HELL NO !

Hell No
by Dr. Christopher Cone
Satan’s encounter with Eve in the Garden is fascinating and very important for us to understand. His temptation of Eve, recorded in Genesis 3, represents several firsts:
hell
It is the first instance of an epistemological alternative to God’s design. Satan offers to Eve a different way to have God-like knowledge. Satan argues that God is actually deceiving Eve into ignorance by keeping her from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan’s plan was both clear and appealing: Be like God by the assertion of your own will, and be free from God’s restrictive design. Declare your independence from God by doing it your own way – the result will be the same.

Satan’s temptation of Eve is also the first instance of a hermeneutic alternative to God’s design. Satan’s temptation of Eve was the first recorded instance of a non-literal interpretation of God’s word. Satan asks Eve, “Has God said…?” and then proceeds to distort what God had actually said (3:1). In contrast, Genesis 1-12 represents roughly 2,500 years of history, and during that time, of the roughly 31 references to God speaking, this is the only instance (besides Eve’s fumbling in response to Satan’s challenge) in which God’s word isn’t taken at face value.

These two firsts are hugely significant for how we think, how we know, and how we understand God’s word. But there is another important first: the dialogue between Satan and Eve represents the first denial of God’s judgment. In Genesis 2:17 God had warned Adam that if he ate the fruit from this particular tree (all the rest were permissible, but Adam was not allowed to eat from this one) in that day (Heb., b’yom) he would die. Well, we know the rest of the story: Adam and Eve ate, and Adam lived to be 930 years old before he died (Gen 5:5). Did God mean what he said, or was Satan actually right? According to Paul in Romans 5:12, through Adam death spread to all (Gr. pantes) men – even those who are still alive and have not yet experienced physical death. The death promised in Genesis 2:17 was not physical death – that was promised in Genesis 3:19 (“…to dust you shall return”). The death God promised Adam is the same death Paul described in Romans 5. The condition of that “spiritual death” is that we were enemies of God (5:10) who were condemned (5:18).

Satan simply and straightforwardly denies what God had promised: “You shall surely not die” (Gen 3:4), Satan said. But what happened? Romans 5 explains that all died “spiritually” (meaning they became enemies of God and were condemned), and Adam and Eve did indeed die physically, as God directly intervened to ensure that fate (Gen 3:22-24).

Through the years there have been echoes of Satan’s denial of God’s judgment – most recently by men such as Henry Emerson Fosdick and Rob Bell. These men deny God’s right to judge through the consequences of hell, because it is outside of their expectations for God’s character. The essential premise of these contemporary denials is simply that a “good” God could not possibly condemn a person forever. But we find many examples in Scripture where God makes judgments that just don’t generally match what we might tend to do. So we have a choice. We can argue that God must fit our own moral sentiments, or we can take Him at His word, and discover who He describes Himself to be.

Before presupposing (based on sentiment) that God shouldn’t have a hell, perhaps it would be better to avoid the Satanic temptation to deny God’s prerogative and promise to judge. God did promise death. Not only that, but He promised a second death – the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15, Gr. limne tou puros). This concept was first discussed in the final verse of Isaiah (66:24), and was later reiterated by Christ Himself in Mark 9:47-48 (where the Gr. gehenna is used).

Satan’s epistemology was a lie. The knowledge Eve gained by following it brought only death. Satan’s hermeneutic maneuver was a lie. It didn’t bring clarity to God’s word, instead it brought deception and confusion. Likewise, Satan’s prescribed personal eschatology – his claim about Eve’s future ­– was also a lie, and was disproven directly by God’s own actions. Satan’s lies are just as destructive today as they were then.

Of course the Biblical teaching of hell, death, judgment, and condemnation are awfully distasteful if we misunderstand God’s sovereign rights as the Creator – when we so disregard His holiness that we feel He has no right to make demands of that which He has created. But let’s look at things from God’s point of view (i.e., the view He revealed in Scripture) and we draw a different conclusion – a conclusion, by the way, He never asks us to like, but one He demands we understand.

In so doing, we can understand the great power of His grace, His love, His compassion. As Jesus said, “…he who is forgiven little loves little.” We need to realize of what great offenses we have been forgiven, and the kind of love with which we ought to respond, and what is really at stake in our lives and the lives of others.

Some Observations On Progressive Dispensationalism

Progressive Dispensationalism

Some Observations





1. Its Leaders

1) Craig Blaising, a former Dallas Seminary Professor who is now teaching at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas; 2) Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary; 3) Robert Saucy, who taught at Talbot School of Theology (Talbot Seminary). Due to the pioneering work of these and other men, many have entered the progressive fold.

2. Its Books

1) Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church by Blaising and Bock (1992); 2) The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism by Saucy (1993); 3) Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock (1993). A wealth of literature, books and articles, for and against Progressive Dispensationalism has been published in the years following.

3. Its Beginnings

[In this paper we shall sometimes refer to Progressive Dispensationalism as PD.]

In 1985 a group met together and launched the Dispensational Study Group. "What has emerged is unprecedented discussion between covenant theologians, historical premillennialists, charismatics, and the dispensationalists who invited them to the table" (Darrell Bock, Christianity Today, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 26). Notice that it was the "dispensationalists" who initiated this dialogue. "We met because some (but not all of us) believed that there are biblical problems with aspects of the older dispensational position. We engaged in the discussion with all these groups as well as ourselves to sift through the evidence. Traditionalists were on the program with us in virtually every year early on" (Bock).1 "PD wants to find common ground with nondispensationalism" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "The newer dispensationalism wants to bring itself in line with mainstream evangelicalism" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "PD is made up of evangelicals who are dissatisfied with the dispensationalism of their forefathers and who have met together to change it" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of "Progressive Dispensationalism," Part 1, p. 5).

"The purpose of the study group (which first met in 1986) appears to be to clarify dispensational issues in order to bridge the gap between dispensationalism and covenant theology....it is a sad commentary on the present situation that whereas premillennialism (out of which dispensationalism gradually emerged) arose in America primarily through early Bible conferences held in opposition to the postmillennialism and liberalism of the day, progressive dispensationalism, in following the ecumenical spirit of the times, is seeking common ground with amillennialism" (Manfred Kober, "The Problematic Development of Progressive Dispensationalism", Faith Pulpit, March 1997). In the days of the early Bible conferences, Bible believing men of different persuasions met together in opposition to religious modernism (liberalism) and in defense of the great fundamentals of the faith and with a renewed interest in prophecy in general and the imminent return of Christ in particular. Today Progressive Dispensationalists are meeting with and dialoguing with men of different theological persuasions because of a common opposition to certain traditional teachings of Bible believing dispensationalists and because of some commonly shared, non-dispensational views on the nature of the church and the nature of the kingdom.

4. Its Name— "Progressive Dispensationalism"

What do they mean by the term "PROGRESSIVE"? Bock explains: "The term means that each dispensation is an advance in the program of God and builds in a distinct way on previous dispensations. Thus the progress is NOT a description of how we view ourselves versus other dispensational views" (Bock).2 According to Blaising, the name "progressive dispensationalism" is linked to the progressive relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.

5. Development or Departure?

Is this movement a healthy and helpful development of dispensationalism? Is it a healthy development to take a giant step back in the direction of covenant theology? When does "development" become "departure"? Are the progressives developing dispensationalism or are they departing from dispensationalism? "If one uses an older form of dispensationalism as a standard, then there would be a reasonable basis to question whether or not PD is really a modified form of dispensationalism or whether or not it is closer to a modified form of Covenant Theology, thus not really dispensationalism at all. One current professor at Dallas Seminary who is strongly opposed to this new formulation of dispensationalism has described the issue to me as follows: One has to decide whether or not PD is merely rearranging the furniture in the room (i.e., development of dispensationalism) or whether or not they are removing key pieces of furniture (i.e., abandonment of dispensationalism)" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of Progressive Dispensationalism—Part 1, page 3). The advocates of PD commonly point out that dispensationalism has been modified and developed over the years.3 The implication is that PD is merely a further modification and development of the system, when in actuality it is a radical departure from dispensationalism.

Keith Mathison, a postmillennialist and an outspoken critic and opponent of dispensationalism makes the following accurate observations:

Progressive dispensationalists have moved closer to Reformed theology on a number of doctrines. They now acknowledge that the kingdom has been inaugurated and that there is a present as well as a future aspect of the kingdom. They have also recognized the two-peoples-of-God theory to be unbiblical, which, ironically, brings us to the negative side of progressive dispensationalism.

If the defining doctrine of dispensationalism is the two-peoples-of-God theory, then to reject that theory is to reject dispensationalism itself. "Progressive dispensationalism" is therefore both an encouraging trend and a misleading or confusing title.

In view of genuinely positive developments, how problematic is the name "progressive dispensationalism"? Perhaps an illustration will clarify my concern. Suppose I announced that I am a "progressive Baptist." When asked what that means, I explain that I have rejected believer's baptism by immersion only. I now believe that infant baptism is biblical and that the mode of baptism should be sprinkling or pouring. But I claim to be a progressive Baptist. What would a good Baptist tell me? He would remind me that believer's baptism by immersion only is the essence of what it means to be a Baptist.

