Defending Theologians

Of course not all theologians can be defended because some are full of quackery. However, some very godly theologians have come under fire from people that do not like their eschatological stance. I recently watched a Youtube video where an individual launched an assault on "theologians" (used pejoratively) because they do not dote on the nation of Israel the way he does. The verbal assault on these godly theologians, who were negatively and wrongly labeled as "replacement theologians," seemed to stem from this fellows passion for the nation of Israel. Well, actually, he kept repeating over and over how his authority is from the Bible. In fact that was his only defense. He kept asserting that "man," more specifically, "theologians" are not his authority. God's promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel no matter what any "theologian" says. We get it folks. We grant you beforehand that the Bible is your authority. We don't doubt that you think all your doctrinal positions come from the very Word of God! We ask that you grant us that same understanding. After all it was the Reformers, who were Covenant Theologians, that coined the phrase "Sola Scriptura" which is now being denied us by these Dispensational brothers.

Simply asserting that these "theologians" did not believe that Bible to be their final authority is not only laughable but it borders on outright slander. These men have spent large or even a majority of their lives proclaiming the Gospel of Christ and preaching, teaching and defending the Word of God. You owe your very freedom from the bondage to Rome -which includes your right to read the Holy Writ for yourself- to these men that God raised up to boldly proclaim the glorious life giving Gospel of the law keeping life, substitutionary death and sin & death defeating resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ! The very fact that you can now shout " My authority is the Bible not man" comes from these faithful men of God. Your arrogant claim of believing the Bible and not man, while you charge them and us with following men, should be turned into a praise of God and humble respect for these men. After all, without the Lord using them, you would still be listening to the Bible quoted in Latin and told what to believe.

Now I understand that you may have some disagreements with them over Israel and the Church and the Kingdom. That's fine. We can disagree but charging Covenant Theologians with not taking the Bible seriously and as our final authority is silly. Just silly! You can scream until you're blue in the face, emphatically, dogmatically and passionately that the Bible is your authority, while ours is from man. But at the end of the day, it is just an erroneous assertion. We too can turn around and launch the same vitriol. But that isn't fair nor is it the brotherly thing to do and it certainly doesn't help promote the conversation does it? I remind you that we go into the conversation believing you hold faithful to Sola Scriptura. That should not be the issue. The issue is a matter of hermeneutics and exegesis. Prove that these "theologians" are not teaching the Word of God while you're ultra biblicism is correct.  This, or course, is going to require you to deal with passages of Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments. Simply going on a tirade about how "my authority is the Bible and not man" will not suffice. Nor will plain assertions like "if God made promises to Israel then they must be fulfilled with Israel" (and then a simple quotation from Genesis 15) work. Explain what are these promises and how do the New Testament authors understand and explain these promises (Galatians and Romans)? These so called "Replacement Theologians" have written whole books and systematic theologies explaining and dealing with the passages of Scripture that pertain to these issues. Yet you claim that they somehow are less biblical than you simply because they just didn't quote Scripture (you don't either) and say nothing else. It is ironic that the tirades against Covenant Theology often lack interacting with the exegesis of these men. All I'm hearing is assertions from a large portion of Dispensationalists (there are some Dispensational brothers that aren't this silly in the discussion). We understand what your conclusions are but demonstrate for us how you got there. We want to see a hermeneutic that accounts for all of Scripture, not just some pockets that mention Israel. And we want to see a consistent hermeneutic, too. These "theologians" you attack have clearly showed us their conclusions and how they came to them. If only you will take the time to read them.

Now what is also ironic about the this accusation is that is it meant for "replacement theologians" however it also includes a verbal assault on their fellow Premillennialists! Historic Premillennialists are covenantal (or at least tend to be). These Dispensationalists love to fly under the banner of Premillennialism and use some of the early church fathers to show their position can be traced to the earliest parts of Church history after the New Testament era. But these premillennial church fathers reject the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church and a "pretribulational rapture." They do not make the mistake of thinking that "Kiss the Son Lest he be angry" (Psalm 2:12) to mean "Kiss the nation of Israel lest he be angry." They are not Zionists and have some strong and critical words for what is known today as Dispensationalism. And I have tremendous amount of respect for Historic Premillennialists. Although I have my disagreements with their view of the Kingdom, I can still learn from someone like George Eldon Ladd and even recommend a YouTube channel from a good, solid, Historic Premillennal, brother (he does a fantastic job of dealing with Atheism) found here (or theocratickingdom30).  This kind of Premillennialism is not to be mistaken for the Dispensational Premillennialism. The latter may want lead you to the idea that the former is on their side but that is playing loose with the facts. Nothing could be further from the truth, just read George Ladds book The Blessed Hope. Thus, to say that when any Christian doesn't hold to your love affair with the nation of Israel- they way you do -does not have the Bible as their authority but man's, is sheer arrogance and to attack the history of the church, at least up until the eighteen hundreds.

I will stick with the likes of Ursinus, Witsius, Owen, Bavinck, Vos, Berkhof e.t.c. over anyone that shouts "my authority is the Bible!" while failing to demonstrate that it is and even coming up with some strange teachings concerning the people of God and the Kingdom of God. At least those men stood upon the Word of God by rightly handling it.

If you can't bring anything substantial, like oh say, an exegesis of passages that deal with the covenants from both the Old and New Testaments, then I suggest your claim to "my authority is the Bible and not man" rings a bit hollow and you should look for someone else to slander that really is liberal and does not have the Holy Writ as their ultimate authority. Always remember that: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Pr 18:17). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando