The Narnia 3 Blog

Changes the Dodgers Have to Make Really, Really, Soon

Editorial Note: No I'm not taking performance enhancing substances, for some reason I just hit a bunch of things to blog about roughly at the same time.

As a Dodger fan things are looking really good right now, the team (sans the last couple of games with Furcal out of the lineup) is playing very well and looks like they will compete with Arizona all year (the rest of the National League West being the bottom three teams in Baseball in this week's Power Rankings by ESPN). But there are a few troubling issues that the team really needs to address, and quite soon, if they are going to stay in contention and make the playoffs.

At the top of the list from my view is not Andruw Jones (but don't worry he's right behind). The top issue right now is the back end of the starting rotation. Loaiza is now on the DL and the reports are that the team will promote Clayton Kershaw sometime this week. That can only help. The thing that really killed the Dodger's last year was the four and five spots in the rotation. Right now, it is just the five spot. Billingsley is pitching the best on the staff right now, despite the really odd way Torre used him at the beginning of the season. Penny is a little off, Lowe you just never know from start to start, and Kuroda is demonstrating that he's a number four or five rotation guy (and may turn out to be another bad signing by Colletti). Even if Kershaw has some ups and downs, he is much more likely to keep the team in games than Loaiza. Kuo has been spectacular at times (but actually only against the New York Mets) and he hasn't really shown that he's a regular starter. The Dodgers are getting into the same problem as last year getting too deep, too often into the bullpen.

OK, now for Andruw Jones. We are about a quarter of the way through the season and this may be one of the biggest busts since Barry Zito. Jones is hitting about .170 with 1 home run and 4 rbi's. His mechanics at the plate are simply horrible. He seems to have no pitch recognition at all, he's striking out over 30% of the time and honestly with his current swing mechanics any hit he gets is entirely an accident. He's playing a functional center field (but certainly no better than Matt Kemp or Jason Repko would), but he's a constant inning killer. He's also clearly not in shape (he appears to be at least 30lbs over weight) and his bat speed is significantly slower than in the past.

So what is the answer? Well, they could follow the Padres example and simply release him (like San Diego just did with Jim Edmonds). Release him, recall Jason Repko, move Matt Kemp to center, Ethier in right and rotate Pierre and Repko in left. They could simply bench him and play Ethier (which seems like an easy decision, since Ethier is hitting over .300 with 3 home runs). But then you simply will have an annoyed, unproductive player taking a spot on the roster. They could discover that he's "injured," put him on the DL, work off the weight, work on his mechanics, and rehab him. Lose him for about six weeks and see if he can (or is willing to work) to be salvaged. If he turns around, great he's with the team from July on. If not, cut the loses and release him.

The current strategy of Joe Torre is to just keep playing him. Now perhaps this is being pushed by Colletti (who is on a run of bad to simply terrible signings in the last couple of years), but at some point it has to stop. Torre does favor veterans but Jones can't just be classified as in a slump; he is currently not a major league calibre player. Jones' liability has been highlighted the last few days when Furcal is out of the lineup and Kent has not been hitting. The Dodgers simply cannot carry him in the lineup.

That brings us to the last really big concern. Blake DeWitt is a great story and honestly right now there is no reason to make any changes at third base. I don't like the way Andy LaRoche has been handled by the Dodgers the last two years, but DeWitt has done more than enough to keep his job. That brings us to Nomar Garciaparra. The utter nonsense that Nomar should be given back the starting job when he is "healthy" is beyond belief. He can't help the team, he gets hurt constantly and forces the team to make adjustments. He's in the last half of the last year of his contract. If you can't trade him somewhere he wants, then release him. He presents no value to the team right now. Right now DeWitt is the starter and if his performance at the plate turns out to be a flash in the pan (which I doubt), then LaRoche is certainly ready.

