Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
Aren't you a Dispensationalist? And Pink produced quite an extended critique of that system
that did not prove to be favorable to Dispensationalism, to put it mildly.
As in, Pink censured Dispensationalism as heretical at its outset and mostly so under its new changes.
Then, could it be that your censure of Pink is related to your disagreement about what he wrote there?
There are 20 or so major differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism listed in this article,
of which, here are a couple:
"Dispensationalists believe that Old Testament animal sacrifices will be restored in the millennium,
whereas Covenant Theologians believe that the Old Testament sacrifices were fulfilled in Christ
and have been abolished forever.
"And finally, classic Dispensationalists teach that David will reign on the millennial throne in Jerusalem
in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
"And Covenant Theologians teach that Christ is reigning on the throne
and His saints will rule under Him and the new earth."
whereas Covenant Theologians believe that the Old Testament sacrifices were fulfilled in Christ
and have been abolished forever.
"And finally, classic Dispensationalists teach that David will reign on the millennial throne in Jerusalem
in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
"And Covenant Theologians teach that Christ is reigning on the throne
and His saints will rule under Him and the new earth."
From: "Dispensationalism - A Reformed Evaluation" by Ligon Duncan
Then, in the intro to Pink' s work, it is said about the above author:
He concludes that dispensationalism remains incompatible with covenant theology,
i.e., with historic Protestant reformed doctrine.
"Dispensationalism’s increasing acceptance, then, is troubling,
because using two opposing methods of biblical interpretation,
necessarily yields two opposing orthodoxies, and two opposing orthopraxies — doctrine governs practice.
"How can the teachers of the church tell fellow Christians, in good conscience,
that they may safely use either of two incompatible methods of biblical interpretation?
"That incompatibility is what Arthur Pink highlights and criticizes in this series of articles.
Some say that Pink’s objections don’t apply to “progressive” dispensationalism. But that’s debatable."
With Pink concluding, in DISPENSATIONALISM - On the Wing:
"Our unwelcome task (for the present, at any rate) is completed. From what has been before us in
these papers, we now draw up the following bill of indictment against the Dispensationalists.
"1. Their starting-point is wrong: they begin at the Garden of Eden
instead of going back to the Everlasting Covenant.
"2. They rob God’s children of many of their Father’s precious promises.
"3. They force into 2Tim 2.15 a meaning which its context in no way warrants.
"4. They are all at sea concerning the mystical Body of Christ, failing to see that the Church of
God is commensurate with the entire ELECTION OF GRACE.
"5. They introduce the utmost confusion into the study of Prophecy, by ignoring the fundamental
distinction between carnal or national Israel, and the spiritual “Israel of God.”
Yeah, censure, or excommunication, or banishment by being tared and featured and run out of town on a rail
isn't a punishment that meets the crime, in consideration of his considerable God-Honoring body of work.
He was wrong and got caught up looking stupid in an emotionally charged ethical/ Biblical missstep.
I'd hate to think that the hating and rejecting of those who happened to be in error on a point or two, or 42 points,
would of necessity call for their immediate execution and the burning of their books and legacy otherwise.
I think we'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Ah, heck, we all love the thread starter ParticularWife, but......
I can't find myself seeing one bone in Pink's pink little body being called, "Hyper Calvanist",
the way I understand it and him, but I'm still on her thread and not the least bit compelled to call out the O.P.:
