Category: Dispensationalism

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 3

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

–continuing from part 2.

Justification for “Spiritualizing” the Land Promise

Whenever one starts talking of “spiritualizing” a text, various wrong-headed assumptions abound. Dispensationalists often use this charge to show our disregard for the Biblical text. And sometimes, any honest effort to show metaphorical language in Scripture is met with suspicion — oh so you are spiritualizing, huh? Now many act as if it is obvious that spiritualizing a text is clearly not acceptable. But what Scripture teaches us this? In fact, is Jesus spiritualizing the Bible, when he claims that the serpent raised by Moses in the wilderness, pointed to Him? Or Paul, when he claims that the Rock in the wilderness wanderings, was Jesus Christ?

Scripture and the Scriptural authors often make clear that they are finding fuller meaning in Old Testament events and pictures. In years gone by, this aspect of Scripture was widely understood and various types and anti-types were common knowledge. But even beyond the places where Scripture points us to a typological understanding, many Christians recognize that some kind of analogical or typological [or more simply, a spiritual] meaning is warranted. I hold that all of Scripture points to and finds its ultimate meaning in Christ. God as the Architect of and sovereign over all history, can work events such that they foreshadow and typify spiritual realities He will later reveal or make clear. Scripture is thick with this, and we can expect that this is how God operates. Granted we do not have liberty to spiritualize and allegoracalize wherever we see fit. We must be guided in this by Scripture.

In the case at hand, I bring forth four reasons why we should view the land promise as pointing to a spiritual reality.

1) God’s purposeful placing of Israel

In Ezekiel 5 we read:

Thus says the Lord GOD: This is Jerusalem. I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. (Ezekiel 5:5)

This shows us that the very placing of the land of Israel was intentional, by God. It was not just a plot of land, that God liked, but it was chosen to be central to the known world of the day. This strongly hints that the land had a purpose beyond merely being a home for his people. Rather it was to make Israel a city on a hill, and let it testify of God’s might to the nations all around. So there are aspects of the land which have spiritual and other meanings, beyond mere national turf.

2) The connection between the NT Church and the OT Temple

The NT often presents God’s people (the Church) as a figurative Temple.

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? …God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor. 3:16-17)

…we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (2 Cor. 6:16b)

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22)

In the second passage above, it is interesting to observe that the very promise that God would dwell with His people and be their God is not merely for Abraham and Israel. It is not something only ultimately fulfilled in the time Revelation 21 describes. Rather, it is true now, and for God’s people, the Church. And more, God’s dwelling in His Church today is a fulfillment of those promises quoted in 2 Cor. 6:16 (quoted from Old Testament passages such as Gen. 17:7-8, Ex. 29:45, Lev. 26:12, and Ezek. 37:27).

3) The NT interpretation of the OT Jewish restoration promises

Now the Dispensationalists make much of the many promises in the Old Testament that God would restore Israel, and rebuild the Temple. Since this has not happened yet, they argue, these promises point to a future fulfillment. I won’t discount any future aspect to these promises, but I would like to look closely on how a key promise is interpreted and understood by James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the church at Jerusalem.

Here is the passage in Amos:

“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the LORD who does this…. “I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given them,” says the LORD your God. (Amos 9:11-12, 14-15)

It is pretty obvious that this passage is referring to the restoration of Israel in their land. They are going to be planted on their land, never to be uprooted again. However, see how James understands and applies this passage. James is speaking in the verses below:

Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.” Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God…. (Acts 15:14-19)

James was not looking for some future fulfillment of this passage. He saw it being fulfilled now. The growth of the Church was the fulfillment of the rebuilding of the fallen tent of David. Gentiles were turning to God, even as the Church was rising in prominence.

This passage should be important to us as we seek to interpret other restoration passages in the Old Testament. The New Testament has provided a model for how to interpret them. The Church is the new Temple. According to Ephesians 2, the Church and Israel together are “one new man” (cf. Eph. 2:15), and are being built into a single dwelling place for God (see the above quote from Eph. 2:19-22).

