Return to Archive | Return to WebGrace.net | Return to e-Grace.net
Christian Chronicles, February 2002 - Volume 5, Issue 76
| The
Editor's Pen | Perspectives | Mid-East Update |
| Fruit of the Vine | It
Is Shocking! | Apostasy | On
Sound Doctrine | What Is A Dispensation?
| How Many & What Are They? |
Have you noticed that there are very few doctrines being preached in churches these days? More and more preachers are turning to social themes, as our societies grow less interested in the things of God and more interested in the things of self. In many churches, the emphasis is more about getting along with one another than contending for the faith. Indeed, even in many seminaries today, doctrines are being diluted for the sake of harmony.
Sadly, a seminary that we have always held in the very highest esteem is shifting away from the classical position on Dispensationalism to a perversion of that great system. Even Dallas Theological Seminary has abandoned its roots and is now committed to what has lately been termed “Progressive” Dispensationalism. The progress, however, has been in the ways of the world and not in the Word of God.
Mixed signals. That is what we are receiving daily from both sides. Sharon says that Arafat can still be a partner in the peace process, even as Israel blasts away at the Palestinian infrastructure. Arafat condemns acts of terror even as the PLO has turned to women to carry their suicide bombs.
Diplomatic maneuvering and political wrangling. These characterize the chaos that is the Middle East today. As the U.S. heats up its rhetoric against both Iran and Iraq, and as Israel makes ineffective approaches to Syria; as the rhetoric of war escalates, the hearts of men grow faint. The more fearful they become, the greater sounds their bluster. It is one of the perversities of the human race. Even in the animal kingdom, many creatures make great displays of threat in order to avoid open conflict and violence. But among men, miscalculations are more common than correct calculations, and that is often why we have wars.
At the same time as we are seeing the rhetoric heating up, we are also seeing more people die again. All the world is focused upon the Middle East. Europe is very concerned. Asia is worried. The nations in the far north are watching with apprehension. The Americas are more than a little uneasy about the expanding risk of a great conflagration.
It is precisely what we need in this “enlightened” age to push us to accept the treaty for which the devil is even now preparing the ground. The world is stumbling blindly toward the Great Tribulation period, and does not even know it. Groping for peace, they shall find war.
Understanding the doctrine of Dispensationalism will not cause a person to be saved. In fact, it is probably not a doctrine that an unsaved person would grasp if taught. In this column, as always, the emphasis is upon the bearing of fruit. Every grape in every cluster on every grapevine in all the world is a picture of the work of every Christian, or it should be. Every cluster might be said to represent a local assembly, where every member has the Seed in himself, prepared and waiting to drop into soil that God has prepared.
Why, then, does not every Christian produce fruit? Is the seed not in those Christians? Of course it is. Not every grape eventually drops its seed into fertile soil or bears fruit. The seed must be good. The Seed that is in us is God, and every Christian can be fruitful, can lead souls to the Lord. However, without sound doctrine, we cannot turn anyone to Christ. The devil has attacked the Bride of Christ at the very core of her purpose, stripping Christians of doctrine so that they cannot be fruitful in their own personal ministries. The Bride must return to her roots, to the Vine Himself, and then she shall become fruitful indeed.
O Timothy, keep that
Which is committed to thy trust,
Avoiding profane and idle babblings,
And oppositions of science
Falsely so-called.
(1 Tim 6:20)
The NKJV says “guard” rather than “keep.” That is probably a better translation. Christians today are guardians of the Word of God. We are guardians of sound doctrine, of the great tenets of our faith. There is no other body of people on the earth who are charged with keeping the Word of God pure, and of sustaining that harmony of doctrine which has always characterized the people of God.
To “guard” implies a militant stance. Soldiers and police are guards. Guards are armed with weapons of warfare, trained in the use of those weapons, instructed in the appropriate occasions for their use, and willing to wield those weapons without notice against any and every adversary.
Christians are unique in the arenas of war, however. While we have weapons, and while the Bible instructs us in their use, our weapons are always to be tempered with love. Our warfare is not against those who rail against God or engage in such “artistic” blasphemies as Robert Mapplethorpe. Our warfare is not against abortion clinics or prostitutes or murderers or drunks or other sinners. Oh, no! Our battle is much more subtle than that. We are guardians against those who would pervert the gospel of grace, who would compromise the great doctrines of our faith for the sake of money or popularity or fame or for any other reason at all.
As recently as half a century ago, many seminaries were still teaching sound doctrines. Most agreed that the Bible was inerrant, that God was its Author, and that we could trust it to say what God meant and to mean precisely what it said. Now even many Baptist schools are suggesting that it is fable and allegory, that it doesn’t mean what it says, and that the men whom it declares to be the writers were probably not the real writers of it. For example, it has been claimed that Solomon did not write those proverbs that bear his name, but that they were collected by his descendants and credited to him.
Such a small thing as that may not seem to matter all that much, and in truth, it is not a major point. But it is symptomatic of an attitude; of an irreverence that is unseemly, of an arrogance that is not fitting for a child of God; that we should correct His Word according to the whims of “modern scholarship,” falsely so-called.
It is this attitude that has led men away from sound doctrine toward a social gospel that is wholly irrelevant to anything worth “guarding.” The devil is subtle, and he has used his subtlety to turn the hearts and minds of real Christians from the truth unto fables. Unto profane and vain babblings. It ought not be so.
One of the most staid, conservative schools of theology on the planet has changed course almost altogether. One of the stalwarts of Dispensationalism has begun to espouse a relatively new system called Progressive Dispensationalism. As the center article in this issue will explain, Progressive Dispensationalism is not Dispensationalism at all, really. It is such a perversion of that great doctrine that to call it Progressive Dispensationalism is an affront to classical Dispensationalism.
Not many Christians care much one way or the other about such an obscure doctrine. This, because not many preachers have studied it adequately to teach it to their congregations. Dispensationalism is an essential outcome of a plain or normal interpretation of the Scriptures. It is a system of interpretation that lends a certain order to our understanding of God’s Word. Christians do not care because they do not know, and they do not know because those who teach them have not learned.
There are still a few schools that teach classical Dispensationalism, but the defection of Dallas from their ranks is a stunning development. This theologian fully expected to see that great institution remain sound until the rapture. To be fair, DTS is still sound in many of the doctrines of our faith, but Dispensationalism is such a key component of sound conservatism that many great theologians of our day are simply aghast to see this shift.
Progressive Dispensationalism badly blurs the distinction that the Bible makes between Israel and the Church, blending the promises made to one with those made to the other, muddying the waters of a pretribulation rapture of the Church, and generally stealing a bit of the blessed hope from the upcoming generation of Bible teachers and preachers.
Every sign points clearly to these being the last days of the Church Age. Paul clearly declared that apostasy would characterize the professing church during the last days (1 Tim 4:1-7; 2 Tim 3:1-7; 2 Th 2:3). We should not, therefore, be surprised to find that it is so. While we may not know the day or the hour, this great apostasy is a very clear indication of the times and seasons in which we find ourselves. We may look with confidence for the rapture of the Church.
The main purpose, indeed the only purpose, of false doctrine is to destroy faith. Apostasy has so permeated professing Christendom in these last days that its influence can be seen on every hand. We would do well to remember this about doctrinal error which Dr. Ironside writes: “It is a definite mercy that in His wisdom God allowed every possible form of error to arise in the apostolic era of the church’s history, in order that all might be exposed, and the truth declared through inspired men, that thus the faith in its simplicity might be preserved for the generations to come. As a result of this, Satan has nothing new to offer. Old heresies are redressed and brought forward as new--conceptions of truth from age to age--but in this respect, ‘there is nothing new under the sun.’ Old errors are being presented in new terms.”
Two foundational doctrines, in particular, will be dealt with here. These, it will be seen, are errors to which we simply must “not yield submission, even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue.” These two errors are Salvation by Works, and Covenant Theology. The former denies salvation to the lost, and the latter renders the saved unfruitful and unblessed. Both are sinister plots by the devil to thwart the purposes of God.
