I am no authority on eschatology, on the theology of the end times. In fact, I need all the help I can get in understanding it and in separating one view from the next. It is an area where seemingly small distinctions can make profound differences and where tensions often run high. It was with some interest, then, that I turned to The Late Great Planet Church, a new documentary by NiceneCouncil. It is hosted and produced by Jerry Johnson who has been part of the team behind other such excellent documentaries as Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism.
Like most similar documentaries, this one relies on interviews with pastors and scholars. In this case the list of contributors includes Kenneth Gentry, Kenneth Talbot, Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, Gary DeMar and several other notable teachers or scholars. Several of those who contribute to this production are former dispensationalists themselves and they are able to provide an personal, inside perspective on the issues inherent in the system that ultimately drove them away from it. Often this is little more than their growth in Christian maturity; as they searched the Scriptures they found, quite simply, that dispensational theology was nowhere to be found in God’s Word.
I will say up-front that, for this DVD, the information is better than the production. The production quality, though by no means terrible, is also not excellent. The audio is not great and the levels sometimes vary from segment-to-segment. There are also some background graphics which, at least to my untrained eye, appear to be stock videos that are low-quality and thus appear quite pixelated and stutter at times. Even the lighting is uneven so the faces of the people being interviewed are unevenly lit. None of these are major problems, but I feel they do merit a mention. Thankfully the information conveyed is very good and overshadows the somewhat-amateurish production quality.
This is but volume one of what is going to be a two-volume set, so Johnson does not set out to provide a complete rebuttal to dispensational theology. Instead, in this first volume he focuses on the rise of dispensationalism, looking to its roots and its earliest proponents. In the second volume he will compare dispensationalism to Scripture but here he simply allows the earliest teachers to speak for themselves. And if you know the history of this theology, you know that these men do great damage through their words and through their lives. There is Darby with his disregard for the history of the faith and his almost-prideful admission that this theology was unknown until he discovered it. There is his out-of-control ego which led him to separate from many other believers and eventually to conclude that his church was the only true church in all of London. Spurgeon’s reaction to Darby and his Plymouth Brethren is instructive as the perspective of a wise and godly contemporary. And then there is Scofield who, even as a professed Christian, utterly abandoned his wife and two daughters, immediately remarried and then assigned to himself the title of doctor even though he had educated himself. While granting that such men, with their unbiblical behavior, do not discount the theology, Johnson feels that he cannot tell the story of dispensational theology without providing these simple facts from the lives of its founders. And he is right, I think, to do so. Truly the roots of this theology are surprising and shocking, even. He looks also to some of the theology these men taught, showing how even their followers had to downplay or deny some of what was so utterly unbiblical (such as the view that God’s means of salvation in the Old Testament was different from the means of salvation today).
This is a valuable DVD, I think, and one that may well serve to encourage some of the people who have been reared in this system to think deeply about their beliefs. As an introduction, this first volume does its job well. I will wait eagerly for the second volume to see how Johnson and his team of scholars apply Scripture to dispensationalism and provide what I expect will be a thorough rebuttal.
(And if you have not yet done so, be sure to take a look at Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism)
Comments (54) »
1. Reg Schofield
July 14, 2009
10:44 AM
This is a DVD I look forward to getting. The first book I ever read was the Revelation. So I have always been interested in the study of last things. I do not believe it should be something we get dogmatic about , except that Jesus is physically coming again in all his glory to judge and make all things new. I would identify myself as a classic A-Mil after much reading. But concerning dispensationlism ,I have always found it one of the must forced and strange systems that does much harm to interpreting scripture. Which is why I always read MacArthur very carefully when he touches on end days.
2. Bibliomaniac
July 14, 2009
10:57 AM
the view that God’s means of salvation in the Old Testament was different from the means of salvation today
Are you aware this is not advocated by all dispensationalists? To hold it up as a standard teaching is to build a straw man. And Darby and Scofield are most definitely NOT representative of fine teachers such as John MacArthur and Robert Thomas.