I’ve already gone too long for a single post, so I’ll keep the 4th point for next time. We’ll look at the connection between land and rest, and move on to view the Promised Land in perspective with other earthly realms mentioned in Scripture.

Before I go, I should point you to this link, where you can hear an excellent treatment of this topic by blogger Drake Shelton, in a message entitled “The Blossoming of the Land Promise“. If you listen to that message, some of my thunder will be stolen, but I want you to have the link. It’s an excellent treatment of the totality of Scripture in regards to this topic.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 2

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

–continuing from yesterday’s post.

The Land Promise Fulfilled?

But was the actual promise fulfilled? Were the boundaries of the land promised in Gen. 15:18-21 ever completely owned by Israel? The dispensationalists say no, and they point to history and the Biblical record of what land Israel possessed. The Philistines and other groups remained in the land such that Israel never truly owned all the land.

However, as  I started studying these claims on my own a few years ago, I came across an article by my friend Nathan Pitchford which pointed out that Scripture Itself declares that the promise of the land was fulfilled. In his article entitled Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant, Nathan pointed me to Joshua 21:43-45. Since then, I’ve also seen this restated in other scriptures, which I will quote below.

So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43-45)

So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. And they captured fortified cities and a rich land, and took possession of houses full of all good things, cisterns already hewn, vineyards, olive orchards and fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and became fat and delighted themselves in your great goodness. (Nehemiah 9:24-25)

Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant. (1 Kings 8:56)

Nathan goes on in  his paper to explore how Abraham himself viewed the land. He was looking for a heavenly city and not satisfied with an earthly inheritance, according to Hebrews 11:10, 13-16. Nathan shows how even in Genesis we can see this heavenward focus  about Abraham. I encourage you to read his paper for more.

In the  next post in this series, I will explore a Scriptural justification for “spiritualizing” the land promise. And I’ll link you to another  resource that may put everything into perspective for you.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 1

~ fundyreformed ~ 27 Comments

Some of you probably know that I am a former dispensationlist. I have since embraced Covenant Theology, at least in a broad sense. One of the key factors in my change concerning this position centered on the promise of the land.

In my experience, the promise concerning a land for Abraham’s descendants plays a vital role in supporting the claims of Dispensationalism. Since the specific plot of land promised in Genesis 15 has not yet been completely occupied by Israel, we must expect a future literal fulfillment of this promise. This leads to the conclusion that God still has dealings with physical/national Israel and promises He must keep for them, which in turn leads us to understand that God’s plans for the Church are different than His plans for Israel. God thus has two peoples, Israel and the Church, and two purposes (at least) for His interactions with man in this world.

My particular understanding of Dispensationalism included the notion that the church age was basically a parenthesis from his plan for Israel. And that his plans for Israel would be culminated in a physical thousand year reign in which the Temple and its physical sacrifices would be reinstated. Many dispensationalists today do not agree with these particular views, but nevertheless there are many who still hold to them, largely because of their support of Dispensationalism.

Since land was so central to Dispensationalism, when I saw how the New Testament treated the land promise, I soon became more and more convinced that Dispensationalism is flawed, and Covenant Theology or something similar to it, must be the preferred way of understanding how Scripture fits together.

New Testament View of The Land Promise

Compare these verses to the Dispensational understanding of the land promise:

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring“”not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,… (Rom. 4:13, 16)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Eph. 6:1-3)

Notice that the meek inherit the earth. The very promise given to Abraham concerning the land is promised to his spiritual descendants. And also the Gentile Ephesian children are promised long life in “the land” (or “the earth” as the NASB has it). Compare Eph. 6:3 with the promise as stated in Exodus 20:12b: “that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” Paul holds up this promise for the Ephesian Christians.