Similarly, suppose I have become convinced that Jesus will return after the millennium. Would I be honest to describe myself as a "progressive premillennialist." No. Or what if I have abandoned belief in God? Would I be a progressive theist?

The church suffers too much damage when people do not identify what they really believe. For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding, "progressive dispensationalists" should no longer claim to be dispensational. Traditional dispensationalists would likely concur. Do most dispensational laymen realize that the "dispensationalism" now taught in their seminaries is not the dispensationalism they know? As much as I prefer to see Reformed theology taught in these seminaries, if someone is going to teach nondispensationalism in a dispensational seminary, students and donors should at least be aware of the fact. [Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism--Rightly Dividing the People of God?, pages 135-137.]

6. Its Method—Dialogue

Progressive Dispensationalism came into existence as a result of DIALOGUE between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. "This book has three purposes (the second of which is) to foster genuine dialogue with non dispensational thinkers" (Blaising and Bock, from the back cover of Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church). "The desire for cordial relations with theologians of other systems appears to be a primary motivation behind the emergence of PD" (Robert Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 415).

"Dialogue is what dispensationalism needs" (Darrell Bock, Bib. Sac. Jan-March 1995, p.101). "I would suggest dialogue" (Burns, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 229). "I reiterate my call for more dialogue and discussion" (Kenneth Barker, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 304). "Future publications need to carry the dialogue forward" (Blaising and Bock, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 384). "We must continue to talk to one another, both inside and across subtraditions" (Ibid., p.394). "I have been heartened by what Radmacher calls the growing rapprochement that has been taking place between covenant and dispensational theologians’....certainly dialogue must continue between the two theological camps" (Barker, JETS, March 1982, p. 3).

"The Niagara Bible Conference used as its standard for resolving differences an appeal to the Bible, while PD seems to place great weight upon theological dialogue between opposing theological systems" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of Progressive Dispensationalism, Part 1, p. 5).

Bock describes the dialogue in this way, "What we have done is to lay a Biblically grounded study before the body and have invited discussion and feedback. In fact, it is an attempt to engage in theological discourse where views are interacted with, challenged, and reflected upon. Every PD piece I know of has criticized covenental thinking at key points. The affirmation of dialogue you cite from Burns and myself is because we believe it is better to talk directly with those we disagree with than about them. We interact with both our tradition and covenentalists. What we are doing is discussing the Bible and interacting sometimes favorably, sometimes challenging the covenental view" (Bock).

Just as dialogue with non-fundamentalists was a key characteristic of the neo-evangelical movement, so also dialogue with non-dispensationalists is a key characteristic of the progressive or neo-dispensational movement. The greatest need of the church today is to listen to God in His Word and to eagerly receive Biblical truth into our hearts, not to dialogue with representatives from various theological positions.

7. Its Friends

In the Progressive Dispensationalism movement it is the old dispensationalists who are under attack and it is the covenant theologians who are often applauded. If the old dispensationalists are not attacked, then they are ignored: "Saucy’s section on the kingdom of God goes out of its way to avoid quoting the dispensationalist ‘old guard’ while quoting at length from standard NT scholars. In 96 exhaustive footnotes, dispensational heavyweights such as Chafer and Walvoord do not appear once, whereas Ridderbos, Ladd, Perrin, Cranfield, Barrett, and even O.T.Allis are extensively, and favorably, quoted" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, page 28). "Significantly, these younger dispensationalists cite older dispensationalists mostly to distance themselves from them" (Bruce Waltke, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 350). The book, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church by Blaising and Bock is composed of essays written by 10 progressive dispensationalists and then it includes responses from three men: Kaiser, VanGemeren and Waltke. These evangelical scholars were invited "in the interest of promoting dialogue" (p. 34). It is interesting that the men invited to respond are all non-dispensationalists. It is as if they are reaching out to the Covenant men and saying, "What do you think of our new approach? We are certainly coming your way, aren’t we?"

Bock disagrees with this analysis: "You are right to note how we engaged with non-dispensationalists in the first book. This was because we had plenty of interaction within our tradition both at the ETS group and in our teaching environment at Dallas and the other schools. Are these our ‘real’ friends in the sense you imply? The concluding essay of the first book should be your clue as we critique the responses, especially those of Van Gemeren and Waltke, the covenentalists in that section. If we really just wanted peace, we should have just thanked them and agreed with them. But where is there any hint of our disagreement with covenentalists in your discussions on dialogue? Does this really represent the discussion fairly?" (Bock).

In essence Bock is saying that the Progressive men have strong disagreements with dispensationalists and they also have strong disagreements with covenant men. It is indeed a position midway between the two. Dispensationalists are wrong to place PD in the covenant camp, although it may seem that they are headed in that direction.

8. Its Theological Position

It is a middle position between dispensationalism and covenant theology. One of the progressive dispensationalists wrote: "In our opinion there is a mediating position between non-dispensationalism and traditional dispensationalism that provides a better understanding of Scripture."

Bock stresses that Progressives have moved toward covenant theology in their affirmation of an "already dimension to kingdom hope," but Bock believes Progressives have strongly adhered to dispensationalism in certain vital areas: "Virtually every piece I have written has affirmed my commitment to a future for national Israel in a millennium (this includes a belief in sacrifices, a future temple, and pre-tribulationism). I have affirmed all of these points in public when I have spoken about dispensationalism at Reformed in Orlando, Westminster East and West, and when I speak at Calvin Seminary . . .we do not hold to the church replacing Israel in God’s plan, a key point of covenentalism" (Bock). Bock considers himself and other progressives as dispensational and not covenental because "we do not replace Israel with the church" (Bock).

Bock admits that Progressive Dispensationalism is a position midway between dispensationalism and covenant theology but he believes that it leans more towards dispensationalism: "You are right to suggest that PD falls between older dispensationalism and covenental theology. However, it falls decidedly on the dispensational side of that spectrum as its teaching about a future for national Israel shows. Why did you not cite the remarks of Al Mawhinney, a covenental theologian, who is cited on the back of the PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM volume that what is found in the book is NOT covenant theology? Even he as a covenant theologian recognizes it as dispensational" (Bock).

Bruce Waltke, in evaluating David Turner’s essay, says that his "position (on Revelation 21-22) is closer to covenant theology than to dispensationalism" (Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 178).

If it is a middle position, then who is moving? Are the covenant theologians moving toward dispensationalism or are the dispensational theologians moving toward covenant theology? The movement is clearly on the part of the dispensationalists. It is not the covenant theologians writing books on Progressive Dispensationalism, but it is Dallas Seminary and Talbot Seminary men writing such books. It is the dispensationalists who are moving in the covenant direction. The covenant men are pleased by the movement that they see but they themselves are not moving! "Covenant theologians have openly expressed pleasure that progressives have moved away from normative dispensationalism, though covenant theologians clearly have not moved from the tenets of their position" (Dispensationalism by Ryrie, p. 162). Even a progressive dispensationalist admits the same: "There does not seem to be much movement from the covenant side" (Larry Pettegrew, The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit, A Study in Continuity and Discontinuity, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993, 25). Poythress believes that PD in the long run "will most likely lead to covenental premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd" (Poythress, "Postscript to the Second Edition," in Understanding Dispensationalism, p. 137).

Bock believes that there are indications of some movement from the covenant side: "The question of who is moving is an interesting one. Are you aware that many covenental theologians are discussing a future for Israel and a hope for the earth in ways that only a few of them would even raised in the past? Some of our insistence (both traditional and PD) that Israel is a serious category from the OT is causing them to reflect on Scripture. This is a positive development. The discussion is not as one way as you imply. The Ryrie and Pettigrew citations are not the full story. You are right that some covenental theologians do condescendingly suggest we are coming towards them, but only if they read us selectively and miss the thrust of what we affirm about God and the hope of Israel" (Bock).

There can be no question that there are those in the Covenant/Reformed camp who are delighted in the direction that PD is headed in. Richard J. Mouw writes the following: "Dispensationalism is changing. I have read the ‘progressive dispensationalists,’ and as a Reformed thinker, I can only applaud their reformulation of dispensationalist thought. When the newer dispensationalists reject a uniquely dispensational hermeneutic, when they affirm the organic continuities between Israel and the church, when they reduce the number of ‘kingdoms’ referred to in the Bible, I can only say amen" (Christianity Today, March 6, 1995, p. 34).

H. Wayne House, was a professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. He shared the following sad story of doctrinal departure:

One of my best students, and a research assistant to me at DTS, had told me in the mid-1990's that he had accepted progressive dispensationalism. My next meeting with him at the Dallas Seminary bookstore just two years ago I discovered that he had embraced amillennialism and covenant theology. When I asked him about this he commented to me that it was an easy move to make from progressive dispensationalism to amillennialism. [H. Wayne House, "Dangers of Progressive Dispensationalism to Pre-Millennial Theology," Pre-Trib. CD 2003, page 3].

9. Its Relationship to Covenant Premillennialism

"The newer dispensationalism looks so much like nondispensational premillennialism that one struggles to see any real difference" (Walter Elwell, Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "Will progressive dispensationalism simply turn into historic premillennialism?" (Ibid.) When Bock was asked if George Ladd (a covenant or historic premillennialist) would disagree with his views, he replied, "I think the fundamental thrust of the structure he would not disagree with" (Ryrie, page 166). "I don’t think that they [the progressives] will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and covenental premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenental premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd" (Vein Poythress as cited by Ryrie, p. 178).

