Below is pt. 3 of 3 continued from the last post. Last post we saw:1) Definitions of Dispensationalism, and 2) Distinctions of Dispensationalism. It would be helpful to read yesterday's post before pursuing this post. Also, pictured to the right is C.I. Scofield.
Dissection of Dispensationalism
Now that the “broad strokes” have been painted regarding DT as a system, allow me to elaborate on a few features of DT that I mentioned above which need to be analyzed in greater detail:
· DT’s supposed “literal” interpretation of Scripture
· Promises to ethnic Israel
· The purpose of the various dispensations
DT’s Supposed “Literal” Interpretation of Scripture
Let me clarify something very important. One of the most frustrating things I have seen proponents of DT do is claim for themselves a “literal” hermeneutic (interpretive method of Scripture). Of course, the implication behind such a claim suggests that no other system holds to this method of interpretation. I know this from personal experience, for I used to be a dispensationalist. Their claim is simply false. Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology both literally interpret the Scriptures. That is to say, CT and NCT hold to the grammatical – historical hermeneutic that the Reformers promoted.
So if this is true, then why do dispensationalists claim this as a unique hallmark of their system, and furthermore, does their understanding of “literal” differ in any significant way compared to CT and NCT? The first part of the question probably dates back to the days of liberalism when folks were doing anything but interpreting the Scriptures “literally”. In the liberal days, the miracles of Scripture were denied, many parts of Scripture were slandered, and anything good said about Jesus related to His supposed humanitarian spirit. Therefore, some very prominent, bold, and godly men rose up and claimed the “fundamentals” of the faith. One of the fundamentals of the faith concerned a literal interpretation of Scripture. This was essentially a call to affirm the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. If this is what dispensationalists mean by “literal”, then we are okay with that. Indeed, they do mean this. I know many dispensationalists, and have been influenced by many, who would literally die before denying the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. In fact, some of these men are the boldest men I have ever known. However, that is not all they mean by “literal”. Their understanding of “literal” possesses a non-negotiable position that sees ethnic, national Israel as holding a special place in God’s heart (even today…yea forever!) This is troubling, and unbiblical. Their argument would go something like this- “in the Old Testament God promised the nation of Israel that they would be His people. He promised them land and many blessings. This was a unilateral commitment on God’s part that began with His promises to Abraham. These promises continued throughout the days of Moses, even though the people were characterized by rebellion. When Christ came, the nation of Israel rejected their King. However, God cannot be done with Israel because of the promises He made to Abraham. Regardless of their rebellion and initial rejection of their King, God will see to it that they do not reject Him again. Therefore, God will someday bring to fruition the promises He made to the nation of Israel long ago.” The only conclusion to such an argument is that there are two peoples of God. In addition, it even appears that ethnic Israel sits in a superior position to that of the church. The church is viewed as a “parenthesis” in God’s redemptive plan. To be sure, this is the exact reverse of anti-Semitism; it is Jewish favoritism.
Well, all would agree that God’s promises to Abraham will be completely fulfilled. However, dispensationalists are the only ones (out of the three systems we are studying) who would say these promises to ethnic Israel were not fulfilled in the church. We would say they are fulfilled in the church because that is what the New Testament teaches. Both CT and NCT give logical priority to the NT over the OT when it comes to prophecy and God’s promises to national Israel. The New Testament is clear that the church is the true people of God. NCT would go even further and say that the nation of Israel was only a picture and shadow of the church- the true people of God. But these affirmations by both CT and NCT in no way deny a literal interpretation of Scripture. Both CT and NCT believe God’s promises to national Israel are literally fulfilled- they are literally fulfilled in the church, the true people of God, not national, ethnic Israel!
Therefore, it is erroneous and misleading for DT to claim a literal interpretation of Scripture as a unique feature of their system. They steal the term “literal” and make it mean only one thing. And if anyone departs from their understanding of “literal”, then they make the accusation that that person (or system) does not hold to a literal hermeneutic. This is a mistake at best and fallacious at worst.
Promises to Ethnic Israel
As stated above, one does not have to believe that ethnic Israel holds a place of first priority in God’s heart in order to hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture. When I say that CT and NCT do not believe literal promises will be fulfilled to a literal nation of Israel at the end times, I am not denying the possibility that many Jewish people will come to saving faith in Jesus Christ throughout the new covenant era. To deny this would be a direct contradiction of Scripture (Gal. 3:28: Rom. 9-11). Furthermore, such a view is ultimately anti-Semitic. God can do whatever He wants. My point is simply that God is not bound to nationally redeem Israel, anymore than He is nationally bound to redeem the United States. God is not in covenant with “nations” and “governments”. The only nation He was in covenant with was ancient Israel. But the promises made to national Israel (the Apostles are clear in the NT) were fulfilled in the church because ancient Israel was only a type of the true people of God. The church is the anti-type. Indeed, it would even be correct to say that God is in covenant with only one “nation” today- the church (I Pet. 2:9).
The Purpose of the Various Dispensations
As I pointed out above, DT affirms that the basic reason behind God relating to man differently via various dispensations was to reveal the guilt of sin in man’s heart. One would have a hard time denying the concept behind this claim. Certainly, God cut covenant with Israel on Sinai to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin. In other words, the purpose behind the covenant was to exacerbate sin and reveal to man his wicked and hopeless state apart from Divine grace. In other words, the concept is truly part of the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, there appears to be some truth possessed by DT regarding this concept in its barest form, especially as it pertains to the Mosaic era.
In conclusion, I would like to end on a rather personal note. Most of my life has been spent in churches that largely held to DT. My college degree (B.A. Bible) is from a strong dispensational school, although much of the Bible faculty were not classical dispensationalists. Recent family heritage suggests that many of my ancestors were Baptist preachers who were likely dispensational in their theology. Of course, I do not know this for sure because they are not alive for me to ask them theological questions. I know that two of my great, great grandfathers pastored the same Baptist church in Wayne County, WV. I came to know the Lord and was baptized in this church. The pastors have, for the most part, been dispensational. Most of my extended family are believers, and they too have been raised and influenced by pastors who held to some form of dispensational theology. I say all of this to say that God uses dispensationalists, primarily because they get the Gospel right for the most part, although they are very wrong in other areas. If you talk to some Reformed folk, they act as if dispensationalists should be subject to “theological leprosy camps”. I do not believe so. Nevertheless, I still think they are largely wrong in their belief system. My study of each theological system convinces me that the issue is one of precision when it comes to "getting the Gospel right". It is our responsibility and solemn duty to uphold the Gospel in such a way that we are precise about what it is. I believe, at the end of the day, that dispensationalism confuses the Gospel in many areas. It does not get it wrong per se, but it distorts it. One must be fully convinced in his own mind. Nevertheless, the Gospel must never, never be muddled, or distorted in the slightest. It is left to the reader, therefore, to judge which system is the most clear about the Gospel. This will take much study and thought, but the Gospel is the most important thing in the world, so it is worth the time and energy. With that being said, these posts are not meant to be arguments against the distinct positions as much as they are meant to simply provide general information regarding their major beliefs and presuppositions. This last section (Dissection of DT) has not served as a detailed critique. Its purpose was simply to “set the record straight” regarding some misconceptions that I believe DT adherents possess as it pertains to the other theological camps.
Pursuing Truth with Precision,
Andy
No comments:
Post a Comment