I don't know the origin of this. I am copying it from someone else, who didn't know either.
A Reformed View on Dispensationalism
95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM
1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the
result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a
relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around
1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first
eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.
2. Contrary to the
dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is
the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early
premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure
and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”
Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s
three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward.
(See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the
Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).
3. Contrary to
the dispensationalists’ attempt to link its history to that of early
premillennial Church Fathers, those ancient premillennialists held
positions that are fundamentally out of accord with the very
foundational principles of dispensationalism, foundations which Ryrie
calls “the linchpin of dispensationalism”, such as (1) a distinction
between the Church and Israel (i.e., the Church is true Israel, “the
true Israelitic race” (Justin Martyr) and (2) that “Judaism … has now
come to an end” (Justin Martyr).
4. Despite dispensationalism’s
claim of antiquity through its association with historic
premillennialism, it radically breaks with historic premillennialism by
promoting a millennium that is fundamentally Judaic rather than
Christian.
5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that
modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there
is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.” Any modern-day Jew who claims
to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and
God rejects the Old Testament also.
6. Contrary to the
dispensationalists’ assertion that the early Church was premillennial in
its eschatology, “none of the major creeds of the church include
premillennialism in their statements” (R.P. Lightner), even though the
millennium is supposedly God’s plan for Israel and the very goal of
history, which we should expect would make its way into our creeds.
7. Despite the dispensationalists’ general orthodoxy, the historic
ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church affirm eschatological events
that are contrary to fundamental tenets of premillennialism, such as:
(1) only one return of Christ, rather than dispensationalism’s two
returns, separating the “rapture” and “second coming” by seven years;
(2) a single, general resurrection of all the dead, both saved and lost;
and (3) a general judgment of all men rather than two distinct
judgments separated by one thousand years.
8. Despite the
dispensationalists’ general unconcern regarding the ecumenical Church
creeds, we must understand that God gave the Bible to the Church, not to
individuals, because “the church of the living God” is “the pillar and
support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
9. Despite the
dispensationalists’ proclamation that they have a high view of God’s
Word in their “coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord),
in fact they have fragmented the Bible into numerous dispensational
parts with two redemptive programs—one for Israel and one for the
Church—and have doubled new covenants, returns of Christ, physical
resurrections, and final judgments, thereby destroying the unity and
coherence of Scripture.
10. Contrary to the dispensationalists’
commitment to compartmentalizing each of the self-contained, distinct
dispensations, the Bible presents an organic unfolding of history as the
Bible traces out the flow of redemptive history, so that the New
Testament speaks of “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise”
(Eph 2:12) and uses metaphors that require the unity of redemptive
history; accordingly, the New Testament people of God are one olive tree
rooted in the Old Testament (Rom 11:17-24).
11. Contrary to the
dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several
dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive
history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor
11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant …
has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready
to disappear” (Heb 8:13).
12. Contrary to the dispensationalists’
frequent citation of the King James Version translation of 2 Tim 2:15,
“rightly dividing” the truth, as evidence for the need to divide the
biblical record into discrete dispensations, all modern versions of
Scripture and non-dispensational commentators translate this verse
without any allusion to “dividing” Scripture into discrete historical
divisions at all, but rather show that it means to “handle accurately”
(NASB) or “correctly handle” (NIV) the word of God.
13. Because the
dispensational structuring of history was unknown to the Church prior to
1830, the dispensationalists’ claim to be “rightly dividing the Word of
Truth” by structuring history that way implies that no one until then
had “rightly divided” God’s word.
14. Dispensationalism’s argument
that “the understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a
proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies”
(Charles Ryrie) is an example of the circular fallacy in logic: for it
requires understanding the distinctive character of a dispensation
before one can understand the revelation in that dispensation, though
one cannot know what that dispensation is without first understanding
the unique nature of the revelation that gives that dispensation its
distinctive character.
15. Despite the dispensationalists’ popular
presentation of seven distinct dispensations as necessary for properly
understanding Scripture, scholars within dispensationalism admit that
“one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a
consistent dispensationalist” (Charles Ryrie) so that the proper
structuring of the dispensations is inconsequential.
16. Despite the
dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing history into
distinct dispensations, wherein each “dispensation is a distinguishable
economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” and includes a “distinctive
revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), recent
dispensational scholars, such as Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, admit
that the features of the dispensations merge from one dispensation into
the next, so that the earlier dispensation carries the seeds of the
following dispensation.
17. Despite the dispensationalists’
affirmation of God’s grace in the Church Age, early forms of
dispensationalism (and many populist forms even today) deny that grace
characterized the Mosaic dispensation of law, as when C. I. Scofield
stated that with the coming of Christ “the point of testing is no longer
legal obedience as the condition of salvation” (cf. John 1:17), even
though the Ten Commandments themselves open with a statement of God’s
grace to Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exo 20:1).
18. Contrary
to the dispensationalists’ structuring of law and grace as
“antithetical concepts” (Charles Ryrie) with the result that “the
doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels”
(Scofield Reference Bible – SRB, p. 989), the Gospels do declare the
doctrines of grace, as we read in John 1:17, “For the law was given by
Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” and in the Bible’s
most famous verse: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have
eternal life” (John 3:16).
19. Contrary to the dispensationalists’
historic position that the Sermon on the Mount was designed for Israel
alone, to define kingdom living, and “is law, not grace” (SRB, p. 989),
historic evangelical orthodoxy sees this great Sermon as applicable to
the Church in the present era, applying the Beatitudes (Matt 5:2-12),
calling us to be the salt of the earth (Matt 5:13), urging us to build
our house on a rock (Matt 7:21-27), directing us to pray the Lord’s
Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), and more.
20. Despite the dispensationalists’
vigorous assertion that their system never has taught two ways of
salvation (Couch), one by law-keeping and one by grace alone, the
original Scofield Reference Bible, for instance, declared that the
Abrahamic and new covenants differed from the Mosaic covenant regarding
“salvation” in that “they impose but one condition, faith” (SRB, see
note at Ex. 19:6).
21. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ central
affirmation of the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie)
employing (alleged) literalism, the depth of Scripture is such that it
can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12), the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16), and
potential converts (Acts 8:30-35); requires growth in grace to
understand (Heb 5:11-14) and special teachers to explain (2 Tim 2:2);
and is susceptible to false teachers distorting it (1 Tim 1:7).
22.
Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to be following “the principle of
grammatical-historical interpretation” (Charles Ryrie), they have
redefined the method in a way that is rejected by the majority of
non-dispensational evangelicals (and even “progressive
dispensationalists”) who see that the Bible, while true in all its
parts, often speaks in figures and types—e.g., most evangelicals
interpret the prophecy in Isaiah and Micah of “the mountain of the house
of the Lord being established as the chief of the mountains” (Isa 2:2b,
Mic. 4:1b) to refer to the exaltation of God’s people; whereas
dispensationalism claims this text is referring to actual geological,
tectonic, and volcanic mountain-building whereby “the Temple mount would
be lifted up and exalted over all the other mountains” (John
Sailhammer) during the millennium.
23. Despite the
dispensationalists’ conviction that their “plain interpretation”
necessarily “gives to every word the same meaning it would have in
normal usage” (Charles Ryrie) and is the only proper and defensible
method for interpreting Scripture, by adopting this method they are
denying the practice of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament, as
when the Lord points to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the
prophecy of Elijah’s return (Matt 10:13-14) and the Apostles apply the
prophecy of the rebuilding of “the tabernacle of David” to the spiritual
building of the Church (Acts 15:14-17), and many other such passages.
24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called
literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation
among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method”
(J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to
misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did
not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.
25. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called
literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first
century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s
basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple
in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time
into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid
water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must
actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).
26. Despite the
dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must
interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the
New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the
light of the Old’” (Elliot Johnson), the unified, organic nature of
Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we
consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the
Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in
Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages
were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have
come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for
long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).
27. Contrary to the
dispensationalists’ claim that “prophecies in the Old Testament
concerning the first coming of Christ … were all fulfilled ‘literally’”
(Charles Ryrie), many such prophecies were not fulfilled in a “plain”
(Ryrie) literal fashion, such as the famous Psalm 22 prophecy that
speaks of bulls and dogs surrounding Christ at his crucifixion (Psa
22:12, 16), and the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy regarding the virgin, that “she
will call His name Immanuel” (cp. Luke 2:21), and others.
28.
Despite the dispensationalists’ argument that “prophecies in the Old
Testament concerning the first coming of Christ … were all fulfilled
‘literally’” (Charles Ryrie), they can defend their argument only by
special pleading and circular reasoning in that they (1) put off to the
Second Advent all those prophecies of his coming as a king, though most
non-dispensational evangelicals apply these to Christ’s first coming in
that He declared his kingdom “near” (Mark 1:15); and they (2) overlook
the fact that his followers preached him as a king (Acts 17:7) and
declared him to be the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5) in
the first century.
29. Despite the dispensationalists’ central
affirmation of the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie)
by which their so-called literalism provides “a coherent and consistent
interpretation” (John Walvoord), it ends up with one of the most ornate
and complex systems in all of evangelical theology, with differing
peoples, principles, plans, programs, and destinies because interpreting
Scripture is not so “plain” (despite Charles Ryrie).
30. Despite
the dispensationalists’ argument for the “literal” fulfillment of
prophecy, when confronted with obvious New Testament, non-literal
fulfillments, they will either (1) declare that the original prophecy
had “figures of speech” in them (Scofield), or (2) call these
“applications” of the Old Testament rather than fulfillments (Paul
Tan)—which means that they try to make it impossible to bring any
contrary evidence against their system by re-interpreting any such
evidence in one of these two directions.
31. Despite the
dispensationalists’ strong commitment to the “plain interpretation” of
Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and its dependence on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
as “of major importance to premillennialism” (John Walvoord), they have
to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular
period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system
work; and that gap is already four times longer than the whole Seventy
Weeks (490 year) period.
32. Despite the dispensationalists’
commitment to the non-contradictory integrity of Scripture, their
holding to both a convoluted form of literalism and separate and
distinct dispensations produces a dialectical tension between the “last
trumpet” of 1 Cor. 15:51-53, which is held to be the signal for the
Rapture at the end of the Church Age, and the trumpet in Matt. 24:31,
which gathers elect Jews out of the Tribulation at the Second Coming
(Walvoord). Dispensationalists, who allegedly are ‘literalists,’ posit
that this latter trumpet is seven years after the “last” trumpet.
33. Despite the dispensationalists’ desire to promote the
historical-grammatical method of interpretation, their habit of calling
it the “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) leads the average reader
not to look at ancient biblical texts in terms of their original
setting, but in terms of their contemporary, Western setting and what
they have been taught by others — since it is so “plain.”
34.
Despite the dispensationalists’ confidence that they have a strong
Bible-affirming hermeneutic in “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie),
their so-called literalism is inconsistently employed, and their more
scholarly writings lead lay dispensationalists and populist proponents
simplistically to write off other evangelical interpretations of
Scripture with a naive call for “literalism!”
35. Despite the
dispensationalists’ attempts to defend their definition of literalism by
claiming that it fits into “the received laws of language” (Ryrie),
However, subsequent to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s studies in linguistic
analysis, there is no general agreement among philosophers regarding the
“laws” of language or the proper philosophy of language (Crenshaw).”
36. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to interpret all of the
Bible “literally”, Dr. O.T. Allis correctly observed, “While
Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent
ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the
interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical
interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the
most ardent of allegorizers.”
37. Despite the dispensationalists’
claim regarding “the unconditional character of the [Abrahamic]
covenant” (J. Dwight Pentecost), which claim is essential for
maintaining separate programs for Israel and the Church, the Bible in
Deuteronomy 30 and other passages presents it as conditional;
consequently not all of Abraham’s descendants possess the land and the
covenantal blessings but only those who, by having the same faith as
Abraham, become heirs through Christ.
38. Despite the
dispensationalists’ necessary claim that the Abrahamic covenant is
unconditional, they inconsistently teach that Esau is not included in
the inheritance of Canaan and Abraham’s blessings, even though he was as
much the son of Isaac (Abraham’s son) as was Jacob, his twin (Gen
25:21-25), because he sold his birthright and thus was excluded from the
allegedly “unconditional” term of the inheritance.
39. Despite the
dispensationalists’ claim that the Abrahamic covenant involved an
unconditional land promise, which serves as one of the bases for the
future hope of a millennium, the Bible teaches that Abraham “was looking
for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God”
(Heb 11:10), and that the city, the “new Jerusalem,” will “descend from
God, out of Heaven” (Rev. 21:2).
40. Despite the
dispensationalists’ commitment to the “holy land” as a “perpetual title
to the land of promise” for Israel (J. D. Pentecost), the New Testament
expands the promises of the land to include the whole world, involving
the expanded people of God, for Paul speaks of “the promise to Abraham
or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world” (Rom 4:13a).
41. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the descendents of the
patriarchs never inhabited all the land promised to them in the
Abrahamic covenant and therefore, since God cannot lie, the possession
of the land by the Jews is still in the future; on the contrary, Joshua
wrote, “So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to
give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it…
Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the
house of Israel. All came to pass” (Joshua 21:43,45).
42. Despite
the dispensationalists’ so-called literalism demanding that Jerusalem
and Mt. Zion must once again become central to God’s work in history, in
that “Jerusalem will be the center of the millennial government”
(Walvoord), the new covenant sees these places as typological pointers
to spiritual realities that come to pass in the new covenant Church,
beginning in the first century, as when we read that “you have come to
Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem”
(Heb 12:22; cp. Gal 4:22-31).
43. Despite the dispensationalists’
fundamental theological commitment to the radical distinction between
“Israel and the Church” (Ryrie), the New Testament sees two “Israels”
(Rom. 9:6-8)—one of the flesh, and one of the spirit—with the only true
Israel being the spiritual one, which has come to mature fulfillment in
the Church. (The Christian Church has not replaced Israel; rather, it
is the New Testament expansion.) This is why the New Testament calls
members of the Church “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:26-29) and the Church
itself “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
44. Despite the
dispensationalists’ claim that Jews are to be eternally distinct from
Gentiles in the plan of God, because “throughout the ages God is
pursuing two distinct purposes” with “one related to the earth” while
“the other is related to heaven” (Chafer and Ryrie), the New Testament
speaks of the permanent union of Jew and Gentile into one body “by
abolishing in His flesh the enmity” that “in Himself He might make the
two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15), Accordingly,
with the finished work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in the
eyes of God (Gal 3:28).
45. Contrary to dispensationalism’s
implication of race-based salvation for Jewish people (salvation by race
instead of salvation by grace), Christ and the New Testament writers
warn against assuming that genealogy or race insures salvation, saying
to the Jews: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have
Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these
stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt 3:9) because “children of
God” are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God” (John 1:12b-13; 3:3).
46. Contrary to
dispensationalism’s claim that “the Church is a mystery, unrevealed in
the Old Testament” (J. D. Pentecost), the New Testament writers look to
the Old Testament for its divine purpose and role in the history of
redemption and declare only that the mystery was not known “to the sons
of men” at large, and was not known to the same degree “as” it is now
revealed to all men in the New Testament (Eph 3:4-6), even noting that
it fulfills Old Testament prophecy (Hos 1:10 / Rom 9:22-26), including
even the beginning of the new covenant phase of the Church (Joel 2:28-32
/ Acts 2:16-19).
47. Despite dispensationalism’s presentation of
the Church as a “parenthesis” (J. F. Walvoord) in the major plan of God
in history (which focuses on racial Israel), the New Testament teaches
that the Church is the God-ordained result of God’s Old Testament plan,
so that the Church is not simply a temporary aside in God’s plan but is
the institution over which Christ is the head so that He may “put all
things in subjection under His feet” (Eph 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).
48. Contrary to dispensationalism’s teaching that Jeremiah’s “New
Covenant was expressly for the house of Israel … and the house of Judah”
(Bible Knowledge Commentary)—a teaching that is due to its man-made
view of literalism as documented by former dispensationalist (Curtis
Crenshaw) and the centrality of Israel in its theological system—the New
Testament shows that the new covenant includes Gentiles and actually
establishes the new covenant Church as the continuation of Israel (Luke
22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6).
49. Contrary to dispensationalism’s
claim that Christ sincerely offered “the covenanted kingdom to Israel”
as a political reality in literal fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecies (J. D. Pentecost), the Gospels tell us that when his Jewish
followers were “intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him
king” that he “withdrew” from them (John 6:15), and that he stated that
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then
My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the
Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36).
50. Despite the dispensationalists’ belief that Christ sincerely offered
a political kingdom to Israel while he was on earth (J. D. Pentecost),
Israel could not have accepted the offer, since God sent Christ to die
for sin (John 12:27); and His death was prophesied so clearly that those
who missed the point are called “foolish” (Luke 24:25-27). Christ
frequently informed His hearers that He came to die, as when He said
that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give His life a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28;) and Scripture clearly
teaches that His death was by the decree of God (Acts 2:23) before the
foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Thus, dispensationalism’s claim
about this offer implicitly involves God in duplicity and Christ in
deception.
51. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ belief that
Christ “withdrew the offer of the kingdom” and postponed it until He
returns (J. D. Pentecost), Christ tells Israel, “I say to you, the
kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation
producing the fruit of it” (Matt 21:43) and “I say to you, that many
shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the
kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).
52. Despite
dispensationalism’s commitment to Christ’s atoning sacrifice, their
doctrine legally justifies the crucifixion by declaring that he really
did offer a political kingdom that would compete with Rome and made him
guilty of revolting against Rome, even though Christ specifically
informed Pilate that his type of kingship simply was “to bear witness to
the truth” (John 18:37), leading this Roman-appointed procurator to
declare “I find no guilt in Him” (John 18:38).
53. Contrary to the
dispensationalists’ urging Christians to live their lives expecting
Christ’s return at any moment, “like people who don’t expect to be
around much longer” (Hal Lindsey), Christ characterizes those who expect
his soon return as “foolish” (Matt 25:1-9), telling us to “occupy until
He comes,” (Luke 19:13 ) and even discouraging his disciples’ hope in
Israel’s conversion “now” by noting that they will have to experience
“times or epochs” of waiting which “the Father has fixed by His own
authority” (Acts 1:6-7).
54. Contrary to dispensationalism’s
doctrine that Christ’s return always has been “imminent” and could occur
“at any moment” (J. D. Pentecost) since his ascension in the first
century, the New Testament speaks of his coming as being after a period
of “delaying” (Matt 25:5) and after a “long” time (Matt 24:48; 25:19; 2
Pet. 3:1-15).
55. Contrary to dispensationalists’ tendency to
date-setting and excited predictions of the Rapture, as found in their
books with titles like 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon and Planet Earth
2000: Will Mankind Survive, Scripture teaches that “the son of Man is
coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matt 24:44), “at an
hour which you do not know” (Matt 24:50).
56. Despite the
dispensationalists’ frequent warning of the signs of the times
indicating the near coming of Christ (Lindsey), their doctrine of
imminency holds that no intervening prophecies remain to be fulfilled.
Consequently, there can be no possibility of signs (John Walvoord); and
as “there was nothing that needed to take place during Paul’s life
before the Rapture, so it is today for us” (Tim LaHaye). Christ himself
warned us that “of that day and hour no one knows” (Matt 24:36a).
57. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that Christ could return at
any minute because “there is no teaching of any intervening event” (John
Walvoord), many of their leading spokesmen hold that the seven churches
in Rev 2-3 “outline the present age in reference to the program in the
church,” including “the Reformation” and our own age (J. D. Pentecost).
58. Despite the dispensationalists’ widespread belief that we have been
living in the “last days” only since the founding of Israel as a nation
in 1948, the New Testament clearly and repeatedly teach that the “last
days” began in the first century and cover the whole period of the
Christian Church (Acts 2:16-17; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 1:1-2; 9:26)
59.
Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the expectation of the
imminent Rapture and other eschatological matters are important tools
for godly living, dispensationalism’s founders were often at odds with
each other and divisive regarding other believers, so that, for
instance, of the Plymouth Brethren it could be said that “never has one
body of Christians split so often, in such a short period of time, over
such minute points” (John Gerstner) and that “this was but the first of
several ruptures arising from [Darby’s] teachings” (Dictionary of
Evangelical Biography).
