The Inadequacy of Labels
You know how much I absolutely love discussing theology. Even more so, I love teaching it. Even more so, I love learning theology. I really am blessed to be called by God to devote my life to studying and teaching His Word! And after more than twenty years of ministry I am still being transformed by and reformed to His Truth. I am often humbled as I open the sacred Scriptures and find myself in a fresh season of learning something new about our Lord. And when I get opportunity I try to preach and teach and write from an overflow of joy that has poured into my heart from the Spirit.
I try my best, against the limitations of my humanity and the failings of my own flesh, to effectively communicate that which I have come to understand by the Spirit's power. I long to share what I see in Scripture; and to guide others in exploring God's Word for themselves. Much of the time, I have felt gifted in teaching others. It is definitely a gift and not a skill since the subject matter is spiritual.
Nevertheless, I cannot begin to tell you how often my blog readers ask me, "Okay Jason, what do you believe? Are you Postmillennarian? Are you Amillennarian? Just tell us and be done with it."
Well, the truth is I have found labels to be inadequate. Sure, in the past I have used them to define my theological positions. Labels seem to be a short-hand way of describing one's beliefs. Even more, they seem to be a way of letting people know what you don't believe.
For example, I am baptist. What does that tell you? Well the only thing it really tells you is that I don't baptize infants.
I am also a Calvinist. What does that mean? Do I believe in double-predestination? Do I believe God creates certain people to go to Hell no matter what? Really the label Calvinist only tells you that I believe that people are saved by God's sovereign grace rather than by works.
So what about my view of eschatology? Everyone who reads my blog knows that I, like most baptist, was trained in various schools of premillennial thought. I studied Dispensationalism and rejected it, yet I was never really taught anything other Premillennial theology.
A time came in my life that, while studying church history, doing a thorough exegesis of John's Gospel, studying the dating of the Book of Revelation (specifically preterism), and studying the history of Calvinism, I discovered Covenant Theology. My life was radically reformed. My theology became consistently biblical in every aspect: my soteriology became fully comprehensive, my ecclessiology became rooted in the entirety of Scripture rather than just the New Testament, and my Theology Proper, even Trinitarianism, truly took its rightful place of preeminence above all things.
The question still remains: what label best describes my eschatology? I am definitely Covenant and Reformed and Baptist and Calvinist. But am I Amillennarian or Postmillennarian?
Sadly, I find those two labels have been distorted by various factions so much that they each have become inadequate when standing alone. Like trying to define Premillennialism, these two reformed perspectives of eschatology just can't be easily defined anymore because they have been revised and corrected and matured over the years.
I know what I believe the Bible teaches about the end times. And what I believe isn't new, nor does it stand alone apart from these two. In other words, I haven't discovered some new system of end-time theology that no one else has ever understood. Not at all. My eschatology is actually very historical and orthodox. I believe what most orthodox Christians have believe throughout church history.
But here is the problem with labels:
I am postmillennarian when it comes to the nature of the kingdom. But I am amillennarian when it comes to the start of the kingdom and its length. I am postmillennarian when it comes understanding that Jesus will return at the end of the "millennium." But I am amillennarian when it comes to understanding that the "millennium" is not actually a literal thousand years but is the biblical description of the New Covenant ministry of the Church in which we live. I am postmillennarian when it comes to understanding that the Bible is the sole source of human ethics, which is also known as theonomy. But I am amillennarian when it comes to fact that I do not believe that there will be some future "Golden Age" where this cursed world will someday operate according to Biblical law and be filled with a universal development of Biblical theocratic republics where unbelievers will be punished by death. Simply put, in the Covenantal sense I am generally postmillennial, with a historical amillennarian perspective of the starting point, nature and length of the "millennium," and convinced of an early dating of Revelation.
Don't misunderstand me: As you can tell, I know exactly what I believe, and I have based my beliefs on the Bible itself and affirmed them by centuries of theologians smarter than I. I am not confused; it is the labels that are confusing. I am not bouncing back and forth on my view of eschatology based on the latest best-sellers or conference speakers. I am firmly confident in my beliefs, convinced by Scripture and plain reason. But I am frustrated with the inadequacy of labels, for their constantly changing definitions makes it difficult to effectively communicate my convictions. I know that I am not alone in my frustrations! Such is the theological quagmire of our generation.
