Today, Billy Hallowell penned an article in "The Blaze," where he highlighted some points made by Grant Barry on the issue of Israel's place in the end times. I don't really want to get into the minutia of end times prophecy, but I do want to highlight an inaccuracy in the article.
We here at Pressing On Podcast have identified ourselves as dispensationalists. We see a distinction between the Church and Israel within the one people of God, each having its own distinct purpose in, and relationship to, the New Covenant in Christ. However, we do part ways with most of our dispensationalist brothers and sisters in that we don't find any benefit in having our fists eternally raised at what is often treated as the false idol of replacement theology. In the ongoing discussion of how Israel and the Church relate to one another, both sides must be committed to honesty and integrity in how we represent the other side. No progress will ever be made if misrepresentation is the norm.
That said, I want to kind of stand up for my Covenant Theology brethren. The article in The Blaze paints an "either or" picture of the Church and Israel.
Either you see a distinction, or the Church has replaced Israel. A couple of problems here:
Either you see a distinction, or the Church has replaced Israel. A couple of problems here:
1) If the Church has replaced Israel, then you still see them as two distinct groups. If both groups are actually one group, then no one has actually replaced anyone. True "Replacement Theology" requires a distinction (if not entire separation) between the two. If one is making the assertion, like Holloway seems to assert by saying, "...“Israel” actually refers to the contemporary Christian church...," that someone who holds that view is holding to "Replacement Theology," then what you've done is imposed Dispensational distinctives onto a system that does not recognize them.
2) Enter Covenant Theology. While Dispensationalism focuses on discontinuity, CT focuses on continuity. This means that while dispensationalists see a discontinuity in the people of God, CT sees only continuity. So, "Replacement Theology" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because the Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church. There can be no replacement if there is no difference. I don't want to go over the minutia of this subject right now, but if you want a deeper look at this, try here. The main thing that I want to express is that Covenant Theology does not see two distinct groups, but rather, two manifestations of the same group- the one Elect people of God.
Over the years, there have been many back and forth battles between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, a ton of unnecessary mud flinging. However, if we are to all take part in the wonderful history of theology, and keep the flow of doctrine flowing onwards, purifying and refining ever further- then we have got to start addressing each other's points of view as it they are expressed by each party, not as we would like to address them in our own pejorative way. This especially goes for articles written for larger news/religion/theology blogs. The conversation will go no further if the major points are not being addressed properly. Each one of us is responsible for our own words.
In Him,
Mike Senders
Over the years, there have been many back and forth battles between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, a ton of unnecessary mud flinging. However, if we are to all take part in the wonderful history of theology, and keep the flow of doctrine flowing onwards, purifying and refining ever further- then we have got to start addressing each other's points of view as it they are expressed by each party, not as we would like to address them in our own pejorative way. This especially goes for articles written for larger news/religion/theology blogs. The conversation will go no further if the major points are not being addressed properly. Each one of us is responsible for our own words.
In Him,
Mike Senders
No comments:
Post a Comment