60. Contrary to the dispensationalists’
creation of a unique double coming of Christ—the Rapture being separated
from the Second Advent—which are so different that it makes “any
harmony of these two events an impossibility” (Walvoord), the Bible
mentions only one future coming of Christ, the parousia, or epiphany, or
revelation (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2
Thess. 2:1, 8; Jas. 5:7; 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 Jn. 2:28), and states that He
“shall appear a second time” (Heb 9:28a), not that He shall appear
“again and again” or for a third time.
61. Despite the
dispensationalists’ teaching that “Jesus will come in the air secretly
to rapture His Church” (Tim LaHaye), their key proof-text for this
“secret” coming, 1 Thess 4:16, makes the event as publicly verifiable as
can be, declaring that he will come “with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.”
62. Contrary to
dispensationalism’s doctrine of two resurrections, the first one being
of believers at the Rapture and the second one of unbelievers at the end
of the millennium 1007 years after the Rapture, the Bible presents the
resurrection of believers as occurring on “the last day” (John 6:39-40,
44, 54; 11:24), not centuries before the last day.
63. Contrary to
dispensationalism’s doctrine of two resurrections, the first one being
of believers at the Rapture and the second one of unbelievers at the end
of the millennium 1007 years after the Rapture, the Bible speaks of the
resurrection of unbelievers as occurring before that of believers
(though as a part of the same complex of events), when the angels “first
gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up” at the
end of the age (Matt 13:30b).
64. Despite dispensationalism’s
commitment to the secret Rapture of the Church by which Christians are
removed from the world to leave only non-Christians in the world, Jesus
teaches that the wheat and the tares are to remain in the world to the
end (Matt 13:), and he even prays that the Father not take his people
out of the world (John 17:15).
65. Despite the dispensationalists’
emphasis on the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and
the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24, admitting that Christ was pointing
to the stones of the first century temple when He declared that “not one
will be left upon another” (Matt 23:37-24:2), they also admit
inconsistently that when the disciples asked “when shall these things
be?” (Matt 24:3), Matthew records Christ’s answer in such a way that He
presents matters that are totally unrelated to that event and that occur
thousands of years after it (Bible Knowledge Commentary).
66.
Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to so-called literalism in
prophecy and their strong emphasis on the Great Tribulation passage in
Matthew 24, they perform a sleight of hand by claiming that when Jesus
stated that “this generation will not pass away until all these things
take place” (Matt 24:34), He did so in a way inconsistent with every
other usage of “this generation” in Matthew’s Gospel (e.g., Matt 11:16;
12:41, 42) and even in the immediate context (Matt 23:36), so that “this
generation” can somehow point thousands of years into the future
“instead of referring this to the time in which Christ lived”
(Walvoord).
67. Dispensationalism’s teaching of the rapid “national
regeneration of Israel” during the latter part of the seven-year
Tribulation period (Fruchtenbaum) is incomprehensible and unbiblical
because the alleged regeneration occurs only after the Church and the
Holy Spirit have been removed from the earth, even though they were the
only agents who could cause that regeneration: the institution of
evangelism on the one hand and the agent of conversion on the other.
68. Contrary to dispensationalists’ view of the mark of the beast, most
of them seeing in the beast’s number a series of three sixes, the Bible
presents it not as three numbers (6-6-6) but one singular number (666)
with the total numerical value of “six hundred and sixty-six” (Rev
13:18b).
69. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ expectation that
the mark of the beast is to be some sort of “microchip implant” (Timothy
Demy), Revelation 13 states that it is a mark, not an instrument of
some kind.
70. Contrary to dispensationalists’ belief in a
still-future geo-political kingdom which shall be catastrophically
imposed on the world by war at the Battle of Armageddon, the Scriptures
teach that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom that does not come
with signs, and was already present in the first century, as when Jesus
stated, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor
will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the
kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21).
71. Despite the
dispensationalists’ claim that their so-called literalistic
premillennialism is superior to the other evangelical millennial views
because Revelation 20:1-6 is one text that clearly sets forth their
system, this view imposes the literalistic system unjustifiably and
inconsistently on the most symbolic book in all the Bible, a book
containing references to scorpions with faces like men and teeth like
lions (Rev 9:7), fire-breathing prophets (Rev 11:5), a seven-headed
beast (Rev 13:1), and more.
72. Dispensationalism’s claim that
Revelation 20:1-6 is a clear text that establishes literalistic
premillennialism has an inconsistency that is overlooked: it also
precludes Christians who live in the dispensation of the Church from
taking part in the millennium, since Revelation 20:4 limits the
millennium to those who are beheaded and who resist the Beast, which are
actions that occur (on their view) during the Great Tribulation, after
the Church is raptured out of the world.
73. Despite the
dispensationalists’ view of the glory of the millennium for Christ and
his people, they teach, contrary to Scripture, that regenerated Gentile
believers will be subservient to the Jews, as we see, for instance, in
Herman Hoyt’s statement that “the redeemed living nation of Israel,
regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the
nations of the earth…. So he exalts them above the Gentile nations…. On
the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.”
74.
Despite dispensationalism’s claim that the Jews will be dominant over
all peoples in the eschatological future, the Scripture teaches that “In
that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the
Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the
Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be
the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the
earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is Egypt My
people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.’”
(Isa. 19:23-25).
75. Despite dispensationalism’s “plain and simple”
method that undergirds its millennial views, it leads to the bizarre
teaching that for 1000 years the earth will be inhabited by a mixed
population of resurrected saints who return from heaven with Jesus
living side-by-side with non-resurrected people, who will consist of
unbelievers who allegedly but unaccountably survive the Second Coming as
well as those who enter the millennium from the Great Tribulation as “a
new generation of believers” (Walvoord).
76. Despite
dispensationalists’ claim to reasonableness for their views, they hold
the bizarre teaching that after 1000 years of dwelling side-by-side with
resurrected saints who never get ill or die, a vast multitude of
unresurrected sinners whose number is “like the sand of the seashore,”
will dare to revolt against the glorified Christ and His millions of
glorified saints (Rev 20:7-9).
77. Despite the dispensationalists’
fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of
Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom,
ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the
sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule
toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).
78. Despite the dispensationalists’
production of many adherents who “are excited about the very real
potential for the rebuilding of Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem” (Randall
Price) and who give funds for it, they do not understand that the whole
idea of the temple system was associated with the old covenant which was
“growing old” and was “ready to disappear” in the first century (Heb
8:13).
79. Contrary to dispensationalists’ expectation of a future
physical temple in the millennium, wherein will be offered literal
animal blood sacrifices, the New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled
the Passover and the Old Testament sacrificial system, so that Christ’s
sacrifice was final, being “once for all” (Heb 10:10b), and that the
new covenant causes the old covenant with its sacrifices to be
“obsolete” (Heb 8:13).
80. Contrary to dispensationalism’s teaching
that a physical temple will be rebuilt, the New Testament speaks of the
building of the temple as the building of the Church in Christ, so that
“the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple
in the Lord” (Eph 2:21); the only temple seen in the book of Revelation
is in Heaven, which is the real and eternal temple of which the earthly
temporary temple was, according to the book of Hebrews, only a “shadow”
or “copy” (Heb 8:5; 9:24).
81. Despite the dispensationalists’
attempt to re-interpret Ezekiel’s prophecies of a future sacrificial
system by declaring that they are only “memorial” in character, and are
therefore like the Lord’s Supper, the prophecies of that temple which
they see as being physically “rebuilt” speak of sacrifices that effect
“atonement” (Ezek. 43:20; 45:15, 17, 20); whereas the Lord’s Supper is a
non-bloody memorial that recognizes Christ as the final blood-letting
sacrifice.
82. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the
Jews as important for the fulfillment of prophecy and their charge of
“anti-Semitism” against evangelicals who do not see an exalted future
for Israel (Hal Lindsey), they are presently urging Jews to return to
Israel even though their understanding of the prophecy of Zech 13:8
teaches that “two-thirds of the children of Israel will perish”
(Walvoord) once their return is completed.