So ad hominem attacks are a key part of this first DVD in the set. That’s the same approach Dave Hunt used in his diatribe against Calvinism. Prejudice the viewers against the personalities behind the teachings in the hopes of discrediting the teachings.
Seems to me this is just a standard straw man/ad hominem approach that I’ve heard many times over, lacking the careful scholarship and analysis that is deserved on this topic.
3. patsly
July 14, 2009
11:15 AM
Taking this same approach — Would we have to reject Reformational theology because the Reformers committed the sin of putting anabaptist’s to death? Or, should we reject Christianity because of the crusades?
Brilliant argumentation!
4. Van H. Edwards
July 14, 2009
11:17 AM
I would agree with Bibliomaniac on this straw man version of dispensationalism and patsly’s comment about castigating the proponents of a particular view.
And before too many stones are cast, I would also recommend this post regarding Mark Dever, an amillenialist, and his recent comments about differing views of eschatology.
http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/devers-big-statement/
Enjoy!
5. Scott
July 14, 2009
11:19 AM
There is such widespread misrepresentation of Dispensationalism that it makes one’s head spin. If a DVD like this was to be a fair assessment of dispensationalism I would expect it to include the thoughts of respected dispensationalists like John MacArthur, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucy, John Feinberg, etc… To suggest that mature believers move away from dispensationalism is to make a sweeping and unwarranted judgment on many godly men. It is fine if one wants to disagree with dispensationalism, but rarely do we hear disparaging comments about other views of eschatology. Let us promote better understanding and charity in differences over secondary issues.
6. Reg Schofield
July 14, 2009
11:34 AM
I agree we must be respectful , which is why I love Mac but still read his stuff when he touches on end times and Israel with the understanding he is a pre-mil dispensationlist. But MacArthur left himself a bit open because in one of conferences , he came out swinging about his last days beliefs and aimed it at others .
This subject should be dealt with charity and love . In no way should it become personal attack on anyone.
7. Joey
July 14, 2009
11:43 AM
Bibliomaniac,
I tend to agree that it is typical for one side to draw too much attention to the other sides’ failings in areas that don’t have anything to do with the actual issue at hand. But it is worth at least some consideration, not as an argument against the specific points, but in a ‘you know a tree by its fruit’ kind of way. It at least should be mentioned that some of the influential leaders of this movement were…not great guys. To not mention it would be odd. But ultimately its not determinitive of the validity of the system.
8. Jen
July 14, 2009
11:56 AM
I don’t think giving a history of a theology is a straw man. The review is very clear that this is to be a two-part series, with the second volume concentrating on the doctrines themselves and holding them up to Scripture. It’s entirely valid to explain the history of dispensationalism. I simply cannot relate to the idea that the history of any doctrine isn’t important. (But I say that as someone pursuing a degree in Historical Theology.)
This DVD was about Classical Dispensationalism, which does need to be understood to know how contemporary Dispensationalism got to where it is.
9. David Cooke
July 14, 2009
11:58 AM
I think you would like this BBC documentary on the Amish. Fascinating encounter with grace. Enjoy,
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2606271.htm
10. Bibliomaniac
July 14, 2009
12:13 PM
Jen wrote: I don’t think giving a history of a theology is a straw man.
If you will read my comment carefully, I didn’t say a history of theology is a straw man. I said to hold up a clearly unbiblical teaching espoused by a few and represent it as the standard held by many is a straw man.
The statement I highlighted at the beginning of my previous comment is clearly unbiblical. The more reputable dispensationalist teachers I know would disagree with it. But it appears to be being used to represent all of dispensationalism, which is careless scholarship.
That the DVD appears to emphasize Darby and Scofield as representative of all is what concerns me. As Scott correctly observed above, other voices must be heard in order to get an accurate picture of where people stand.
11. Jeremy
July 14, 2009
12:15 PM
For those commenting on MacArthur and his standing on Dispensationalism, you should read his comments on it in a Q&A session here. http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm
I’ll share a nuts and bolts portion here, but well worth reading the entire answer:
“So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament—it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it’s on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an “amillennialist,” or a “Covenant Theologian” that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel—an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom. My answer to them is simply this, “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me!” Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says “Israel” He means the “Church”? Where does it say that? That’s where the burden of proof really lies.” - J. MacArthur
12. Tim Challies
July 14, 2009
12:35 PM
Gentlemen,
Do not be too quick to criticize the DVD based on a review. I touched on only some of the areas the DVD covers. If you’re going to make broad statements about what it says and how it “attacks” dispensationalism, it would be wise to watch it first.
13. Josh
July 14, 2009
12:39 PM
I do like Mark Dever’s comment about not letting this issue be a divisive issue in the church. Thanks for the link Van.
14. Rick in Minnesota
July 14, 2009
1:52 PM
The pastors/theologians in this production come from a Postmillennial/Reconstructionist background and IMO can come off a bit arrogant and mean-spirited at times. I haven’t seen the DVD so I can’t offer an opinion of it, but if it’s anything like that “History of Calvinism” DVD I think I’ll pass. That thing was terrible!
Eschatology is my favorite subject of study and I am a convinced non-premillennialist. Check out Sam Storms for some great resources… http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/studies/eschatology/
Or read Anthony Hoekema’s “The Bible and the Future”
Peace!
Rick
15. Scott
July 14, 2009
2:03 PM
Tim said:
“I am no authority on eschatology, on the theology of the end times. In fact, I need all the help I can get in understanding it and in separating one view from the next.”
And then you said:
“I will wait eagerly for the second volume to see how Johnson and his team of scholars apply Scripture to dispensationalism and provide what I expect will be a thorough rebuttal.”
When I contrast these 2 statements, it is difficult for me to believe that you are being objective about the topic. You claim to know little of the subject so how can you be certain that the second volume will be a thorough rebuttal of what you claim you don’t understand? It seems you have prejudged dispensationalism without understanding it. I find this to be the case with many Reformed believers. I would highly recommend you read “Continuity and Discontinuity” to get the best balanced and scholarly perspective on the issues at stake. The book contains essays by both Dispensationalists, Covenant Theologians and those in between. It will help alleviate misunderstanding greatly.
16. Bibliomaniac
July 14, 2009
2:16 PM
Tim wrote, If you’re going to make broad statements about what it says and how it “attacks” dispensationalism, it would be wise to watch it first.
Because of space limitations, reviews are, for the most part, very broad in scope. The review you’ve written, Tim, seems to be pretty sweeping, with statements like “dispensational theology was nowhere to be found in God’s Word.” You also merely describe dispensationalism as a “system,” failing to raise the matter of nuances, etc.
What you’ve stated in your review is clearly what made a strong impression on you, and thus those things most likely received greatest emphasis. So, if I can trust your review, Tim, I really see no reason to watch the DVD. You yourself have said that sometimes a summary of a book is enough to let you know it’s not necessary for you to read it to become acquainted with what it advocates.
A system of teaching or theology rises or falls upon careful comparison of its tenets to Scripture. That alone is all we need in order to make sober judgments about what is scriptural and what isn’t.
Yet this DVD has concentrated its first stage of attack on mere personalities, fallible humans. That’s a common approach used by those who don’t have more substantive arguments for later in the battle. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but it’s a common tactic. The creators of the DVD have tainted their own product by approaching the discussion in this manner.
17. Jeff
July 14, 2009
2:29 PM
Tim/All,
I think you’ll enjoy this 70pg book from Michael Vlach. His website is well-resourced with scholarly insight as well.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html
Furthermore, here’s a worthwhile review of the book by Dan Phillips:
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2009/06/book-review-dispensationalism-essential.html
18. Benjamin
July 14, 2009
2:32 PM
Tim said:
“I am no authority on eschatology, on the theology of the end times. In fact, I need all the help I can get in understanding it and in separating one view from the next.”
“I will wait eagerly for the second volume to see how Johnson and his team of scholars apply Scripture to dispensationalism and provide what I expect will be a thorough rebuttal.”
I guess we all just know that dispensationalism is wrong and covenant theology is right. OK then, that settles that!?!
19. Dan Phillips
July 14, 2009
3:15 PM
I’m confused. So, Tim is saying that this is an inaccurate review? Or does the DVD really resurrect the long-dead chestnut about different means of salvation (equally deducible from selected covenant theologian quotations)? And does it really resurrect and ape Rome’s accusation against Luther, of “novelty”?
If the review is accurate (and I’d assume it was), it just leaves me wondering whether the producers just run down the whole list of 25 stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism, and make a DVD out of them.
20. James B Drake
July 14, 2009
3:16 PM
I will reserve judgment on the DVD until I see it and I will wait until I can see both volumes together. In the meantime, everyone needs to understand this: Calvinists justifiably rail against mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks. Please remember that, and avoid that kind of treatment of dispensationalists.
Implying that all dispensationalists believe that Old Testament saints were saved by works is like saying that all Calvinists reject the necessity of evangelism.
Yoking all forms of dispensationalism to the wacky eccentricities and heterodoxy of some proponents is like yoking all Calvinists to those early adherents who thought it right to burn those who disagreed with their theology.
Eschatalogical discussions are good and healthy when they force us back to the Bible to test our doctrine. On the other hand, they are horribly destructive when they wallow in the pit of fallacious arguments and mischaracterizations.
21. Dan Phillips
July 14, 2009
3:19 PM
“Implying that all dispensationalists believe that Old Testament saints were saved by works is like saying that all Calvinists reject the necessity of evangelism.”
Precisely right, James. It immediately “outs” the speaker as having no idea what he’s talking about, and as being content to echo what he’s heard other members of the same species say.
22. Michael A
July 14, 2009
3:28 PM
Wow. Based on the reaction, I’d say this is worth a look.
23. Joey
July 14, 2009
3:35 PM
“Yoking all forms of dispensationalism to the wacky eccentricities and heterodoxy of some proponents…” (James)
Substitute “dispensationalism” for “charasmaticism” and you’ve got what I call the Dan Phillips Special!
No but seriously James and Dan are right. But lets wait till we get the second act before judging anybody or the DVD.
24. Dan
July 14, 2009
3:43 PM
I wanted to respond, especially to the comments made by Bibliomaniac. First of all, I have a deep respect for Dispensational theologians such as those at the Master’s seminary, Robert Thomas being one. In addition, I was once a very enthusiastic dispensationalist but have come to change my views. One area of concern that I have with regards to a lot of committed dispensationals is with their lack of interaction with non-dispensational sources. Often times, I talk to intelligent dispensational Christians who cannot accurately articulate the Amil position. I write this because I am concerned that you mentioned that there was then no need to actually watch the video. For a very long time I refused to interact with non-dispensational writings on ecclesiology and eschatology. But, when I did, I came to see that I had profound misunderstandings of Amil interpretations. I would encourage you to do the same. The most influential literature for me was Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ ‘Great Doctrines of the Bible’ series on the Last Things that provided an analysis of all eschatological systems. He ended up defending the Amil position and made a remarkable, exegetical defense.
Some initial points that made me change my mind had to do with Ecclesiology. Ephesians 2 and Galations 3 make it very clear that Paul exulted in the inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God with equal status as Israel (at least regenerate Israel). Galatians 3:28- “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Earlier in Galatians 3 Paul makes the point that the Abrahamic covenant was ultimately between Abraham and Christ. If the covenant was made with Christ and both Gentiles and Jews are one body in Christ, then all are “Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise,” (Gal 3:29). There is no distinction within the New Covenant. If there is no distinction now, why would there be in the future (i.e. the millennium)? Christ came to abolish the ‘dividing wall of hostility,’ according to Paul in Ephesians 2:14.