The already/not yet understanding of the kingdom was George Ladd’s position (he was a historic premillennialist and was posttribulational). The progressive teaching that Christ is now ruling on the throne of David was also George Ladd’s position. "Bock admits the closeness of his views regarding a present kingdom to those of George Ladd’s historic premillennialism—a system adverse to dispensationalism" (Robert Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 415).

In defense of his own statement, Bock clarifies the fact that his position is very similar to Ladd’s but not identical: "The basic structure I affirmed with Ladd was the recognition of a kingdom that is ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ (just like our salvation is). By the way, this view emerged long before Ladd. It is not his. It has been a position many have defended in this century in NT studies before there was the covenental premillennialism of Ladd. However, my ‘already’ is not Ladd’s for the church does not stand permanently in Israel’s stead for me as it does for him. This is a significant difference. Thomas’ quote conveniently ignores the differences between Ladd and myself and simply equates us—or all but does" (Bock).

Ryrie has offered this summary: "The major similarities, if not sameness, between Ladd and progressives are these: (1) the focus on the kingdom of God as an overall, all encompassing theme; (2) the already/not yet, progressively realized nature of the kingdom; (3) the present position of Christ reigning in heaven as the Messianic/Davidic king" (p. 166).

10. Its Ecclesiology (doctrine of the church)

"Israel and the church are one people of God" (Disp., Israel & the Church, p.93, 96 ,97 and see page 119). David Turner goes further than some progressives in calling the church the "new Israel" (David Turner, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 288). "The old sharp distinction between Israel and the church begins to become somewhat blurred" (Kenneth Barker, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 302). Progressive dispensationalists "no longer accept the notion of two distinct peoples of God" (Blaising and Bock, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 392). "In the new dispensationalism the church is reduced to the present phase of the Davidic kingdom. New dispensationalists do not like the concept of the church as a parenthesis....the church is 'a functional outpost of God’s kingdom’ [Barth quoted favorably by Saucy] and a ‘sneak preview’ [Bock] of the kingdom" (Ryrie, Issues in Dz.spensationalism, p. 22.).

Blaising says that Progressive Dispensationalists see tribulation saints "as part of the body of Christ, thus a part of the church as it is defined in the New Testament" (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell Bock [Zondervan, 1999], page 210. See more on this in the discussion under Eschatology.

Denial of the parenthetical nature of the church:

"The older idea that the church was a parenthetical break between God’s Jewish work in the Old Testament and God’s Jewish work in the future is being replaced" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). Waltke: "[PD] denies that the church is a parenthesis within God’s program for Israel." Saucy: "The present age is not a historical parenthesis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it." "The church is seen less and less as a parenthesis in the divine program. Instead it is seen as vitally linked to and comprehended in the plan of God revealed in the Old Testament" (Blaising, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 225 footnote). Many scholars now recognize "a present form of messianic kingdom that removes the parenthetical idea" (Burns, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 225). "[PD] denies that the church is a parenthesis within God’s program for Israel" (Waltke, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 347). "The present age is not a historical parenthesis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it; rather, it is an integrated phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom" (Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 28). "You are correct to argue that we do not teach a parenthesis" (Bock).

Denial of the church as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament:

"Their mystery concept of the church is not that it was unrevealed in the Old Testament but that it was unrealized. As a corollary, God has no separate program for the church. The church is simply a sub-category of the Kingdom. It is called a ‘sneak preview’ of the Kingdom. The church is the Kingdom today. In fact, David Turner calls the church ‘the new Israel’" (Manfred Kober, The Problematic Development of Progressive Dispensationalism, Faith Pulpit, April 1997). Progressives believe that "the concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising" (Ryrie, p. 164). "We hold to a different understanding of the term mystery—not always ‘new’ revelation" (Bock).

11. Its Teaching on the Kingdom

Bock teaches that the kingdom was not postponed, but that it came in two phases (Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 60). He teaches that when the kingdom was announced as "at hand" this meant that the kingdom had arrived (Ibid., p.40).4

Progressive Dispensationalists teach that Christ is already reigning on the throne of David in heaven, and that He assumed this throne at the time of the ascension.5 This view is in agreement with the teaching of George Ladd who wrote in 1974, "The exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God means nothing less than His enthronement as messianic King" (Ryrie, p. 167). According to PD, the Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of our risen Lord at the right hand of the Father are one and the same. We have answered this by examining all relevant Scriptures in our paper entitled, Progressive Dispensationalism - When and Where Does Christ Sit Upon the Throne of David? (Middletown Bible Church publication). For another detailed treatment of the question see three articles by Mal Couch in The Conservative Theological Journal, March, June and September 1998. This is a three part series entitled, "Is Christ Now on the Throne of David?"

"In Revelation 3:21, Jesus makes a distinction between His throne (the future Davidic throne) and the Father’s throne (where He now sits). Thus, the throne Jesus is currently on (the throne of deity) is different than the one He will assume when the millennium starts (Davidic throne). The writer of Hebrews also indicates that Jesus ‘sat down at the right hand of the throne of God’ not the throne of David" (A Critique of PD, by Mike Vlach).

Robert Lightner has made the interesting observation that the book of Hebrews has more to say about Christ’s present session (His present ministry in heaven) than any other New Testament book, and although much is said about Christ being our Great High Priest and our Intercessor, yet nothing is said about Christ being presently seated on the throne of David. This omission is significant.

As already mentioned, PD teaches that the kingdom is ALREADY here in one sense, but that it is NOT YET here in another sense. This "already/not yet" dialectic (double talk?) is similar to what George E. Ladd and others have taught.

John the Baptist, Christ, the twelve, the seventy, all preached the same message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2; 4:23; 10:7; Luke 10:9). "Normative dispensationalism has always understood such verses to refer to the offer of the Davidic, literal, earthly, Kingdom. The progressive view is that this was not an offer of the Davidic kingdom at all. This was simply an offer of salvation. I can understand that. In fact, they would cut their own theological throat if they said it was a genuine offer of the Davidic kingdom. What kind of God would put a contingency for the kingdom’s establishment, and then, when this contingency to repent was not met, establish the kingdom, in part, anyway? They didn’t repent, and the kingdom didn’t come at all in any sense, at His death, or His resurrection or His ascension, and it’s not operative now either" (Dr. Robert Lightner, "Progressive Dispensationalism," The Conservative Theological Journal, p. 58).

Dr. Robert Lightner, in this same article, finds it very unscholarly that in all the PD literature which he has examined he has not found any references to George Peters’ Theocratic Kingdom. Peters, though not a dispensationalist, was clearly the foremost authority on the kingdom, but progressives seem to ignore him. Peters wrote three massive volumes (fine print) in which he defended the contingent offer of the Davidic kingdom at Christ’s first advent, but for some reason progressives do not see a need to answer his arguments. It would be like someone arguing against Bible creationism and totally ignoring the writings of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, two widely recognized pioneers in the field.

Progressive dispensationalists have removed certain millennial distinctions: "All of the redeemed in the millennium—the redeemed from all ages—become members of the ultimate body, the church. This view is in keeping with their belief in ‘holistic redemption’ and a single ‘people of God"’ (Roy Beacham, Progressive Dispensationalism—An Overview and Personal Analysis, p. 13). "What we argue is that members of the church and of Israel will one day share membership in the kingdom and be one through the work of Jesus (John 10:15-17; Eph 2:11-22)...the kingdom is bigger than either the church or Israel...it will one day span the whole of creation (part of what we mean by holistic)" (Bock). For a full discussion of this, see Bock/Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, pages 49-50.

12. Its Eschatology (doctrine of last things, prophecy)

"Progressive dispensationalists are more circumspect about identifying certain details in the prophetic calendar than some of their predecessors were. Looking for the ‘blessed hope’ of Christ’s return is still a motivating feature for the believer’s walk with God, but some would be less confident about the ability to lay out a detailed scenario for its contemporary fulfillment" (Bock, Christianity Today, 9/12/94, page 29). Also Progressives consider the book of Revelation to be a book that is "difficult" to interpret (Ryrie, page 177). Bock counters: "Our point about the difficulty of interpreting Revelation simply argues that the book has been debated in church history and that certain aspects of the book are debatable" (Bock).

"Both [Progressive] books recognize that the pre-tribulation rapture of the church is distinctive of dispensationalism but neither makes an issue of it. In fact, Blaising and Bock do not even mention it when it would seem natural to do so, and at one point only say the Rapture ‘would appear to be pretribulational’ "(Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p.28). Bock, in correspondence with me is more dogmatic: "We DO NOT express uncertainty about the order of prophetic events. Both Blaising and I have taught and defended premillennialism and pretribulationism in our classes for years" (Bock).

Saucy states in the preface of his book, "The question of the time of the rapture has not been included in the work. While most dispensationalists probably hold to a pretribulation rapture of the church as being in certain respects more harmonious with dispensationalism in general, many would not desire to make this a determining touchstone of dispensationalism today. For these the broad dispensational interpretation of history does not ultimately stand or fall on the time of the rapture."