83. Contrary to
dispensationalism’s populist argument for “unconditional support” for
Israel, the Bible views it as a form of Judeaolotry in that only God can
demand our unconditional obligation; for “we must obey God rather than
men” (Acts 5:29); and God even expressly warns Israel of her destruction
“if you do not obey the Lord your God” (Deut 28:15, 63).
84.
Contrary to dispensationalism’s structuring of history based on a
negative principle wherein each dispensation involves “the ideas of
distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie),
so that each dispensation ends in failure and judgment, the Bible
establishes a positive purpose in redemptive history, wherein “God did
not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world
should be saved through Him” (John 3:17) and “God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself.” (2 Cor 5:19a).
85. Despite
dispensationalism’s pessimism regarding the future, which expects that
“the present age will end in apostasy and divine judgment” (Walvoord)
and that “almost unbelievably hard times lie ahead” (Charles Ryrie),
Christ declares that He has “all authority in heaven and on earth” and
on that basis calls us actually to “make disciples of all the nations”
(Matt 28:18-20).
86. Despite the tendency of some dispensationalist
scholars to interpret the Kingdom Parables negatively, so that they view
the movement from hundredfold to sixty to thirty in Matt 13:8 as
marking “the course of the age,” and in Matt 13:31-33 “the mustard seed
refers to the perversion of God’s purpose in this age, while the leaven
refers to the corruption of the divine agency” (J. D. Pentecost), Christ
presents these parables as signifying “the kingdom of heaven” which He
came to establish and which in other parables he presents as a treasure.
87. Despite dispensationalism’s historic argument for cultural
withdrawal by claiming that we should not “polish brass on a sinking
ship” (J. V. McGee) and that “God sent us to be fishers of men, not to
clean up the fish bowl” (Hal Lindsey), the New Testament calls
Christians to full cultural engagement in “exposing the works of
darkness” (Eph 5:11) and bringing “every thought captive to the
obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5).
88. Despite dispensationalism’s
practical attempts to oppose social and moral evils, by its very nature
it cannot develop a long-term view of social engagement nor articulate a
coherent worldview because it removes God’s law from consideration
which speaks to political and cultural issues.
89. Despite the
dispensationalists’ charge that every non-dispensational system “lends
itself to liberalism with only minor adjustments” (John Walvoord), it is
dispensationalism itself which was considered modernism at the
beginning of the twentieth century.
90. Despite the
dispensationalists’ affirmation of the gospel as the means of salvation,
their evangelistic method and their foundational theology, both,
encourage a presumptive faith (which is no faith at all) that can lead
people into a false assurance of salvation when they are not truly
converted, not recognizing that Christ did not so quickly accept
professions of faith (e.g., when even though “many believed in His
name,” Jesus, on His part, “was not entrusting Himself to them.”—John
2:23b-24a).
91. Despite the dispensationalists’ declaration that
“genuine and wholesome spirituality is the goal of all Christian living”
(Charles Ryrie), their theology actually encourages unrighteous living
by teaching that Christians can simply declare Christ as Savior and then
live any way they desire. Similarly, dispensationalism teaches that
“God’s love can embrace sinful people unconditionally, with no binding
requirements attached at all” (Zane Hodges), even though the Gospel
teaches that Jesus “was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If
you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine’” (John 8:31)
and that he declared “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow Me” (John 10:27).
92. Despite the early versions of
dispensationalism and the more popular contemporary variety of
dispensationalism today teaching that “it is clear that the New
Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of
salvation” (L. S. Chafer and Zane Hodges), the Apostle Paul “solemnly
testifies to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).
93. Contrary to
dispensationalism’s tendency to distinguish receiving Christ as Savior
and receiving him as Lord as two separate actions, so that saving faith
involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever” (Zane Hodges), the Bible
presents both realities as aspects of the one act of saving faith; for
the New Testament calls men to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26;
James 2:14-20).
94. “Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of
“genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually
encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the
God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the
Ten Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation.
Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was
never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian”
(Charles Ryrie)—even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are
under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may
become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19).”
95. Despite
dispensationalism’s teaching regarding two kinds of Christians, one
spiritual and one fleshly (resulting in a “great mass of carnal
Christians,” Charles Ryrie), the Scripture makes no such class
distinction, noting that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the
Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you,” so that “if anyone
does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom
8:9).