This NT understanding of the land promise certainly seems to spiritualize the promise [should the Ephesians really expect to live long in Canaan? or should the meek expect to inherit Canaan?] or more properly, to expand it to include the whole world (Rom. 4). And indeed the promise that God would be with Abraham’s descendants, dwell with them and be their God (see Gen. 17:7-8, also Ex. 29:45, Lev. 26:12, and Ez. 37:27) is repeated and realized in Rev. 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them”. Certainly the New Testament seems to indicate that the land promise points us to this ultimate reality.

In the next posts, I will look at the land promise a little more closely, and provide some links which may prove helpful for further study.

“The Christ of the Covenants” by O. Palmer Robertson

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

This is a review I’ve been meaning to write for some time. My brother gave me this book, back when I was a fairly new convert to covenant theology (or better a new ex-dispensationalist), a couple years ago. With my poor reading habits, I started (and sometimes finished), a good many other books before I actually finished reading this one. Don’t get me wrong, I love books and I love reading. I just am not as disciplined a reader as I should be.

Anyways, this book is not a covenantal theology manual, as some might suspect. The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson, is a book about the many Scriptural covenants: the covenant with Noah, Abraham, and David, to name a few. Robertson departs from many covenant theologians in refusing to call the pre-Creation Divine determination to redeem fallen man an actual covenant, even as he argues for the basic correctness of the covenantal position on Israel and the church.

What this book does best is show how the covenants (and not dispensations) truly structure Scripture. Indeed without understanding the covenants, one will inevitably fail to understand much of Scripture.

Being raised a dispensationalist, I had a somewhat vague understanding that there are several covenants mentioned in Scripture. But I never understood how important and influential they really are. Interestingly, in an excursus focusing on dispensationalism, Robertson compares the Old and New Scofield Bibles and shows that contemporary dispensationalism now also emphasizes the importance of the Biblical covenants.

Starting with the basics, Robertson defines the term “covenant” against the backdrop of ancient middle-eastern covenants. He concludes that in Scripture a covenant is “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Robertson delves into the technical discussions surrounding this concept, but at the same time manages to keep it somewhat simple. A relationship is established unilaterally, and loyalty is demanded on pain of death.

Robertson moves on to discuss the extent, the unity and the diversity of the Biblical covenants. He makes a good case for understanding the Gen. 1-2 in terms of a covenant of creation, citing Jeremiah 33 and Hosea 6:7 as proof. He contends that after the fall, the Biblical story is a progression of covenants each more specific and more glorious, culminating in the new covenant which was begun and inaugurated with the death of Christ. Yet he maintains that there are important differences worth noting between the covenants, and particularly between the Law and the new covenant.

Then he begins a discussion of all the important Biblical covenants, starting with the covenant of creation. He admits that the focus of that covenant is on the prohibition concerning eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but claims the covenant establishes a gracious relationship whereby man is called to rule God’s creation and given instruction concerning marriage and Sabbath observance (he contends that there is a binding Sabbath principle to be observed on Sundays still today). He rightly emphasizes that ignoring the foundational teaching of how man should relate with the rest of creation has negatively impacted how Christians relate with and think about culture today.

Then he takes up the covenant of redemption which he sees as started in Gen. 3:15, and progressively developed through the covenant with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and then the new covenant. He develops each covenant insightfully, focusing on the Scriptural passages which establish the covenant idea, and applying important truths in a fresh way for all of us today. His discussion of the new covenant, and particularly Jer. 31:3-34, is particularly rich and insightful.

That is Robertson’s book. Except I should note he stresses how the idea and promise of Christ is developed through each covenant. And he also has a great excursus chapter on dispensationalism. In that chapter he tries to show how dispensationalism has grown and changed. He finds contradictions within the system, however, and argues the point that dispensationalism depends on a false dualistic view that the physical and the spiritual must necessarily be distinguished. His chapter on dispensationalism (a mere 26 pages in length) alone is worth the price of the book. It would be well for those studying out the dispensational/covenant theology debate to listen to Robertson’s insights. Perhaps I will try to flesh out the arguments in that chapter in a later post.

