The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia

Kim Riddlebarger and Tim LaHaye

What do they have in common?

This is just an off the cuff post, so I haven't really taken the time to work through all of the arguments. These are just thoughts floating randomly in my head. But it seems a common thread between both Kim Riddlebarger, arch-Reformed guy, defender of amillenialism and paedobaptist and the far kookier Tim Lahaye, he of the Dispensational, free-will theology mindset, is the way they misrepresent the covenant promises to Israel.

Riddlebarger and other paedobaptists err by assuming that the mode and recipient of the sign of the Old Covenant model in ethnic Israel must continue on into the New Covenant administration. It seems to me that there is an odd discontinuity that is forced into relationship between the rejecting of the Dispensational hermeneutic but the continued embrace of the paedobaptist hermeneutic for church membership. Riddlebarger gets Israel right on eschatology, but misses badly on the Old vs. New Covenant administration.

LaHaye and other Dispensationalists err by assuming that all of the Old Covenant promises to ethnic, national Israel will be fulfilled without modification by the New Covenant. Clearly not all Jews are of Israel (Romans 9:4-8), and those who are of faith are the heirs of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). But when Dispensationalism morphs into a two track salvation, restoration of temple sacrifice in a rebuilt physical temples, inheritance of the land, etc. it loses it way. There is a dangerous overemphasis on ethnic Israel to the detriment of the Scriptural record and Jewish evangelism.

It is my contention that only an amillenial (or perhaps post or historical pre) Baptistic view is consistent in hermeneutic and jives with the Biblical record with a continued but different and improved covenant promise. I know this is an oversimplification, but hey it's my blog.

Just something I was musing about this evening.