All Israel?
Here's a difficult subject for you guys. In Romans 11, Paul writes,
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
'The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.'"
So who does "all Israel" refer to? There's basically three common answers.
1. "All Israel" refers to all of the elect Israelites in any age.
2. "All Israel" refers to majority of the Israelites during the endtime generation. This is the most common dispensational interpretation.
3. "All Israel" refers to all of God's people--Jew and Gentile alike. This is the interpretation that Calvin popularized.
Personally, I don't really know anyone who holds the 1st option. It's never been too popular. Since I'm from a dispensational background (Moody) and my church is dispensational, I tend to lean toward the second option. Although Tom Wright has some pretty good arguments for the 3rd option, that have made me reexamine the strength of the 2nd position. Let's find out who's actually a Calvinist in this area. Any thoughts?
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
'The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.'"
So who does "all Israel" refer to? There's basically three common answers.
1. "All Israel" refers to all of the elect Israelites in any age.
2. "All Israel" refers to majority of the Israelites during the endtime generation. This is the most common dispensational interpretation.
3. "All Israel" refers to all of God's people--Jew and Gentile alike. This is the interpretation that Calvin popularized.
Personally, I don't really know anyone who holds the 1st option. It's never been too popular. Since I'm from a dispensational background (Moody) and my church is dispensational, I tend to lean toward the second option. Although Tom Wright has some pretty good arguments for the 3rd option, that have made me reexamine the strength of the 2nd position. Let's find out who's actually a Calvinist in this area. Any thoughts?
posted by Daniel | 9:19 AM
11 Comments:
Daniel,
Thanks for stopping by the new blog!! I'll have to think about this one, tough. I'm semi-studying Romans now(among too many other things), but this is something I haven't thought about in awile.
I also saw you have CG Olson's book on missions, do you have his "beyond" book? I just recieved his lectures on it from Mid-America seminary today, so I'm excited to watch them.
ANyway sorry for rambling, keep stopping by!
GODBLESS,
NATE
Election in the Bible never refers to God selecting certain individuals to "regenerate" and save.
2 Thess 2:13 says: "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."
I know what you might say in response to this scripture: 'God chose based on foreknowledge'. But if that was the case, that is, if we essentially elect ourselves because election is based on God's knowledge of human acts, then why didnt Paul give thanks to the Thessalonians instead? I mean, if they made the right call, joined the 'winning team', why in the world thank God without thanking the Thessalonians? Shouldnt Paul thank them for their brilliance?
Daniel, I also tend to lean towards #2. "all Israel" refers to the elect Jewish people alive after the Tribulation.
SDG
Nathan,
Are you a "leaky dispensationist" like John Mac?
Election in the Bible never refers to God selecting certain individuals to "regenerate" and save.
I'm not so sure that I agree with that statement either.
The dilemna in Romans 9 to me seems to be that Israel was elect (recipients of great promises and blessings that seemed to guarantee their salvation), and yet the majority of Jews were presently accursed. Paul's answer to the problem is to redefine Israel. Only the children of promise were the true Israel.
Good question Philo! Instead of writing it all here, I wrote on this subject several months ago. Check it out HERE. Or copy and paste: http://nathancwhite.blogspot.com/2005/08/perils-of-free-will-theology.html
But to sum it up (besides the fact that we believe it can be shown from scripture that free will is not taught at all), embracing a mindset that acknowledges that we must get men to make a choice in regards to salvation has devastating effects. How can we pray for the lost when God doesn’t decide who gets saved? Do we pray for favorable circumstances so that the person has the most comfortable surroundings possible in order to 'tip the scale' and have him make a decision for Christ? How can we evangelize effectively if all we're concerned about is getting people to join the winning team? How can we have the God-centered dependence and humility if all our hope is in a decision we supposedly made? Shouldn’t we spend more time placing faith in our own will (as the heart is deceptive -jer 17:9) if we must rely on that will to make the right call? Not only that, but we are open to all sorts of heresies if free will rules our mind. Where is the assurance of salvation? We can choose Christ but we can’t UN-choose Him? That doesn’t make sense. So if we accept free will, in order to be consistent we must accept that we can lose our salvation. What about open theism? This heresy is fast on the rise and basically it is the free-will mindset in the most consistent manner. They hold free will to the point where even God is in the dark, and like I said, it is the most consistent form of free-will, but its definitely a terrible heresy as well. I could go on, but basically this issue effects everything that has to do with our obedience and view on the Christian life. No matter what you believe, this issue is vitally important. The Calvinist, having been delivered from the love of self (I made the decision mentality), sees how dangerous free will really is and unfortunately, is often over-zealous in trying to show people these truths.