There is a whole lot more that could be said but I do have a question. In 1 Cor 15:50 and on Paul writes, “I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet…for this perishable body must put on imperishable…” No doubt the kingdom of God in this passage has to do with the future consummation of the Kingdom of God…all are agreed. However, if flesh and blood (which refers to our current human bodies) cannot inherit this future Kingdom of God as Paul exlicitly states, how can dispensationals insist that there will be unglorified people (or merely ‘flesh and blood’) in the future millennial Kingdom that will ultimately rebel against Christ and follow Satan (Revelation 20:7-10)?
In closing I quote the hope of Abraham found in Hebrerws 13:22- “But you have come to Mont Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…” It seems as though the earthly Jerusalem was a type of the heavenly Jerusalem even as the earthly tabernacle was a type of the heavenly. Some food for thought.
25. Tim Challies
July 14, 2009
3:55 PM
It is an area where seemingly small distinctions can make profound differences and where tensions often run high.
I’d say these are prophetic words, but then we’d just get into an argument about the continuing gifts! ;-)
26. Bibliomaniac
July 14, 2009
4:28 PM
I’ll respond momentarily to Dan (not Phillips)—I appreciate your thoughts, and in fact I’ve read Lloyd-Jones quite a lot, including the very book you mention. But at issue here isn’t which system of eschatology is more biblical. At issue is the content and approach used in the DVD reviewed by Tim.
As the other Dan (Phillips) noted, and based on the generalizations stated by Tim, it appears the DVD is lacking in both breadth and depth.
And I appreciate Tim’s most recent post. As others have said earlier, this isn’t an area worthy of division. However, that does not negate our responsibility to ensure it is discussed with care and accuracy.
27. Rick in Minnesota
July 14, 2009
4:35 PM
Dan, great points. For me the tipping point was the discovery that the millennium just can’t be reconciled with the NT.
Problems with Premillennialism:
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/problems-with-premillennialism/
28. Dan
July 14, 2009
5:04 PM
Rick- I have seen that post before by Sam Storms and found it helpful :).
Biblomaniac, I do see your point and also appreciate your posts. I just wanted to try and supply some Scripture to back up a non-disepensational understanding. This is important, but there are bigger fish to fry. The crux, as I know you will agree, is the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Everything hinges on the cross. Therefore, the focus of our energies ought to focus on that event and those doctrines which make it a true propitiation- like the deity/humanity and sinlessness of Christ, the wrath of God, sin, substitution, etc… Iron sharpens iron.
29. donsands
July 14, 2009
7:03 PM
”..this theology was unknown until he [Darby] discovered it.”
Is this a definite truth?
I suppose I’ll get a copy of this. I like Tom Ascol. Liked to see what he has to say. And Gary Demar is quite a brilliant teacher as well. Gentry is a scholar, but I don’t seem to connect with his teachings for some reason. I don’t know the other two you mentioned.
Thanks for the heads up.
30. Chin Wee Ang
July 15, 2009
12:08 AM
The DVD deals with the rise and the history of dispensationalism. While there were some of you who said they were using ad hominem attacks on dispensationalism, and say that dispensationalism doesn’t teach that there are 2 ways to salvation, then you guys obviously do not know the history of dispensationalism. Classical dispensationalism, the first “version” that was espoused by J.N. Darby and C.I. Scofield certainly believed that there were 2 ways to salvation. It then evolved to Revised Dispensationlism when with scholars like Charles Ryrie. Then only recent has dispensationalism evolved to Progressive Dispensationalism (with Darrel Bock and Craig Blaising). But suffice to say, Progressive Dispensationalism is HUGELY different from Classical Dispenationalism.
So, this DVD deals with the history and how it began. So, yes, I think it’s correct in asserting that Dispensationalism at its roots teaches that there are 2 ways to salvation.
