Books my pastor gave me...

[MrT]

I'm currently still going to a dispensational baptist church. I've recently told my pastor that I have discovered in the last couple years that I am not dispensational. He got me several books.




I plan to go through them, but only to better understand dispensationalism from a point of arguing its faults and understanding their perspective.

What are some opinions on the matter? What should I look out for from these authors?

 

[alexanderjames]

Give him a stack of reformed covenantal books

 

[iainduguid]

One thing that you will find in these books is an emphasis on "consistent literal interpretation" of the prophets. In other words, when the prophets speak about Israel, they can only mean Israel and they cannot be pointing forward to the church. As a result, they imagine covenant theology to be "replacement theology" in which, when God's plan to save Israel failed when they rejected Jesus, he adopted a plan "B" and decided to save the church instead, leaving a lot of OT promises unfulfilled. For dispensationalists, the millennium functions in large measure as a space of time during which presently unfulfilled OT prophecies may find a literal fulfillment.

While we can commend our dispensationalist brothers and sisters for taking OT prophecy seriously and desiring to believe God's Word, there are some hermeneutical issues with this approach. First, they don't actually take every OT prophecy literally. For example, the visionary temple in Ezekiel (which they imagine to be describing a millennial temple) has sacrifices that are designed "to atone" (lekapper) for God's people. But though they have a variety of explanations how you can still have animal sacrifices after the death of Christ, none of them involve the plain reading of the text. Even within dispensationalism, there are debates about just how literal you have to be. Ryrie is very strict, arguing that the battle in Ezek 38-39 - which he sees as a future final battle - will only be fought with the exact weapons mentioned - clubs, spears, etc. Other dispensationalists (e.g. Clarence McCartney) argue that these weapons represent figuratively modern weapons, but Ryrie is correct in seeing the danger of that approach. Once propehcies about clubs and spears become rifles and machine guns you've already opened the door for prophecies about Israel to refer to the church. You are no longer committed to consistent literal interpretation. Besides, the NT specifically takes OT prophecies about Israel and applies them to the church (see Hebrews 8, where the prophecy of a "new covenant" originally addressed to "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" applies to the church). In these passages dispensationalists are forced into allowing a double fulfillment - first to the church and then to Israel. But if the fulfillment in the church is a legitimate fulfillment, why do we need the second one? And why can't we apply the same hermeneutical principles that the apostles did when we look at other prophecies?

As far as "replacement theology" goes, this flows out of a misapprehension of what covenant theology teaches. We do not believe that the church has "replaced" Israel; rather, that Christ has come to be the final and true Israel (see Matthew's use of Hosea in Matt. 2:15). Jesus is the true son, the true vine, the olive tree - all OT images for Israel. The church becomes the new and true Israel as we - Jews and Gentiles alike - are incorporated into Christ as vine branches and olive twigs. So it is really more of a "fulfillment" theology than a "replacement" theology. The true sons of Abraham are not those by physical descent but those who share his faith (see Rom. 4), and thereby are incorporated into Christ.

 

[dsanch1120]

Something important to remember when thinking about dispensationalism is the circumstances that led to it originating in the first place. I'm oversimplifying history here, but dispensationalism seems to be an overreaction to enlightenment ideas infiltrating the church. As a result, you get the so-called "consistent-literal-hermeneutic" and a strong dislike of anything they would claim to be "allegorization."
Be ready for very different ideas about how the Old and New Testaments relate. Dispensational theology is very resistant to what they call "reinterpretation." They focus heavily on what things meant to the original readers (which apparently is the wooden-literal sense) and do not allow new testament realities to shed new light on old testament covenants, prophecies, and covenants.
Probably one of the biggest things that cemented my leaving dispensationalism is the inconsistencies with the "consistent-literal-hermeneutic." Some examples were mentioned above of this, but I'll give a few more. The most important in my mind is the messianic prophecies in the OT. Dispensationalism will agree that Christ's coming involves two advents. The problem is that if you understand the prophecies in the same way that dispensationalism interprets other prophecies, you can't say that they apply to Christ's first coming. Therefore, the dispensationalist has to interpret these prophecies in light of the New Testament. If you can do it here, why not elsewhere? One other big place for me is the Olivet Discourse. If you interpret Jesus' words with the "consistent-literal-hermeneutic" you end up as a hyper-preterist (Temple is destroyed and Christ returned in AD 70). They interpret things such as "this generation" figuratively when it seems that the "original reader" understood at least the first part of Christ's words to be referring to the destruction of the temple.
That being said, I'm a big believer in reading and learning opposing viewpoints. I'm meeting with one of the pastors at my church to better understand dispensationalism (he's progressive dispensational, which is different that what you'll be reading), because I don't want to be disagreeing with a strawman.

