Here’s the paper that I presented at the 2d Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics that concluded yesterday.
The Law, the New Covenant, and the Christian: Studies in Hebrews 7–10
Here’s the paper that I presented at the 2d Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics that concluded yesterday.
The Law, the New Covenant, and the Christian: Studies in Hebrews 7–10
[...] HT: Rod Decker [...]
In his paper just recently delivered to the Council of Dispensational Hermeneutics Dr Rodney Decker said that it is not “possible to divorce Christians from ’some’ relationship to the new covenant so described.” Since Dr. Decker describes this new covenant as the one promised to the nation of Israel then we must conclude that Christian’s have a relationship to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31.
That completely contradicts the foundational teaching of traditional dispensationalism. Lewis Sperry Chafer understood that the Body of Christ represents a “intercalation” which has neither a direct nor an indirect relationship to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follow it. In other words, the Body of Christ has neither a direct relationship nor an indirect relationship to Israel’s New Covenant.
According to Dr. Decker there cannot be an intercalation since those in the Body of Christ do have a relationship with the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31. His position supports the teaching of the Progressive Dispensationalists who also deny the teaching of Chafer in regard to the Church intercalation.
Dr. Decker fails to see that the New Diatheke promised to the nation of Israel is but a “type” and the “antitype” is the New Diatheke which is in force at the present time.
In His grace,
Jerry
This is an interesting response indeed. And probably one quite baffling to most people. What Mr. Shugart does not acknowledge is that he is not a “traditional dispensationalist” himself, but a “hyper-dispensationalist” who believes that the church did not begin
until Acts 15in Acts 2 (which is clear from his own papers on his web site).* It is a bit disingenuous to claim the high ground of a “traditional” position that he himself does not hold, especially when he clams to be defending the position of Chafer (who conveniently agrees with him on one point, but who would otherwise reject the “hyper-D” position).The argument offered is also invalid. It *assumes* a particular theological position and then judges anyone’s exegesis of the text to be invalid since it disagrees with that position. System driven answers to such questions are nearly always invalid. The text determines the system, not vice versa. *All* the objections voiced by Mr. Shugart are at the system level; there is not one item listed that is exegetical or text-based.
The majority of traditional dispensationalists these days would concur that the church has some relationship to the new covenant, though there are a couple of ways to express that relationship. There is a smaller group which defends a position which endeavors to divorce the church from the new covenant–again with several variations as to how to do that. There is also a very tiny minority who still cling to Chafer’s explanation that there are *two* new covenants–but interestingly, we could not find a traditional dispensational scholar to present that position at the Council. (What the range of explanations is in hyper-dispensational circles, I don’t know. I’d be surprised if many of them accepted a “typological” explanation.) To assert that my view is a “progressive dispensational” view is ridiculous. It is probably the majority opinion among traditional dispensationalists these days and likely has been for more than a quarter century.
Clarification (added 9/27, after deleting the post below):
*Mr. Shugart apparently prefers the label “mid-Acts dispensationalist.” My impression from his (rambling) pages was that he identified the beginning of the church at Acts 15. He accuses me (in an email) of not getting my facts straight. I don’t have time to sift through all his pages to find the exact chapter he prefers; my impression was ch. 15. He does say very clearly things like this:
Removed by the blog owner.
This blog is not an attack forum. I will not engage Mr. Shugart here, especially since he has spent the past few months mailing letters to as many Council members as he could find as well as administrators of schools where we teach, never identifying himself as a “mid-Acts dispensationalist.” (He does not like the “hyper-d” or “ultra-d” labels–but I did not invent them; they have a technical definition.) “Progressive dispensationalism” also has a technical definition, but Mr. Shugart does not employ that in his accusations. End of discussion.