PD’s wrong view of the church will probably, in time, lead to a wrong understanding of prophecy, in particular with respect to the timing of the rapture. If it’s not a problem to mix the church with Israel’s kingdom, then why would it be a problem to mix the church with the Israel’s tribulation?

In fact, they may have already done this. Craig Blaising writes: "Progressive dispensationalists see these ‘saints’ [tribulation saints] as part of the body of Christ, thus a part of the church as it is defined in the New Testament. However, they also affirm a pretribulational rapture on the basis of 1 Thessalonians 4-5" (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell Bock [Zondervan, 1999], page 210). On the one hand he says that the rapture is pretribulational but on the other hand he says that tribulation saints are part of the church. Progressive dispensationalists can thus apparently hold to two amazing tenets: 1) The church will be raptured before the tribulation; 2) The church will go through the tribulation. Thus while the marriage supper of the Lamb is taking place in heaven, part of His bride will still be on earth!

John Brumett wrote an article entitled "Does Progressive Dispensationalism Teach a Posttribulational Rapture? Part 1" (The Conservative Theological Journal, June 1998). In this article he analyzes PD’s teaching concerning the nature of the church and argues that such an understanding of the nature of the church should logically lead to a Posttribulational rapture. In a follow-up article ("Part 2," The C.T.J., September 1998) Brumett shows many similarities between the teaching of Robert Gundry (a posttribulational writer) and PD. He then argues that if PD is to be consistent with its own doctrine, then they should be posttribulational as Gundry was.

Progressives ignore "the great prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27. Nowhere in the progressives’ writings to date have I found any discussion of the passage" (Ryrie, p. 176).6 One reason for this is that the Progressives are opposed to the idea of a "parenthesis" and a literal understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 forces a person to see a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth week and the seventieth week.

13. Its Hermeneutic (Method of Interpreting the Bible)

Progressive Dispensationalism denies that consistent literal interpretation is a defining essential of dispensationalism. Blaising maintains "that consistent literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism" (Bibliotheca Sacra 145, No. 579, July—September, 1988, p. 272). Robert Thomas, in his study, A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics, deplores the departure of progressive dispensationalism from traditional historical-grammatical interpretation. He observes that progressive dispensationalism practices "a selective use of passages seemingly in support of their system—avoiding others that do not." He cites ample illustrations of this method and concludes that "thorough-going grammatical-historical interpretation does not condone this kind of superficial treatment of text, particularly when they are critical to support a doctrine being propounded" (Ice and Demy, eds., When the Trumpet Sounds, 423-424)7 The hermeneutic of Progressive Dispensationalism is called "complementary hermeneutics" and it allows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to Old Testament revelation (Ryrie, p. 164). For example, the Old Testament revelation includes the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7). According to the OT, this covenant was made with Israel and it involved an earthly throne of David. PD agrees that the covenant was made with Israel and will someday involve an earthly throne, but they believe that the NT has introduced changes and additions so that they are able to say that the church is now included in the original promise (an addition) and the throne of David is now in heaven (a change in location).

Blaising and Bock explain the complementary hermeneutic: "According to this approach, the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise" (Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pages 392-393).

"If one endorses recent trends in evangelical hermeneutics, that person may easily fit into the PD camp, or perhaps even into a theological system that is decidedly non dispensational. On the other hand, a choice of grammatical-historical interpretation must lead to dispensational conclusions" (Robert Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 425).

For a very helpful discussion of PD’s "complementary hermeneutics" and the problems with this method of interpretation see "Progressive Dispensationalism," by Dr. Robert Lightner, The Conservative Theology Journal, pages 46-64.

14. Its Great Commission

Progressive Dispensationalists "give more attention to social action than they feel normative dispensationalists did or do....promoting kingdom righteousness in the present time is not the mandate of the church, though progressives and others make it so" (Ryrie, p. 176). "The church, according to progressive dispensationalists....is responsible for multi cultural ministries that include the proclamation of the plan of salvation through Christ as well as social mediation of peace, righteousness, and justice" (J.Lanier Burns, a pro-progressive writer, Bib. Sac. Jan-March 1995, p. 102). "Dispensationalists have written very little in proposing a theology of social ministry" (Craig Blaising, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 14). Bock defends his position in these words: "All of us preach that Jesus Christ alone saves from sin. To suggest otherwise is not right. What we are arguing is that Jesus did teach about his gospel being especially suited for the poor and fringe (Luke 4:16-18; 6:20-23; 7:22-23; 14:1-14). When we do ‘medical missions’ as a part of our outreach, we are recognizing this principle. All we were saying is that we need to give more thought to these dimensions of the church’s call and task as we engage in reaching out to the lost" (Bock).

Fred Moritz, Executive Director of Baptist World Mission, has responded to the Progressive Dispensationalist’s idea of "social redemption": "God’s plan for the church today has nothing to do with ‘social redemption.’ God’s plan today is to save men from their sin and to gather out of the Gentiles a people for His name (Acts 15:14). It is a program of evangelism" (Fred Moritz, Progressive Dispensationalism—An Evaluation, p. 5).

15. Its Schools

Some of the schools where Progressive Dispensationalism has a strong influence are Dallas Seminary, Talbot School of Theology, Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary and perhaps Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Grace Theological Seminary.

There are some schools (fundamental universities, fundamental seminaries) which take a very firm stand on many of the issues of the day, but historically they have not taken a strong stand on dispensationalism. The President of one nationally known fundamentalist institution, Bob Jones University, in an official questionnaire that was sent to the school by the IFCA in 1986, responded that the school takes no official position with respect to dispensationalism and that the school takes no official position with respect to covenant theology. Someone has said that if you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. It is schools such as these that may be receptive to Progressive Dispensationalism. After all, if they take no official position with respect to dispensationalism and if they take no official position with respect to covenant theology, then why not adopt a position that is midway between the two?8

16. Its Incompatibility With A Time-Honored Doctrinal Statement

Progressive Dispensationalism is adhered to and propagated by certain men at Dallas Seminary, especially by men in the theology department. Is this new position in harmony with the time honored doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary? What would Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Seminary, have thought of this new kind of dispensationalism? Concerning dispensationalism, here is what the statement says: We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive." "We believe that all who are united to the risen and ascended Son of God are members of the Church which is the Body and Bride of Christ, which began at Pentecost and is completely distinct from Israel."

The current leadership of Dallas sees this new brand of dispensationalism (PD) as being compatible with the doctrinal statement: "Dallas has made it clear officially that both types of dispensationalism fall within its doctrinal statement. This is because PD has a clear distinction between Israel and the church as structurally distinct components in the plan of God" (Bock). Bock further explains why he believes PD is in harmony with the doctrinal statement:

I affirm that structurally the church is completely distinct from Israel. The church is not Israel, Israel is not the church and neither of them separately make up the kingdom, for the kingdom encompasses eventually the whole host of the redeemed. Thus I do not mingle the dispensations (or the structures that mark out these periods, which is how I prefer to think of them). The view I gave of the church as ‘new Israel’ does not contradict this affirmation of a structural distinction between Israel and the church. To affirm a distinction, however, does not prevent us from sharing in the benefits that Jesus provides. There is an equality Jesus brings to those he saves even as he works across time through different structures in distinct dispensations. When the Seminary looked at this issue in the late 80’s and early 90’s, it was concluded that we fit within the parameters of this statement. Even someone like Dr. Walvoord, who certainly knows dispensationalism and its history, though not agreeing with PD, acknowledges that it is dispensational. Anyone who told you that we are in conflict with the statement is misrepresenting the position of the seminary. They may be quoting to you their personal view, but it is not and never has been the school’s view, nor of its faculty as a whole. The suggestion that we sign the statement knowing we contradict it implies a lack of integrity for a statement I take very seriously and affirm annually with my signature on a contract (Bock).

One believer wrote to Dallas asking about PD and he received a response from Les Fleetwood, writing on behalf of the president, Dr. Swindoll: "The administration of DTS sees no conflict here with the doctrinal position of the school...Dr. Bock’s theological opinion is not in great conflict with our tradition" (This correspondence was published in the Levitt Letter, June 2000, page 3).

Dr. Swindoll, president of Dallas Seminary, wrote a letter to Zola Levitt and Dr. Thomas McCall that was published in the September 2000 issue of the Levitt Letter. Swindoll made the following comments: "Your assistant, Dr. McCall, needs to know that all of us on the seminary faculty sign our doctrinal statement annually . . .He also needs to be aware that even though a few faculty members may teach progressive dispensationalism, that position does not represent a drift in our commitment to premillennialism, nor does it mean that at Dallas Seminary ‘prophecy is neglected.’" (p.3). It is clear that Dr. Swindoll has no problem with Progressive Dispensationalists teaching at Dallas and believes it is compatible with the doctrinal statement. Also Dr. Swindoll sidesteps the real issue. The problem is not that Dallas has drifted in their commitment to premillennialism, but that this school has drifted in their commitment to dispensationalism (maintaining clear distinctions between Israel and the church, etc.)

If you take the DTS doctrinal statement at face value and compare it with the teachings of PD, then there appears to be a significant conflict. PD teaches that during this church age Christ has been seated on the throne of David. If this is true, then there is a sense in which the Davidic kingdom is operational today during this present age. "[PD] teaches that Christ is already reigning in heaven on the throne of David, thus merging the Church with a present phase of the already, inaugurated Davidic Covenant and Kingdom" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 164). Thus, according to this view, the church and the kingdom are not chronologically successive, but they are chronologically simultaneous. This is not what the DTS doctrinal statement says.

