Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Here is a poor scan of Dr. Gerstners response to Mayhue's (in)adequate response:
16
A Response to Dispensationalist Richard L. Mayhue
WHO IS WRONG? A REVIEW OF JOHN GERSTNER'S WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH
by Richard L. Mayhue Dean of the Master's Seminary
pro Mayhue's review of Dr. Gerstner's book appeared in The Master's Seminary Journal," Volume 3, Spring 1992)
Dr. John H. Gerstner, a recognized scholar with impressive credentials, has issued a call for dispensationalists to admit the glaring gaps between their system and orthodox Christianity. However, his presentation of dispensationalism contains shortcomings that necessitate this special review article to point out some of these and to challenge dispensationalists to publicize a greater clarification of their position. Many of the assumptions that undergird Dr. Gerstner's case against dispensationalism are in error. These faults are magnified by a number of major weaknesses in his argument. A review of the book shows how the
445
author's treatment of his subject deteriorates even more through ten representative theological misstatements. The work is of such a misleading nature that a retraction of some kind seems to be in order.
Dr. Richard L. Mayhue is Dean of The Master's Seminary, of which this periodical is the Journal. The whole complex, including seminary, college, and church, has as its well-known President, John F. MacArthur Jr. Dr. Mayhue, after graciously crediting me as "a recognized scholar with impressive credentials," indicates the gravity of my charge against Dispensationalism, but assures his readers that they are so fundamentally misleading that "a retraction of some kind seems to be in order." Mter reading tliis critique I did write to Dr. Mayhue that I would be glad to submit a response to this article in the same Journal indicating why I felt no "retraction" was necessary, that I felt would satisfy even his own readers. To that offer I have received no response. I need not here answer the charges in this opening
paragraph since they are spelled out in the body of the essay. Among the numerous anti-articles, this one is especially ap~ preciated for its stress on my alleged logical blunders in Wrongly Dividing.
General Anthony C. McAuliffe, commanding officer of
the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne, found his troops surrounded by the Germans early in the famous World War II Battle of the Bulge (December, 1944). The opposing Nazi general, sensing quick victory, sent word to surrender immediately. McAuliffe replied with what is now one of the most famous one-word responses in military history, "Nuts!" In love, that also is our response to Dr. Gerstner's call for the surrender of "dispensationalism."
This strong retort, borrowed from WWII, answers R.c. Sproul's (President of Ligonier Ministries and a disciple of Dr. Gerstner) initial comments in the Foreword (p.ix):
"This bomb-unlike missiles that suffer from dubious
guidance systems and are liable to land on civilian populations wreaking havoc indiscriminately-is delivered with pinpoint accuracy into the laps of dispensational scholars. "
According to Sproul, Gerstner would prefer torture or death to intentionally dist.orting or misrepresenting anyone's position... If Gerstner is inaccurate--if he has failed to understand dispensational theology correctly-then he owes many a profound apology. But first he must be shown where and how he is in error. This is the challenge of the book. If Gerstner is accurate, then Dispensationalism should be discarded as being a serious deviation from Biblical Christianity (p. xi).
Dr. Gerstner delivers his "Surrender!" demand in the Introduction and elsewhere in the book:
"Dispensationalism today, as yesterday, is spurious Calvinism and dubious evangelicalism. If it does not refute my charges and the charges of many others, it cannot long continue to be considered an essentially Christian movement" (p. 2).
"Dispensationalism...is in constant deviation from essential historical Christianity..." (p. 68).
Since Gerstner believes so strongly that soteriology determines eschatology, one could expect that the President of The Master's Seminary, John F. MacArthur, Jr., would be the first to wave a white flag. Gerstner affirmingly quotes him (without documentation or obvious connection to his point) as saying, "There is no salvation except Lordship Salvation" (p. 2). Gerstner finds this strongly reformed view of salvation incompatible with his understanding of dispensationalism. This convincingly illustrates the most obvious non sequitur in the book, i.e., Dr. Gerstner's assertion throughout his book that Reformed soteriology necessarily eliminates dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology. He labors for more than half the bookchapters 7 -13-to prove that dispensationalism should surrender because it is unbiblical (pp. 105-263).
He seems to debate from the following basic syllogism,
....
though he never states it so succinctly as this:
Premise 1: Premise 2:
Calvinism is central to all true theology. Dispensationalism does not embrace
Calvinism.
Dispensationalism is a "spurious" and "dubious" expression of true theology (p.2).
Conclusion:
Thus, he strongly calls for dispensationalism's quick surrender.
No one will charge this introduction with understating my position vis-a-vis Dispensationalism. If anyone can outdo R.C. Sproul (a former student who shares the Reformed faith with me, but is too much his own man to be called a "disciple") in graphic language it may be Richard Mayhue, whose Battle of the Bulge imagery and "nuts" vocabulary is a lively prelude to a charge against me of "ten" non sequiturs. This is like a man getting out of his tank to play chess. But on with the Battle of the Syllogisms.
"...The most obvious non sequitur in the book, [Wrongly Dividing] that Reformed soteriology necessarily eliminates dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology." (74, 75)
Mayhue, when he charges me with a non sequitur, should first show that I consider that "Reformed soteriology necessarily eliminates dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology; second, why I, if I do that, consider it a sequitur; and third, show that what I argue is a non sequitur. He does none of these. One does not prove something to be a non sequitur by calling it such.
Dr. Mayhue then proceeds to say that I seem "to debate from the following basic syllogism..." without any evidence of a non sequitur being offered. I could comment on the al
leged syllogism but I will overlook it until my reviewer shows that I do argue non sequitur and that I do follow such or such a syllogism. It is better to show some evidence first and
then make the charges. However, I will follow on with Mayhue waiting for my first of ten alleged non sequiturs.
Before getting down to the argument, my critic gives a very generous estimate of my career, and also notes J.I.
.....
Packer's and the publisher's strong endorsement of the case against Dispensationalism in Wrongly Dividing. My hair is well and courteously combed before the decapitation.
There follows a brief, but most fair, fine and comprehensive summary of my book (pp. 76-79). Mayhue has done his
homework for the critique that is to follow and is the kind of
dispensationalist whose criticisms I welcome, appreciate, and intend to listen to as carefully as Mayhue has listened to me (without his seeing any cogency in the argumentation, however). Dr. Mayhue's criticism now begins with:
EXAMINING THE AUTHOR'S ASSUMPTIONS
Presuppositions and assumptions undergird all reasoned thought. At times they are enumerated explicitly in the introduction to a subject while in other cases, such as this book, assumptions make their appearance somewhat randomly throughout the discussion, either in implicit or explicit fashion. This review suggests that at least ten of Dr. Gerstner's major assumptions are in error and thus seriously damage the validity of his conclusions.
This contention that "at least ten of Dr. Gerstner's major assumptions are in error and thus seriously damage the validity of his conclusions" is certainly a masterpiece of understatement plus at least a half-dozen works of supererogation. Without reading further I will say that if half of my alleged "major assumptions are in error" they do not "seriously damage," they destroy the "validity" of my "conclusions" in Wrongly Dividing. I will repent in sackcloth and ashes before God that I ever wrote that book and beg owners of it to burn it before any child of God should be caused to stumble.
Let us consider my ten "major assumptions that are in error" :
1. Dr. Gerstner is perceived to assume that he is right and thus speaks on this subject ex cathedra. One only needs to ponder the book's title, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth to sense the author's confidence. Implicitly, one gains the idea throughout the book that
LH" aULHVi U"H"H.." H<:O "LdHU" HI LIlt;; LlH;;UIUglC,U gap a( the eleventh hour as the champion of covenantalism and thus the destroyer of dispensationalism.
I cannot deny that I may be "perceived" to assume that I am right. That does not prove it to be a fair perception. Being a person who "argues" and invites criticism to which I try to
listen objectively is evidence to the contrary. Having
"confidence" in Wrongly Dividing may be misplaced but when one gives years of reflection and almost a thousand pages to the subject (the publisher had to abridge the manuscript) hardly shows a person to be "dogmatic" in the bad sense of that term. Most dispensationalists are confident of their views. I do not fault them for that if they offer arguments (even bad arguments).
2. Dr. Gerstner seems to assume that he is factually, logically, and theologically decisive. Both R.c. Sproul's mild acknowledgement that Dr. Gerstner could be wrong (p. xi) and the author's own challenge to be corrected (p. 263) are more like a challenge than a humble invitation to their brothers in Christ "to come let us reason together" (cf. Isa. 1: 18).
I admit that I think Wrongly Dividing is essentially correct. If that makes a person "seem to assume" that he is "decisive," I do not know how anyone can avoid being vain. I also think I (and many, many others) can prove that God exists, that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus Christ is His Son and that He is the only way of salvation. I never realized how vain I have been the last sixty years. I must call atten.,. tion to Dr. Mayhue's begging of the question by assuming that people are "brothers in Christ." I have tried to prove that Dispensationalism has essentially departed from evangelical Christianity. If that is true, those who call themselves Christians, while adhering to a departure from the gospel, must prove that they are brethren. If my judgment is shown to be wrong I will humbly and immediately beg my brothers' and sisters' forgiveness.
-""
J. "H"H LJi. ~"iJ~'~' "H__~' ...'u_- --~ u- -- r-p
another name for Christianity" (p. 107), one senses that he presumes to be the spokesman for all Calvinists. His own discussion of the atonement, which highlights varying approaches to the subject in the Reformed community, evidences that this is not altogether true (pp. 127-28).
Dr. Mayhue gives us here a true non sequitur:
Major premise: Calvinism is another name for Christi
anity (Spurgeon quote).
Minor premise: "Dr. Gerstner writes. . . that Calvinism
is just another name for Christianity."
Conclusion: Therefore, "he presumes to be the spokes
man for all Calvinists."
Agreeing with Spurgeon that Calvinism is a "nickname" for Christianity would not prove that I consider myself "to be the spokesman for all Calvinists." The basis of Mayhue's charging Gerstner with a non sequitur is Mayhue's non sequitur.
4. One gets the distinct impression that Dr. Gerstner's view on soteriology, as expressed by the Synod of Dort (1619), serves as the canon by which other people's doctrine is judged as true or heretical (p. 1 05). Yet, much later in the book he writes, "The standard of judgment is fidelity to God's inerrant Word" (p. 262). A noticeable lack of biblical discussion throughout the book, plus the obvious appeal to a "dogmatic" approach in his own theology, leads the reviewer to suggest that the author frequently seems to espouse the latter (Scripture) but employ the former (Dortian doctrine) to authenticate truth.
Here again I cannot deny that "someone" (like Mayhue himself) "gets the impression that Dr. Gerstner's view on soteriology, as expressed by the Synod of Dort (1619), serves as the canon by which other people's doctrine is judged as true or heretical (p. 105)." What I do deny is that I either affirm or infer any such idolatrous folly as the "impression" in Mayhue's non-logical mind.
5. Dr. Gerstner further narrows the field of those who understand and hold to Scripture correctly regarding the atonement by limiting this group to the Protestant Reformed Church (p. 128). This reviewer challenges this assumption and so do some of his covenantal brethren. In a letter dated September 12, 1991, the Elders of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, N}, pastored by AI Martin, himself a staunch pro claimer of Reformed doctrine, disavow Dr. Gerstner's teaching on the atonement beginning on p. 118 and continuing through p. 131. They write that, "Dr. Gerstner strays from the mainstream of historic calvinistic teaching regarding the free offer of the Gospel." This disclaimer letter comes with every copy of Dr. Gerstner's book that they distribute. * A review of Dr. Gerstner's work by Reformation Today seriously questions his discussion of total depravity, election, and irresistible grace as it relates to his analysis of dispensational thought.
I am now charged with making a preposterous statement, as in #4 I was falsely charged with an idolatrous statement. When one makes charges like that he must cite statements or prove inferences, which Mayhue does not do or, as here, even attempt. What I credited to the tiny Protestant Reformed denomination was a better statement on the "universal offer" than even some reformed creeds and genuine reformed theologians. That I think is true, and the fact that only a few so state it does not prove it wrong. I tried to explain it in a letter to the Elders of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville which they have yet to refute [a copy of this letter can be found at the end of this chapter]. Dr. Mayhue could have mentioned that AI Martin's elders did recommend Wrongly Dividing as a sound criticism of Dispensationalism [". . . we support Dr. Gerstner's principal line of argument and are glad that this book has been written on dispensational theology"]. The Reformation Today review was
* The pertinent portion reads, "While much of the book is solid and biblical, we cannot endorse his treatment of the subject of the Atonement as it relates to the free offer of the Gospel. We in fact commend the writing of Stonehouse and Murray on the free offer of the Gospel, as it may be found in Murray's Collected Writings."
.....
also generally favorable, though it did offer important critiCIsm.
6. Throughout the volume one receives the strong impression that Dr. Gerstner believes that Dallas Theological Seminary speaks representatively for all dispensationalists. He refers to "Dallas Dispensationalism" (p. 47). While this reviewer would not want to take away from DTS's contributions to furthering dispensational thought, dispensational thinking extends significantly beyond Dallas, especially in its theological formation. While Grace Theological Seminary, Capital Bible Seminary, and Western Conservative Baptist Seminary are mentioned (p. 52), numerous other schools such as Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, The Master's Seminary, Talbot School of Theology, and a host of Christian colleges, not to mention scholars and pastors who do not teach at dispensationally oriented schools, swell the ranks of institutions and individuals who claim to be "dispensational" in their ecclesiology and eschatology.
I did not say or think that Dallas Theological Seminary "speaks representatively for all dispensationalists," though it may be of greatest over-all influence. I do refer to most of the other institutions mentioned and generally to Bible schools. I certainly meant no put-down for other institutions as advocates of Dispensationalism. In fact, I wrote the book because of the vast influence of Dispensationalism and its innumerable outlets around the world. This theology, I fear, penetrates 80-90% of the conservative ("Bible-believing") Christian world. I can't help believing that most dispensationalists are true sheep of Christ needing shepherds.
7. Dr. Gerstner identifies dispensationalism with a certain view of soteriology. "...Dispensationalism is another gospel" (p. 259). "When Dispensationalism does truly give up mere nominalistic faith for a working faith, Dispensationalism will be Dispensationalism no more" (p. 272 n. 9). R.c. Sproul says of the author's view, "For Gerstner, when a dispensationalist eschews Antinomianism, he is, in effect, eschewing Dispensational
better illustrate the meaning of non sequitur. Both Zane Hodges and John MacArthur consider themselves dispensationally oriented in their ecclesiology and eschatology, and yet see a great gulf fixed between their views
on soteriology. One could be both "a five-point
Calvinist and dispensational without being biblically in
consistent. D.G. Hart has recently written about the
Westminster Seminary faculty of Machen's day being
explicitly Reformed, yet having dispensationalist Allan A. MacRae as Professor of Old Testament."
Here is the item in which a specific non sequitur is
charged (to a Sproul quotation which I accept though I would
state it a little differently). I consider Antinomianism the
worst theological fault in Dispensationalism and absolutely
fatal to the gospel by inevitable implication. Here is how
Mayhue charges me with a non sequitur. "Both Zane Hodges
and] ohn MacArthur consider themselves dispensationally
oriented in their ecclesiology and eschatology, and yet see a great gulf fixed between their views on soteriology." Let us
see how Mayhue's logic works:
(1) Gerstner says dispensational Antinomianism is a part
of Dispensationalism and fatal to its evangelicalism.
(2) Hodges and MacArthur differ on Antinomianism, but
agree on the ecclesiology of Dispensationalism.
(3) Therefore, Gerstner is wrong.
8. Dr. Gerstner assumes that dispensationalism is in a
theological rut and has brought no essential change to its
thinking: "A pressing question today is whether Dis
pensationalism has changed in any significant ways in
recent years. I think not" (p. 72). "In spite of numerous contemporary fringe changes, Dispensationalism in
America is still essentially Scofieldian..." (pp. 252-53).
He does not acknowledge the Dispensational Study
Group that has been meeting since 1985 just prior to
the Evangelical Theological Society's Annual Meeting.
Nor does he interact with several recent, major works
such as Continuity and Discontinuity (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1988) where John Feinberg, the editor, brings
.......
.~b-'''-' ~~'H .~-_. -- --- - ,
Saucy has recently contributed several important articles: "The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems," Criswell Theological Review 1/1 (Fall 1986) 149-65, "Contemporary Dispensational Thought," TSF Bulletin (Mar-Apr 1984) 10-11, "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the church," BSac 145/577 Gan-Mar 1988) 30-46. Dr. Saucy is now completing a full-length volume tentatively entitled The Interface Between Dispensational and Covenantal Theology to be published by Zondervan in 1992. In all these, dispensational spokesmen have moved rapidly and significantly beyond Scofield, Chafer, and Ryrie.
Once again, I am said to "assume" something on which I have written extensively in Wrongly Dividing including some of the items Mayhue mentions though not all. On almost any subject on which a person writes today he/she can hardly keep up with the bibliography. Of all that I have read before and since Wrongly Dividing, I have not yet seen one essential part of the dispensational system changed.
Dr. John Witmer criticized me for not attending and being indifferent to the Dispensational Study Group and Mayhue for not acknowledging it. The truth is that I never knew of it until Witmer censured me for being indifferent to it. For years, somebody has stopped sending me The Evangelical Theological Student, or my dues, and I have been
too busy to track the negligence down. I have been aware of
rapprochement discussions that assumed the common Christianity of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Those of which I was aware were not at all disposed to debate my charges against Dispensationalism. I have read and mentioned Continuity and Discontinuity and once debated John Feinberg for three days. Incidentally, that volume was quite similar in format to many Roman CatholiC/Protestant dialogues which were or are between Roman Catholics who are not really Roman Catholics and Protestants who are not really Protestants. They usually result in perfect "reconciliations."
"Y. ur. Gerstner assumes that dispensationalism is a
theological system much like the Calvinistic system. He
refers to the "dispensational theological system" (pp.
105, 158). Then he erroneously tries to equate dispensa
tional thinking with the Arminian system of theology
(p. 103). Earl D. Radmacher makes the point that dis
pensational thought comes more from a hermeneutical
approach to Scripture than from any theological system.
Once again, I am charged with assuming. I seem to
Mayhue never to argue or even try to offer evidence which
of course frees him from answering it. He cites Dr.
Radmacher who does not assume, but "makes the point," that
hermeneutics is the issue while I "assume" (for many er
rdential pages) that "literalism" is a "non-issue."
10. Dr. Gerstner continually assumes that because he
thinks he has proven dispensationalism wrong, there
fore covenantalism is demonstrated to be a correct ex
pression of truth. Nowhere does the author adequately
demonstrate the biblical correctness of his own beliefs. Until he does so, his brand of covenantalism is
just as suspect as the dispensationalism he sets out to
discredit. And, let this reviewer and all his dispensa
tional friends be alert to remember the need to do the
same in the debate with covenantalists.
Relief at last: Gerstner "thinks he has proven Dispensa
tionalism wrong " At least and at last, my critic admits that
I think that I have proven something. Nevertheless, the old
refrain: "Dr. Gerstner continually assumes..." I will be glad
if the time ever comes that I can say: "Mayhue thinks he has refuted me by the following argument," rather than, "Thus
saith Professor Mayhue..."
Professor Mayhue's next area of critique deals with my
"flaws": "WEAKNESSES" (84 f):
1. My book "does not generally reflect the writings of
dispensationalists since 1980 as illustrated above." (85) I see
nowhere "above" where Mayhue has illustrated such a deficiency and I specifically cited Chancellor Walvoord's re
cent statement to the contrary.
--
True, that particular statement refers only to Dallas Theological Seminary, but I assume that Professor Mayhue will agree that Dallas is one of, if not the most, influential sources of contemporary Dispensationalism.
2. Dr. Gerstner frequently cites certain men as representative of dispensational thought. To current dispensationalists, most of these men represent anachronistic referencing and/or a giant caricature of dispensational spokesmen. Examples include Jim Bakker (p. 54), Harold Barker (p. 223), M.R. DeHaan (pp. 54, 88), Jerry Falwell (p. 54), Norm Geisler (p. 75), Billy Graham (pp. 54, 137, 174), Zane Hodges (pp. 225-230), W.W. Howard (p. 224), Rex Humbard (p. 54), Hal Lindsey (pp. 175, 221), James Robison (p. 54), Jimmy Swaggart (p. 54), R.B. Thieme (p. 225), and A.W. Tozer (p. 139). Throughout this volume Dr. Gerstner has presented "strawman" arguments, among which this is his masterpiece.
Note the last sentence especially where I am accused of
being a master of "strawman arguments" because many of the men I list as dispensationalists are not in step with some "current dispensationalists." When I sketch the whole history of Dispensationalism and concentrate on its systematic development since its master theologian, Darby, and discuss major Americans in that system such as Brooke, Moody, Scofield, Grace Seminary, Chafer, Ryrie and Walvoord and cite the Scofield Reference Bible revision of 1967, C.L. Feinberg, and Continuity and Discontinuity, all the names I mention became "strawmen" because Mayhue does not ap
parently consider them among "current dispensationalists" of the last decade. Did I hear someone call me a master of
strawman arguments when he allows persons who call themselves contemporary dispensationalists if they are contending for some changes around the edges of the system while the famous names I mention above are now anachronistic or giant carica tures?
3. Dr. Gerstner resorts in places to a "guilt by association" form of argumentation. R.c. Sproul (p. x) in the
.L LH'-VVVLU d""U~ldLt:" Ul:spt:u:sauonausrs wan Joseph Fletcher, father of modern "situational ethics." Gerstner puts dispensationalists alongside cults like
Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses (p. 69).
Dispensational thought is equated with Arminian theol
ogy (p. 103). Gerstner calls John Nelson Darby the "major theologian" of dispensationalists (p. 84).
Trivialization and dispensationalism are equated (pp. 69
70). He even implies that dispensationalism is more deceptive than liberalism and the occult (p. 2).
Now, I and R.C. Sproul are charged with "guilt by association" argumentation. "Why? Because, Sproul once and I many times show certain doctrines in Dispensationalism are commonly used in ways similar to positions taken by persons in entirely different schools of thought. I clearly indicate these are different from Dispensationalism in their basic
nature and disavowed by dispensationalists. It is perfectly
clear from Wrongly Dividing that Dispensationalism is orthodox with respect to the ontological Trinity, Virgin Birth, deity of Christ, atonement, resurrection, etc. as these nonChristian groups are not.
Arminianism is a Christian group which I do not
"equate" with "Dispensational thought." At great length, I
recognize that Dispensationalism has a tendency to identify
itself with "moderate Calvinism" and that that is a great mistake because its system is essentially Arminian though
dispensationalists do not seem to recognize it. In my opinion,
there is no "guilt by association." I have spent most of my
life trying to show the Christian church that where Arminianism differs from Calvinism it is in error. Dispensationalism I try to prove is guilty of a triple error here: first,
teaching an essentially Arminian system; second, not recog
nizing that; and third, supposing their system is essentially
Calvinistic. Apparently, Mayhue thinks I am wrong on all
three points. If so, it is neither academic nor fair to dismiss a major argument with a mere allegation and no refutation whatever.
In the early part of this review, I am charged with non se
quitur reasoning without any evidence. Here. the reviewer
cnarges me wltn gUll!: uy a::'::'UL:laUUll 1l111lUdUVU auu '-LL'-'"
many supposed instances, but not a one of which is a "guilt
by association" case. For example, I do not suggest that dispensationalists are like those who attack the deity of Jesus
Christ because one feature is common to both systems.
4. Mayhue charges me with "pejorative language and sarcasm" (p. 85), which language abounds in the prophets, Christ, and Paul. In the footnotes, he refers to other works which he assumes demonstrate my guilt in this area freeing him from the necessity of proving my "inflammatory rhetoric."
I will put the matter bluntly: Mayhue is guilty of "inflammatory rhetoric" when he accuses me of "inflammatory rhetoric"-e.g., charging Dispensationalism with being a cult (p. 150), with pantheism (pp. 136, 143), and as a "departure from Christianity" (p. 150)-for I give arguments for those indictments.
Admittedly, my charges are very severe but they are
given as reasoned arguments which force me and many oth
ers so to indict the dispensational system. To put my statements down as "inflammatory rhetoric" and not even try to
answer them does make me rightfully indignant (inflamed, if you prefer).
5. Here I am fairly criticized for not doing enough with Alva J. McClain, George N.H. Peters, or Erich Sauer, especially since a volume claiming to be "the most extensive and
systematic study of Dispensational Theology ever published'
would surely interact with these indispensable works (p.
86).
Let me respond briefly. First, I do not consider my work the "most extensive" work on the subject ever written. I cite Allis' Prophecy and the Church as more thorough and extensive on that subject, and Bahnsen and Gentry's House Divided as a more thorough Calvinistic critique especially related to Dominion, Reconstructionist issues, and that others concentrate on other, especially eschatological details, far better. My work's only claim to distinction is in examining Dispensationalism as a system of doctrine. Second, the [original] pub
...
u~u_~, n."'.H H~)' ~\JU"~UL, LVI. lHal:L1l:al allU nnanClal reason'S" reduced my manuscript to half. Third, when I cite Sauer, for example, briefly it is to show that he is breaking promisingly from certain generally accepted parts of the dispensational system. This includes some of "current dispensationalism." Fourth, much of what these men write is general Fundamentalism with which dispensationalists and covenantalists all agree.
6. I deal with Dr. Witmer's thorough going critique of Wrongly Dividing at some length in this volume. I refer the reader to that chapter for my detailed response to him.
7. Here my "flaw" is that I did not use one dispensational book rather than another. Mayhue may be right. As usual, he does not prove it. He needs only to assert it. It seems to be enough generally, in the view of Richard Mayhue, to establish the existence of a "flaw" in another's writing for that writing not to have used another writing considered to be better for the purpose in the view of Richard Mayhue. Were that way of evaluation followed by John Gerstner (using deviation from Gerstner's preference as the litmus test for the presence of a "flaw"), that undoubtedly would have been considered a "dogmatic" flaw on the part of Gerstner judging from the indisputable litmus test of a flaw, which everyone should know instinctively, is deviation from the view of Richard Mayhue.
8. Again, Mayhue says that I, in non sequitur fashion, teach that soteriology determines ecclesiology and eschatology. Of course, there will be some inter-relation in a system, but, I never say that dispensational soteriology will necessarily determine a specific eschatology. Covenantalists, including me, have almost always recognized postmillenialism, amillennialism and premillennialism as possibilities in the reformed system. I argue that dispensational eschatology is consistent with its soteriology, not that its soteriology "determines" that particular eschatological pattern.
That my "discussion of dispensationalism is notably out of proportion with the real issues..." is Mayhue's inherently authoritative judgment. He sees the "real issues" differ
ently. Ergo (Mayhue is a stickler tor lOgIC), anyone else ~not
only Gerstner for there is nothing personal here), anyone au
dacious enough to differ with the flawless view of Richard
Mayhue must suffer from a flawed judgment.
9. Once again, thus says Professor Mayhue: "The right
hand column (on p. 147) inaccurately labelled dispensationalism should be more accurately titled 'modified
Arminianism' " (p. 87). Why my labelling is incorrect is, of
course, because Professor Mayhue says it is. Gerstner gives
arguments for charging Dispensationalism with Arminian
ism. Mayhue needs only one argument to refute any and all
of mine: "Thus saith Richard Mayhue."
Richard Mayhue not only refutes me with his indis
putable authority but he adds a couple falsifications of my ar
guments as well; that is, if it can be imagined that a person
with inherent, indisputable authority who could not possi
bly err in judgment, could, theoretically, err in fact.
Assuming, precariously, that a person with ultimate infalli
ble judgment could, conceivably, err in fact, I, with temerity
suggest that Gerstner has not "led his readers to equate dis
pensationalism with Arminianism" as could be easily seen if
the readers would still dare to read Wrongly Dividing.
Furthermore, becoming very bold, Gerstner with consum
mate arrogance, in the view of Mayhue, says that he could
not even imagine much less think, not to mention write that
"Arminian soteriology" is "synonymous with dispensation
alism." With this Olympian god frowning down upon me I
dread the possibility that such a disclaimer on my part is
nigh to blasphemy.
This whole section ends with this grand, dramatic de
scription of Wrongly Dividing (lacking absolutely nothing but
one shred of proof): Resembling "The maiden voyage of the
Titanic,"
This supposedly "unsinkable" book seems to have sustained severe damage below the water line at the hands of its own self-imposed icebergs of specious reasoning, fallacious assumptions, incomplete and outdated research, inaccurate data, distorted characterizations, and
-
"CC111111g1Y pn:marure celeoratmg ot VICtOry (p. 88).
ASSESSING THEOLOGICAL VALIDITY (pp. 88f) In the first paragraph, Mayhue expresses modestly that
in this reviewer's opinion...dispensational thought entered a new era somewhere in the late 70s or early 80s. Because no one person or single institution speaks for all dispensationalists and because it is not a theological system like Calvinism (but rather tends to result from a consistent hermeneutic applied with exegetical skill to particular texts whose individual conclusions comprise a macro-summation of a biblical truth), no designated person speaks for the movement. Scores of individual scholars and schools are involved in formulating dispensational thought. (p. 88)
No institution or individual can tell us what this new dispensational thought is. Nevertheless Mayhue can tell us that it is not a "theological system like Calvinism." He explains the difference from Calvinism by something which is the most fundamental, inherent part of all Calvinists' claim: "Our doctrine results from a consistent hermeneutic applied with exegetical skill to particular texts whose individual conclusions comprise a macro-summation of a biblical truth... "
Next, I am criticized for not accurately identifying "the current makeup or movement of dispensationalism" which Mayhue told us no individual or institution could identify except as a literalistic way of dealing with Scripture, which unique "way" all Calvinists claim for themselves. I paint an "almost unrecognizable image." Mayhue cannot tell us what that new dispensational image is; but, he knows that mine is not it. Then he goes on to recognize that Robert L. Saucy and
John F. MacArthur Jr. "might well" be "leading spokesmen" for this unidentified image of "current dispensationalism." MacArthur's book on The Gospel According to Jesus "opposes the wrong equation of a soteriological position with the distinctive feature of dispensationalism." (p. 89) What I argue in Wrongly Dividing is that Antinomianism is the most fatal
error in 'Dispensationalism, not that It IS --me azsuncuve lca
ture" which dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists
would surely consider to be its eschatology. Again, I never
maintained that Master's Seminary denies "its dispensational roots" if that is what Mayhue is suggesting here. I did find,
when I spoke there a few years ago, at least one professor,
speaking for others, and a number of students, holding to
"limited atonement."
The rest of this paragraph I will ignore feeling that I have
already dealt with its main point though not some of its
phrasings.
Mayhue next takes up "a series of selected theological
mis-statements of Dr. Gerstner in his discussion of philoso
phy, hermeneutics, apologetics and theology." (p. 89-90)
1. In his brief discourse on dispensationalists and philos
ophy, Dr. Gerstner charges, "...It [dispensationalism] is
almost impatient in its desire to get to Holy Scripture"
(p. 75). Dispensationalists consider this a great compli
ment consistent with their high view of Scripture's
sufficiency as outlined in such classic passages as Psalm
19, Psalm 119, and 2 Tim. 3:14-17. 24 Therefore, to dis
pensationalists logic and philosophy are secondary to Scripture and serve as a means to an end, not the end it
self. (p. 90)
Here is the Mayhue footnote comment on my "charge":
24 McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom 527-31, lets some
air out of Dr. Gerstner's over-inflated charge that dis
pensationalism is "almost anti-philosophical" (p. 75)
with his chap. 28, "A premillennial Philosophy of
History."
I will simply record what I wrote which seems, for some
reason I cannot grasp, to offend Dr. Mayhue and needs de
flating as if I had said Dispensationalism had no philosophi
cally concerned people. I will let the reader make his own judgment:
..
H..L'-'HVU'''H' Hd" H~ pel~UIlallSm, VIO .t'nncetonlans Realism, and Roman Catholicism its Thomism, but it
would seem that Dispensationalism has no philosophy of
its own. Indeed, Dispensationalism is almost anti-philo
sophical in that it tends to de-emphasize philosophy. It
has always been sympathetic to apologetics, as we shall
see a little later, but it has not been inclined to philoso
phize beyond the immediate needs for Biblical verifica
tion, and it is almost impatient in its desire to get to
Holy Scripture. (p. 75)
theIr apologetICS tnat rney WOUIU llUl It:llU LU d1:5J.C;C; VH LH~
apologetics taught in the Bible. Dispensationalists think they agree on four out of five points of Calvinism in the Bible but
differ very generally on the apologetics most contemporary Calvinists think is in the Bible. It is only surprising, not at all
impossible or defective. I deviate from the majority myself
and most of my fellow Calvinists do find it very surprising. Some of them even wonder if it is possible to be a real Calvinist and not a presuppositionalist! But, then, they stress apologetics as most dispensationalists do not.
3. On hermeneutics Mayhue makes the statement that my "eclectic discussion of older and/or 'pop' dispensationalism such as Darby, M.R. DeHaan, Feinberg, Scofield, and Lindsey is, at best, inadequate" (p.91). I think the "pop" term is misleading. I don't consider these men "pop" dispensationalists. I presume it is Mayhue's opinion that they are. The reference of that pejorative term ought to be made clear or deleted.
Next I am criticized for saying that some dispensationalists are sometimes guilty of "spoof-texting." This is called an "unfair caricature ofdispensationalists who have a legitimate desire to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture." I am not
"caricaturing" all dispensationalists or dispensationalists in
general doing this spoof-texting as a life-style. Mayhue does
not prove that I do. He is being "unfair" to me, not I to dis
pensationalists in general especially when I cite J ohn Nelson
Darby as admitting that he sometimes did just that.
Nor am I demeaning proof texts or the citing of a series of
such. One truly interpreted text of Holy Scripture abso
lutely establishes, as beyond peradventure of a doubt, what
ever it affirms. Many Bible teachers, dispensationalists among them, often cite a palpably falsely or dubiously interpreted text and then try to give it a weight it does not possess
by citing a dozen other texts which give a superficially
sounding harmonious ring. Often in my preaching I warn
people of the peril of memorizing the Word of God wrongly
interpreted and then fortifying it by a string of other wrongly
interpreted texts. I think the "dispensational" Rapture
This was not written as a negative criticism so much as a
general description. Dispensationalism, as I do say, is
"almost" anti-philosophical (because most professional phi
losophy past and present tends to oppose Biblical revelation)
but is not anti-empirical or anti-metaphysical. It tends to
leave that field to other Christians whose general theological
conservatism it trusts. It has inclined to Scottish Realism rather than Idealism in the past, against Existentialism and
toward a Francis Schaefer type of philosophy more recently.
It is definitely pro-traditional apologetics (including mine).
In "2" (p. 90) it is noted that "this reviewer is amazed
that Dr. Gerstner personally favors the 'classical' approach
in common with most dispensationalists (p. 79)." I frankly don't know what causes Dr. Mayhue's amazement. When I
express my surprise that more dispensationalists are not presuppositionalists, my critic makes the statement: "Those dispensationalists who are presuppositionalists are so because they think it is taught in the Scripture, not because
they believe it is Calvinist." So do the presuppositionalists. My point is that dispensationalists generally, historically, consider themselves "moderate Calvinists." However, they don't visibly favor (nor do I), the same apologetics that the vast majority of fellow Calvinists today see in the Bible.
Mayhue concludes: "There is no necessary connection other than consistent biblical thought and conclusion between theology and presuppositional apologetics" (90-91). This is not an important point, but I am surprised that if dispensationalists claim to find essentially the same Calvinism taught in the Bible and biblical revelation as the source of
would never have gotten off the ground except by this highflying exegesis. Mayhue doesn't refute me, only rebukes me.
4. "Here he" (Gerstner) attempts to discredit dispensationalists historically by associating them with F.E. Raven, a Brethren figure of the late 19th century, who, according to Gerstner, denied the full humanity to Christ" (p. 90). Later, the review says this discussion "serves no logical purpose in Dr. Gerstner's discussion, other than trying to portray dispensationalists as guilty of the same heresy" (p. 91).
All I am doing here is sketching the history of the Brethren and noting Raven's unorthodoxy. The Brethren were people among whom Dispensationalism did develop, among whom Raven's unorthodoxy did appear and was generally rejected, as it was by later Dispensationalism. Many have appeared as part of reformed history who were not reformed and who were rejected because the reformed consem... sus did not recognize them. This was true of Arminianism and Hypercalvinism. "Black sheep" appear in all traditions. The interesting thing is whether that tradition rejects the black sheep or changes its own colors. Dispensationalists rejected Ravenite black sheep. And I reject Dr. Mayhue's violation of the ninth commandment when he says that I attempt to "discredit dispensationalists" and try "to portray dispensationalists as guilty of the same heresy" by citing such historical data.
5. This brief reference to my section showing that mainline dispensationalists do not teach "unconditional election" does not even state my argument or deal with my basic contention but with a very remote detail which itself is dealt with only in a footnote reference to a 1976 book and a 1976 article. This is characteristic of the Mayhue method of "ASSESSING THEOLOGICAL VALIDITY," LOCAT
ING "FLAWS" "EXAMINING THE AUTHOR'S
,
ASSUMPTIONS," etc.
In this case I am going to the trouble of ordering the old book from Zondervan and getting my copy of the periodical article from my shelves and reading it once again, and the other for the first time, to see if they show what Mayhue says
they show, namely, that dispensationalists and Calvinists
may argue not only on unconditional election but "double
predestination. "
6. Dr. Gerstner questions the orthodoxy of dispensationalism concerning the full humanity of Jesus Christ. He asserts that regardless of whether it comes more from a lack of theological care than heterodoxy, dispensationalists have an unusual conception of Christ's full humanity (pp. 116-17). The author's discussion is altogether too brief for such a major charge, being limited to Darby, Chafer, and C.H. Mackintosh. Regarding Christ's humanity, covenantalists and dispensationalists agree that it remained without sin throughout His earthly life (2 Cor. 5:21). The theological discussion still goes on as to whether the impeccability of Christ's human nature meant that He was susceptible to temptation like humanity, yet without sin or whether He could not be tempted at all. Mter everything is said and written, the issue at hand is not really germane to the discussion of dispensationalism.
My point about a defective dispensational view of Christ's human nature is inadvertently illustrated here by my reviewer. "The theological discussion still goes on as to whether the impeccability of Christ's human nature meant that He was susceptible to temptation like humanity, yet without sin, or whether He could not be tempted at all." One would expect a fellow inerrantist to recognize that Christ could be and was tempted (Heb. 4:15). There cannot
be any question whatever about that by inerrantists even if
they could not deduce it from Christ's theanthropic person. The only debate is whether Christ, being tempted, could have succumbed. It would be good for Dr. Mayhue to understand the issue before saying it "is not really germane..."
It would seem to be extremely obvious to a child that it made all the difference in this world and the next whether the Son of God was capable or was not capable of succumbing to the temptation to sin. If Dr. Mayhue did not see that before reading Wrongly Dividing it defies my comprehension that he could miss it there. He must be convinced prior to
..
dHU J.H "'1-'J.u,,, VJ. dHYUHH5 H\." \."VUJ.U UHH.l\.. VJ. J.\."dU UJ.dL UJ.\." J."''''UC; at hand is not really germane..." If the Son of God could have succumbed to Satan's temptation, recorded in Matt. 4 and its parallels, since He is the same yesterday" today and forever He could yet sin and there could never be any rest for the weary with an ever-ready hell always at hand with its consuming fire waiting for them to fall when their unpredictable Savior failed to save to the uttermost.
7. Dr. Gerstner's own view that one must be regenerated before becoming an object of God's call to salvation is stated but never defended biblically (p. 119).
Can Mayhue never even state what I have written correctly? I couldn't say under hypnosis that a person "must be regenerated before becoming an object of God's call." He will not be a spiritual hearer of God's Word before regeneration. More seriously, Mayhue says that what I contend here is "never defended biblically."
Here again I must quote myself to show that the above is a false accusation:
When I turned to Wrongly Dividing, Page 119, and located the paragraph which developed the point Mayhue is criticizing for its lack of cited biblical texts, I found no less than five texts (John 3:3; Matt. 11:28; Matt. 9:13; Acts 11:18; and John 6:44). The then Dean of the Master's seminary may question my exegeses, of course; but may not say that I do not appeal to Scripture. In fact, I do not think anything can ever be proven by anything other than the Word of God revealed in nature, or in Scripture.
I am glad that Mayhue does implicitly admit that Dispensationalism does err if I can prove biblically that my charge is correct. I am glad I have gained Mayhue on at least one not unimportant psychological point.
Mayhue adds, "Furthermore, his [Gerstner's] own view is seriously questioned by others who like Gerstner. are strong Calvinists." Mayhue notes that the Reformed Baptists
--
111 lV.LUHLVHJ.\.", -'-"J \.H\..1 \..HJU5"''''''''' ~. u.J ~
versal call (while endorsing the book generally). I wrote a
brief explanatory note to the Reformed Baptist elders who
found me straying from Calvinism on the universal call, but
they have not yet acknowledged receipt of, much less re
futed, my further elucidation of what I had written.
One doesn't settle points like this by one or two com
ments. However, just to balance matters while we are at it,
let me quote Academic Dean William S. Barker of Westmin
ster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia:
I have now examined the section on pages 126-131 and
find your first full paragraph on page 130 a fascinating
picture of how you would deal with an unconverted
hearer of the gospel. While our faculty today would
probably still stand by the position of John Murray and
Ned Stonehouse's booklet The Free Offer of the Gospel, I
certainly cannot fault your approach in the paragraph on
page 13 0 mentioned above. (dated December 10, 1991, page 2. Cited with permission from Dean Barker).
8. Here I am accused of erring when writing that the
"Dispensational Understanding of 'Dispensation'
Denies the Gospel (pp. 149-69)." ...this reviewer cannot understand why Dr. Gerstner does not inform his
readers of and then interact with one of its [Continuity and Discontinuity] contributors, Allen P. Ross ... (pp. 92-93).
Though, as indicated, I gave twenty pages to that charge, I
will oblige Dr. Mayhue and respond to Allen P. Ross "The
Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Discontinuity"
(Continuity and Discontinuity, 161-178) which Mayhue ad
vised me to notice. It is another perfect example of
Dispensationalism's hopeless theological confusion.
For space's sake, I will ignore the circuitous and ulti
mately circular way Ross arrives at his contradictory con
clusion in the chapter. I will say one thing before I examine his conclusion, Ross is trying to show that Charles Ryrie's
analysis of salvation in each dispensation is essentially
sound:
The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the ob
ject of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, which distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation (emphasis mine).
would not have had the specific revelation about Jesus Christ. They believed what God had revealed about himself and his covenant, and their faith found expression in obedience to the law and worship through the sacrifices. In the fullness of time God's Son came to make the perfect sacrifice for sin, in fulfillment of the eternal decree of God and as the antitype of Israel's sacrifices. Consequently, the expression of NT faith takes a different form, because in Christ the sacrifices found their end and the Israelite law ceased to be the mode of administering the lives of the people of God. Accordingly, the content of faith for salvation is now very specific, and the enablement by the Spirit of God is direct.
I showed in Wrongly Dividing (pp. 161-169) that Ryrie's series of definitions are essentially meaningless. Since Ross uses this statement as a guide to salvation in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament his thinking is as confused and contradictory as his guide's. I will use Ross' last few sentences to show this essentially contradictory and meaningless exposition.
It is interesting to note the title of Ross' article, "The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Discontinuity" which is exactly what it is-a case for discontinuity. This is what I and covenantalists in general have always charged to Dispensationalism. Ross, apparently one of the "new current" in Dispensationalism, continues to the "old" dispensational teaching.
Why, then, is this article included in this volume which is meant to show an essential similarity between dispensationalists and convenantalists especially on the salvation doctrine? Apparently because, in spite of the title, it attempts to show that this discontinuity is in a sense continuous.
The essay does show that dispensationalists still teach discontinuity, and Ross' attempt to show it is continuous is not only unsuccessful but incoherent.
The last sentences of the Conclusion read:
That there is one method of salvation for every age is clear, for salvation by the grace of God through faith is necessitated by the universal problem of sin and is consonant with the unchanging nature of God. But a clear analysis of Scripture indicates to us that the content of faith was progressively revealed, so that OT believers
The first sentence is utterly sound. The second sentence is perfectly unsound. The first sentence says that "there is one method of salvation for every age..." and the second says that "OT believers would not have had the specific revelation about Jesus Christ." It goes without saying that the "one method" was the faith in Jesus Christ but this was not the way in the ~T. "The OT believers did not know," says Ross, the "specific revelation of Jesus Christ." So they must have had another way of salvation. But hardly any dispensationalist has ever been willing to admit that though, as here, that is an essential to Dispensationalism.
So now that Professor Ross has dug his pit and climbed into it, let us see how he tries to get out. He continues that OT believers "believed what God had revealed about himself and his covenant and their faith found expression in obedience to the law and worship to the law and worship through the sacrifices." This OT faith is not in Jesus Christ because they had no specific revelation about Jesus Christ.
Ross stops trying to get out of his self-dug pit by admitting that "the expression of NT faith takes a different
form " Realizing that he is now pouring the dirt on himself
that he had dug to make his pit, he brings on his extinction. I can hear him gurgling as the dirt comes higher and higherNO! NO! "in Christ the sacrifices found their end..." is his last gasp as he remembers that he had said the OT way of salvation did not even see, much less receive, Christ in the sacrifices. Just then John Feinberg (the editor) jumps in with his friend saying consolingly, that though OT believers did not see Christ in the sacrifices, God did. Ryrie now joins in the suicide pact saying after all "the content of faith changes in the various dispensations." When asked how he can distinguish "content" of faith from its "basis" and its "object," he gives up the ghost.
9. Yes, praise God, John MacArthur did repudiate, with great vigor, Antinomianism. I did not mean to infer that others did not agree with him though I should have stated that fact more clearly. I am and was aware that there was a debate within the dispensational school called "The Lordship Controversy," and the epochal character of it because it was generally seen as a revolt by one of the most famous dispensationalists and others. Dr. MacArthur was asked to appear before the International Fundamentalists and answer questions especially about his stand on sanctification. It was clear from the questioning, which I heard .from tape, that his questioners were concerned especially about his sanctification views. When he was asked, near the end of the interrogation, whether he considered himself "reformed," he affirmed that he was vis-a-vis sanctification but that he was dispensational in various other areas, especially eschatological.
Mayhue's criticism of me here is that I first say that "all traditional dispensationalists teach that converted persons can (not may) live in sin throughout their post-conversion lives with no threat to their eternal destiny" (p. 93). Then I am supposed not to have proved my point because 1) I admitted that Harry Ironside tried to avoid Antinomianism (though I inferred that he failed); 2) that MacArthur caused a major controversy when he repudiated Antinomianism; and 3) that I failed to mention that there were others on his side. The fact that MacArthur et al caused a contro7,Jersy does show that they were considered by some or most "traditional" dispensationalists to be attacking Dispensationalism when they attacked Antinomianism. When Mayhue offers three so-called arguments like these, one easily understands why
ne usuallY prerers (0 ue uugIllaUc.
10. "There is no question that Dispensationalism has been relatively indifferent to strict morality and usually indifferent to reform activities" (p. 250). Here Dr. Gerstner labels dispensationalists by making a universal statement about them without any documentation or real substance (documented or otherwise). The statement is false and damaging to dispensationalism's reputation. This defamatory caricature alone brings Dr. Gerstner's objectivity in his critique of dispensational teaching into serious question (p. 93).
I did not think documentation was necessary for two reasons. I believe I had already proved Antinomianism in the dispensational system. Also, it is constantly stated that Dispensationalism emphasizes the prime urgency of saving souls. Compare the D. L. Moody story of knowing the world was a sinking ship and feeling that God was saying to him, "here's a boat, Moody, save as many as you can." Was it Vernon McGee who was the source of the oft-cited "You don't polish the brass when the ship is sinking."? Bahnsen and Gentry's House Divided develops this in detail.
But the main point is the Antinomianism. If dispensationalists are guilty of that fatal doctrine, as I try at length to prove, then they are far more than relatively indifferent to morality - they are fundamentally opposed to the necessity of morality. Compare the Zane Hodges chapter especially for my development of this indictment in debate with him.
Also, I remind the readers here as I reminded the readers of Wrongly Dividing at the very outset, that Charles Ryrie and other dispensationalists accuse those who maintain that morality is absolutely necessary, if one has true and saving
faith, as guilty of legalism (salvation based on the merit of
one's personal morality). Legalism is "another gospel" which leads to one's damnation. So if I and other covenantalists are warning people (who think they may have saving faith while de
void of works) that they are antinomians and are lost, Ryrie and others are telling us that if we think works are necessary for salvation we are legalists and legalists are lost.
474
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth
"A CLOSING WORD" (P. 93)
Dr. Mayhue says that he is responding to my request to
evaluate Wrongly Dividing. That he has done and I am grateful for his response, mistaken as it is throughout. He goes on in this closing word to evaluate me quite negatively. However, he is only summarizing what he had already spelled out. Its total lack of cogency I have demonstrated throughout this essay. More comment would now be redundant.
My reviewer calls for my "profound apology" which Dr. Sproul promised if and when I received anything that proves
that I have been generally inaccurate or unfair. As God is my witness, I believe Dr. Mayhue has not given me one sound argument proving my essential inaccuracy or unfairness.
I couldn't help breaking out in laughter when, after studying and responding to Dr. Mayhue's critique, I read him calling on me-emphatically-to apologize! Then I said to myself: This man really and honestly thinks that he has demolished Wrongly Dividing. Then I had to hold back the tears.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Derek,
Why? Seriously. Why does it matter? I do not call myself dispensational for the obvious reasons. If I did, would you not correct me? What is so excellent about this board is that we do define the terms used; we must. The conversations would run amuck otherwise.
It is not puffed up pontification. This board is academic.
I will admit, there are times we strain the gnat, but I don't believe that we have done so here.
[Edited on 2-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]