31. Tom Hardy
July 15, 2009
12:42 AM
Rick said:
“I haven’t seen the DVD so I can’t offer an opinion of it, but if it’s anything like that “History of Calvinism” DVD I think I’ll pass. That thing was terrible!”
I realize that it is your opinion that “History of Calvinism” was terrible. However, I must say that I couldn’t disagree with you more about it. That particular DVD was by a wide margin the best DVD series I have ever watched on the topic.
I will also state that I have used it as a tool on more than one occasion and it was able to describe Calvinism better than I could. In fact a friend of mine is a Calvinist today, mainly because of that DVD series.
I can understand someone not liking the format of the DVD, because that is quite subjective, kind of like me liking tiger ice cream and others hating it. However, I found the content of the DVD to be very good.
Our Bible study group used the series and we watched it interactively and found that for those who were struggling with Calvinism in the group. As they watched it, whether they agreed or not many of their questions were answered.
32. Tom Hardy
July 15, 2009
12:51 AM
Thank you Chin Wee Ang
I think you have represented the matter fairly and adequately. I don’t know for certain whether or not the series gives that impression or not.
33. Tom Hardy
July 15, 2009
1:02 AM
Donsands said” ”..this theology was unknown until he [Darby] discovered it.”
Is this a definite truth?”
Yes this is true. In fact I have a friend that is Brethren and is a huge fan of Darby. His take on the matter is that God’s truth isn’t always understood until someone sheds more light on it.
He can defend it a little better than I just stated it, but I think that is basically his take on it.
34. Rick in Minnesota
July 15, 2009
2:34 AM
Tom,
It’s been a long time since I’ve watched that “History of Calvinism” DVD, but the only thing that sticks in my memory is watching a very slow progression of portraits of Calvin, R.C Sproul, J. MacArthur, etc. etc.., and thinking to myself “If I knew nothing about Calvinism and was watching this I’d think that Calvinists seem to worship other Calvinists”.
That being said, I probably shouldn’t have used the term “terrible” in describing it, but overall I thought it came off a bit arrogant, or perhaps, indulgent, at certain points. But there is certainly some good material in it and I am glad it has served you and your group well. Personally, I’ve never had any success speaking about Calvinism in a group setting, only individually with folks.
Peace!
Rick
35. Dan Phillips
July 15, 2009
8:42 AM
Chin Wee Ang casts a vote in favor of Rome’s way of dismissing the Gospel (by focusing on what a jerk Luther could be), and stakes out the “don’t confuse me with the facts” position.
36. William Emberley
July 15, 2009
9:04 AM
I think it might be worth noting that to speak of Dispensationalism as a theology is a little misleading. It speaks of it in monolithic terms as if there is a uniquely Dispensational view of salvation, etc. The only areas of theology in which Dispensationalism makes unique contributions eschatology, ecclesiology, and perhaps Pneumatology (Spirit Baptism).
37. Dan Phillips
July 15, 2009
10:41 AM
Good point. Similarly, neither amillennialism nor CT are monolithic.
38. Bibliomaniac
July 15, 2009
11:14 AM
Excellent distinctions, William. Thank you!
It’s the overconfident oversimplifications of the Chin Wee Angs and Tom Hardys that muddle the discussion.
39. Scott
July 15, 2009
1:13 PM
Much agreed and this is why most critics (even the supposedly well-educated ones) of dispensationalism show very little understanding of the issues, the history and the broader context of how theology is articulated from nascent forms to more developed ones over the course of history. From the standpoint of clear articulation of a so-called system, CT is a relatively new system as well. Justin Taylor’s blog even had an interesting discussion on how the venerable acronym TULIP was a turn of the century invention (i.e. 19th to 20th). Augustine did not concieve of the issues regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation the way the Canons of Dordt did. Not even Calvin articulated the matter with the sophistication of Dordt. We might even say that the New Perspective on Paul has led many to craft a more finely-tuned articualtion of Justification then hirtherto has been achieved. Great caution must be exercised when claiming that the recent articulation of dispensationalism is an indication of its falsehood. From the standpoint of historical theology the argument is untenable.