The DTS doctrinal statement clearly states that the three major dispensations are law, grace and kingdom and that these three are "distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused" and that they are "chronologically successive." This means that law is followed by grace and grace is followed by kingdom. Contrary to this, PD teaches that law is followed by grace/kingdom and that grace/kingdom is followed by the millennial kingdom. The "already" kingdom is followed by the "not yet" kingdom (Christ sitting on David’s throne in heaven is followed by Christ sitting on the David’s throne on earth). Thus PD intermingles the kingdom with the present age of grace (church age) and it also teaches that the kingdom is not chronologically successive to the present age, but that it is simultaneous with it, to be followed by a future stage of the kingdom.

Dr. Robert Lightner taught theology for many years at Dallas. He believes that the teaching of PD is a serious violation of the DTS doctrinal statement: "The DTS’s doctrinal statement is crystal clear in stating that there are three absolutely indispensable critical dispensations: law, grace or Church, and Kingdom, and it says, the three must never be intermingled. They remain totally distinct. Do the progressives keep the Church and the Kingdom totally distinct? I should say not; they combine the two. That’s a flagrant violation of the DTS Doctrinal Statement" (Dr. Robert Lightner, "Progressive Dispensationalism," The Conservative Theological Journal, April 2000, p. 57).

It would be interesting if we could somehow ask the original framers of the doctrinal statement whether the new teachings of PD are compatible with the DTS statement.9

In the IFCA we had a situation similar to what is now taking place at Dallas Seminary, with respect to the doctrinal statement and how it is being interpreted. The IFCA has a very clear statement on the eternal Sonship of Christ: "We believe in one Triune God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit....We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man, without ceasing to be God." And yet the IFCA leadership allowed a man to be a member of the IFCA who taught that Christ became the Son of God at the time of the incarnation. The IFCA also has a very clear statement on unlimited atonement: "We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice." And yet the IFCA allowed a man to be a member who taught that Christ died as a Substitute and paid sin’s penalty only for the elect. How did the IFCA justify allowing such clear contradictions? If Christ is the eternal Son of God than how could His Sonship have not begun until Bethlehem? If Christ died as a Substitute for all mankind then how could He have died as a Substitute only for the elect? The answer we received from the IFCA leadership was that we need to allow for "interpretive freedom" or "freedom of interpretation." They wanted to be able to freely interpret the doctrinal statement in such a way that both positions were allowed and tolerated.

Norman L. Geisler made the following keen observation: "This is precisely how denominations go liberal, namely, when their doctrinal statements are stretched beyond their original meaning to accommodate new doctrinal deviations. . .It is a sad day indeed when we allow the original meaning of our doctrines to be changed" (Open Letter entitled, Why I Left the Evangelical Free Church Ministerial).

Conclusion

Progressive Dispensational is is nothing new. It shares many similarities with non-dispensational premillennialism (also called covenant premillennialism or historic premillennialism). It’s a middle position between dispensationalism and covenant theology. It is a serious departure from dispensationalism, and since it denies many of the essential doctrines of dispensationalism, it is not worthy of the name. It teaches that the Davidic kingdom is operational today. It teaches that today Christ is ruling from David’s throne in heaven. It has blurred some of the sharp distinctions between Israel and the church. It has denied three essential elements of church truth:

It has denied the parenthetical nature of the church. Israel’s history from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the second coming of Messiah is incorporated in the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. We know that Messiah was cut off after the 69th week, and we know from the book of Revelation and other Scripture passages that the 70th week is yet future and represents the final seven years before the Messiah returns to the earth. Between the 69th and 70"’ weeks is a "gap" of nearly 2000 years, during which time God has been building His church (Matthew 16:18) and "visiting the nations to take out of them a people for His Name" (Acts 15:14). For an interesting book dealing with the parenthetical nature of the church, see Harry Ironside, The Great Parenthesis.

It has denied the mysterious character of the church, teaching instead that the "mysteries" of the N.T. were revealed in the Old Testament period but not realized yet. But a careful study of Ephesians 3:4-5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26 and Romans 16:26 indicates that a New Testament mystery is that which had been hidden, kept secret, and not made known to men in previous ages, but which has now been made manifest and revealed and made known to God’s saints in this present age by the N.T. apostles and prophets. See our study on The Mystery of Godliness (Middletown Bible Church publication). The Mystery of Godliness

It has denied that the church was established following the postponement of the kingdom. Dispensationalists have long taught that the offer of the kingdom to Israel was genuine, but it was also conditional and contingent on the nation’s repentance. Since the nation did not repent at the time of Christ’s first corning, the kingdom did not immediately appear but was postponed. See our publication, The Biblical Doctrine of Postponement. In the meantime God introduced a new program which is His church made up of both Jews and Gentiles united into one body. There is coming a day when the nation Israel will again be offered the kingdom (Matthew 24:14) and at this time the nation will repent and will trust their Messiah and the long-promised Davidic kingdom will be established. For an excellent study on these themes, see Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom.
Dispensationalists, though varying on certain points of doctrine, have generally been unanimous on the three points given above. These are essential to dispensational truth and must not be surrendered or compromised.

Since PD has departed from such essential dispensational doctrines, they should not be labeled as dispensationalists. If we are to call this PD by the name dispensationalism, then I would suggest calling it "neo-dispensationalism" because it shares so many of the characteristics of the neo-evangelical movement, as illustrated below.

Similarities between Neo Evangelicalism
and Neo (Progressive) Dispensationalism

One of the key documents of the neo-evangelical movement was an article that appeared in Christian Life (March 1956) entitled, Is Evangelical Theology Changing? This article (referred to below as IETC) outlined eight characteristics of a new kind of evangelicalism which became known as new or neo-evangelicalism. Some of these characteristics will be quoted below to illustrate that some of the same trends which marked the beginning of neo-evangelicalism are taking place today within "neo-dispensationalism."

Both emphasize dialogue. New evangelicals engage in dialogue with neo-orthodox men or with others far removed from the Bible believing camp; neo-dispensationalists dialogue with covenant men and with others far removed from the dispensational camp. "A growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians....an evangelical can profitably engage in an exchange of ideas with men who are not evangelicals" (IETC). So also today, neo-dispensationalists believe they can profitably engage in an exchange of ideas with men who are not dispensational.

Both have questionable friends. Neo-evangelicals are highly critical of fundamentalists but reach out "in love" to those of questionable and divergent theological positions. Neo-dispensationalists are highly critical of dispensationalists but reach out to covenant theologians and other non-dispensationalists.

Both emphasize unity at the expense of doctrine. "Progressive Dispensationalism’s unity is based upon an inclusive, ‘don’t-let-doctrinal-differences-stand-in-our-way’ kind of unity" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of Progressive Dispensationalism, Part 1, p. 5). "This work indicates where many dispensationalists are today, while recognizing that it is part of a larger theological community that is the body of Christ. Our discussion should continue, but not at the expense of our unity" (Blaising and Bock, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 394).

Both waver on certain prophetic issues. "A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology...some are saying that the Bible doesn’t teach that the church will escape the tribulation" (IETC). Some neo-dispensationalists are very reluctant to discuss matters such as the timing of the rapture and Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy. Since neo-dispensationalists share such close affinity with George Ladd on his kingdom views, is it possible that they will also, in time, adopt his post-tribulational views as well?

Both emphasize social action and include this as part of the church’s primary mission. "A more definite recognition of social responsibility...we must make evangelicalism more relevant to the political and sociological realities of our time" (IETC). Neo-dispensationalists, since they believe the church is phase one of the kingdom, believe that the church has a responsibility to society to make it more kingdom-like. Present society has a long way to go!

Both emphasize scholarship. "An increased emphasis on scholarship" (IETC). Of course we realize that there is nothing wrong with solid, Biblical scholarship that exalts Christ and honors His Word. Neo Dispensationalists, in their books, are enamored by covenant scholarship and by historic premillennial scholarship but they are highly critical of dispensational scholarship. See our previous discussion under "#7—Its Friends."

Both are very critical of dispensationalism. "A shift away from so-called extreme dispensationalism...The trend today is away from dispensationalism—away from the Scofield notes" (IETC). Neo-dispensationalists of today are continuing this trend.

Both are questioning basic issues pertaining to the Bible. "A re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration....the whole subject of biblical inspiration needs reinvestigation" (IETC). Neo-evangelicals re-opened the subject of Biblical inerrancy whereas neo-dispensationalists have re-opened the subject of Biblical interpretation, especially regarding the validity of literal interpretation of Scriptures.

Both reflect a "theological mood." Charles Woodbridge once wrote: "The New Evangelicalism originated not as a carefully thought out system of theology but as a theological mood or attitude quite different from that of the stalwart ‘Old Evangelicals’ (The New Evangelicalism, p. 23). Could the same be said of neo-dispensationalism? Did it originate as a carefully thought out system of theology or as a theological mood or attitude quite different from that of the stalwart ‘Old Dispensationalism’?