 

[lynnie]

While dispensational theology is much broader than the "rapture", in all those I have ever met, a rapture prior to the second coming is an integral part.

Here ( text) is Lloyd Jones detailing how this rapture teaching began in 1830 with an utterance in tongues at a prophecy conference.

Good News for Jews

A Bible prophecy and chronology resource site.

www.prophecysociety.org

This is the Lloyd-Jones audio sermon on the subject:

Daniel 9 and the Secret Rapture - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

Is the secret rapture of the church a true biblical teaching? In this sermon, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones focuses on Daniel 9 as a passage frequently used in the discussion of the end-times, yet the language it employs is often mysterious and open to debate over its meaning. At the center of the...

www.mljtrust.org

You wont get anywhere with a charismatic; progressive revelation and new revelation from tongues is fine.

If you are dealing with cessationists they literally get mad and uptight and clench their teeth when you print this out and talk about it. I had one slam a car door shut and holler that OK, maybe he was charismatic now. Lol.

 

[MrT]

Give him a stack of reformed covenantal books

LOL I was thinking the same thing

 

[dsanch1120]

While dispensational theology is much broader than the "rapture", in all those I have ever met, a rapture prior to the second coming is an integral part.

Here ( text) is Lloyd Jones detailing how this rapture teaching began in 1830 with an utterance in tongues at a prophecy conference.

I had never heard this before, that's interesting. That all being said, you can still be very dispensational (though I suppose not completely) while being mid-trib. I heard an interesting argument for it once from a DTS grad

 

[MrT]

One thing that you will find in these books is an emphasis on "consistent literal interpretation" of the prophets. In other words, when the prophets speak about Israel, they can only mean Israel and they cannot be pointing forward to the church. As a result, they imagine covenant theology to be "replacement theology" in which, when God's plan to save Israel failed when they rejected Jesus, he adopted a plan "B" and decided to save the church instead, leaving a lot of OT promises unfulfilled. For dispensationalists, the millennium functions in large measure as a space of time during which presently unfulfilled OT prophecies may find a literal fulfillment.

While we can commend our dispensationalist brothers and sisters for taking OT prophecy seriously and desiring to believe God's Word, there are some hermeneutical issues with this approach. First, they don't actually take every OT prophecy literally. For example, the visionary temple in Ezekiel (which they imagine to be describing a millennial temple) has sacrifices that are designed "to atone" (lekapper) for God's people. But though they have a variety of explanations how you can still have animal sacrifices after the death of Christ, none of them involve the plain reading of the text. Even within dispensationalism, there are debates about just how literal you have to be. Ryrie is very strict, arguing that the battle in Ezek 38-39 - which he sees as a future final battle - will only be fought with the exact weapons mentioned - clubs, spears, etc. Other dispensationalists (e.g. Clarence McCartney) argue that these weapons represent figuratively modern weapons, but Ryrie is correct in seeing the danger of that approach. Once propehcies about clubs and spears become rifles and machine guns you've already opened the door for prophecies about Israel to refer to the church. You are no longer committed to consistent literal interpretation. Besides, the NT specifically takes OT prophecies about Israel and applies them to the church (see Hebrews 8, where the prophecy of a "new covenant" originally addressed to "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" applies to the church). In these passages dispensationalists are forced into allowing a double fulfillment - first to the church and then to Israel. But if the fulfillment in the church is a legitimate fulfillment, why do we need the second one? And why can't we apply the same hermeneutical principles that the apostles did when we look at other prophecies?

As far as "replacement theology" goes, this flows out of a misapprehension of what covenant theology teaches. We do not believe that the church has "replaced" Israel; rather, that Christ has come to be the final and true Israel (see Matthew's use of Hosea in Matt. 2:15). Jesus is the true son, the true vine, the olive tree - all OT images for Israel. The church becomes the new and true Israel as we - Jews and Gentiles alike - are incorporated into Christ as vine branches and olive twigs. So it is really more of a "fulfillment" theology than a "replacement" theology. The true sons of Abraham are not those by physical descent but those who share his faith (see Rom. 4), and thereby are incorporated into Christ.

I appreciate your response. Supersessionism or fulfillment theology was probably the biggest contributor to me completely rejecting a dispensational hermeneutic. Before even learning these terminologies, it was simply what the Holy Spirit revealed to me through reading my Bible. I thought I was going crazy because it was not what I was taught growing up in church, yet I could not unsee it in God's Word. During a sunday school class, I learned the terminology through our teacher who was describing some differences between dispensational and covenant theology (taught from a dispensational bias of course) and the rest was history.

I've studied Tony Warren's perspective on this subject (Israel of God). Can you recommend any more resources on this subject?

 

[MrT]

While dispensational theology is much broader than the "rapture", in all those I have ever met, a rapture prior to the second coming is an integral part.

Here ( text) is Lloyd Jones detailing how this rapture teaching began in 1830 with an utterance in tongues at a prophecy conference.

Good News for Jews

A Bible prophecy and chronology resource site.

www.prophecysociety.org

This is the Lloyd-Jones audio sermon on the subject:

Daniel 9 and the Secret Rapture - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

Is the secret rapture of the church a true biblical teaching? In this sermon, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones focuses on Daniel 9 as a passage frequently used in the discussion of the end-times, yet the language it employs is often mysterious and open to debate over its meaning. At the center of the...

www.mljtrust.org

You wont get anywhere with a charismatic; progressive revelation and new revelation from tongues is fine.

If you are dealing with cessationists they literally get mad and uptight and clench their teeth when you print this out and talk about it. I had one slam a car door shut and holler that OK, maybe he was charismatic now. Lol.

Thank you for this, I will check it out.

I will point out that my current church, though dispensational, is very calvinistic in their theology. Many of them are big fans of John MacArthur. There are a few brothers and sisters who I believe are not far from seeing the flaws that I see in terms of the dispensational hermeneutic and are reevaluating parts of their theology.

Overall my pastor preaches true to the word and is a faithful brother in Christ, which is more the reason I want to better understand these differences and can point out these truths to him in love.

 

[MrT]

Something important to remember when thinking about dispensationalism is the circumstances that led to it originating in the first place. I'm oversimplifying history here, but dispensationalism seems to be an overreaction to enlightenment ideas infiltrating the church. As a result, you get the so-called "consistent-literal-hermeneutic" and a strong dislike of anything they would claim to be "allegorization."
Be ready for very different ideas about how the Old and New Testaments relate. Dispensational theology is very resistant to what they call "reinterpretation." They focus heavily on what things meant to the original readers (which apparently is the wooden-literal sense) and do not allow new testament realities to shed new light on old testament covenants, prophecies, and covenants.
Probably one of the biggest things that cemented my leaving dispensationalism is the inconsistencies with the "consistent-literal-hermeneutic." Some examples were mentioned above of this, but I'll give a few more. The most important in my mind is the messianic prophecies in the OT. Dispensationalism will agree that Christ's coming involves two advents. The problem is that if you understand the prophecies in the same way that dispensationalism interprets other prophecies, you can't say that they apply to Christ's first coming. Therefore, the dispensationalist has to interpret these prophecies in light of the New Testament. If you can do it here, why not elsewhere? One other big place for me is the Olivet Discourse. If you interpret Jesus' words with the "consistent-literal-hermeneutic" you end up as a hyper-preterist (Temple is destroyed and Christ returned in AD 70). They interpret things such as "this generation" figuratively when it seems that the "original reader" understood at least the first part of Christ's words to be referring to the destruction of the temple.
That being said, I'm a big believer in reading and learning opposing viewpoints. I'm meeting with one of the pastors at my church to better understand dispensationalism (he's progressive dispensational, which is different that what you'll be reading), because I don't want to be disagreeing with a strawman.

Thank you for the detailed response. The prophecies are where I've noticed major differences between the two hermeneutics and I need to be proficient in both views so I now how to refute the dispensational view.

 

[jwithnell]

I find the relationship to the law interesting. You'll hear over and over, we're not under law but grace and that the law was for the Old Testament people. Dispensationalist tend to be conservative and thus see that God makes demands on one's life, but without at least the Decalogue, legalism seems to be the primary answer. I was at one time in fellowship with believers who thought it sinful for a woman to wear pants (out of respect, I did not do so among them); alcohol was stigmatized; attendance at prayer meeting on Wednesday night was mandatory; but they thought nothing of asking others to work on Sunday or acquiring $700 software for "free" by copying it.

 

[No Other Name]

I find the relationship to the law interesting. You'll hear over and over, we're not under law but grace and that the law was for the Old Testament people. Dispensationalist tend to be conservative and thus see that God makes demands on one's life, but without at least the Decalogue, legalism seems to be the primary answer. I was at one time in fellowship with believers who thought it sinful for a woman to wear pants (out of respect, I did not do so among them); alcohol was stigmatized; attendance at prayer meeting on Wednesday night was mandatory; but they thought nothing of asking others to work on Sunday or acquiring $700 software for "free" by copying it.

I hear that from NCT people too: "not under law but under grace" and also "the Bible never says there are 3 types of law" and they deny the categories of moral, civil and ceremonial while being free of the Ten Commandments (!) Yet, they claim that Christ makes them free to naturally grow in obedience to the Ten Commandments - except the fourth. Christ (as the "new Lawgiver") never "re-commanded" the Sabbath.

It is deeply troubling. One of my best friends has gone down this road.

 

[Polanus1561]

1 Tim.1 reveals the 10 commandments in Paul's thought.

 

[GlorytoGod]

Ligon Duncan thoroughly explains it here.

What is Dispensationalism?

Content from Reformed Theological Seminary

subsplash.com

Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

Content from Reformed Theological Seminary

subsplash.com

 

[B.L.]

I plan to go through them, but only to better understand dispensationalism from a point of arguing its faults and understanding their perspective.

What are some opinions on the matter? What should I look out for from these authors?

I've been reading works by dispensationalists lately to better understand the spectrum and I believe all of the authors listed are "revised dispensationalists" as opposed to "classic dispensationalists" (i.e. Scofield, Chafer, Toussaint) and "progressive dispensationalists" (i.e. Bock, Saucy, Blaising). When reading critiques from a reformed perspective it's important to understand which stream is being evaluated, as they vary a good bit.

From my limited understanding, while still incompatible, as you move from classic -> revised -> progressive you get closer and closer (inches at a time) to covenant theology if that makes sense.

Here are a few additional books to consider:

• Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional & Progressive Views
• The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism
• Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church
• Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

 

[TheInquirer]

He may not trust any Reformed books given to him due to a commitment to Dispensational hermeneutical principles as has been mentioned. Any conclusions the Reformed then come to, in his mind, is simply due to using the wrong interpretive principles.

Rightly or wrongly, I mentally put Dispensationalists in two possible categories:

1) Those who love the Word of God more than their system
2) Those who love their system more than the Word of God

I was in category 1 and that is how I escaped Dispensationalism - simply by reading the Bible through over and over again and recognizing a lengthening list of inconsistencies with the "consistently literal hermeneutic" including most imporantly the New Testament use of the Old Testament.

If your pastor is in category 1, you can have profitable conversations with him showing him the ways the Bible itself does not follow the Dispensational hermeneutic. God may use simply exposing him to Scripture over and over again to either change his mind now or sometime down the road. However, since he is a pastor, he has a lot at stake if he suddenly changes his position. He may lose his job or at least a sizeable part of his congregation.

If your pastor is in category 2, you can still try but at some point you may realize you aren't getting anywhere. At that point, you have probably reached the limit of what you can do.

 

[MrT]

Ligon Duncan thoroughly explains it here.

What is Dispensationalism?