Salvation by Works
Any doctrine of salvation that depends upon any work of man is to be rejected based upon the testimony of Scripture with its clear gospel message of the limitless grace of God in the Person and work of Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9). The meaning of the word “salvation” in the Greek (soteria and soterion) has the basic meaning “to rescue, save, deliver”) — Strong’s G4990-92.Romans 1 speaks of the pagan who stands in need of salvation regardless of his ignorance.
Romans 2 speaks to us of the moral man who stands in need of rescue regardless of his morality and of the Jew who stands in need of deliverance regardless of his heritage.
Romans 3 begins with a summation of the fact that we all stand guilty before a holy and just God, and ends with a declaration of the greatest truth ever revealed to man: that “...now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed,” and that “a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:21, 28).
In Romans 4, Paul expands on his theme of justification by grace through faith in Christ and declares that “him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (v.5) He concludes with the reason for the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ: He “was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (v.25).
In Romans 5, he speaks of the results of this justification saying, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (v.1). He further declares that “if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (v.10). He then goes on to contrast the condemnation, which came through Adam and spread to all men; and the justification, which comes through the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, extended to all who believe in His name: “And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification... Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s [Jesus’] righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life” (Vv. 16, 18).
Regardless of the difficult verses that might be raised to refute salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, the Book of Romans, and this doctrine it sets forth, are clear, and must not be set aside, but rather, always taken into account. God, through Paul, could not have spoken any more clearly than He has in the letter to the Romans. “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law, for they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:
“Behold I lay in Zion
a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
This destructive error (salvation by works), as with all sophism, presents some very convincing arguments. Yet, it is always and ever the righteousness of God, imparted to sinful man through faith in the finished work of Christ, that is able to save the soul. The Arminian view of salvation, in a nutshell, is that we must pay for our rescue with good deeds. Lordship Salvation is much more crafty in its deception. Salvation is given freely, without payment, as the Bible so clearly states, yet it is to be repaid once faith has been exercised and salvation obtained. It is this repayment that will ultimately give assurance of salvation, according to the proponents of Lordship Salvation. Yet, as John Calvin so aptly stated, “Assurance is of the essence of saving faith.”
Covenant Theology
Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote many years ago of the dangers of Covenant Theology saying,
“A clear recognition of that which, through divine grace, the Church is, of the supreme position she occupies as the Body of Christ, and of the glory and exaltation which awaits her as the Bride of the Lamb, is indispensable if a worthy perspective of God's plan and purpose is to be gained. The all but universal disregard on the part of theologians for the Pauline revelation respecting the Church has wrought confusion and damage to an immeasurable degree… Upon this human invention of two covenants Reformed Theology has largely been constructed. It sees the empirical truth that God can forgive sinners only by that freedom which is secured by the sacrifice of His Son--anticipated in the old order and realized in the new. However, that theology utterly fails to discern God's purposes for the ages; the varying relationships to God of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church, with the distinctive, consistent human obligations which arise directly and unavoidably from the nature of each specific relationship to God…. The Reformers did not restore all features of doctrine, and along with justification by faith, retained the Romish notion that the Church is the Kingdom, fulfilling the Davidic covenant, and appointed to conquer the world by bringing it under the authority of the Church. This idea has prevailed in spite of the clear, uncomplicated testimony of the New Testament that this dispensation must end in unprecedented wickedness… It is common practice with some theologians to brand millennialism as a modern theory, forgetting that, in its restored form, even justification by faith and millennialism were taught in the New Testament and were therefore the belief of the early Church. These doctrines, like all other essential truths, went into obscurity during the Dark Ages.”
The Destructive Compromise of Progressive Dispensationalism
The proponents of Progressive Dispensationalism reason that Christ is, at the present moment, ruling in Heaven on the throne of David. Seeking to find harmony amongst covenant and dispensational theology, they, in the end, only wind up agreeing with covenant theology, leaving dispensational (Pauline) theology by the wayside. This is done by proposing an “already/not yet” view of the Davidic Covenant. He’s already ruling, but not yet. Quite a stretch.