Both result in compromise. "NEO-EVANGELICALISM is a compromise toward Liberalism. Its progenitors were Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, Dr. Edward J. Carnell, and Dr. Harold J. Ockenga. It was spawned in the barren milieu of Fuller Seminary. NEO-DISPENSATIONALISM is a compromise toward Covenantism. Its progenitors are Dr. Craig A. Blaising, Dr. Darrell Bock and in absentia, Dr. Robert Saucy. It was spawned in the Chaferless milieu of Dallas Theological Seminary" (Miles Stanford).

A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration

A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration



by James White


"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed...but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." So wrote the Apostle Peter to the early Christians (1 Peter 1:18-19). He, as all the other Apostles, believed that we are redeemed, cleansed, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ. Yet, there are many today who would replace the blood of Christ with the water of a baptistery. They teach that we are regenerated, made alive, cleansed, by water baptism. Some insist that it must be baptism by immersion; others say that sprinkling accomplishes the same thing. In either case, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross cannot be said to be finished and efficacious until man does something--in this case, adds his work of baptism to the work of God in Christ. Baptism is said to be the means of salvation, the method by which Christ's work at Calvary is taken from the merely theoretical to the actual.

It is not our intention to engage in a lengthy discussion of the topic of baptismal regeneration in this article. Such would require far more space than we have available at this time! Instead, we wish to point out a basic, foundational error of the position taken by such groups as the Church of Christ and the Mormon Church--both have some doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Then, we will briefly respond to a couple of the more often used proof-texts provided by proponents of baptismal regeneration. We realize that there is a whole area of discussion that we are leaving to the side by taking this approach, that being the sacramental concept of regeneration in infant baptism. This view is found in Roman Catholicism (indeed, baptism is the original means of justification in Roman theology) and in various of the sacramentally-oriented Protestant churches.

Underlying the idea that man, by an action such as baptism, can bring about his own regeneration, is the rejection of the Biblical teaching of sin, and most especially, the truth that sin enslaves man, debilitates man, brings spiritual death to man. The Lord Jesus spoke clearly of this truth:

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:31-34).

Man in sin must be freed from slavery to sin. He cannot free Himself, but must be freed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is an offensive truth to the unregenerate man, as the response from these would-be self-made disciples indicates (8:41, 48). Men do not like to hear that they are, in fact, totally dependent upon God's grace for salvation--they do not want to know that they are incapable of saving themselves, or even of coming unto Christ for salvation, outside of God's gracious drawing (John 6:44). But as the Lord Himself said, we are slaves to sin. Slaves must be freed.

Paul describes the lost man's condition with the graphic language of death. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" he tells the Ephesians (2:1). How can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of God, just as he told the Colossians, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ" (Colossians 2:13). This deadness has tremendous results according to the inspired Apostle. First, it means that there is no man who, in and of himself, seeks after God: "There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (Romans 3:11). Likewise, there is no man who understands the things of God unless he is first changed from being "natural" or "carnal" to "spiritual": "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). Paul says that when men are alienated from God, they are His enemies in their minds (Colossians 1:21). These are strong words, and they well describe the hatred and enmity that exists in the heart of the man who continues to live in his rebellion against God. What is even more striking is Paul's absolute belief that this condition cannot be changed by man--not only is it not the natural man's desire to be at peace with the Holy One, but it is beyond his capacity to do so, even if he were so inclined. Note Paul's words in Romans 8:5-8:

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to believe that one passes from being a "natural man" to a "spiritual man" through baptism; yet, from whence does this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we are baptized? Of course. Yet, Paul said that the one who is still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized? Obviously, this is impossible. Baptism signifies our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that posits baptism as the means of regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic teachings of Scripture regarding man's inability. In taking the position they do, the baptismal regenerationists not only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce God's grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a theory that is dependent upon man's act of obedience, rather than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches it to be (Hebrews 10:10-14).

When we keep in mind the foundational truth that man is unable to save himself, but that salvation is the work of God, we are able to understand why it is said that we are justified by God's grace (Titus 3:7), justified by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9), and justified by faith. Grace, and the blood of Christ, are both things that are beyond man's ability to manipulate; and faith, if it is true, saving faith, is the gift of God as well. Hence, we are justified by God's action, not by any action of our own. Never is it said that we are justified by baptism.

In light of the fact that any review of the central passages of the New Testament that directly deal with how a man is made right with God will lead us to recognize our own inability and the great ability of our God to save, what is to be said concerning those passages, drawn from one context or another, that seem to indicate that we are saved or forgiven by baptism? First, we must point out that it is common for some to confuse the *importance* of baptism with the idea of the *necessity* of baptism. Indeed, often the fact that the New Testament takes for granted that all believers will be baptized as a profession of their faith is taken to mean that baptism is *how* they became believers in the first place! We confess baptism to be vitally important--the Scriptures are clear in this. That Paul can use baptism is a sign and symbol of our spiritual union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) shows that it is his assumption that all believers will be obedient in baptism. We do not, by asserting the proper understanding of baptism, in any way denigrate it as an ordinance given by Christ to His Church. But just as the holy Law of God was misused by the Pharisees in Jerusalem, and the Judaizers in Galatia, so baptism has been misused by modern proponents of the works-oriented system of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, just as Paul often asserted his great respect for and love of the law of God while asserting its true nature and purpose, so we, too, assert our great respect for Christian baptism while asserting its proper place in God's work of salvation and sanctification. We shall center our attention on three passages of Scripture that are often placed before us as "clear testimony" to the concept of baptismal regeneration. These passages are Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21.

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).

This is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great baptism debate. Yet, when we read verse 39, we hear again the same concept that we saw above, which Peter himself will assert at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear in the Acts narrative, too (Acts 13:48)--salvation comes through the work of God's elective choice, not the actions or plans of men. Baptism does nothing for those who are not called of God. But, one might say, what if one is called of God? Does this passage then not say that baptism is for the remission of sins?

A tremendously large number of interpretations have been set forth on this passage over the years. We believe the simplest and most consistent manner of approach is to ask a question that is frequently not asked at all: we here have a short snippet of what was obviously a longer sermon by Peter. Does Peter elsewhere tell us, in plain language, how our sins are remitted, how we are cleansed from our burden of guilt? Certainly! We began our article with the quotation of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter directly teaches that we are cleansed by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have sufficient basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in the death of Jesus Christ--it is by the "one time offering" of Jesus Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What of baptism then? It is the symbol, the outward representation before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our hearts (Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But doesn't this passage say that baptism is for the remission of sins? Yes, but what does "for" mean? We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this century are very meaningful:

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).

The point being that one can (and we believe should, if one believes in the consistency of Scripture as a whole) understand Peter to be speaking of baptism on the grounds of the remission of sins that comes through belief in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43). But, someone will surely object, Peter himself said that "baptism saves us" in 1 Peter 3:21. Let's look at the passage in context:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

This is one of the more difficult passages in Scripture, due to the reference to Christ's preaching to the "spirits in prison." It is not our purpose to enter into the controversy over this particular aspect of this passage at this time (one might find Dr. Kenneth Wuest's comments enlightening; see Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92-109). Instead, we point out that foremost in Peter's mind, again, is the death of Christ as the sacrifice for sin. Men are brought to God, not by what they do, but what God has done in Christ Jesus (v. 18). Upon the heels of this he mentions God's act of judgment in the days of Noah. At that time eight souls were saved through water. Peter then says that this water "symbolizes" baptism (as the NIV translates the Greek term antitupon, literally, "antitype"). Baptism now saves us, Peter says--just as the water "saved" Noah and his family. But, of course, we know that Peter was not asserting that there was some salvific aspect to the flood waters themselves--God shut up the ark, and God saved Noah and his family. But the water is a symbol, Peter says, a symbol seen now in baptism. But is Peter dropping the symbolization so as to make baptism the means of salvation? Certainly not. Dr. Wuest has commented so well that we give his words at length:

Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word "counterpart." So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words "the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," in that he believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.

What, then, of Acts 22:16? Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:

Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language. The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!

In conclusion, we must again insist that the Scriptures must be taken as a whole--when we find in the direct, clear statements of Scripture truths that are contradictory to assumptions based upon passing comments, we must take the clear statements over the assumptions. In the issue of salvation, we must take the clear statements of Scripture regarding the work of the Spirit of God in regenerating lost sinners seriously. By teaching baptismal regeneration, people do despite not only to the sovereignty of God and the finished work of Christ, but to the real purpose and meaning of baptism as well. While some like to refer to the evangelical doctrine of baptism as a "mere symbol," we respond by pointing out that an ordinance, given by Christ to His Church, in which the great and marvelous work of God in salvation is pictured for all to see is not properly described by the term "mere." Instead, Christian baptism must be understood as representing a true and inner reality--one that is brought about by the grace of God in a person's life. When we properly present baptism as it is presented in Scripture, we glorify God's grace and magnify His work of salvation in Jesus Christ.

"What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?"

Question: "What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?"

Answer: There is much confusion about baptism in the various Christian denominations. However, this is not a result of the Bible presenting a confusing message on baptism. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

"What does the Bible say about the prosperity gospel?"

Question: "What does the Bible say about the prosperity gospel?"

