95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[Humblesmith]

thomas15,

The main problem I see with this reasoning is that it appears to ignore how the NT interprets the OT. I cannot say this with certainty, but I believe one of the errors of dispensationalism is that it allows the OT to interpret the NT, rather than the NT interpreting the OT.

RB

The area of interpretation is the foundation to the solution, and root cause of the problem. The key is to not let the NT interpret the OT, or vice versa. One should let the OT speak for itself, and take the meaning of the OT in light of what the OT text says, and not read something into it. Likewise, we should let the NT speak for itself, and not read something into it.

The writer of scripture meant what He said when He said it, and He meant it in light of the context and audience He was speaking to at the time. Reading one testament into the other creates interprative problems that has gotten us into this big eschatological mess.

Obviously, the NT was written after the OT, so the NT writers had OT in their historical context. But we should read a passage in light of what it says, and not read meaning into one testament that comes from the other.

 

[Humblesmith]

The Jews must receive Christ their King by faith, right? If so, their salvation is conditioned on faith, just like ours. So the covenant blessings are received on the condition of faith. Hence, the Abrahamic covenant was conditional. True?

Uh, sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The difference is that the covenant with Abraham was unilateral and made by God alone....hence the passage with the smoking oven, where God alone went between the animals.

The difference is this: The covenant with Abraham was a unilaterial promise from God for a group of people (a nation) to inherit the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers. This was a promise to a national Israel. As individual Jews, you are absolutely correct in that they must receive Christ their King by faith. Individuals are saved by faith, but this does not prevent God from promising a piece of real estate to a country.

 

[Humblesmith]

I have no desire to defend or critique dispensationalism. I do however attend a well known dispensational school - Dallas Theological Seminary. I would not label myself a dispensationalist - although I do understand (at least pretty well) the view. But I also understand, and can appreciate the oppopsing views. I see the pluses and the minuses of both sides.

That being said I am appalled at the website. Yes there are problems with dispensationalism. But in just a quick glance at some of the "95 thesis" I was amazed at how it presented the "facts."

Mostly i was amazed at the lack of citation. If you truly disagree with dispensationalism fine - but give actual citation. Some of the things listed as dispensational views I have never heard before, and there is no way for me to verify where this person got their information. They sometimes mention Ryrie or Walvord in parenthesis - but that is not adequate citation. Do you realize how much those two men alone have written?

If you disagree with someone do your homework. And if you are going to cite your "findings" for others give sources for everything - especially if you are claiming they are wrong. Otherwise it looks like you are only spouting opinion and/or basing your opinion on misinformation.

The lack of citation shows me that I cannot trust this site.

Oh - and there are many claims on that site that I know my professors would completely deny. There are different types of dispensationalism. And several of those listed on the site may have been held by the "old school" dispensationalists" but are in no way endorsed by any dispensationalist I know.

Let's all stop for a few seconds and examine this post. Read it again, and look at what we have here:
1) a person who does not claim to be a dispensationalist, and is definitely not a don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts type of person.
2) a student of the largest, oldest dispensational school on the planet,
3) this person says a) they've never heard some of these accusations, and b) none of their professors teach many of the things they are accused of; and c) are "in no way endorsed by any dispensationalist I know."
4) this person says there is a large lack of citation

And I can personally attest to the main points above myself.

So doesn't this make you stop and think? In the name of intellectual honesty, gentlemen please. Can't we at least stop making some of the more severe accusations against dispensationalism, in light of the problems noted above? At least we should have enough academic honesty to have a sure footing before we make claims about another's position.

 

[J.D.]

Uh, sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The difference is that the covenant with Abraham was unilateral and made by God alone....hence the passage with the smoking oven, where God alone went between the animals.

The difference is this: The covenant with Abraham was a unilaterial promise from God for a group of people (a nation) to inherit the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers. This was a promise to a national Israel. As individual Jews, you are absolutely correct in that they must receive Christ their King by faith. Individuals are saved by faith, but this does not prevent God from promising a piece of real estate to a country.

I don't mean to sound redundant, and I'm not going to labor the point, but if the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional, why was Israel and Judah removed from the land when they fell into apostacy? And again, why was Jerusalem destroyed and the people disbursed forty years after Christ was crucified?

 

[J.D.]

The area of interpretation is the foundation to the solution, and root cause of the problem. The key is to not let the NT interpret the OT, or vice versa. One should let the OT speak for itself, and take the meaning of the OT in light of what the OT text says, and not read something into it. Likewise, we should let the NT speak for itself, and not read something into it.

The writer of scripture meant what He said when He said it, and He meant it in light of the context and audience He was speaking to at the time. Reading one testament into the other creates interprative problems that has gotten us into this big eschatological mess.

Obviously, the NT was written after the OT, so the NT writers had OT in their historical context. But we should read a passage in light of what it says, and not read meaning into one testament that comes from the other.

How does the dispensational method of interpretation differ from the method of interpretation of the first century Pharisee? The answer to that question is what drove John Hagee over the edge to proclaim that "good" Jews today are saved if they are sincere in their dedication to Moses' Law.

Think about it - how could the Jews be faulted for believing in and looking for the earthly kingdom that was promised in prophecy? If they take the prophecies literaly, why would they accept a Messiah that offered them a heavenly kingdom? You would say that they did not receive the kingdom because they rejected the King. Thou hast well said! But why did they reject their King? Because they did not believe His words - His teaching that said to them that the fulfillment of prophecy consisted in the "real" temple which is in heaven in the spiritual kingdom, not on earth in a material kingdom. "My kingdom is not of this world...else my disciples would fight". Read Hebrews 11 and tell us if the faithfull look for an 1)earthly, or 2) heavenly dwelling place.

Acts 13:32-33: And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

 

[JDale]

You accuse them of malice, yet one can see a similar rhetoric in your own reply about them. And again here, characterizing Calvinists as "screaming" and "vitriol" which is to characterize your brethren with extreme bitterness.

Then you end your rant with an either/or fallacy.

I have not read all 95 of the theses statements. Did they personally attack anyone, or did they deal with the doctrine? Here you have personally attacked.

RB:

You err in imputing to me malice against anyone in particular, and in accusing me of personally attacking someone. WhHom have I attacked? I don't even know who wrote the "95 Theses against Dispensationalism."

I attacked their methodology and their attitudes in that they make false accusations and set up straw men as "dispensationalism" just to knock them down and thereby bolster their own eschatological scheme. Many of the charges made against Dispensationalists in these "Theses" are, however, distortions, inaccuracies and some are outright untruths.

I bear no malice toward Brothers in Christ, regardless of the particulars of their theology, so long as it is in the general framework of Scripture, and affirms Biblical inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy. But I do take exception to improper and uncharitable attitudes, and the willingness to report or pass on inaccuracies and misrepresentations about the views of others just to prop up one's own perspectives.

JDale

 

[JDale]

How does the dispensational method of interpretation differ from the method of interpretation of the first century Pharisee? The answer to that question is what drove John Hagee over the edge to proclaim that "good" Jews today are saved if they are sincere in their dedication to Moses' Law.

Think about it - how could the Jews be faulted for believing in and looking for the earthly kingdom that was promised in prophecy? If they take the prophecies literaly, why would they accept a Messiah that offered them a heavenly kingdom? You would say that they did not receive the kingdom because they rejected the King. Thou hast well said! But why did they reject their King? Because they did not believe His words - His teaching that said to them that the fulfillment of prophecy consisted in the "real" temple which is in heaven in the spiritual kingdom, not on earth in a material kingdom. "My kingdom is not of this world...else my disciples would fight". Read Hebrews 11 and tell us if the faithfull look for an 1)earthly, or 2) heavenly dwelling place.

Acts 13:32-33: And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Come on -- using Hagee as the standard for a Dispensationalist is like using the 2008 LA [Oakland] Raiders as a standard for a pro football team! Hagee DID go over the edge -- Biblical and normative Dispensationalists cannot hold to the positions he espoused regarding Israel and the Jews.

Also, that the Jews believed in an "earthly" Kingdom was not the issue. Jesus NEVER rebukes them for that idea. What He DOES rebuke the Pharisees for -- over and over again -- is their belief that they can enter the Kingdom on their own merits and righteousness. As Paul says in Romans 9, they rejected God's righteous, and went about to establish their own. The only righteousness that gains us entrance to His Kingdom is HIS righteousness, which we receive IN HIM through the New Birth (John 3:3,7).

"Unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

JDale

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB:

You err in imputing to me malice against anyone in particular, and in accusing me of personally attacking someone. WhHom have I attacked? I don't even know who wrote the "95 Theses against Dispensationalism."

I attacked their methodology and their attitudes in that they make false accusations and set up straw men as "dispensationalism" just to knock them down and thereby bolster their own eschatological scheme. Many of the charges made against Dispensationalists in these "Theses" are, however, distortions, inaccuracies and some are outright untruths.