Content from Reformed Theological Seminary

subsplash.com

Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

Content from Reformed Theological Seminary

subsplash.com

Thanks for this. I've listened to both of these and started listening through the entire course. An excellent resource.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Ryrie is a lucid writer. You'll definitely get a clear picture from him. You should cut/paste what Ian wrote in #3 into a document and study it.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I'm currently still going to a dispensational baptist church. I've recently told my pastor that I have discovered in the last couple years that I am not dispensational. He got me several books.

View attachment 10259


I plan to go through them, but only to better understand dispensationalism from a point of arguing its faults and understanding their perspective.

What are some opinions on the matter? What should I look out for from these authors?

Brother,
I would encourage you to find a good, Reformed church, where your soul can be nourished by meditation on the truth, rather than vexed by meditation on error. Your pastor is clearly obsessed with the false doctrine of dispensationalism. Reading hundreds of pages of false teaching may help you understand it better, but it's not likely to do much for the health of your soul.

Find a place where you can be fed the truth from the pulpit, and where your pastor will give you good, sound literature to read.

 

[MrT]

Brother,
I would encourage you to find a good, Reformed church, where your soul can be nourished by meditation on the truth, rather than vexed by meditation on error. Your pastor is clearly obsessed with the false doctrine of dispensationalism. Reading hundreds of pages of false teaching may help you understand it better, but it's not likely to do much for the health of your soul.

Find a place where you can be fed the truth from the pulpit, and where your pastor will give you good, sound literature to read.

My conviction of this has been gradually increasing. Not just for my own soul but also for my family's. Please be in prayer for my family and I that the Lord gives me wisdom on how to handle this situation.

It was just a little over 2 years ago that I was saved and started going back to church (I grew up going to a dispensational church), and when I first started going back and was baptized into my current church, I had yet fully understood the differences in theology although I was starting to see them. So I am just a young babe in Christ, but my conviction is beginning to weigh heavier on me the more I understand the conflict of their teaching with God's Word. And yet I don't feel it is right to leave without giving thorough explanation to my current pastor.

There are two reformed baptist churches within 10 minutes of my house. I already visited one of them and plan to visit the other at some point.

I'm open to any suggestions or words of wisdom.

 

[SolaScriptura]

When I was at Moody Bible Institute back in the 90s, Ryrie's theology text was our basic systematic book. But it is so poorly written in terms of fairness and logic and internal consistency that long before I began studying covenant theology, this book had turned me off to dispensationalism.

When I speak of "fairness"... He has the nasty habit of appearing to be fair because he uses basically kind words, and he will seemingly acknowledge that his own position (easy-believing dispensationalism) has difficulties by articulating some (of the weakest) counterarguments against his position... BUT he responds to those (softball) objections in the very presentation of those points, so that it gives the impression that there really are no real counterarguments.... and yet when he presents an opposing view, he'll throw all his objections at it, and not provide ANY of that position's responses, so that it gives the impression that this opposing view is so shoddy that only an idiot would adhere to it.

Now I have it just to show: THIS is what the popular pinnacle of dispensationalism can produce... and it is found wanting.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

My conviction of this has been gradually increasing. Not just for my own soul but also for my family's. Please be in prayer for my family and I that the Lord gives me wisdom on how to handle this situation.

It was just a little over 2 years ago that I was saved and started going back to church (I grew up going to a dispensational church), and when I first started going back and was baptized into my current church, I had yet fully understood the differences in theology although I was starting to see them. So I am just a young babe in Christ, but my conviction is beginning to weigh heavier on me the more I understand the conflict of their teaching with God's Word. And yet I don't feel it is right to leave without giving thorough explanation to my current pastor.

There are two reformed baptist churches within 10 minutes of my house. I already visited one of them and plan to visit the other at some point.

I'm open to any suggestions or words of wisdom.

My only suggestion is to go where your soul and those of your household can be fed. Don't write off Presbyterian churches, either. Given where you say you are in your walk, it's unlikely that you're deep enough into the discussion of whether children are still a part of the visible church and covenant family since the coming of Christ, to be able to come to a well-grounded conclusion on the matter.

Praying for you, brother.