From their book Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Bridge Point, 1993), Blaising and Bock write:
“Every New Testament description of the present throne of Jesus is drawn from Davidic covenant promises. Repeatedly, the New Testament declares that He is enthroned at the right hand of God in fulfillment of the promise given in Psalm 110:1. This is a Davidic promise; it is the son of David who fulfills it. In Acts 2:30-36, the resurrection, ascension, and seating of Christ in heaven at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1) are presented in light of the prediction "that God had sworn to him [David] with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne" (Acts 2:30). No other throne is discussed in this text except the Davidic throne.
New Testament descriptions of this enthronement at the right hand of God are often filled with other Davidic features such as being exalted above all other kings, all rule, and all authority. Having all his enemies subjected to him or in some texts waiting to have all things subjected to him are both descriptions drawn from Davidic promises. The title Son of God also appears quite often in these texts and is explicitly linked to the Davidic promise of divine Sonship.
[Jesus'] present kingship is further elaborated in Hebrews in terms of its Melchizedekian priestly office and function, another Davidic covenant promise (the oath sworn to David and revealed in Psalm 110:4). This priestly office is brought together with the already defined Davidic sonship to describe again His present throne—the "throne of grace" (Heb. 4:16), occupied by our "great high priest...Jesus the Son of God" (4:14, cf. 5:5-6).
First of all, the Bible itself describes the present position and activity of Christ in terms of promises covenanted to David. These truths are discerned through a historical-literary interpretation of Scripture. We are not following a "spiritual interpretation" when we read and understand the title Christ to mean the anointed Davidic King and interpret the Scriptures as saying that Jesus presently is and acts as the Christ .”
A brief rebuttal by Mal Couch:
1. Blaising and Bock are misunderstanding the obvious fact that Jesus as one person, is carrying out many roles and offices in several dispensational settings. Each name and description of Jesus points to various functions that are not always co-joined. For example, He is named "Jesus," called "the Anointed (Messiah/King)," labeled "the Lord," acts as a "High Priest," an "Intercessor," called "the Son of God," "the Son of Man," etc.
2. The Bible clearly points to two distinct thrones. For example, this one verse is hard to refute:
“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21).
3. The Bible distinctly references a future earthly kingdom but does not hint at nor indicate a present spiritual Messianic kingdom reign. For example, the literalness of this passage is difficult to argue against:
“You [disciples] are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My [earthly] kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28-30).
4. Finally, nowhere does the Bible say Christ is presently on David's Throne, either in a spiritual or physical sense!
Indeed, Peter said: “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior…” (Acts 5:31). Jesus is the Prince today; He shall be the King hereafter. Satan is today the prince of this world and the prince of the power of the air. If Jesus is ruling His people, He is not doing a very good job, is He?
In conclusion
Miles J. Stanford makes an interesting observation regarding false doctrine. He writes, “Heresies cause us to be like the Bereans, who...
‘were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so’ (Acts 17:11).
Heretics cause us to learn how to handle error correctly, and how to share the truth. Christian character is formed, and God is glorified.
‘The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose them’ (2 Tim. 2:24, 25).
‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth’ (2 Tim. 2:15).”
O Timothy! Guard what has been committed to your trust!
Why do we call ourselves Dispensationalists? How are we distinguished by that name from other Christians? Why are so many so virulently opposed to Dispensationalism? How can I know the truth of the matter?
Reasonable questions, all. Let us answer them in brief and in order.
Dispensationalists are those who accept a plain or normal interpretation of the Scriptures, who also recognize certain differences in the things God has demanded of man at different points in history. For example, God did not expect man to offer blood sacrifices in the Garden of Eden. There, He only had one test of man’s stewardship: he must refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the Garden. Neither, between the Flood and the establishment of the Law, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil an issue. Before the Flood, God governed mankind. Afterward, man was given that responsibility. After the Cross, we do not offer blood sacrifices any longer, for the one Sacrifice that paid for the sins of man forever has already been offered. Any further sacrifice would suggest that Christ’s offering of His body on the tree was not sufficient. Each of the different periods is called (by theologians) a “Dispensation.”