I bear no malice toward Brothers in Christ, regardless of the particulars of their theology, so long as it is in the general framework of Scripture, and affirms Biblical inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy. But I do take exception to improper and uncharitable attitudes, and the willingness to report or pass on inaccuracies and misrepresentations about the views of others just to prop up one's own perspectives.

JDale

Then in turn JDale, you err in imputing pernicous intent on behalf of those who wrote the 95 Theses. I would suggest you consider carefully the words you use to describe a person's intention. That is a character attack on people no matter how much you deny it. Attack the doctrine, attack the rhetoric, attack the reasoning, but be careful about making moral judgments concerning their motives.

RB

 

[JDale]

Then in turn JDale, you err in imputing pernicous intent on behalf of those who wrote the 95 Theses. I would suggest you consider carefully the words you use to describe a person's intention. That is a character attack on people no matter how much you deny it. Attack the doctrine, attack the rhetoric, attack the reasoning, but be careful about making moral judgments concerning their motives.

RB

There you go again, RB....

That you still charge me with a "personal attack" on the writers of these "Theses" demonstrates your own biased perspective more than any "moral judgments" I have made about the individuals who wrote them.

Again, there has been no personal attack. There has been an attack on their doctrine, rhetoric, reasoning and methodology in opposing Dispensationalism. To say their rhetoric was vitriolic, that the charges they made were specious, and that they misrepresented the ideas of those they opposed -- How is pointing that out a "personal attack?"

If their charges were accurate, my words might be construed as "personal" and even inflammatory. But these things are evident on their face. That's just NOT an attack RB. Sorry if your view demands that we differ on this.

JDale

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There you go again, RB....

That you still charge me with a "personal attack" on the writers of these "Theses" demonstrates your own biased perspective more than any "moral judgments" I have made about the individuals who wrote them.

Again, there has been no personal attack. There has been an attack on their doctrine, rhetoric, reasoning and methodology in opposing Dispensationalism. To say their rhetoric was vitriolic, that the charges they made were specious, and that they misrepresented the ideas of those they opposed -- How is pointing that out a "personal attack?"

If their charges were accurate, my words might be construed as "personal" and even inflammatory. But these things are evident on their face. That's just NOT an attack RB. Sorry if your view demands that we differ on this.

JDale

You ask what I think is a personal attack. This "purposefully mislead or distort what Dispensationalists believe. Don't you agree?"

This is what you wrote concerning the theses, which I am having a very hard time not seeing that as a moral judgment regarding their intent. If you want to shrug off my exhortation to you, shrug it off. You don't have to give an account to me.

RB

 

[J.D.]

Come on -- using Hagee as the standard for a Dispensationalist is like using the 2008 LA [Oakland] Raiders as a standard for a pro football team! Hagee DID go over the edge -- Biblical and normative Dispensationalists cannot hold to the positions he espoused regarding Israel and the Jews.

Also, that the Jews believed in an "earthly" Kingdom was not the issue. Jesus NEVER rebukes them for that idea. What He DOES rebuke the Pharisees for -- over and over again -- is their belief that they can enter the Kingdom on their own merits and righteousness. As Paul says in Romans 9, they rejected God's righteous, and went about to establish their own. The only righteousness that gains us entrance to His Kingdom is HIS righteousness, which we receive IN HIM through the New Birth (John 3:3,7).

"Unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

JDale

I didn't mean to imply that Hagee's confusion is a standard for dispy'sm, but that his heresy shows what can happen if an erroneous hermeneutic is carried out to it's logical conclusion. And you must be younger than I am or else you wouldn't say that about the once-mighty Oakland Raiders!!

I don't know if Jesus ever actually rebuked the Pharisees for expecting an earthly kingdom - but I definitely know that He taught them that the kingdom was amongst them presently and that it was a heavenly/spiritual kingdom.

 

[Marcia]

I didn't mean to imply that Hagee's confusion is a standard for dispy'sm, but that his heresy shows what can happen if an erroneous hermeneutic is carried out to it's logical conclusion.

But this can happen with any erroneous hermeneutic.

Also, I note that this document does not give references for statements made about others' views. It refers to people but does not give the source. That is not very credible.

And what about this:
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.

"Removes God's law from consideration?" What in the world is he talking about? I think he makes many unfair accusations.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But this can happen with any erroneous hermeneutic.

