REGENERATION: A NEW COVENANT BLESSING
by Zane Hodges
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2005ii/hodges.pdf
Readers, please read this paper by Zane Hodges. I would love your comments.
Happy reading!
Mark
Labels: Hodges, Regeneration
posted by mark pierson at 6:13 PM
18 Comments:
Mark,
While he seems to have some sound views on the new covenant, I think he has got more presuppositions to reconcile than is possible. I disagree with many of his conclusions such as on Saul, Romans 11, and others. For starters, I think the role of ethnic Israel is finished. This does not mean there won’t be a huge increase of Jewish converts near the 2nd coming, but I hardly think it will be 100% of the Jewish people as he asserts. I believe Romans 11 is discussing both ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel (the elect) and you must distinguish between those two groups. Maybe tomorrow if I have more time and if this post generates interest, I can offer more, but I must confess I am not very knowledgeable on all the details of this subject.
I would be very interested in Susan's view.
December 22, 2007 11:34 PM
I do not agree with Zane Hodges view on the New Covenant. Joseph Dillow and others in the FG camp share Hodges' view.
I think it comes too close to Progressive Dispensationalism for comfort.
The New Covenant is a difficult subject for Dispensationalism and there are a number of different approaches to interpreting it.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 23, 2007 6:15 AM
Matthew,
I do not see how forgiveness of sins can be separated from the New Covenant. "This is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"
Question:
Why do classic dispy's have difficulties with the New Covenant while Progressive dispy's and Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology do not???
December 23, 2007 3:55 PM
Mark, good questions. PD is a welcome addition to the dispensational movement.
December 23, 2007 4:41 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
December 24, 2007 12:27 AM
I'm with Zane Hodges on this one and I agree with him concernig Saul as well. Scripture testifies and Davids euology cleary shows that he had the positional righteousness of Christ, yet the flesh got the best of Sauls life. He is an example of a carnal believer. I guess you guys would respectfully part with me there and I would agree with Matthew yet disagree with Matthew concerning his misunderstanding of the New Covanent. It seems like Hodges is being very honest concerning the clear testimony of the New Covanent. I take heart in seeing believers stand with the Scriptures and not always with their group. Its a good deal.
December 24, 2007 12:30 AM
Mark
The problem is that underlying Dispensationalism is a dulaism between God's heavenly and earthly dealings.
The Christian is dealt with on an ethereal heavenly level separate from God's governmental dealings with earth.
The New Covenant in its context in Jeremiah relates to God's earthly dealings with then nation of Israel. If the church is involved in this, the dualism between heaven and earth breaks down and Dispensationalism's separation of the church and Israel has no trans-historical basis.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 24, 2007 6:22 AM
Hey Matt,
What does this word mean?
>ethereal<
For real, I have no clue as to its meaning.
You are stretching it by the way. More and more I think people will come around to NCT and Progressive Dispyism. I kinda see both their points, but do recognize that classic dispy is not observing all of scripture and is off the mark in areas that cannot be reconciled.
December 24, 2007 9:40 AM
Merry Christmas everyone.
December 24, 2007 9:41 AM
"The problem is that underlying Dispensationalism is a dulaism between God's heavenly and earthly dealings."
That should say "The problem is that underlying [Classic] Dispensationalism" as the Progressive Dispy's see no such thing.
Question: We know that Darby was the first to see this "Dualism". How did he come upon this when nobody else in history ever saw it before, and the later dispy's are distancing themselves from it?
December 24, 2007 10:49 AM
Brian, what if Saul was a vessel of wrath? "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy,..."
December 24, 2007 12:25 PM
I understand why many feel this way towards Saul. He clearly contradicted himself, but the text shows that he received a new heart. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Anyone who laid a hand on him or tried to lay a hand on his household was killed by King David. Saul was a perplexity, but so is anyone who begins to envy the things of God. Solomon also finished his life chasing down the King who would take his throne and tried to kill him in the same way Saul did David. Solomon was beloved of God. It is a shame, but I dont believe either of these men were vessels of wrath, because of scriptures testimony. King Uziah was another. Saul was not the only one...its just that David and Men like Hezekiah responded and repented at the word of the Lord. It is also unfortunate that the man engaged in insest with his fathers wife was given the ultimadum of the sin of death whereas his spirit would be saved. I believe the Church as a body perservers, but clearly there are branches in Him that fall away and commit the sin unto death as Saul did. Saul was a rash and reactive person much like myself who had a hard time patiently waiting on the Lord that I am only now really learning to do, but we have the opportunity to make that choice as David remembered the little Shepherd boy he was in forgetting that he himself was becoming like Saul that hated him when He had Uriah and some of his men killed, because Uriah would not conform to his kingdom wishes. Unfortunately Solomon only seemed to show remorse at the end of his life, but the text never showed he repented and got back into the intimate relationship he had with God prior to his drift.
