Seed of Abraham

I see that Jamin Hubner tries once more to rehabilitate his position. A few brief remarks by way of response:

i) At this point in life Hubner lacks the emotional detachment to be a Christian apologist. He can’t bring himself to accurately represent his opponents. He continues to act as if the only reason we defend Israel is due to dispensational eschatology. And not just dispensationalism, but the dispensationalism of someone like John Hagee.

But, of course, I’m not a dispensationalist. Neither is TFan.

What is more, as I’ve pointed out on more than one occasion now, I defended Israel on geostrategic grounds rather than eschatological grounds.

But Hubner shows no capacity to change, to adapt, to accept correction.

ii) Then there’s the question of “consistency.”

a) To begin with, he acts as if he’s made some great discovery in the writings of O. P. Robertson. But, of course, I’ve cited Robertson for years.

b) I think Robertson is theologically sophisticated, but politically naïve. I also make allowances for Robertson because he has many compensatory virtues lacking in Burge or Hubner.

To take a comparison, both Roger Olson and William Lane Craig are anti-Calvinists, but I cut Craig a lot more slack because he has many compensatory virtues lacking in Olson.

So there’s no inconsistency in my treatment. It’s taking the whole package into account. You might as well say I’m inconsistent unless I have the same regard for Jonas Salk and Noam Chomsky.

iii) Since, however, Huber proceeds to quote Robertson, let’s consider his theological argument.

This principle is very important as it relates to the current situation of the land. Never can the promise of the land be properly claimed by those who fail to exercise true faith and faithfulness in the Redeemer provided by the Lord of the Covenant.

Robertson raises a valid point. However, the objection is ambiguous:

a) First of all, it would be possible to argue that the land-promises apply proleptically. That the Jews will exercise faith in the Messiah. It’s a present possession in light of a future condition.

And you could argue for that on amil grounds. The already/not dialectic of redemptive-historical theology. There’s a retroactive element to amil eschatology. Abraham is justified in light of future events (e.g. the Cross). Christians already participate in the kingdom. The firstfruits of the coming harvest.

b) You also have a remnant of Messianic Jews in modern Israel. Jews who confess Jesus as the Lord and Savior.

c) That in turn raises another question: we’re dealing with corporate promises. Promises not made to an individual, but to a group, viz. Abraham and his “seed.”

In that event, what percentage of the group must be in compliance for the corporate promise to either be kept or nullified?

Take the new covenant. Robertson is not merely an amil. He is also a Presbyterian. So he doesn’t restrict corporate promises to believing individuals. He applies corporate promises to families.

Put another way, within the visible church you have a mixed multitude of believers and unbelievers. Yet the presence of unbelievers in the visible church doesn’t nullify the new covenant. Same thing with the Abrahamic covenant.