In conclusion, I highly recommend Robertson’s book. After 300 pages one gets a thorough education in the Biblical covenants. At times it may be difficult reading, but the rewards gained are worth the effort spent. Mostly, Robertson has a gift for cutting to the heart of the matter. And a detailed study on the nature and teaching of the Biblical covenants demands the attention of any Biblical student. This book will help you understand Scripture better, and will increase your wonder at the glorious workings in God’s plan of redemption.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or direct from P & R Publishing.

Distressed Over a Dissing Dispensationalist

~ fundyreformed ~ 14 Comments

I am  distressed over a dissing dispensationalist. Dan Phillips (of Pyromaniacs fame) has posted on his personal blog an article entitled “25 stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism” (HT: Doxoblogy). And while he claims it is dispensationalists who are getting dissed, he is spreading the wealth liberally to us covenant theology (CT) proponents. Dan comes across as a dissing dispensationalist, and thus he deserves to be dissed 😛 . Well, I will not try to disrespect him, rather I hope to interact with his post here for the benefit of my readers.

I plan to comment briefly on each of his points, and then to critique his whole post generally. Finally, I will present the most important reasons I have for rejecting dispensationalism.    Now before we start, I encourage you to go read Dan’s post. I am going to list his 25 reasons here, just so that it will be easier to  interact with them, but do read his post. And before I jump into the task ahead of me here, I must stress that I represent my own views and can speak for the few critiques of dispensationalism I have read, both online and in books. I don’t want to presume to speak for all CT-ers. All right then…

  1. All of the coolest guys are amillennial”historical” premill/covenant/whatever. — This illustrates the absurdity of some of Dan’s claims here. This is a loaded argument to say the least. Perhaps that is the true motivation of some who dis dispensationalism, but I would venture to say that no one would actually claim that. And while I realize I am prone to being swept away by all the “coolest” guys out there, I honestly do not believe that this has had any part in my departure from dispensationalism. I have rejected the system because of Scriptural reasons and it is Scripture that I hope I am following.

  2. It’s new. — Now on this point, Dan has a legitimate beef, I’m afraid. He points out that Calvinism as a system dates from the Reformation, and that the doctrine of the Trinity was only precisely formulated in the 400s AD. Neither of these date back to the NT time period, but this does not invalidate those doctrinal formulations. And so yes, there are much more important merits upon which to evaluate dispensationalism than its age. That being said, there were clear precursors to the Trinity and Calvinism in earlier ages.   Can that be said of dispensationalism? I speak concerning its defining characteristic — viewing Israel and the church as absolutely distinct, not with regard to premillennialism (which does not necessitate dispensationalism). And certainly when taken together in consideration with other points, newness can be a valid critique. But I want to stress that “newness” is not one of the main reasons I or others (that I am aware of) reject dispensationalism.

  3. It’s not Reformed/Calvinistic.   — I am sure some claim that dispensationalism is not the product of the Reformation, and it isn’t. And others might claim it is contradictory to the tenets of Calvinism. That claim would be false. Nevertheless, I would really doubt that this is a chief argument that CT guys use to dis dispensationalism. No one sets out to just blindly follow a system, they all pay lipservice at the very least to the absolute authority of Scripture.

  4. So many dispensationalists are goofs.   — What an argument! Yea, there are some goofs, and they do turn guys like me off to dispensationalism. But I would hope that no one would use this argument as a primary reason for rejecting dispensationalism.

  5. Dispensationalist writers have made false predictions.   — Just speaking for me here, but I have never used this argument. I treat the Van Impe’s and Hal Lindsey’s of this world as a separate subclass. Yea, they are dispensationalists, but their eschatology seems really far fetched. And I don’t think most dispensationalists would disagree too strongly with me. Dan backpedals a bit, and claims that dispensationalists sometimes make “educated guesses”, and then Dan claims that CT-ers don’t make such guesses because their system does not allow for this at all. I think Dan does have a point there. But again, this is not a chief argument used by CT-ers.