I think these things are all written for us as John warned the Believers to gaurd themselves against idolatry and in fact Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 to watch that we do not become like this thinking we stand strong. Our war with the flesh will never end this side of eternity and unfortunately many believers were not able to overcome it in the way others like the apostle Paul were and so is the same today. It is one reason why we are in the mess we are today with men like JI Packer signing agreements and pacts with Romans alone with Colson and Hybels or men like Stott with the Muslims. It seems we never can learn. There is just so much in scripture that I cannot harmonize, yet I know it is there and I have to agree with it and simply look to Christ himself and not man to receive strength to walk. This is also not to say that there are false professors out there, but we do have a problem in all churches today in that we either overreact and condemn others or we have no spiritual disciplinary restorative process. Some Churches are just not as healthy as others and we need one anothers encouragement and humble accountability to grow that considers itself lest it is tempted as well.
I look for the Lord to return soon. I learn so much from this blog. I would say that this blog has a greater understanding of biblical truth than the Free Grace Theology blogs, but that doesnt mean I dont agee with some of the Free gracers in areas. I am not trying to be duplicious...just as honest as I can be with my Lord and His word.
December 24, 2007 3:31 PM
Hey brother Mark. I just looked the word up in Hebrew in regards to the new heart God gave Saul. The word is Haphakn and it means to turn over and around; the word convert is also used to carry its meaning. May we all continue to value this inexpressable unconditional gift we have been given and respond by obeying and fanning into flame what God has so richly given us.
Love in Christ,
Brian
December 24, 2007 4:13 PM
"This much-discussed text simply means that the regenerate person,
as such, cannot sin.
Since God’s law is written in his heart, his regenerate self never produces
sin." -Zane
This is a false teaching of this text.
And Romans 7:@4 clears this up. "So then, with the mind I MYSELF serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."
Paul says here I MYSELF, which is inferred when he keeps the law, or sins.
Also paul told Timothy, "I AM the chief of all sinners."
This dangerous teaching is gnosticism, and people will gladly sin, because they believe this sin isn't sin.
December 24, 2007 10:03 PM
Brian, ethereal means heavenly or spiritual.
Mark, Darby had an unusually deep understanding of the heavenly position of the Christian.
With his ability to see this position, everything else fell into place (though his theology was not correct on every point).
God Bless
Matthew
December 25, 2007 3:40 PM
Mark, you may call PD Dispensationalism, but it is not at all clear how it is more Dispensational than historic Premillennialism.
Interestingly, a lot of historic Premillennialists reject the position of Craig Blaising that Christ is already seated on the throne of David. That would seem to make them even more Dispensational than Blaising.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 25, 2007 3:43 PM
Matthew, Some thoughts from Blaising and Bock:
"In the 1950s and ’60s, other evangelicals were also shying away from “spiritual hermeneutics” [“typology”] in favor of grammatical-historical interpretation. However, evangelical grammatical-historical interpretation was also broadening in the mid-twentieth century to include the developing field of biblical theology. Grammatical analysis expanded to include developments in literary study, particularly in the study of genre, or literary form, and rhetorical structure. Historical interpretation came to include a reference to the historical and cultural context of individual literary pieces for their overall interpretation. And by the late 1980s, evangelicals became more aware of the problem of the interpreter’s historical context and traditional preunderstanding of the text being interpreted. These developments are now shared by evangelical biblical scholars of different traditions, including many dispensationalists. They have opened up new vistas for discussion which were not considered by earlier interpreters, including classical and many revised dispensationalists. These are the developments which have led to what is now called “progressive dispensationalism.”34
Almost two decades earlier, Blaising had written, “. . . consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism.”35
Progressive dispensationalists are not rejecting literal interpretation completely; they are rejecting consistent, traditional historical-grammatical interpretation. Traditional dispensationalists have always employed a consistent and literal interpretation of the Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.36
Today a new, compromised hermeneutic of the former is being employed by progressive dispensationalists called a “complementary hermeneutic.” 33
Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 36.
34 Ibid., 35-36. 35
Craig A. Blaising, “Developing Dispensationalism, Part 2: Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July-September 1988): 272."
Matthew, I personally can see why Blaising and Bock and Saucey have revisited dispensationalism's hermeneutic, because, judging from a non dispensational view point, it would seem that the New Testament was never considered in the final annalysis. It has always bothered me that many of the Classic Dispensational distinctives are not to be found while reading the New Testament (The Israel/Church sepsaration). On the flip side, I watch with horror the Classic's handling of the New Covenant. I see that the charge that Classics must embrace some sort of 2 New Covenants is hard for Classics to avoid. Again, looking on from a non-Dispensational view, it seems that their "consistent literal" interpretation from Genesis to Revelation has gotten them into a bind; and one they cannot to my satisfaction explain themselves out of.
December 25, 2007 4:30 PM
Well thought out and said Mark.
December 26, 2007 11:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home