Oh, and the problem of evil is essentially the same on both sides of the debate (unless you are an open theist). Basically, God does everything for His own glory (Eph 1:11). How could God display His perfect character in Mercy, Grace, Wrath, etc if there was no sin? He does all things to glorify Himself. Thats why understanding that we are the clay, He is the potter is so important. He can do with His creation what He wants.
SDG
P.S. Yes Daniel, you could say I'm a little confused. I am stuck in-between Pre and Post Mill. But I certainly don't hold the traditional A-Mill position held by many reformers.
Nathan,
That's funny. I'm the exact opposite. I lean toward Pre-Mill, although I'm somewhat sympathic toward A-mill. Post-mil is the only one that doesn't make sense to me.
As far as "free will" goes, you really should read William Lane Craig's book The Only Wise God. It's really worth it. Even if you disagree with Craig, the book provides a thorough refutation of open theism and a solid explanation of molinism. I'm sure that you would enjoy it.
I really enjoy reading John Piper, even through I'm a Calvinist. His concept of Christian Hedonism was a breath of fresh air. I didn't realize how much I was impacted by Kantian ethics.
Nate,
Thanks for visiting my blog. Yes, I really enjoyed Olson's perspectives on missions. He must be a great teacher. That book was the textbook for my missions class with Moody. I don't have His "beyond" book. It sounds good.
Daniel,
Trust me, I have many friends that are trying to pull me to A-Mill. But I just cannot reconcile this view with Rev 20. As far as Dispensationalism goes, I hate that term because it essentially entails a ridiculous understanding of scripture in some areas. Nevertheless, at this time I see a clear distinction between the church and Israel, therefore I am a dispensationalist by definition.
Thanks for sharing that book with me. I will have to get it soon. However, after listening to plenty of Hank Hanegraaff, I'm very familiar with molinism.
And it’s funny, I love John Piper too. I listen to his sermons all the time, I read his books (I'm reading God's Passion For His Glory right now), but I’m one who gets a little tired of his emphasis on Christian Hedonism. Piper is way too philosophical for me sometimes. Its good stuff no doubt, but his emphasis on it often times goes beyond scripture. LOL, just when we thought we had something in common :)
Is Hank Hanegraaff a Molinist? I'll have to check up on that.
By the way, I'd better clarify one of my last statements. I wrote, "I really enjoy reading John Piper, even through I'm a Calvinist." I'm sure that everyone realized that I meant to say, "even through I'm not a Calvinist."
Daniel,
I've been told that you can't get "beyond" by Olson anymore, but he has condensed it and it's called "Getting the Gospel Right", you can grab it online for $9, it's worth the read.
In beyond he thought Craig's molinism worked best with his position!
PEACE,
NATE
Chris,
Any thoughts on New Covenant theology? What do you think that these blends of covenant and dispensationalism? That's personally where I'm kinda leaning towards.
In my opinion, the book of Acts and Ephesians 2 seem to indicate that the church is a new thing. I also think that the new covenant is radically different than the old.
However, I don't see dispensationalism providing enough continuity. Those passages you pointed out are good examples of that.
Just wondering what you think.
Post a Comment
<< Home