Answer: In the prosperity gospel, also known as the “Word of Faith,” the believer is told to use God, whereas the truth of biblical Christianity is just the opposite—God uses the believer. Word of Faith or prosperity theology sees the Holy Spirit as a power to be put to use for whatever the believer wills. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a Person who enables the believer to do God's will. The prosperity gospel movement closely resembles some of the destructive greed sects that infiltrated the early church. Paul and the other apostles were not accommodating to or conciliatory with the false teachers who propagated such heresy. They identified them as dangerous false teachers and urged Christians to avoid them.

Paul warned Timothy about such men in 1 Timothy 6:5, 9-11. These men of “corrupt mind” supposed godliness was a means of gain and their desire for riches was a trap that brought them “into ruin and destruction” (v. 9). The pursuit of wealth is a dangerous path for Christians and one which God warns about: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (v. 10). If riches were a reasonable goal for the godly, Jesus would have pursued it. But He did not, preferring instead to have no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20) and teaching His disciples to do the same. It should also be remembered that the only disciple concerned with wealth was Judas.

Paul said covetousness is idolatry (Ephesians 5:5) and instructed the Ephesians to avoid anyone who brought a message of immorality or covetousness (Ephesians 5:6-7). Prosperity teaching prohibits God from working on His own, meaning that God is not Lord of all because He cannot work until we release Him to do so. Faith, according to the Word of Faith doctrine, is not submissive trust in God; faith is a formula by which we manipulate the spiritual laws that prosperity teachers believe govern the universe. As the name “Word of Faith” implies, this movement teaches that faith is a matter of what we say more than whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm in our hearts.

A favorite term in the Word of Faith movement is “positive confession.” This refers to the teaching that words themselves have creative power. What you say, Word of Faith teachers claim, determines everything that happens to you. Your confessions, especially the favors you demand of God, must all be stated positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer (as though man could require anything of God!). Thus, God's ability to bless us supposedly hangs on our faith. James 4:13-16 clearly contradicts this teaching: “Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” Far from speaking things into existence in the future, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring or even whether we will be alive.

Instead of stressing the importance of wealth, the Bible warns against pursuing it. Believers, especially leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:3), are to be free from the love of money (Hebrews 13:5). The love of money leads to all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus warned, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). In sharp contrast to the Word of Faith emphasis on gaining money and possessions in this life, Jesus said, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19). The irreconcilable contradictions between prosperity teaching and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is best summed up in the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:24, “You cannot serve both God and money.”

The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism by Thomas Ice

The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism
by Thomas Ice
Modern, systematic Dispensationalism is approaching two hundred years of expression and development. We live at a time in which Dispensationalism and some of its ideas have been disseminated and adopted by various theological traditions. This is not surprising since our day is characterized by anti-systemization and eclecticism in the area of thought. It may be surprising, to some, to learn that Dispensationalism was developed and spread during its first 100 years by those within a Reformed, Calvinistic tradition. It had only been in the last 75 to 50 years that Dispensationalism and some of its beliefs were disseminated in any significant way outside of the orbit of Calvinism.