  6. The best scholars hate dispensationalism.   — I think there are scholars on both sides of the gulf. I like the guys on my side, but they are not the reason I dis dispensationalism.

  7. But the Reverend Doctor Professor _____ wrote a 600-page book destroying dispensationalism! — Now this argument rubs me the wrong way, let me tell you. First, I have never heard anyone argue in this fashion. They may cite arguments that “Reverend Doctor Professor So and So” made. They might have been convinced by him. But they don’t cite chapter and “verse” from his book as their only defense for their position. This argument is also inaccurate in that there really aren’t any 600 page books against dispensationalism (that I know of). They might be around 200 pages, but not 600. And finally, such an argument insinuates that we should not use books or lean on professors to come to our doctrinal positions. But didn’t God give us teachers? And don’t dispensationalists lean heavily on Lewis Sperry Chafer and CI Scofield, to name a few Reverend Doctor Professors?

  8. You can’t prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the New Testament alone! — I haven’t heard this weak argument.

  9. It isn’t a spiritual hermeneutic. — Dispensationalism does employ a primarily naturalistic method in interpreting texts. But again, just stating that it isn’t spiritual does not win any argument. Dispensatinalists  don’t stop at a naturalistic evaluation, however. They have a presuppositional approach that Scripture is spiritual and they seek to apply spiritual truths to their lives from any Scripture they are exegeting. Once again, this is a B or C argument, and not one that wins the day for me.

  10. Dispensationalists are antinomian. — It is true that some hyper dispensationalists write off the Law to enable them to live however they please. But mainstream dispensationalists have every bit as much of a desire to please God and live holy lives as do CT-ers. I and the articles and books I have read do not employ this argument.

  11. We should interpret the Old by the New. — Dan makes it clear that he would agree with the surface level of this statement. But he assumes CT-ers really mean more than this. They reinterpret the Old and turn it into a “lie, a fake, a trick” on the basis of the New. What Dan fails to consider here, is that the New Testament gives us a hermeneutical model to follow. We follow the practice of the apostles in so many other regards, why not in how they interpret and use the Old Testament too? And when rightly understood, this method of interpretation does not replace the Old, but rather fills it up. This is a major argument  used rightly, I believe, by CT-ers. And Dan really does not dismantle it at all. (You can go read his one argument he gives, but I don’t think it is strong enough on its own to counter the argument I gave above).

  12. You can’t take everything literally. — I think we all agree here. This argument is not very clear so if some use it, they shouldn’t lean too heavily on it.

  13. Dispies are over-literal. — Dan gives a good case against this argument. And again, the argument is not stated clearly. The truth of the matter is that in some passages Dispies are very literal despite what the genre and/or related passages would seem to indicate, and that in other places Dispies opt for the genre or related passages over and against what would seem to be more consistent with the context and a literal interpretation. Dan repeatedly insinuates that dispies are just universally literal and hence consistent, but it is not as simple as this. I can understand the charge that dispies are over literal, but I don’t base my position on that claim. Actually that charge would only be made after one understands and embraces CT, which makes the charge not a chief argument for CT.

  14. I think Hal Lindsey is stupid, and I like to make fun of him. — I don’t know who is making such an argument. Hopefully this argument is as rare as I think it is.

  15. I know some big names who used to be dispensationalists, and aren’t. — Dan clarifies his point on this one stating that this is all about the fact that we need to go with the Bible more than with “big names”. I agree. And I would venture to say most reasonable CT-ers who advocate their position in the blogworld, for instance, would agree too.

  16. Dispensationalism is divisive. — Dan points out that by this standard,  Calvinism and complementarianism are divisive. We stand for those positions because they are Bible truth, and we let the cards fall how they may. Same goes for dispensationalism from the Dispies’ viewpoint. I agree. This should not be an argument used in this kind of a debate.