40. Dan Phillips
July 15, 2009
3:00 PM
Bingo, bingo, and bingo, Scott. Some of the very examples in the “25 stupid reasons” (linked above).
41. donsands
July 15, 2009
5:26 PM
“Great caution must be exercised when claiming that the recent articulation of dispensationalism is an indication of its falsehood.”
And could this same principle apply to full-preterism? I have a friend who is a full-preterist, and he sort of leaned on this same principle for his enlightenment that Christ returned in 70 AD.
I’m just asking how to know the false new from the true new.
42. Dan
July 15, 2009
5:40 PM
Scott, that is a good point to an extent. However, I don’t think it is proper to imply that ones ecclesiology, eschatology, and pneumatology can some how be divorced from a persons soteriology. Christ purchcased (soteriology) the church (ecclesiology). Similarly, the Spirit was sent in Christ’s name (John 14:26) as a result of His work (see John 7:39). All aspects of theology are interconnected so it is, in my opinion, improper to say that Dispensationalism only makes unique contributions to eschatology, ecclesiology, and pneumatology. Was it not the result of Christ’s death that the dividing wall of hostility was broken down between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14)?
43. Dan Phillips
July 15, 2009
7:07 PM
Scott, you’re right.
Vlatch discusses, documents, and develops that very point that in his book.
44. William Emberley
July 15, 2009
10:59 PM
Dan, I may have been unclear in my comment. I certainly admit and wholeheartedly endorse the notion of the interconnectedness of all theology. My point is that there is no “unique” contribution that Dispensationalism makes to soteriology, hamartiology, theology proper, etc. The fact that popular dispensational teachers have postulated doubtful interpretations doesn’t mean they did/do “because” of their dispensationalism. Some suggest one cannot be a Dispensationalist and a Calvinist. This is, in my opinion, the very error I caution against. I craft my soteriology the same way many Calvinists do. I simply do not feel I need to include a covenantal rubric. Similarly, one can be a Dispensational Arminian.
45. Tom Hardy
July 15, 2009
11:27 PM
Rick said:
“Tom,
It’s been a long time since I’ve watched that “History of Calvinism” DVD, but the only thing that sticks in my memory is watching a very slow progression of portraits of Calvin, R.C Sproul, J. MacArthur, etc. etc.., and thinking to myself “If I knew nothing about Calvinism and was watching this I’d think that Calvinists seem to worship other Calvinists”. “
Not sure why you said that. Is there something wrong with listening to what knowledgeable Calvinists say about Soteriology? How can doing this possibly convey that Calvinists worship other Calvinists?
One of the very things I liked about the DVD was the way it progressed. Perhaps that is because for the most part it appealed to the way I think. In many cases, I would be thinking a question (although I knew most of the answers because of study), and most of the time, it was answered in quite a satisfactory way. When it didn’t give a satisfactory answer, it prompted me to seek out the answer in a deeper way.
My friend who is now a Calvinist didn’t have the thoughts you did. In fact your mentioning this is the first time I have read about anyone thinking that Calvinists worship other Calvinists, at least when it comes to this particular DVD.
About the nearest thing I have ever come upon to that, is when I gave an article to a former Arminian pastor of mine so he could give me some feedback.
In that feed back, what I found quite perplexing is when the article quoted people like CH Spurgeon. My former pastor rather than giving a reason why he disagreed with Spurgeon, instead wrote in brackets “(hero worship)”.
Personally speaking, I find this sentiment hard to understand. People like CH Spurgeon, Calvin, RC Sproul etc… are very good communicators of the Gospel.
Although we should all learn the Scriptures for ourselves, not all of us are great communicators.