What is an Evangelical? Another "Manifesto," Such as it Is

Another "Manifesto" arrived this week by a group seeking to define "Evangelical" and "Evangelicalism." Entitled: Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. It is the work of a "steering committee" led by Timothy George, Os Guiness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jessie Miranda, David Neff, Richard Orhman, Larry Ross, and Dallas Willard. This group, it would be fair to say, represents the "center-left" or what we might call the "Christianity Today" branch of evangelicalism.

There are a number of signatories from all shades of evangelical thought and there is a online form to add your name to the list. The stated goals of this endeavor are:

The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.

This "manifesto" is rather long and ponderous (20 pages) and as Alan Jacobs, Professor at Wheaton College notes, it is almost everything a manifesto should not be (this will probably not make his boss, President of Wheaton College, Duane Liftin, happy, since Liftin is one of the signatories). The writers attempt to define "Evangelicals" in the following manner.

Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are ―not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.

To that end the manifesto presents a seven point statement of theological position. The points are a mild recitation of generally agreed upon doctrine, but phrased in the most non-specific terms possible. It is not the worst doctrinal statement I've ever read, but it is remarkable in that it there is not a single citation of Scripture quoted or referenced anywhere (here or in the entire document, except for the oblique reference to Rom 1:16). A glaring omission for a group that wants to be "defined theologically."

The statement on the authority of the Bible is the shortest of the seven; and, contrary to the normal order of a doctrinal statement, it is relegated to the fourth position. It is also notable for not including a reference to inerrancy; the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture being the foundational principle of what has defined evangelical theology for the last 150 years. It is also interesting in that there is no statement at any level regarding the sovereignty of God. Theologically, as the article in the Evangelical Dictionary of the Theology states, evangelicalism "begins with a stress on the sovereignty of God, the transcendent, personal, infinite Being who created and rules over heaven and earth" (p. 406). Regarding God as creator, as one reads carefully, it is clear that one of the goals of the manifesto writers is to put distance between themselves and Young Earth Creationists.

The fifth point, where one might expect a discussion of the importance of evangelism (another foundational principle of Evangelical Theology) there is nothing but a sort of call to social action and justice, "always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures." The only mention of evangelism is in the last point, and there it is reduced to a rather weak statement to, "share Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way."

Of course as one reads through the document it becomes clear that what the writers want is to put separation between themselves and two things: (1) Conservative politics for which evangelicalism has been more or less identified with for the last 25 years; and (2) Fundamentalism; although the writers are consternated by the fact that "theologically" they are unable to note any difference between Evangelicalism and what they call Fundamentalism. Clearly the differences between the Manifesto authors and Fundamental Evangelicalism is actually how the systems interact with society: politically, socially, and culturally. Unfortunately, the Manifesto states that this is not what they want to be defined by; but rather, theology. In logic this is called the "Horns of a Dilemma."

The writers take the inane tact of implying the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism (remembering that in terms of theology there is no essential difference) manfiests the same type of errors of "fundamentalism" in other religions; by which only Islam can possibly come to mind in this day, and radical secularism. The writers state on page 9 that, "Christian Fundamentalism . . . often becomes a social movement with a Christian identity but severely diminished Christian content and manner." However, a few pages latter the same writers state that Evangelical "fundamentalism was thoroughly world-denying and politically disengaged from its outset" (p. 14). Well, which is it? A "social movement" or "disengaged"? What becomes clear is that the writers simply don't like the manner of engagement or goals of the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism and so that type of "engagement" is disavowed while theirs is extolled.

The struggle to define Evangelicalism has been going on for some time now. I read a paper at the National meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society a few years ago talking about "Evangelical Boundaries" and the parallels of the current state of Evangelicalism and where British Evangelicalism found itself in the late 1880's particularly as it manifested itself in the "Down Grade Controversy" involving Charles H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon championed using the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Union and a statement that he and others would later pen largely followed those lines. I would agree with the writers that Evangelicalism should be defined "theologically" but in their attempt to do so they ignored the foundational theological concepts that have historically defined the term.

