REVISITING THE DOCTRINE OF DISPENSATIONALISM

Part IV: A Biblical Critique Of Errant Schools Of Dispensationalism

 

I.               Introduction

A.    Though we have learned that the consistently literal way to interpret Scripture produces dispensationalism, some dispensationalists push their views beyond what the literal interpretation of Scripture permits.

B.    We thus correct their errors in keeping with the consistently literal interpretation of Scripture (as follows):

II.            A Biblical Critique Of Errant Schools Of Dispensationalism

A.    The consistently literal interpretation of Scripture counters errant "Ultradispensationalism" as follows:

1.      Charles C. Ryrie (Dispensationalism Today, 1970, p. 192-196) notes all "ultradispensationalists" (a) claim the Church did not start at Acts 2, (b) they hold to more than one dispensation between Acts 2 and the rapture, (c) they deny that the ordinance of baptism and/or the Lord's Table is/are for our era and (d) they hold to varying parts of the New Testament as being directly applicable to the Church, Ibid., p. 192-196.

2.      However, Scripture shows that all ultradispensationalists ERR in NOT starting the Church at Acts 2:

                         a.        1 Corinthians 12:12-28 claims Jews and Gentiles are baptized by the Spirit into one spiritual Church.

                         b.        That ministry began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4 with Jews, it continued with part-Jewish Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17, then with full-blooded Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 and last with Jews in Acts 19:1-6 who were formerly believers under the Law, but who had been ignorant about Christ!

3.      Thus, the consistently literal interpretation of Scripture shows ultradispensationalism to be in error.

B.    The consistently literal interpretation of Scripture counters errant "Progressive Dispensationalism" as follows:

1.      Progressive dispensationalists claim the Church is currently partly fulfilling Israel's Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants, so the Church should be involved in the social redemption of the world. (Fred Moritz, "Progressive Dispensationalism: An Evaluation," The Biblical Evangelist, Jul.-Aug. 2001, p. 3-4)

2.      However, the address of the Apostle James in the Acts 15 first Church council shows this view errs:

                         a.        James there claimed that God would initially call out a people for Himself from among literal Gentiles, citing Peter's Acts 10 interaction with literal Gentiles in Cornelius' household, cf. Acts 15:13-14; 10:1-48.

                         b.        James there further explained how the Old Testament prophets agreed with this past event of the conversion of Gentiles, and he cited Amos 9:11-12 as evidence of this fact, cf. Acts 15:15-17.

                         c.        Yet, though citing Amos 9:11-12, (a) James added the words, "After this" that do not exist at Amos 9:11-12 in the Hebrew text or in the Septuagint translation of that text. (B. K. C., N. T., p. 394)  (b) James also added the words (that God said) "I will return" that are not in the Amos 9:11-12 Hebrew text, using the Greek verb anastrepso that also does not appear in either the Septuagint or the Hebrew text. (Ibid.; Sir L. C. L. Brenton, The Sept. with Apoc., 1998, p. 1092; Kittel, Bib. Heb., p. 927)  (c) Since anastrepso exists elsewhere in Luke's writings only at Acts 5:22 to picture "a literal, bodily return" (Ibid., B. K. C., N. T.), James then taught that the Amos 9:11-12 events will occur AFTER Christ's literal Second Coming.  [(d) His argument before the council was that if God will justify Gentiles as UNCIRCUMCISED Gentiles at Christ's FUTURE return, we in the Church era should accept Gentiles who are being justified by faith AS GENTILES WITHOUT requiring them to be CIRCUMCISED, Acts 15:18-19, Ibid., p. 395.]

                         d.        Amos 9:11-12 also claims David's Kingdom will STILL be broken down, so with James' view that Amos 9:11-12 occurs at Christ's future Second Coming seven years after the Church is raptured out of the world, the Church is NOT NOW restoring David's Kingdom!  Progressive Dispensationalism errs.

3.      Also, in Revelation 3:21, Christ DISTINGUISHED His EARTHLY Davidic throne FROM His Father's HEAVENLY throne where Christ currently reigns! (Hebrews 1:3-4)  Christ's current reign is thus NOT His future reign on David's throne on the earth opposite the Progressive Dispensationalism view!

4.      Thus, the consistently literal interpretation of Scripture shows that BOTH Progressive Dispensationalism AND its consequent belief that the Church should be involved in social redemption are in error!

 

Lesson: The consistently literal interpretation of Scripture leads to the historical dispensationalist stance that the dispensation of the Church began at Acts 2 and ends at the rapture, and that Israel's covenants are only for Israel.

 

Application: (1) May we interpret Scripture in a consistently literal way as historical dispensationalists.  (2) Thus, unlike ultradispensationalists, may we see the Church as one body between Acts 2 and the rapture and practice the ordinances of believers' baptism and the Lord's Table.  (3) Also, opposite Progressive Dispensationalism, may we not view the Church as partly fulfilling Israel's covenants so as to have to redeem society, but disciple individuals.