Tradition and the Word of God
"Those who don't believe that they have any 'traditions' in their understanding of Biblical passages are the most vulnerable to actually having some." James White
Traditions can certainly affect how we interpret certain passages of scripture, how we do church, or how we relate to others. Having been apart of a certain denomination (Calvary Chapel) for over 10 years, I now realize just how many "traditions" that I developed while there. One of these "traditions" was my understanding of Revelation chapters 2-3. The "hyper-dispensationalist" tendencies of some, in Calvary Chapel, insisted that these churches represented actual church ages. They would take each church in succession and line them up with various points in church history (ie. the Early Church was Ephesus, the Persecuted Church (under Rome) was Smyrna, the Reformation Church was Sardis, and so forth). Though we can certainly see some characteristics of these 7 churches (in chapters 2-3) with church history periods, it was not meant to be a perfect description of every church age in succession.
There is not even the slightest indication, in these passages, that they were supposed to represent church ages, rather, they were 7 literal churches that existed in the Apostle John's time. This had never been the understanding of these passages until men like Harry Ironside and Hal Lindsey popularized them.
Most credible Dispensational scholars see these as only literal churches as well (see John Walvoord's commentary on revelation, or Robert Thomas' commentary). Why is this interpretation important? For one, it takes away the practical aspects of learning about these churches and drawing lessons from them. Secondly, it perverts your understanding of Church History. Case in point--if the Sardis church becomes the Reformation Church, then one of the greatest revivals in church history becomes "dead" and no better than what it tried to reform--namely, the corrupt Roman Catholic Church of that time (which would correspond with Thyatira). All of this confusion is built upon forcing something into a passage that is never stated (or even implied).
Tradition can be a good or bad thing. The important thing is to always be willing to take a fresh look into how we see things--whether it be our interpretation of scripture or how we structure our church. Our "sacred cows" should never interfere with Biblical truth. More on this topic later.
posted by Shane McGrath at 11:08 AM
10 Comments:
Thanks for the post. Which Calvary do you go to? Where are you from? It's nice to meet a fellow Calvaryite on the internet.
Your dad can probably beat up my dad, so I'll give you that one. However, some of your other comments aren't as easy to accept.
When I use the term "hyper-dispensational" it is not supposed to be used technically--it's kind of bad humor on my part (my error). Sorry for the confusion that it may have caused. By "hyper" I mean those, within the church, who take things (in matters of prophecy) to extreme conclusions. Chuck Missler, Hal Lindsey, and unfortunately (at times) Chuck Smith are often guilty of this. This is not a slam on them personally (I love them all). But their errors are well documented and beyond dispute. I only need to say "Y2K" and "1988" to prove my point on that one.
Secondly, I do believe in the "divine outline" in Rev. 1:19 as you stated--but notice the "present tense" in the wording of "the things that are". Look how far you jumped in logic--you started out with admitting that it WAS in the present tense (thus, seven literal churches in John's day)...then you went to "seven is the number of perfection (completion)"... and then to "those churches don't literally exist anymore"... and then finally, "these must be representing the church age" (I'll take your word for it when you call your own reasoning...weak).
Once again, these are seven literal churches in John's day. If he meant it to be future then he would have used the future tense. Not even Missler could show us where it states that these are seven church ages...it isn't there no matter how hard you try.
Thirdly, by "credible scholars" I mean the following: John Walvoord is a credible scholar (Chuck Smith learned everything that he knows about dispensational theology from him and others at DTS). Robert L. Thomas is a credible scholar. Dave Hunt is NOT a credible scholar. Now, that doesn't mean that Walvoord or Thomas are infallible--nor does that mean that Hunt is always wrong. But Walvoord and Thomas actually interact critically with other scholars--they have to be exact in their scholarship or they will be eaten alive. If you take all of the evangelical commentaries on the Book of Revelation...you will be hard pressed to find one that shares Calvary Chapel's view on this. Sorry, but it's a "weak" argument--I'll use your own commentary on that one yet again.
Fourthly, the Protestant Reformation was a true revival of God. It did not stop with the death of Luther or Calvin. It continues even until this day. Just because the majority of Lutheran churches are liberal now, doesn't take away from what Luther did. The majority of Methodist churches are also liberal...but I don't blame Wesley for that! If Calvary becomes liberal in 400 years (which will probably be the case), I wouldn't hold that against Chuck Smith.