This "manifesto" contains nothing new, memorable, or honestly even compelling. Fortunately, it has all the hallmarks of a document that will be largely ignored and soon largely forgotten. It has continued the current devaluation of the term "manifesto" to the point that one would guess the next major effort like this one will need to lock onto a new descriptive word. This "manifesto" does not go as far as the complete social liberalism of the new Evangelical Left, nor is it as theologically banal as the Emerging Church adherents who have imbibed of their philosophy; but it's not far behind.

Waldron on Spurgeon, Eschatology, and the Nature of Millennium

In Dr. Waldron's most recent blog entries he makes a point that the two main proponents of Historic Premillennialism, Justin Martyr in the Patristic Era and George Eldon Ladd in the modern era had no place for a national restoration of Israel during the millennium. He states that for both Israel was to be understood as "the church" or "Spiritual Israel." In one sense this is true. Justin was the first to identify the church as the new or "spiritual Israel" (Dialogue with Trypho ANF 1:200). Ladd largely follows the same view. However, both affirm what is normative for the Historic Premillennial view, that there is a national and territorial future for Israel as well.

Justin, like most of the early Church Fathers borders on being anti-semitic, speaking of the Jews as "Christ killers" and other pejorative terminology. But even he states in relation to the last days when the Jews will repent and turn to Christ it will be in their own land:

And what the people of the Jews shall say and so, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: "I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamantation, not the lamantation of mouth or of lips but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and they shall loook upon Him whom they have piercedl and they shall say, Why O Lord, hast thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame (First Apology, ANF 1:180).

In his writings Ladd is never definitive, but clearly does allow for the Israel in the land as possible if not likely. In his Theology of the New Testament, he states:

After telling of the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the people, Luke adds the words, "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Lk. 21:24). Here Jesus clearly anticipates a time between the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia that he names "the time sof the Gentiles." Furthermore, it is possible that this implies a future repossession of Jerusaelm by Israel when the "times of the Gentiles are ended (Ladd, Theology of the NT, 200-201).

Also he notes later in the same work:

Whatever the means of Israel's eschatological salvation, it sppears to be an eschatological event in Paul's thought. It is impossible that Israel should be saved in any way but faith in Jesus as her Messiah. Saul of Tarsus was brought to faith by a special visions of the glorified Christ; yet he was saved by faith like any believer and was brought into the church. Literal Israel, temporarily rejected, is yet to come to faith and be grafted back into the olive tree--the true people of God (Rom. 11:23). Piper has suggested that in God's plan of redemptive history, converted Israel may become for the first time in history a truly Christian nation (p. 563, italics in the original. His entire discussion of Israel and salvation in relation to Rom 9-11, pp. 561-63).

In fact Ladd notes that the concept of the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20 is "rejected not on exegetical but theological grounds," and also states, "there should be no objection to the idea of such a temporal kingdom in principle" (629).

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Historic Premillennialism to believe that it excluded a future for national Israel both in terms of salvation or actually in the land. The Restoration Movement championed by the British Puritans (and affirmed by the American Puritans). The strong belief in the salvation of the Jews in the last days was closely tied together with Israel being one of the actual nations in the millennial kingdom. This belief was also apparently largely held by the divines of the Westminster Assembly. Robert Baillie (1599-1662) a delegate to the Assembly from Scotland, wrote, as recorded in his three volume Letters and Journals, that the larger part of the divines in the assembly were "chilaists" (premillennial). This is noteworthy also because Baillie was not premillennial and was opposed to that position.

The great prophetic conferences of the 19th Century in both America and Great Britain were, contrary to popular anti-dispenational opinion, were dominated by adherents to the Historic Premillennial postition. Participants cross denominational boundaries and represented Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist pastors and scholars. For example, E. Y. Mullins, who would be President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, at the International Prophetic Conference at the Clarendon Street Baptist Church in Boston (1901), stated:

May not the Jewish form [of the Book of Revelation] be due to the promise which He made to Abraham, and to emphasize that His purpose has not failed He maintains even the form and mould of the promise. God's decrees will reach their consummation (Prophetic Conference, p. 27).

