Gal 3.7, 9, 26, 27, 29): through their faith in Christ, they are the 'seed' or descendants of Abraham. And Abraham, as we know, was not considered righteous ('rightwised') because of anything he did; he was 'rightwised' (=made right) because he believed God's promises 1 (Rom 4.22; Gen 15.6).  Romans also says that God is God of both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith (Rom 3.29-30). That is, not on the basis of religion, culture...

The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a th ird form of dispensationalism wh ich began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD).  One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting. At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational 1 theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups. The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. T hat plan is being unfold ed through a series of different ad ministrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations.  However, the PD group still hold s to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct ; nevertheless, they also h o ld that both receive blessings through the A brahamic...

Before we outline a development in the classical dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and others, I invite readers to look at Charles C Ryrie (b.1925) in a 7-minute You Tube interview explaining dispensationalism.  Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form. Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism 1 in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially 1 , the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation).  But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in tra...

The People of God as One People These posts in this series are an att empt to deal with some of the complicated issues s urrounding the identity of the people of God as the one p eople of God . They examine how the Church and cultural Israel are related within the b roader scope of the s everal types of eschatology (end-time stud y ). For t he complexity of the issues has led to a multiplic ity of differing viewpoints that can be confusing without some road map : using some type of classification of views is one way to create order in an otherwise t angled scene.  

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples.  Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear. But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are: His distinction between gospel and salvation I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.