Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (5)

11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant … has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).

Response: No dispensationalist denies the division of the Bible into OT and NT.  Neither does he deny the “old covenant”/”new covenant” division (which is not the same).  These verses speak to the biblical covenants.  The passages, e.g. Hebrews 8:13 refer to the replacing of the Mosaic institutions by the work, both past and present, of Christ.  They do not bear upon the progressive revelation which is found within the outworking of these covenants.  Even CT’s identify differing periods of the outworking of the Covenant of Grace.

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (4)

10. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing each of the self-contained, distinct dispensations, the Bible presents an organic unfolding of history as the Bible traces out the flow of redemptive history, so that the New Testament speaks of “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise” (Eph 2:12) and uses metaphors that require the unity of redemptive history; accordingly, the New Testament people of God are one olive tree rooted in the Old Testament (Rom 11:17-24).

Response: Dispensationalists see the dispensations (Divine economies) as a biblical way of viewing the history of providence (See e.g. Renald Showers, There Really is a Difference).  They believe these dispensations, or at least some of them, can be derived inductively from the Scriptures (e.g. Eph. 1:10, 3:2. cf. Jn. 1:17; Rom. 5:13; Gal. 4:1-5).

The Bible certainly stresses “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise” in Eph. 2:12.  The covenants Paul mentions are the biblical covenants readily identifiable in Scripture (stemming from Abraham, especially the unconditional covenants), not the extra-biblical covenants (e.g. “works” and “grace”).  Paul sometimes uses the singular “promise” and sometimes the plural “promises” (e.g. Rom. 9:4; 15:8).  It is special pleading to make this a proof for some kind of organic unity of redemptive history.  Christians do not build altars and make animal sacrifices.  This blatant fact shows that there is some “disunity” in redemptive history which has to accounted for (see Hebrews).

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (3)

7. Despite the dispensationalists’ general orthodoxy, the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church affirm eschatological events that are contrary to fundamental tenets of premillennialism, such as: (1) only one return of Christ, rather than dispensationalism’s two returns, separating the “rapture” and “second coming” by seven years; (2) a single, general resurrection of all the dead, both saved and lost; and (3) a general judgment of all men rather than two distinct judgments separated by one thousand years.

Response: We have commented above  (see Response to #6) on the the fact that the major Creeds were written after Chiliasm (early premillennialism) preponderated in the early centuries.  (G.N.H. Peters’ great work, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1.494-495 mentions 15 early Chiliast sources).  For example, Victorinus of Pettau’s (d.304) Commentary on Revelation was definately chiliast according to David L. Larsen, The Company of Hope, 70-71.

Dispensational Premillennialism has no problem accommodating the basic statements of the Apostles or Nicene Creeds on eschatology, such as they are.

What Sin Is – W. H. Griffith Thomas

There are three circles of life: our relation to self; to our fellows; and to God.  And when this is realised it is at once seen that sin and selfishness are not synonymous.  Selfishness is, of course, one of the consequences and manifestations of sin, but it is not sin itself.  Sin involves far more than this.  The New Testament definition of sin is not selfishness, but “lawlessness.”  Law is as real in the moral world as in the physical, and no definition of sin is adequate that does not regard it as a violation of the law of God, whether of conscience or Scripture. – W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology, 169.

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (2)

95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM

1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around 1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.

Response: By “plain interpretation” Ryrie simply meant grammatico-historical hermeneutics (G-H) (see his book  Dispensationalism, 79-88).  There is nothing novel about this.  G-H was employed by the Reformers.  To say that “plain interpretation” is “a relatively new innovation in Church History” is a bit of an embarrassing statement.  It sounds like they are saying that the Bible does not mean what it says.  But the issue is not “plain interpretation.”  After all, I am to presume these objectors wish me to employ “plain interpretation” with regard to their statements? 

Answering the “95 Thesis Against Dispensationalism” (1)

Introduction to this Series

Monergism.com, that excellent source for all things Reformed and Covenantal, has recently posted some more rebuttals of Dispensational Theology on its website.  Included is a set of 16 lectures by James Grier and a series of  “95 Theses Against Dispensationalism” brought together by a group of believers (mostly if not all of them Partial Preterists) calling themselves by the collective nom-de-plume, ‘The Nicene Council.’  There is also a DVD out criticizing this pernicious doctrine that I and many others hold to.