Of course Mullins is often the favorite target of some so-called Reformed Baptists who view him as the one who led the seminary and by extension the SBC into the apostasy it was on the verge of in the 1960's. This is manifestly bad historiography and more agenda driven than an honest examination of his life and work.

The larger part of Historic Premillennialism has always held that there was not only going to be a general salvation of Jews in the millennial kingdom, but that the nation of Israel would once again enjoy a political and territorial reality in their land. Even Charles Hodge, while arguing against premillennialism and for postmillennialism, calls the future "national conversion" of the Jews a doctrine that is "according to the common faith of the Church" (Systematic Theology 3:805). He also states that the Scripture contains, "a promise of the restoration of the Jews as a nation."

The position that Israel, Biblically and Theologically, has no warrant to expect a national restoration in the land of Palestine (or a mass national conversion), as advocated by Waldron, is an approach that is outside "the common faith of the church" as it has been expressed from the beginning.

Waldron on Spurgeon's Eschatology and the "Splintering" of Premillennialism

Dr. Sam Waldron, Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology, for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies has been blogging at the school's site on Barry Horner's recent publication, Future Israel (Broadman Academic Press, 2007).

In the last two entries Waldron has expanded his interaction to include a paper I wrote in 1999 entitled, Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration. This was a paper I presented at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. This work was really an extension of my earlier work on Spurgeon's view of the millennium looking at his millennial views from a slightly different angle. In this paper I attempt to demonstrate that Spurgeon was a premillennialist, who; while clearly not dispensational in his theology, none the less believed and taught that Israel as a national entity would be restored to their historic lands. In this position, Spurgeon was following in the line of the Puritan "Restoration Movement" which had begun in England in the 1600's.

Waldron believes that Spurgeon's view represents something of a "mediating position" between Dispensationalism and Amillennialism. But ultimately he states that, "Historically speaking, the eschatology of Spurgeon [including Bonar and J. C. Ryle] and company is a failed position, a failed eschatology."

Waldon's posts have too many points to deal with each one here, but there are a few observations that can be made here and perhaps more in subsequent posts over the next week. To start at the end and work backwards, Waldron makes the statement:

The long debate between Amillennialism and Dispensationalism has led also to the splintering of Dispensationalism. The current state of terminology used to distinguish the varying Dispensational positions is illustrative of this splintering. Leaving aside here the Bullingerites with their Hyper-Dispensationalism which denies that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for today, you still have a number of varieties today of Dispensationalism. You have the Classic Dispensationalism of the Old Scofield Bible. There is the Modified Dispensationalism of the New Scofield and Ryrie. There is the yet more modified Dispensationalism of John MacArthur. Finally, there is the Progressive Dispensationalism of Blaising and Bock. A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath. These different positions are the result of the aggressive onslaught of Amillenialism on Dispensationalism over the last century and a half.

Well, the "long debate" has not really been between "Amillennialism" and "Dispensationalism." Amillennialism is simply a category of belief within the larger study of eschatology. The debate is more correctly between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology; those are the antithetical systems. To say that the "splintering" of Dispensationalism into the groups he mentions was caused by amillennialism or amillennial scholars is simply incorrect.

At The Master's Seminary we have the complete set of transcripts of the discussions by the editorial committee that produced the New Scofield Reference Bible and nothing there would suggest any validity to Waldron's claim in terms of the revisions to the Scofield. The movement from what has been called "Classic" Dispensationalism to the "Modified" honestly, upon examination had little to do with the eschatology of the system. There is no real change in the premillennial view from Scofield to Ryrie.

Progressive Dispensationalism was not born out of any battering from amillennialists either; it traces its roots to the "Dispensational Study Group" at the Evangelical Theological Society. That group was early on led by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising; and to a lesser degree Robert Saucy. As an attendee of most of those early meetings, the main issue really was an attempt to interact with the works of George Eldon Ladd, F. F. Bruce (both premillennialists, and Bruce was actually Plymouth Brethren) and to a lesser degree, I. Howard Marshall. Here as well, there is no real difference in the eschatological distinctives from the earlier "forms" of Dispensationalism to the Progressive stance. This discussion was really about hermeneutics and Ryrie's sina qua non position.