  17. Dispensationalism is defeatist. — Haven’t heard this argument. What Dan explains seems correct to me. Again, this is not a major argument made by anybody out there, that I can tell.

  18. Dispensationalism is fatalistic. — Ditto #17.

  19. Dispensationalism is escapist.   — Some might be saying this with the idea of a pre-trib rapture in view or something. But again I would claim it is a useless argument for the discussion at hand.

  20. Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ. — This again is a secondary argument, but Dan makes a good counter. He claims that Calvinists would be forced to admit that the offer of the gospel is “false” in the same sense that the offer of the kingdom was “false” if indeed it was. Interesting point, but again this is a secondary argument. From the tenor of the Gospels, it appears that Christ was declaring the presence of the kingdom and the NT supports that the kingdom has already come. However there is an eschatological element of the kingdom for which we are still waiting. This seems to do more justice to the kingdom than a dispensational offer of the kingdom being rescinded upon the Jew’s rejection.

  21. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Corinthians 1:20a).   — I agree with Dan that this is not a definitive argument. It is not abundantly clear that this requires all OT promises to be fulfilled only in Christ.

  22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. — Dan points out that it was only a few fruit cakes who believed this. Dispensationalism doesn’t assert this. And again, I say that it is only a few fruit cakes who argue like this, and no one bases their rejection of dispensationalism on this point.

  23. “Hey, I’m a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!”   — Now I haven’t heard anyone jump up and say this argument that Dan gives. Yet Dan is not understanding something here. With redemptive historical hermeneutics (the hermeneutic of CT), you look at the text in light of its immediate context (historical and literal/grammatical) and then you look at it in its redemptive historical context. There are multiple levels of evaluation and interpretation involved. The dissension comes over how to apply literal hermeneutics. This argument from CT-ers really wouldn’t solve anything, and it isn’t a basis for their position, either.

  24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God.   — This is a major argument against dispensationalism. Dan’s comparing it to men and women being different but equal in Christ, or comparing it to the relaion of the Persons of the  Godhead within the Trinity, just doesn’t cut it. The New Testament makes it clear that the church is the Israel of God today. And while Dan distances himself from some of his dispensational forebears, this remains the single most important point of difference between CT and Dispensationalism. Dan giving this argument as a “stupid” one is problematic. While I understand that dispensationalists disagree with me on this point, I am not going to call their beliefs stupid. CT-ers believe there is one people of God and Dispensationalists disagree. Both sides think they are right and the other wrong. Neither argument needs to be cast as “stupid”.

  25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible.   — Dan helps us know what he is talking about here when he claims that some CT-ers believe texts must be “worthy” of God by referencing Christ. This understanding is totally wrong and stupid. Dan agrees that Christ is all over the Bible, and so do I. Nowhere does Scripture state Jesus has to be in every verse. This is not to say, however, that Dispensationalism does not fail to see Christ properly in Scripture. I do think it fails. But this belief is rooted in my acceptance of CT and is not an argument for my acceptance of CT.

At this point, I should stress that Dan is claiming to deal with only the “stupid” arguments. But the introduction he gives to his post makes it seem like this is the common argumentation that he sees for CT. He paints CT-ers as ones who can only come up with the arguments above in arguing for his position. He may not have intended it to come across this way, but it does nonetheless. This is why I have taken pains to point out that virutally every argument above is not a serious argument. It is not what would lead someone out of dispensationalism.

Dan’s whole post is rather belittling of those who support CT. And I think the utter ridiculousness of some of the arguments he cites represent his creating a strawman of CT. He makes them look really bad in their argumentation.

He is also constantly throwing out the term “perspicuity”. He is implying that if you don’t agree to dispensationalism, you think Scripture is not understandable. It is quite funny, to be honest with you. Dispensationalism has quite a few points which require a bit of mind bending to understand and see, but it is the system which allows Scritpure to speak for itself? Dan sees around 7 dispensations in Scripture. I am not sure how he views them, but classic dispensationalism sets up each dispensation as a new test which man fails again and again. And in dividing the dispensations and defining the “rules” for each test, as well as the “punishment” for failure, dispensationalism goes way beyond the bounds of the text. The text doesn’t state that this group failed X test and received Y punishment for it. But these assumptions are read into the text to support the system.