Also, I note that this document does not give references for statements made about others' views. It refers to people but does not give the source. That is not very credible.

And what about this:
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.

"Removes God's law from consideration?" What in the world is he talking about? I think he makes many unfair accusations.

Marcia,

You would need to describe how you think its unfair and why. But do notice that he is speaking of dispensational-ISM. Clearly he is criticizing the doctrine. My thoughts in reading this is that dispensationalism creates a discontinuity of the Law of God to the present "dispensation" Covenant Theology does not do this.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The area of interpretation is the foundation to the solution, and root cause of the problem. The key is to not let the NT interpret the OT, or vice versa. One should let the OT speak for itself, and take the meaning of the OT in light of what the OT text says, and not read something into it. Likewise, we should let the NT speak for itself, and not read something into it.

The writer of scripture meant what He said when He said it, and He meant it in light of the context and audience He was speaking to at the time. Reading one testament into the other creates interprative problems that has gotten us into this big eschatological mess.

Obviously, the NT was written after the OT, so the NT writers had OT in their historical context. But we should read a passage in light of what it says, and not read meaning into one testament that comes from the other.

Just had the opportunity to respond to this reply. I think you hit the crux of the issue square on--hermeneutics. Dispensationalism is a hermenuetic...so is Covenant Theology.

I will ever disagree that the NT should not interpret the OT. Why? Because that is exactly what Christ and the Apostles do consistently. We should absolutely accept NT interpretation of OT Scripture without question. Unless we take the position that the NT is not the Word of God, then the NT interpretation of the Old is THE Divine interpretation, explaination, and application of the OT.

Dispensationalism will crumble when we take this approach.

RB

 

[JDale]

Just had the opportunity to respond to this reply. I think you hit the crux of the issue square on--hermeneutics. Dispensationalism is a hermenuetic...so is Covenant Theology.

I will ever disagree that the NT should not interpret the OT. Why? Because that is exactly what Christ and the Apostles do consistently. We should absolutely accept NT interpretation of OT Scripture without question. Unless we take the position that the NT is not the Word of God, then the NT interpretation of the Old is THE Divine interpretation, explaination, and application of the OT.

Dispensationalism will crumble when we take this approach.

RB

Crumble?!

:laugh:

It is to laugh....


JDale

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

You would need to describe how you think its unfair and why. But do notice that he is speaking of dispensational-ISM. Clearly he is criticizing the doctrine. My thoughts in reading this is that dispensationalism creates a discontinuity of the Law of God to the present "dispensation" Covenant Theology does not do this.

RB

Frankly, I do not want to spend valuable time going through each statement I read so far that I thought was unfairly stated. It would take me a good hour to do a good job and it's not worth it to me.

I can't tell you how many times at my church we've discussed God's law and how it is always good. It is a reflection of God's character. I don't know any disp. who believe that God's law is meaningless, though of course, the NT tells us we are no longer under the law. But God's law is eternal because it show us His righteousness.

 

[J.D.]

But this can happen with any erroneous hermeneutic.

Also, I note that this document does not give references for statements made about others' views. It refers to people but does not give the source. That is not very credible.

And what about this:
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.

"Removes God's law from consideration?" What in the world is he talking about? I think he makes many unfair accusations.

Yes, it can happen with any erroneous hermeneutic. That's my point. As reformedbaptist has pointed out, hermeneuitcs is the key issue.

There are plenty of anti-dispensational works of a more formal nature with lots of citations. You could go all the way back to AW Pink to see that kind of work. I don't think the web site intended that kind of formality, but I'm sure they would be willing to provide citations were they to put it into print or copyright.

You're church may have a better understanding of the law than others, but the criticism of dispy'ims view of the law is valid. Traditional Dipsy says that the law has been done away, abrogated, discontinued. But I will allow that more recent dispy's are beginning to appreciate the importance of seeing the law as a continuing moral rule that applies to the whole of mankind - lost, saved, jew, gentile, etc. God has prescribed His moral standards and ethic for all mankind. When a Christian says "I'm not under the law", he/she is (unintentionally) watering down man's accountability to God's law. Besides, being under grace and not law does not mean that the believer can thumb his/her nose at the law. It is still the prescriptive ethic for the Christian who strives to please God through the virtuous effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The measure of a moral life is not whether one believes, but whether one obeys the commandments. While conversion has nothing to do with morality, the Christian life is a moral life. Dispensationalism has tended to downplay the union of the new birth and moral standards as prescribed in the law.