I simply take the Bible for what is actually says at face value.
I believe God made promises in the Old Testament and kept them in the New Testament.
I believe Jesus came, died, rose again, and ascended to the throne as God had planned.
I believe that Jesus ministers to this world through is spiritual body the Church, spreading the gospel to all the nations of the earth.
And one day Jesus will return again to judge the living and the dead, and then He will remove the curse of sin from the world, and His redeemed shall inherit it forever in a glorified existence.
So am I just a biblicist? (Ha, I had to throw that in!) Why don't you tell me what label you think I should use? And maybe later I will tell you what I actually call myself...
...that is if "they" (whomever they are) quit messing with the meaning of the labels!
So, till then, preach Jesus!
Posts
20 Spoke Up:
I'll just wait to see what you call yourself, and then that's what I'll call myself. ;)
Theonomy? Really?
That's surprising.
Jason,
Covenant Theology is certainly correct, but you might want to stay away from overstatements like, "My theology became consistently biblical in every aspect." I too believe that CT is the most biblically consistent expression of what the Bible teaches, but that does not mean that my own grasp of theology is now biblically consistent in 'every' aspect. Even the Reformed tradition proves that later generations grasp certain doctrines in a fuller biblical significance than earlier generations. An example of this might be found in Herman Ridderbos's "The Coming of the Kingdom". He certainly has a fuller sense of eschatology and the 'two-age' (or 'already - not yet') understanding of the post-resurrection era than did some of the earlier writers in the Reformed tradition. I am not saying that he overturns the earlier understanding of men like Witsius, Calvin, or Owen, but he does demonstrate a more profound and biblically nuanced grasp of the doctrine of eschatology. Of course I think the seeds of this understanding were certainly present in the previous generations. Anyhow, you should account for the organic principle of doctrinal understanding that is latent in the Reformed tradition, which believes that future generations may well have a firmer grasp on certain doctrines than we presently do. Again, I am not arguing that the earlier generations of Reformed theologians were wrong; it's simply that no generation will be biblically consistent in 'every' respect. Kind regards.
jason,
sounds good. it's always good when we become consistently biblical in every respect to the extent we understand and agree with what we are thinking.
it keeps us from becoming double minded and unstable in all our ways. that's the problem with so many these days. they are in conflict with themselves and use bad terms to try and express that conflict.
for example, what is already-not yet supposed to mean? sounds like a woman that is almost pregnant.
anyway, enjoyed your post and agree with it to the the extent I understand and agree with what you are saying.
Rabbi Mad Cow
Jason,
I bet you're a "blogger" aren't you?
;)
Mark
dubsy, Why is my being "theonomic" in my theology surprising? Is it the "label?" What do you think it means?
tms alum, I specifically used the word "consistent" and stand by it. I believe that it is God' will that every Christian be consistent in their theology, and the perspicuity of Scripture makes that possible. Notice I did not say "perfect in my theology," because I don't think that is possible due to our finiteness.
jason,
maybe dubsy has a different ethical standard in mind than that of Scripture alone. be interesting to see what it is.
Rabbi Mad Cow/aka D. Crane
Jason,
My critique was not in regard to your use of the term 'consistent', but to the suggestion that you are now consistent in "every aspect" of theology. I was only suggesting you you consider a more moderate way of expressing the consistency you have found in CT and the Reformed tradition. I suspect that I would agree with you re. the consistency found in CT. I agree that it brings a biblical coherence to theology not found in other traditions. My concern is that by using the maximal expression, "every aspect", you might be unnecessarily put-offish to those who need to hear the good points you are making (e.g., many within dispensational circles). Anyhow, I appreciate your blog.