Dan admits honestly  in the comments that he is not an expert in prophecy and then  states, “[prophecy] is a very difficult field…”. Does Dan not see the contradiction between these statements and his assumptions about perspicuity? Why do we need prophecy experts if Scritpure is so abundantly clear that we all should become dispensationalists by default?

One last point before briefly presenting what I believe are the major arguments against dispensationalism. Dan in the comments made this statement:

To my dispensationalist readers: if you see younger, underexperienced, overconfident writers complaining that these are “straw men,” do two things:

1. Chuckle knowingly.

2. Note it for the future. Guaranteed you’ll have opportunity to say, “Ah, I see. That’s Phillips’ #17,” or, “So, in other words, Phillips’ #8.”

It’ll be sweet.

I thought we were not to rely on teachers, Dan. Aren’t we supposed to just go with the Bible? So underexperienced, younger guys can’t do that? I mean, isn’t dispensationalism the system everyone would come to on their own, if they had been converted to Christ, handed a Bible, and shipped to the moon away from all teachers? It appears that Dan is cutting off at the pass any criticism by younger guys that he has misrepresented them. It doesn’t seem very charitable or reasonable to me, but then, I am a younger, underexperienced guy.

Now to my reasons.

  • The physical promise of the land  includes the church. 1) The promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (promised land) was expanded to a promise that they would inherit the “earth” (Matt. 5:5)  or the “world” (Rom. 4:13). 2) The promise of the land (“that Abraham would be heir of the world” Rom. 4:13) is specifically said to apply to all the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:16). [“The promise” in vs. 16  is the same  as the land promise in vs.  13.]  
  • The church is the seed of Abraham. The New Testament clearly declares that  Gentile believers are the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:11-12), and that they are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29b).
  • The church and Israel are now God’s “one new man”. Eph. 2 takes great lengths to declare that God has abolished the partition dividing national Israel and the Gentiles, and that he has included the Gentiles together as “no longer strangers and aliens, but…fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (v. 19). Indeed God has made true Israel and the church together “one new man in place of the two” (v. 15).
  • The church is described in the exact same terms as Israel was. Ex. 19:5-6a says, “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” And, Hosea 2:23b says, “And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people‘; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.'” Then, 1 Pet. 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” And finally Rev. 1:6a says, “And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father….”
  • The Dispensational structure seems very artificial to me. The underlying idea that God is repeatedly testing mankind to prove that he is sinful is nowhere stated in Scripture. [Dispensationalism sets up a series of dispensations where man fails a new test and receives judgment. If you are not familiar with this idea check out this article [pdf] which provides a helpful summary on pg. 16.] Key  concepts of this system are read into the text. For instance God nowhere states that the Israelites’ bondage in Egypt was judgment for their failures or sins. In fact Gen. 15:13-16 expressly tells us why they were to be afflicted  in Egypt, so that 1) God could bring judment on Egypt and 2) so that the iniquity of the  Amorites could become complete.
  • The New Testament provides us with a pattern for how to interpret the Old Testament. We are not left to determine “golden rule”s by ourselves. If we study the way the NT authors and preachers used the OT, we find a hermeneutical model that we can employ safely and profitably. [Cf. Rom. 15:4; Luke 24:27, 44; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; Hebrews 10:1; Acts 2:16; Acts 15:14-18 (quoting Amos 9:11-12); etc.]

These are my basic arguments. They contradict the basic premises of dispensationalism as I understand them. For some excellent articles on this issue (Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology) check out those written by Nathan Pitchford here (particluarly his “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” . He is also a convert from dispensationalism and so he understands the system better than those who have never been dispensational.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7