Also, the dispy view of the church - which sees it as a temporary plan B, an aside from God's primary plan of glorifying Israel, a parenthesis in history - dinegrates the glory of the Bride of Christ, and renders her a second class citizen of heaven.

Sorry, but I don't have citations. Except I could cite myself, having been a teacher of dispensationalism for many years past.

 

[Marcia]

But I will allow that more recent dispy's are beginning to appreciate the importance of seeing the law as a continuing moral rule that applies to the whole of mankind - lost, saved, jew, gentile, etc. God has prescribed His moral standards and ethic for all mankind.

A lot more than what some give them credit for. I find a lot of sterotyping and inaccuracy going on.

When a Christian says "I'm not under the law", he/she is (unintentionally) watering down man's accountability to God's law. Besides, being under grace and not law does not mean that the believer can thumb his/her nose at the law.

Isn't this a false dichotomy - if one is under grace then one is thumbing one's nose at the law? I really don't know any believers like this.

We have these passages, both of which are God's word:
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Rom. 3.31

AND

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. Rom. 6.14

Disp. I know maintain both. Also, it is true we are not under the law. So if we quote this passage, are we "watering down man's accountability to God's law?"

The measure of a moral life is not whether one believes, but whether one obeys the commandments. While conversion has nothing to do with morality, the Christian life is a moral life.

We can't obey the commandments without the power of the Holy Spirit. It's still not us obeying in our own strength. I assume you are not saying that but want to clarify.

Dispensationalism has tended to downplay the union of the new birth and moral standards as prescribed in the law.

Where is the evidence for this?

Also, the dispy view of the church - which sees it as a temporary plan B, an aside from God's primary plan of glorifying Israel, a parenthesis in history - dinegrates the glory of the Bride of Christ, and renders her a second class citizen of heaven.

Plan B? No disp. I know believes this.

 

[Humblesmith]

You ask what I think is a personal attack. This "purposefully mislead or distort what Dispensationalists believe. Don't you agree?"

This is what you wrote concerning the theses, which I am having a very hard time not seeing that as a moral judgment regarding their intent. If you want to shrug off my exhortation to you, shrug it off. You don't have to give an account to me.

RB

Dispensationalists tend to say this because covenentalists, such as the 95 Theses author, repeatedly make flatly false claims about dispensationalism, and when we point out that they are false, and ask for a direct citation, we never get any. I get increasingly frustrated trying to find out where these people get the idea that dispensationalists make these claims........when I ask for a direct source quotation, I get none. But then a few months later, the same accusations pop up in another thread, again without any source documentation.

So I am to the point where I must believe that many of the people who disagree with dispensationalism have some personal issue with it, or they wouldn't keep saying flatly false accusations.

For example, the 95 Theses, and others on this board, repeatedly claim that dispensationlists teach two ways of salvation, one for Israel and one for the church. Yet on another thread, I put a series of direct quotes from the most influential dispenationalists saying directly that there is only one way of salvation for all people.....faith in Jesus. And when I ask for a source quote for the two salvations idea, I get silence.

Twice in this thread there have been direct contradictions of covenentalist claims about dispensationalism, and no has responded. All we get is sidetrack issues about motivations, attitudes, and not-so-subtle comments about dispensationalists lack of response. Straw man is an accurate statement.

 

[Humblesmith]

Just had the opportunity to respond to this reply. I think you hit the crux of the issue square on--hermeneutics. Dispensationalism is a hermenuetic...so is Covenant Theology.

I will ever disagree that the NT should not interpret the OT. Why? Because that is exactly what Christ and the Apostles do consistently. We should absolutely accept NT interpretation of OT Scripture without question. Unless we take the position that the NT is not the Word of God, then the NT interpretation of the Old is THE Divine interpretation, explaination, and application of the OT.

Dispensationalism will crumble when we take this approach.

RB

Christ and the apostles use OT citations to make NT statements. In the context of the NT, they are taking OT quotes and making NT statements. They are most definitely not using NT contexts to change the original, literal meaning of the OT passage.

For example, the statement in the NT comparing Christ to the rock that gave Moses water in the OT. The NT is making a NT point about that rock, comparing it to Christ. But in the OT passage, it's still a literal rock, that gave literal water.

We just can't keep a consistent hermeneutic by re-interpreting OT passages to mean something different than when they were first written. Christ and the apostles never make a "NT interpretation of the Old" that changes the original OT meaning. That's all I was saying.