From other posts I have made it clear that I believe the title “Dispensationalism” is unfortunate, in that it focuses attention more on the proposed economies within the history of revelation and away from the identification and outworking of the biblical covenants.  This leads to misunderstandings and some lack of priority even within the ranks of adherents of the system. 

An Enjoyable Trip

I have now returned to the Texas heat from a nice time in San Jose, doing a Veritas Conference for my friend Will Dudding.  We covered a lot of ground.  I spoke on “Bible Interpretation for the Rest of Us,” “The Temple,” “Islam,” “Views of the Rapture,” and “Covenant Theology v. Dispensational Theology.”  Of course I was biased for pretribulational dispensationalism, but I think I steered a fairly non-radical course.

What was interesting is that there were some post-mils. and post-tribbers in attendance – Keith Mathison’s book against Dispensationalism in hand – and that made the Q&A interesting.

Sadly, none of them made it to the final ’sesh’ (even though they said they would be there) so the really interesting exchanges didn’t materialize.

Will is going to put the audio on his blog so we’ll see how it sounds.  Hopefully, the Lord will use it to promote Veritas School of Theology and to encourage His band of besieged Dispensationalists!

Peter Masters Speaks Out Against The New Calvinism

For quite a while now I have been telling people that the more solid evangelicals in Britain do not think too highly of the Calvinism of men like John Piper or C. J. Mahaney.  This is because of what they see as a misuse of Jonathan Edwards’ teaching to recommend Christian “hedonism” and the introduction of charismatic teachings into supposedly Reformed congregations.

But there is another reason, and this reason: “Worldliness,” is the subject of an excellent article by the Met. Tab’s Peter Masters.  It is worthwhile reading the whole thing.

Creation, Fall, Redemption: The Motif of Scripture

The Theological-Historical Motif of the Bible

The God of the Bible is a God who is intimately connected with what He has made.  This world is personal in a very genuine way.  This personal dimension to reality is what makes the Cross of Christ comprehendible (because the “Sin Problem” – what is wrong with this world – must be resolved from above, on behalf of sinners) and also interpretative of history (since it is God’s “marker” testifying to His ongoing concern for what He has made and intends to put right).  A Biblical picture of God, therefore, will lead us to see reality in the following outline:

1. The Universe is an ex nihilo creation not a product of chance (Gen.1:1ff.; Heb.

1:12; 11:3).  This excellent definition is given by Torrance:

The creation of the universe out of nothing does not mean the creation of the universe out of something that is nothing, but out of nothing at all.  It is not created out of anything – it came into being by the absolute fiat of God’s Word in such a way that whereas previously there was nothing, the whole universe came into being.[1]

2. The creation is under a curse (Gen. 3:17-18; Rom. 8:20-22).

Creation is subject to vanity, futility and frustration because of mankind’s fall.  The universe’s continual cycle of birth, growth, death and decay demonstrates this subjection.  The universe is in a process of deterioration…and it appears to be running down.  Nature, like mankind, is in a state of decay, deterioration, pain and futility.[2]

3. This reveals a linear view of history.[3] History is going somewhere (Acts 17:26-27; 15:18). 

Storm in a Fundamentalist Teacup

I don’t spend a lot of time reading other people’s blogs.  There are some good bloggers out there, but I suppose I am not that stirred by what I read.  But I have happened to hear about the kerfuffle surrounding Don Sweatt’s sermon at a recent Fundamentalist conference.  Such luminaries as John Piper and Phil Johnson have been taking time to write about it.  Fingers have been tapping everywhere!

So I thought I would give the message a listen and hear what the trouble was all about.  It’s about an old preacher’s unstudied opinion.  It’s about an old-time fundy Baptist (big “B”) who wonders what is happening to fundamentalism and has been perturbed by a little book about the resurgence of Reformed theology in America (Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed), in which he thinks he sees an answer.  It’s about a few ignorant jibes against Calvinism and its modern stars (e.g. Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, MacArthur, Driscoll).  It’s about nothing!