As far as MacArthur is concerned, his dispensational views are, in my opinion, more influenced by Alva Mclain's Greatness of the Kingdom than perhaps L. S. Chafer, and thus is more consistently Calvinistic in his theology. I'm also not sure where MacArthur would be so distinct as to deserve his own category of Dispensationalism vis a vis, for instance, those of the Progressive group. In terms of his eschatological position, where, we would ask, is there any essential difference?

There was no "aggressive onslaught of Amillennialism" driving any of the distincive views within these positions.

Waldron also confuses the issue with the statement: "A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath." We will assume that the professor of systematic theology simply flubbed here mistaking the "Second Coming" which all Dispensationalists understand by definition to be premillennial; and the "rapture of the church," on which there is a variety of opinion. There has hardly been "fierce debate" on this subject and since the initial splash of the Pre-Wrath position of the late Robert Van Kampen nearly two decades ago, there has been almost no real debate on the timing of the rapture; the positions, implications, and proofs for all of the options being fairly well settled. It should also be noted that while Dispensationalists have been traditionally "Pre-Trib" in their view on the timing of the Rapture; it really is not a foundational issue. I think the Pre-Trib position is clearly the best supported from an exegetical view and is the most logically consistent with the overall system; but Dispensationalism does not rise nor fall on one's view of the rapture.

Frankly, Waldron's posturing about the splintering of Dispensationalism is little more than idle rhetoric mixed together with some wishful thinking perhaps. Debates and discussions among those who hold a particular theological construct is more often than not a sign of health and vigor rather than signaling its soon demise. It is also not as if amillennialism itself is monolithic in its expression; there are variations and nuances that have developed since the time of Augustine. It is also interesting that for Waldron the "modification," "emerging emphasis," "more careful hermeneutic," and recent works that have "brought out more satisfactorily," the particular nuances of amillennialism he favors is presented in the most glowing of expressions; while any changes or new expressions within Dispensationalism is a sign of "splintering" or the responses to an "aggressive onslaught."

Waldron also stated:

The splintering of Dispensationalism has also led to the attempt of Horner, Swanson, and others to revitalize the mediating position of Spurgeon and company. I doubt if this project can be successful. As I have said, it seems inherently self-contradictory to me. It must lead back to Dispensationalism (Horner) or onward to something else (Swanson?).

I'm actually just not sure what Waldron is thinking here. As already noted this paper is now nine years old and no where do I give any indication that I am trying to "revitalize" Spurgeon's position. I don't see Barry Horner trying to revitalize anything either. What I would point out is that amillennialism is not nor has been the exclusive eschatological option within Reformed (Baptist and otherwise) groups. Charles Spurgeon, the Bonar's (Andrew and Horatius), J. C. Ryle, among many others, were formidible Biblical scholars and theologians and held to a premillennial view as well as one that held to a return of national Israel to their land. Added to this group as well would be those of the Plymouth Brethren who were premillennial, but not dispensational such as B. W. Newton, George Mueller, and the noted New Testament scholar Samuel Tregelles. Mueller and Newton were also friends with Spurgeon and stayed with him in Mentone France on several occasions.

Waldron also seems to be asking if I am going to somewhere in terms of my eschatological beliefs. The answer simply is no. I am a dispensationalist, probably more in keeping with the Progressive position and unreservedly affirm (as I do in writing each year) the doctrinal statement of The Master's Seminary.

Lastly Waldron, was thankful that I (and Horner) had called attention to the "the peculiar eschatological views of Spurgeon and company." He believes them to be peculiar because you have a non-dispensationalist affirming a future for Israel in their land. Well, even among Historic Premillennialists, this view is not all that peculiar and is probably the most common view; which careful research would soon demonstrate.

There will be more on this in the next week or so as time permits since seminary business will occupy much of our time as we conclude another academic year at The Master's Seminary.