That particular DVD as I said before is a testimony of this fact. It was able to communicate to my friend in a manner (despite hours on my part trying), that I was unable to do.
46. j challies
July 15, 2009
11:37 PM
I am almost finished reading through “Things To Come” by Dwight Pentecost. I must confess that when he begins to describe the details of Ezekial’s temple and the concomittant sacrificial system to be established in Israel during the millenial reign, I feel like i am in the presence of someone who is claiming to be Napolean Bonaparte [not Dynamite]. I realize that he is deadly serious about the integrity of his exegesis. I am trul;y flummoxed and bebothered.
47. Tom Hardy
July 16, 2009
12:30 AM
I want to state that although I definitely am not a Dispensationalist (although I spent most of my Christian life as one), I do not in any way use eschatology as a subject that I believe is important enough for Christians to divide over. There are many fine Christians who are Dispensational in their eschatology.
I made some statements earlier based on my studies over the years. Some of which, were learned from Dispensationalists themselves. This does not however mean that one Dispensationalist speaks for all Dispensationalists.
I actually hesitate to even get into discussion on the subject, because the topic often causes more friction than I would like to be involved in.
Although I am a big fan of the Amazing Grace the history and theology of Calvinism DVD, I probably will not be viewing this particular DVD.
I would however, view a DVD that they produce on a subject like evangelism, if they ever make one.
48. Dan
July 16, 2009
12:57 AM
Hey William- I didn’t catch that. However, I must politely still disagree. With regards to soteriology especially, I think that Dispensationalism (though not so much with people Bock) takes away from the Gentiles full oneness with Israel. Furthermore, it takes certain promises away from me that I, as an Amil, believe are for me. “And all these [OT Saints], though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us [NT Saints], that apart from us they should not be made perfect,” (Hebrews 11:39-40).
49. jackie
July 16, 2009
7:50 AM
Is there another choice? I can’t figure out if I am amil or something entirely different. I used to be a flaming dispensationalist. Then I was surrounded by reformed influences. I still can’t figure out what reformed folk believe about Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel - as far as the return of Jesus. All I can figure out is they believe Jesus is coming back. ( Unless you all believe He came back in 70 A.D.? Gasp). And that they are NOT dispensational leaning at all.
50. Dan Phillips
July 16, 2009
8:39 AM
Challies: “I am trul;y [sic] flummoxed and bebothered….”
…because a much more respectful way of dealing with eight highly-detailed, verbally-inspired, inerrant chapters describing worship in a temple that has never yet existed is ____?
51. Dan
July 16, 2009
2:27 PM
Hi Jackie, I wish I had the time and space to go over the Amil position. However, the best resource I know of to explain not only this position, but all other prominent positions is a book by Martyn Lloyd-Jones called ‘Great Doctrines of the Bible.’ I believe it is the second volume but it is the treatment on the doctrines of the Church and the Last Things (and maybe the Holy Spirit as well??). Anyways, I was once a flaming dispensationalist as well and this book actually was the first influence that changed my mind… Highly recommended!!! Very valuable for a host of other items as well…
52. Ralph Traylor
July 16, 2009
4:28 PM
Jackie and Dan:
What exactly is a “flaming” dispensationalist anyway? Is that an oblique reference to Dan Phillips, the TeamPyro blogger? Or, is it a back-handed slur? In your view, are there any “intelligent” or “thoughtful” dispensationalists or do you hold them all in low regard? —RT
53. Dan
July 16, 2009
5:19 PM
Ralph, I was just using her terminology from her previous post and was just trying to be humerous. Yes, there are thoughtful dispensationalists. I go to a Dispensationalist seminary and respect the faculty very much. It is hard to determine tone via written media of this sort but I sense a bit of hostility. In that regard, I have made some posts on this blog and am opting out at this point unless there are specific questions for me.
54. James B Drake
July 17, 2009
11:32 AM
All flaming will occur in a future dispensation. Except for preterists who have already been flamed. Or those who are a-flamers.