We are distinguished from other Christians because we recognize those differences in administration whereas others do not. It is said that we teach a changeable God. We do not. The fact that God’s requirements of man change from time to time does not imply or state that God Himself changes in any way.
Many Christians virulently oppose Dispensationalism because they have been told that Dispensationalism teaches more than one way of salvation. Nothing could be less true. We believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith, in every dispensation, but that the prohibitions that made salvation necessary have changed from time to time. That is, every man since Adam has been utterly lost through sin, and has needed the grace of God, offered only through the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross, to effect a salvation that man could achieve in no other way. Salvation has always been the same, but the demonstration of man’s sinfulness has been made in various ways, from the Garden of Eden, all the way up to the millennial kingdom. Man did not require salvation until he fell, but once fallen, could not save himself by any works of his own (e.g. the fig leaves). God provided the sacrifice in the coats of skins. Under the Law of Moses, man had a great many rituals and sacrifices to observe. However, those sacrifices did not save him. Rather, it was their faith in God’s Word that promised that the sacrifices would somehow become effective in forestalling judgment upon them for their sins that saved them. Even under the most rigorous of requirements, the Law, salvation was by God’s grace through faith. To state that Dispensationalists teach otherwise is to confuse and to accuse falsely.
How can one know the truth? It is a simple matter, really. The Bible clearly teaches differences in administration. There are distinct periods in which God’s requirements of man have differed since the creation. One can know the truth simply by reading God’s Word objectively, rather than from a preconceived perspective.
That brings us to a discussion of why some theologians are so vocal in their opposition. It is not because Dispensationalism teaches a different method of salvation. Not at all. It is because, if Dispensationalism is true, then a non-dispensational prophetic scheme must be changed. Dispensationalists believe in a rigid distinction between Israel and the Church, each with its own structure of prophecy, each with its own unique set of promises and destinies. Most non-dispensationalists blend the prophecies concerning Israel with those concerning the Church, so that their entire prophetic scheme is altered in many particulars from what the Bible clearly teaches. If Dispensationalism is true, and it is based upon a plain or normal hermeneutics, then a non-dispensational view cannot also be true.
It is not difficult to see why some have a hard time accepting Dispensationalism. Many have invested their entire lives in defending prophetic schemes that cannot be defended if Israel and the Church are distinct. Dispensationalism is that Scriptural understanding which must result in such a distinction. The real irony lies in the fact that a glance at the world stage will confirm the plain interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures, for that which is foretold literally is also that which is unfolding right before our eyes. That is why non-dispensationalsits are so virulent. They are becoming desperate as they are being proven wrong.
There are seven dispensations: seven distinct periods in the Bible in which man has been tested in respect to some particular revelation of the will of God.
Innocence — In the Garden of Eden —Man was innocent. The only test of his stewardship of the Word of God was to refrain from partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Conscience, or Moral Responsibility — From the Fall of man to the Flood — Man was required to do all known good and to refrain from all known evil.
Human Government — From the Flood to the call of Abram — Meat was added to man’s diet, capital punishment instituted.
Promise — From the call of Abram to the giving of the Law — The Messianic line was drawn off from the rest of mankind and given special treatment and specific promises.
The Law — From Sinai to Christ — An elaborate system of rituals and sacrifices and laws was given to the Jews, involving regularly scheduled blood sacrifices. Only Jews could be saved.
Grace — From the First Advent of Christ to the Second — God is calling out a people for His name from among the Jews and the Gentiles alike. The test is faith alone.
Kingdom — From the Second Advent to the eternal state — The curse is lifted and the earth is again Edenic in form.
Man was never saved by any works, but the works were outward demonstrations of his inner faith. Man has failed in every test, and will yet fail in the kingdom of Christ, under ideal conditions.
Return to Archive | Return to WebGrace.net | Return to e-Grace.net