It's unfair to view Calvin and Luther through our 21st century lenses. Church states....the execution of heretics? We can't even begin to relate to that in America. God can though!!
Remember the nation of Israel? They were a church state (a theocracy). What did they do when they defeated a nation? They slaughtered men, women,and even little innocent children! Who commanded them to do this? God did. This makes John Calvin (who never actually killed anyone but simply declared a heretic a heretic) look a little better doesn't it?
It is important to be able to put these men into their proper "historical context". Luther and Calvin weren't perfect but neither are we. Neither was King David, neither was Moses, etc, etc. I would give up everything that I have to be even in the ballpark of Luther and Calvin (in terms of devotion, boldness, and dedication to the gospel). Perhaps, Dave Hunt should write a new book about the God of the Hebrews and how they killed thousands of people by fire and the sword. He could call it, "What Love is This?" Kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it?
Hopefully, that all makes sense. I am currently hanging out in alot of Southern Baptist circles...talk about traditions!!!! This post was not meant as a slam on Calvary. It's a slam on tradition. Calvary has their traditions just like the Southern Baptists do.
May the Lord bless you today. Keep being a good Berean!!!
By the way, I learned how to be a Berean from Dave Hunt and Chuck Missler! They are a little wacky at times, but God bless them!
Just so you know, Interpretation deals with the actually "meaning" of a text. If we are to see "church ages" as the meaning of Rev. 2-3, then that would fall under that general category.
Application would be how we would then view church history in light of it's meaning. Or in my view (which is the majority view all throughout 2000 years of church history) the application would be how we, as contempory churches, can avoid the pitfalls of the rebukes found in Revelation. I could also look at church history and "apply" these rebukes and praises to particular movements or individual churches (though, I dont' recommend it).
If that is all someone does then I don't have much of a problem with it. But when you say that it was God's and John's intention that we see Rev. 2-3 as describing different points in church history, then I object. If it doesn't say that...then it doesn't mean that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark Le-Pard, you big dope! Why didn't you tell me that it was you. You're a Frenchman, not a Hispanic. If I would have known that it was you, I wouldn't have been so polite.
Aorist--That's a fancy word to be using. I hope you're not turning into one of those "elitists" who learn the Greek and stuff. Those guys can't be trusted. Just ask Dave Hunt. Everytime that he tries to get smart and use the Greek, he gets himself corrected by the Greek Scholars---then he yells, "You are an elitist!!!" It's rather comical at times.
Yes, the 7 literal churches were "on-going and continuous" even after John wrote that. There is nothing in the grammar of the passage that would make it futuristic in the sense that you are trying to make it.
What's a scholar? Dave Hunt and Chuck Smith are not scholars. Scholars typically are more careful to be accurate. A good, conservative scholar will look at a text and not go beyond it's plain meaning.
I'm trying to be nice here, but it needs to be said. Scholars don't say things like, "the world will end at least by 1988." They don't say, "Y2K could possibly usher in the One World Government and the Anti-Christ." They don't use the New World Translation to try and prove a Calvinist wrong on a text of scripture. They don' run around the country and accuse a sitting President of murdering hundreds of people. I'm sorry, but there is a credibility factor there.
When I say that this is Calvary's view, I mean Chuck Smith. He has been heavily influenced by the likes of Hunt, Missler, and Lindsey. When Chuck believes something then he is the official Pope in Calvary--you and I both know the reality of that. No one disputes with Chuck, or you can get banished from Calvary. That's a fact. Whether it's the issue of the Rapture of the Church or Eternal Security, it's Chuck's way or the highway.
Again, I'm not trying to bash Calvary. The SBC is a weird monster of it's own--different kinds of problems....many more issues than Calvary. But this notion (claimed by most Calvary Pastors) that Calvary is this utopia of balance and that they are always true to the scriptures (or that they are the ONLY movement really reaching people--which Brian B. once claimed)is prideful and flat-out false.
My contention is still the same--if you can't show me in the text where it states or imlies that they were representing church ages then I can't go beyond what it actually states.
I'll be posting more on Revelation later on. Thanks for the posts.
Both entertaining and informative! Thanks, Guys!
Bert
Great conversation guys! Being a former Calvaryite myself, I tend to agree with Shane.
