Theological Liberalism has left many mainline churches dead. Many Christians, who believe that the Bible is literally true, desire to hear conservative voices. However, Dave Hunt, in my opinion, is a man filling a void that he simply isn’t intellectually qualified for. He has debated a wide variety of religious groups. He speaks for many conservative Evangelicals. Yet after listening to him speak several times, I simply do not think he is able to be consistent in his logic and argumentation, nor is he able to do simple exegesis of the Biblical text.
In his second article, he is attempting to write a “sharp rebuke to those such as Hank Hanegraaff, D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, et al., who teach that the church has replaced Israel.” Yet his article is full of logical flaws.
He starts his article against cultic groups such Armstrong’s, who “persist in the ridiculous theory that the ‘Ten Lost Tribes’ of Israel migrated to the British Isles and that therefore all those of British descent are the true Jews today.” What this has to do with anything is beyond me. Having read and listened to him debate, he loves to use the scattergun approach and the “poisoning the well” technique. By even mentioning these cultic groups, anyone who would even dare to think the church has replaced Israel must be a wacko…right?
He then proceeds to quote many Old Testament texts. For instance he says:
The One whom the Bible 203 times calls “the God of Israel” has sworn by an everlasting covenant that Israel (three times called the “apple” of His eye–Dt 32:10; Lam 3:18; Zec 2:8) will never cease to exist as a nation: “Therefore fear thou not...O Israel...though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I...will not leave thee altogether unpunished” (Jer 30:10,11). “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city [Jerusalem] shall be built...it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever” (Jer 31:38-40).”
Now this may seem impressive to the crowd that already agrees with him. Hunt however, never addresses the other side’s view.
First, I wholeheartedly agree that Israel will never pass away. The assumption by Hunt is never defended. I do not believe Hunt even knows he has assumptions. Perhaps if he took the time to understand his opponent’s viewpoint, he might learn something. Over the years I have come to believe he is simply not capable of understanding or receiving correction when he has been demonstrated beyond doubt to be wrong.
His assumption is quite simple. His interpretation method is to start with the Old Testament and then interpret the New Testament. Therefore, anytime the term Israel is used, for Hunt, it must mean National Israel under the Mosaic Covenant. The New Testament refutes such a methodology. Even if Hunt’s view is accepted though, he still misunderstands the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace as opposed to the Covenant of works made with Moses on Sinai.
Second, Paul explains with the greatest of clarity in Romans 8 and 9 that not all who are Israel are Israel. Therefore God’s promise of Grace established in the Abrahamic Covenant have never failed for His elect. In other words, the true Israel of God have never been those who were born physically of Abraham, but born again spiritually and believe in the Covenant of Grace.
Third, the Church replacing Israel is really a misnomer. Israel has never been replaced but redefined or even expanded. The National Israel of the Old Testament was but a shadow of the substance to come. Christ is Himself the true Israel of God. Since Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who are joined to Him by faith whether Jew or Gentile are the Israel of God.
The Church is the body of Christ. It is the New Nation that Christ established. Hunt never mentions 1 Peter 2:9.
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
Was Peter mistaken here? Was Peter saying that the Church replaced Israel? No! He was teaching that all believers in Christ are Israel. Therefore the New Testament should be our guide as to what the Old Testament means.
The fact that Hunt spends two full pages of writing proving nothing, should explain to us that the power of Traditions might be overwhelming and even downright blinding. Hunt has considered those who differ from him in eschatology to at times be in heresy. All the while he has shown no ability to deal with the Biblical text, nor does he have the ability to use logic or sound argumentation.
So far in reading his materials, the only reason I see people supporting his ministry is that he affirms what many already believe in a time when theological liberalism has wreaked havoc among American Evangelicals.
5 comments:
I don't quite follow how one's belief about this impacts one's Christianity, unless, of course, one goes on to assert that the Jewish people don't need Christ--which would contradict explicit scriptural and apostolic teaching regarding living under God's Covenant.
Regardless, it is fitting that we remember that we are *grafted* on to the vine... and that the teaching of our grafting was delivered with a warning.
May God bless you and all that you do in Christ.
Humbly,
--Theo
------
Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart! God is the source and fountain: the very wellspring of a river of grace, ever pouring out, free to all though more precious than gold. You may take it or reject it. I pray you come to the water. Jesus shall slake your thirst.
"I don't quite follow how one's belief about this impacts one's Christianity..."
All ideas have consequences. I probably should go more in depth into why this is so, but my main point was how men such as Hunt are able to rise to positions of authority that they don't truly deserve. Have you ever listened to him debate a Roman Catholic?
"unless, of course, one goes on to assert that the Jewish people don't need Christ"
Although this is quite often an unintended conclusion, some have said exactly that. Most of the time however that conclusion is modified to include faith in Christ as necessary at some point.
Again, read his article and see his argumentation. He actually would rather align men such as Sproul with cultists, while acting as if his position is the only belief ever held by Christians.
Eschatology is important. It is not life and death, but important just the same.
your link to Mr. Hunt's article, I see your point much beter.
Pax,
--Theo
That should have bben,
"After following your link to Mr. Hunt's article, I see your point much beter."
Sorry 'bout that.
--Theo
I read what you meant.
:-)
Post a Comment