In response to Rabbi Mad Cow, you might make reference to the volume by Ridderbos that I mentioned before you disparage the use of the 'already-not' terminology. 'Already-not yet' is simply a short-hand way of describing the two-age historical outlook of the NT writers. This expression has at least a 40 year pedigree (see, for example, the discussion in G. E. Ladd's NT Theology volume). The fact that its theological use is new or strange to you might betray a lack of relevant reading on your part. If you agree with Jason then you might actually enjoy reading Vos (esp. "The Pauline Eschatology"), Ridderbos ("When the Time had Fully Come", "Paul: An Outline of his Theology", and "The Coming of the Kingdom"), Gaffin ("By Faith, Not by Sight"), and Ladd's discussion.
Let's not be so cynical about theological short-hand; every discipline requires that we adequately define our terms. Just because the meaning of a term is not readily apparent does not mean the term is nonsensical.
Let me guess, you believe Jesus is coming back! You know what? I DO TOO!!!
*high-fives her brother*
I stick with calling myself a Huguenot. It confuses people and they stop asking questions.
Then they start to worry when they finally get around to going to Wikipedia
flip-flopper!
Ah yes, ye ol' labels. They sure don't paint an accurate picture do they?
Well, you can never go wrong with the words of C.H. Spurgeon. (seems like everyone quotes him these days) Here is his creedal label given during the first sermon preached from the Metropolitan Tabernacle pulpit.
"I AM NEVER ASHAMED TO AVOW MYSELF A CALVINIST; I DO NOT HESITATE TO TAKE THE NAME OF BAPTIST; BUT IF I AM ASKED WHAT IS MY CREED, I REPLY — "IT IS JESUS CHRIST."
MY VENERATED PREDECESSOR, DR. GILL, HAS LEFT A BODY OF DIVINITY, ADMIRABLE AND EXCELLENT IN ITS WAY; BUT THE BODY OF DIVINITY TO WHICH I WOULD PIN & BIND MYSELF FOR EVER, GOD HELPING ME, IS NOT HIS SYSTEM, OR ANY OTHER HUMAN TREATISE; BUT JESUS CHRIST, WHO IS THE SUM & SUBSTANCE OF THE GOSPEL, WHO IS IN HIMSELF ALL THEOLOGY, THE INCARNATION OF EVERY PRECIOUS TRUTH, THE ALL-GLORIOUS PERSONAL EMBODIMENT OF THE WAY, THE TRUTH, & THE LIFE.
at running the risk of inflaming mr tms alumni guy (who BTW needs to take a knot out of his bun), I have been at this for nearly 40 years and know all about those referent readings.
the fact is no matter how many times something is poorly stated or improperly termed does not help make it clear or sensible.
I agree with tms that the terms we use should adequately express our meanings.
I disagree that "already-not yet" accomplishes the goal of conveying eschatological clarity. moreover, if we are going to employ short-hand, we need to make sure it does not short circuit (those of us with mad cow are especially prone to such occurrences)
that said, I suggest that "already and becoming" is a far better way to convey something fully exists, yet has not achieved full expression.
heard it here first.
RMC/DC
lee, AMEN!
Mad Cow, 40 years! Those steaks won't be tender!
D. Crane,
I think you might have made the very point at which I was aiming. Simply put, further biblical/theological reflection may enable our theology to become more biblically consistent than it already is. I was objecting to Jason's description of his own theology as now biblically consistent in "every aspect", demonstrating that in some aspects (such as eschatology) even the Reformed tradition has developed a more finely tuned biblical consistency through the centuries. Your innovative (though certainly problematic) formulation of 'already and becoming' demonstrates that you agree with my point that we can be more biblically consistent in some aspects than we now are.
I am satisfied that Jason did not intend his statements as meaning that he has attained absolute biblical consistency in every area of doctrine (though I think he still should find a more moderate way to express the wonderful consistency he has found in CT).