One quick note, Brian Broderson's comment was only "letting the cat out of the bag" so to speak. That was the sentiment I felt when I attended CCBC in Murrieta. It was the sentiment I gathered from my friends at the school as well. It wasn't until I met some very cautious (they kept their MANY disagreements with Calvary Chapel on the "down-low")staff members at a local Calvary Chapel that I became doubtful of my own attitude.
There are certain things I love about Calvary Chapel such as their devotion to God's Word, verse-by-verse teaching (although it's not always expository...it's still God's Word that's being read), and their heart for the lost (although their philosophy of missions is very suspect).
That being said, I think Calvary Chapel needs to pull the foot back on the prophecy pedal and take the parking brake off "tulip" because burning rubber is only creating a smoke screen for it's lack of direction...(maybe that's a bit harsh). Honestly though, Calvinism is not the problem and speculative prophecy is not the answer.
Those are some good points Marcos. I agree that Hyper-Calvinism is a dangerous, joyless, and God-dishonoring position to hold. When evangelism is no longer a priority, there is a serious problem. Just as you defended Calvary Chapel against Shane's terming them as "hyper dispensationalist" I would defend MOST Calvinists against the problematic views of hyper-calvinists.
Spurgeon wrote a book called "The Soul-Winner" and has countless sermons on urging the lost to repent and believe. He is also often mentioned as calling Calvinism "another word for the gospel". Spurgeon was neither joyless nor hyper in his theology.
I can accept your reasoning for Calvary Chapel's view of Calvinism however inaccurate it is. It's not until I actually read the reformers that I realized my hesitation was completely unwarranted. Calvary Chapel considers Calvinism borderline cultish (I've spoken and listened to CC pastor's who confirm this attitude). I'm sure you have a slightly more accepting view considering you are even willing to discuss the issue. My suggestion would be to read the reformers themselves rather than simply looking at poor examples of contemporary reformers.
I think that there is an unhealthy attitude in many churches today concerning theology and doctrinal discussions.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is not an openness in theological discussions in most churches. In my church tonight, we studied Election from Ephesians chapter one. Our pastor didn't try to explain away the scriptures or avoid it. He tackled it head-on and admitted that he couldn't entirely wrap his mind around it. But he did allow the text to speak for itself, without trying to pretend like it wasn't there. Clark Van Wick taught on the subject much in the same way at my church in California. Some even accused him of being a Calvinist. I think that he was just allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves.
The bad fruit of Calvinism, that we saw at the Bible College, was actually a failure on the colleges part. Bringing in Dave Hunt and George Bryson to try and convince the kids of the evils of Calvinism was the wrong tactic. Christians need to start thinking for themselves. Both of them are incredibly imbalanced in their views on it and did nothing to help the students see what the real issues are.
Hunt started out his lecture by comparing John Calvin to Osama Bin Laden. Bad way to start Dave! Bryson, who is somewhat more careful, ended up arguing from a Pelagian standpoint. He denied Total Depravity, as understood historically, and then preceded to argue for man's ability to love and accept God by their own "natural" free-will.
That kind of environment doesn't produce healthy discussion on the topic. It only breeds fear, ignorance, and bitterness.
In seminary, I got to study the topic in it's historical context and actually looked at the BEST that both sides had to offer on it. We had Calvinists and Arminians in the classroom--we freely discussed it without any fear of getting kicked out or getting demonized. I learned more there, in one semester, than I did in ten years at Calvary Chapel (on this particular subject).
It's all about narrowing down the controversy to its roots, setting parameters (so you don't end up being a hyper-Calvnist or Pelagianist), and some good old-fashioned humility. We cannot always wrap our minds around every mystery or deep teaching in scripture--but it's a blessing to try.
Given the interest in the subject and because my church is currently going through this, I'll have to post on this subject soon.
Get your Bibles ready and your thinkin caps on. Please feel free to post and interact with some of the points.
Marcos,
I thought you might say you have and do read the reformers. In doing so, you should know very well that the immature students at the CCBC with "higher knowledge" are misrepresenting the truth. CC's view of Calvinism is very much how you represented it.
That's the problem. They aren't arguing with Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon or even the contemporary James White. They are arguing their view with liberal representations (bad churches) and immature believers masquerading in the name of these individuals.
But you're right...we've gone on a tangent. With regards to Rev. 2 & 3, the argument is whether or not we should read the passage eisegetically or exegetically. I think Shane represented the exegetical interpretation very well. I completely agree with him.
Post a Comment
<< Home