As an aside (and somewhat off the main topic of this thread), RMC, I wonder in what sense the 'not yet' reality of bodily resurrection ("the redemption of our bodies" in Rom. 8:23) is better explained by the 'becoming' side of your formulation of 'already and becoming'? Are we 'becoming' bodily resurrected? In this crucial doctrine of resurrection it would seem that the 'already-not yet' formulation is the more biblically sound and helpful way to understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. But of course, as you say, you know all about that
;-)
tms alum,
let me be as succinct as possible (taking into consideration my mad cow affliction of course):)
1) biblical reflection should have the effect of enabling us to become more consistent.
2)jason's reflections have brought him to a place of being consistent in every aspect of that which he currently understands. his comment is relative to his personal journey thus far. one would hardly expect him to say his journey has led him to a place wherein he is inconsistent.
3)please explain what your comments "innovative" and "though certainly problematic" mean relative to the existence of the kingdom (which, by the way, was the discussion at hand).
my position is simply that the kingdom is here now and becoming what it shall be. hence, relative to kingdom presence, i use the term "now and becoming."
since i see no biblical warrant substantiating that the kingdom is not yet, i look forward to your explanation, especially if you are non-dispensational.
that said, should you provide a compelling textual argument, i have no problem moderating my position if such biblical warrant exists to do so. in other words, a book, chapter, and verse argument will suffice. no need to quote anybody.
4) relative to your aside, it is completely.
in Christ and in good christian charity and fun,
most venerable and illustrious Pastor and Rabbi Mad Cow
Already/not yet (admittedly a clumsy and uninspiring phrase) refers to more than just the Kingdom. But this might be a better way of saying it:
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
It can be seen as a weak will and understanding (and a weak valuation for the more surprising statements in the Word of God regarding the status of regenerated believers) to not be now (the already) what will be only fully realized at glorification (the not yet). In a real sense we are there now. As the Eph. verse states above.
Vos is a better source (and really the fount for this) because he puts it in terms that are vertical and now, like the Eph. verse.
The older guys (the great Reformed theologians of old) got at the subject from different angles, but it's there.
Jason,
Funny you should write about this. As you know, I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on Eschatology, and all this studying is really making my head hurt!
I guess maybe its like you said, "the labels just seem to tell everyone what you DON'T think.
I also admit that I wish I could take the "easy" route and just say, "Jesus is coming back, just be ready," and stop all this "end times" study so that I can get back to having normal brain function again.
Jason: I'm looking at an entry I made in a notebook in 1977 or thereabouts. It's a list of all the labels I could find that described the various Christian boxes I could be sorted into, and by the time you hit about the twentieth adjective or so, your eyes cross and the thing starts to look like theological DNA.
Problem is that if I had twenty-six in common with a brother and one different, that's the one he'd focus on. It's as though we could trade litmus tests to judge each other's faith. "Conservative: check. Reformed: check. Post-trib: that's a little suspect. Credobaptist: check. Recent literal creationist: very good. Oops, cessationist: heretic! Why do you quench the Holy Spirit?"
Come on, admit it - it's happened to you too.
Another thing is how labels can shift over time. When I first became a Christian. "Evangelical" meant that meant sound teaching, firm doctrine, and a worldview that informed our interaction with the culture in a specific way; now it's so watered down that it's applied to Joel Osteen and Brian McLaren. "Southern Baptist" was once a reliable indicator for churches to make the short list when I moved to a new town; today, not so much. And don't even get me started on how "Fundamentalist" evolved from its original meaning since the days of J. Gresham Machen.
Fifty years from now, I wonder if "Reformed" and "Covenant" will have suffered the same fate; I hope they're still indicators of faithful belief. Of course, fifty years from now, the return of Christ may have taken place, that day I trust we all agree we long for. I'll admit that if I'm proved wrong about that post-trib label, I WON'T be asking to be sent back to Earth to take my lumps.
- Keith
Nit pickers and hair splitters have one thing in common, myopia. Nits are lice and hair is every where and my wife didn't think it kind when I told her she had crabs when the kid brought home the new pets. After shaving four heads mine alone was exempted from being circumcized. If I scrutinized the subject closely I would say that nit picking is far easier than hair splitting, and by far shaving others heads to avoid both is a breeze. Still, I wouldn't have been in trouble if I hadn't used that one less flattering label.
Post a Comment