DEFINITIONS
Before proceeding further I need to provide working definitions of what I mean by Calvinism and Dispensationalism. First, by Calvinism, I am speaking mainly of the theological system that relates to the doctrine of grace or soteriological Calvinism. This would include strict and modified Calvinism (i.e. four and five point Calvinism). I am referring to that aspect of Calvinism that speaks of the fallen nature of man and the elective grace of God.
Second, by Dispensationalism, I have in mind that system of theology that was developed by J. N. Darby that gave rise to its modern emphasis of consistent literal interpretation, a distinction between God's plan for Israel and the church, usually a pretribulational rapture of the church before the seventieth week of Daniel, premillennialism, and a multifaceted emphasis upon God's glory as the goal of history. This includes some who have held to such a system by may stop short of embracing pretribulationism. The focus of this article will be upon Dispensational premillennialism.
THEOLOGICAL LOGIC
In concert with the Calvinist impulse to view history theocentricly, I believe that dispensational premillennialism provides the most logical eschatological ending to God's sovereign decrees for salvation and history. Since Dispensational premillennialists view both the promises of God's election of Israel and the church as unconditional and something that God will surely bring to pass, such a belief is consistent with the Bible and logic. A covenant theologian would say that Israel's election was conditional and temporary. Many Calvinists are covenant theologians who think that individual election within the church is unconditional and permanent. They see God's plan with Israel conditioned upon human choice, while God's plan for salvation within the church is ultimately a sovereign act of God. There is no symmetry in such logic. Meanwhile, Dispensational premillennialists see both acts as a sovereign expression of God's plan in history which is a logically consistent application of the sovereign will of God in human affairs.
Samuel H. Kellogg, a Presbyterian minister, missionary, and educator wrote of the logic between Calvinism and "modern, futurist premillennialism," which was in that day (1888) essentially dispensational. "But in general," notes Kellogg, "we think, it may be
www.pre-trib.org 1
rightly said that the logical relations of premillennialism connect it more closely with the Augustinian than with any other theological system."1 His use of "Augustinian" is the older term for Calvinism. Kellogg points out the different areas in which Calvinism and premillennialism are theologically one. "Premillennialism logically presupposes an anthropology essentially Augustinian. The ordinary Calvinism affirms the absolute helplessness of the individual for self-regeneration and self-redemption."2 He continues, it is "evident that the anthropological presuppositions on which premillennialism seems to rest, must carry with them a corresponding soteriology."3 Kellogg reasons that "the Augustinian affinity of the premillennialist eschatology becomes still more manifest. For nothing is more marked than the emphasis with which premillennialists constantly insist that, . . . the present dispensation is strictly elective."4 "In a word," concludes Kellogg, "we may say that premillennialists simply affirm of the macrocosm what the common Augustinianism affirms only of the microcosm."5
This is not to say that Dispensationalism and Calvinism are synonymous. I merely contend that it is consistent with certain elements of Calvinism which provide a partial answer as to why Dispensationalism sprang from the Reformed womb. C. Norman Kraus contends,
There are, to be sure, important elements of seventeenth-century Calvinism in contemporary dispensationalism, but these elements have been blended with doctrinal emphasis from other sources to form a distinct system which in many respects is quite foreign to classical Calvinism.6
Nevertheless, Dispensationalism did develop within the Reformed community and most of its adherents during the first 100 years were from within the Calvinist milieu. Kraus concludes: "Taking all this into account, it must still be pointed out that the basic theological affinities of dispensationalism are Calvinistic. The large majority of men involved in the Bible and prophetic conference movements subscribed to Calvinistic creeds." 7 I will now turn to an examination of some of the founders and proponents of Dispensationalism?
DARBY AND THE BRETHREN
Modern systematic dispensationalism was developed in the 1830s by J. N. Darby and those within the Brethren movement. Virtually all of these men came from churches with a Calvinistic soteriology. "At the level of theology," says Brethren
1 Samuel H. Kellogg, "Premillennialism: Its relations to Doctrine and Practice," Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. XLV, 1888, p. 253.
2 Kellogg, "Premillennialism," p. 254.
3 Kellogg, "Premillennialism," p. 257.
4 Kellogg, "Premillennialism," pp. 258-59.
5 Kellogg, "Premillennialism," p. 256.
6 C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1958), p. 59.
7 Kraus, Dispensationalism, p. 59.
www.pre-trib.org 2
historian H. H. Rowdon, "the earliest Brethren were Calvinists to a man."8 This is echoed by one of the earliest Brethren, J. G. Bellett, who was beginning his association with the Brethren when his brother George wrote, "for his views had become more decidedly Calvinistic, and the friends with whom he associated in Dublin were all, I believe without exception, of this school."9
What were Darby's views on this matter? John Howard Goddard observes that Darby "held to the predestination of individuals and that he rejected the Arminian scheme that God predestinated those whom he foreknew would be conformed to the image of Christ."10 In his "Letter on Free-Will," it is clear that Darby rejects this notion. "If Christ has come to save that which is lost, free-will has no longer any place."11 "I believe we ought to hold to the word;" continues Darby, "but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory. Free-will is a state of sin."12 Because Darby held to the bondage of the will, he logically follows through with belief in sovereign grace as necessary for salvation.
Such is the unfolding of this principle of sovereign grace, without which not one should would be saved, for none understand, none seek after God, not one of himself will come that he might have life. Judgment is according to works; salvation and glory are the fruit of grace.13
Further evidence of Darby's Calvinism is that on at least two occasions he was invited by non-dispensational Calvinists to defend Calvinism for Calvinists. One of Darby's biographers, W. G. Turner spoke of his defense at Oxford University:
It was at a much earlier date (1831, I think) that F. W. Newman invited Mr. Darby to Oxford: a season memorable in a public way for his refutation of Dr. E. Burton's denial of the doctrines of grace, beyond doubt held by the Reformers, and asserted not only by Bucer, P. Martyr, and Bishop Jewell, but in Articles IX—XVIII of the Church of England.14
On an other occasion Darby was invited to the city of Calvin—Geneva, Switzerland—to defend Calvinism. Turner declares that "He refuted the 'perfectionism'
8 Harold H. Rowdon, Who Are The Brethren and Does it Matter? (Exeter, England: The Paternoster Press, 1986), p. 35.
9 George Bellett, Memoir of the Rev. George Bellett (London: J. Masters, 1889), pp. 41-42, cited in Max S. Weremchuk, John Nelson Darby (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1992), p. 237, f.n. 25.
10 John Howard Goddard, "The Contribution of John Nelson Darby to Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology," (Th. D. Dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary, 1948), p. 85.
11 J. N. Darby, "Letter on Free-Will," in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten, Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 10, p. 185.
12 Ibid., p. 186.
13 J. N. Darby, "Notes on Romans," in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten, Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 26, pp. 107-08.
14 W. G. Turner, John Nelson Darby: A Biography (London: C. A. Hammond, 1926), p. 45.
www.pre-trib.org 3
of John Wesley, to the delight of the Swiss Free Church."15 Darby was awarded a medal of honor by the leadership of Geneva.16
Still yet, when certain Reformed doctrines came under attack from within the Church in which he once served, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles"17 on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said,
For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.18
DISPENSATIONALISM IN AMERICA
Darby and other Brethren brought dispensationalism to America through their many trips and writings that came across the Atlantic. "In fact the millenarian (or dispensational premillennial) movement," declares George Marsden, "had strong Calvinistic ties in its American origins."19 Reformed historian Marsden continues his explanation of how dispensationalism came to America:
This enthusiasm came largely from clergymen with strong Calvinistic views, principally Presbyterians and Baptists in the northern United States. The evident basis for this affinity was that in most respects Darby was himself an unrelenting Calvinist. His interpretation of the Bible and of history rested firmly on the massive pillar of divine sovereignty, placing as little value as possible on human ability.20
The post-Civil War spread of dispensationalism in North America occurred through the influence of key pastors and the Summer Bible Conferences like Niagara, Northfield, and Winona. Marsden notes:
The organizers of the prophetic movement in America were predominantly Calvinists. In 1876 a group led by Nathaniel West, James H. Brookes, William J. Eerdman, and Henry M. Parsons, all Presbyterians, together with
15 Ibid., p. 58.
16 Rowdon, Who Are The Brethren, pp. 205-07.
17 Goddard, "The Contribution of Darby," p. 86.
18 J. N. Darby, "The Doctrine of the Church of England at the Time of the Reformation," in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten, Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 3, p. 3. (Italics are original.)
19 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 46.
20 Ibid.
www.pre-trib.org 4
Baptist A. J. Gordon, . . . These early gatherings, which became the focal points for the prophetic side of their leaders' activities, were clearly Calvinistic. Presbyterians and Calvinist Baptists predominated, while the number of Methodists was extremely small. . . . Such facts can hardly be accidental.21
Proof of Marsden's point above is supplied by Samuel H. Kellogg—himself a Presbyterian and Princeton graduate—with his breakdown of the predominately dispensational Prophecy Conference in New York City in 1878. Kellogg classified the list of those that signed the call for the Conference as follows:
Presbyterians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
United Presbyterians . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reformed (Dutch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Episcopalians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Baptist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Reformed Episcopalians . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Congregationalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methodists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Adventists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Lutheran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
10 3
Kellogg concluded that "the proportion of Augustinians in the whole to be eighty-eight per cent."23 "The significance of this is emphasized," continues Kellogg, "by the contrasted fact that the Methodists, although one of the largest denominations of Christians in the country, were represented by only six names."24 Kellogg estimates that "analyses of similar gatherings since held on both sides of the Atlantic, would yield a similar result."25
George Marsden divides Reformed Calvinism in America into three types: "doctrinalist, culturalist, and pietist."26 He then explains that "Dispensationalism was essentially Reformed in its nineteenth-century origins and had in later nineteenth- century America spread most among revival-oriented Calvinists."27 This is not to say that only revival-oriented Calvinists were becoming dispensational in their view of the Bible and eschatology. Ernest Sandeen lists at least one Old School Presbyterian—L. C. Baker of Camden, New Jersey—as an active dispensationalist during the later half of the nineteenth century.28 Timothy Weber traces the rise of Dispensationalism as follows:
21 Ibid.
22 Kellogg, "Premillennialism," p. 253.
23 Ibid., p. 254.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 George M. Marsden, "Introduction: Reformed and American," in David F. Wells, ed., Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), p. 3.
27 Ibid., p. 8.
28 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800—1930 (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1970], 1978), p. 94.
www.pre-trib.org 5
The first converts to dispensational premillennialism after the Civil War were pietistic evangelicals who were attracted to its biblicism, its concern for evangelism and missions, and its view of history, which seemed more realistic than that of the prevailing postmillennialism. Most of the new premillennialists came from baptist, New School Presbyterian, and Congregationalist ranks, which gave the movement a definite Reformed flavor. Wesleyan evangelicals who opposed premillennialism used this apparent connection to Calvinism to discredit it among Methodists and holiness people.29
It is safe to say that without the aid of Reformed Calvinists in America dispensational premillennialism would have had an entirely different history. Men like the St. Louis Presbyterian James H. Brookes (1830-1897), who was trained at Princeton Seminary, opened his pulpit to Darby and other speakers. Brookes, considered the American father of the pretribulational rapture in America, also discipled a new convert to Christ in the legendary C. I. Scofield.30 Others such as Presbyterians Samuel H. Kellogg (Princeton trained), E. R. Craven, who was a Princeton College and Seminary graduate and Old School Presbyterian,31 and Nathaniel West provided great leadership in spreading dispensationalism in the late 1800s.
SCOFIELD, CHAFER AND DALLAS SEMINARY
C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), and Dallas Theological Seminary (est. 1924) were great vehicles for the spread of dispensationalism in America and throughout the world. Both Scofield and Chafer were ordained Presbyterian ministers. The "Scofield Reference Bible, is called by many the most effective tool for the dissemination of dispensationalism in America."32 Scofield was converted in mid-life and first discipled by James H. Brookes in St. Louis. He was ordained to the ministry at the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882 and transferred his ministerial credentials to the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. in 1908.33 Thus, his ministry took place within a Calvinist context.
Scofield was the major influence upon the development of Chafer's theology. John Hannah notes that "it is impossible to understand Chafer without perceiving the deep influence of Scofield."34 In fact, "Chafer often likened this relationship to that of father
29 Timothy P. Weber, "Premillennialism and the Branches of Evangelicalism," in Donald W. Dayton and Robert K Johnston, editors, The Variety of American Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), pp. 14- 15.
30For more on the life of Brookes see Larry Dean Pettegrew, “The Historical and Theological Contributions of the Niagara Bible Conference to American Fundamentalism," (Th. D. Dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976). David Riddle Williams, James H. Brookes: A Memoir, (St. Louis: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1897). 31 Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Vol. III, p. 296.
32 Larry V. Crutchfield, The Origins of Dispensationalism: The Darby Factor, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), preface.
33 Daniel Reid, ed., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), pp. 1057- 58.
34 John David Hannah, "The Social and Intellectual History of the Origins of the Evangelical Theological College," (Ph. D. Dissertation from The University of Texas at Dallas, 1988), pp. 118-19.
www.pre-trib.org 6
and a son."35 This relationship grew out of Chafer's study under Scofield at the Northfield Conference and from a life-changing experience in Scofield's study of the First Congregational Church of Dallas in the early 1900s. Scofield told Chafer that his gifts were more in the field of teaching and not in the area of evangelism in which he had labored. "The two prayed together, and Chafer dedicated his life to a lifetime of biblical study."36
Scofield and Chafer were two of the greatest American dispensationalists and both developed their theology from out of a Reformed background. Scofield is known for his study bible and Chafer for his Seminary and systematic theology. Jeffrey Richards describes Chafer's theological characteristics as having "much in common with the entire Reformed tradition. Excluding eschatology, Chafer is similar theologically to such Princeton divines as Warfield, Hodge, and Machen. He claims such doctrines as the sovereignty of God, . . . total depravity of humanity, election, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints."37 C. Fred Lincoln describes Chafer's 8 volume Systematic Theology as "unabridged, Calvinistic, premillennial, and dispensational."38
Since its founding in 1924 as The Evangelical Theological College (changed to Dallas Theological Seminary in 1936), it has exerted a global impact on behalf of dispensationalism. Dallas Seminary’s primary founder was Chafer, but William Pettingill and W. H. Griffith-Thomas also played a leading role. Pettingill, like Chafer was Presbyterian. Griffith-Thomas, an Anglican, wrote one of the best commentaries on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church,39 which is still widely used by conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians today. The Thirty-nine Articles are staunchly Calvinistic. Both men were clearly Calvinists. The Seminary, especially before World War II, considered itself Calvinistic. Chafer once characterized the school in a publicity brochure as "in full agreement with the Reformed Faith and its theology is strictly Calvinistic."40 In a letter to Allan MacRae of Westminster Theological Seminary, Chafer said, "You probably know that we are definitely Calvinistic in our theology."41 "Speaking of the faculty, Chafer noted in 1925 that they were 'almost wholly drawn from the Southern and Northern Presbyterian Churches.'"42 Further, Chafer wrote to a Presbyterian minister the following: "I am pleased to state that there is no institution to my knowledge which is more thoroughly Calvinistic nor more completely adjusted to this system of doctrine, held by the Presbyterian Church."43
Since so many early Dallas graduates entered the Presbyterian ministry, there began to be a reaction to their dispensational premillennialism in the 1930s. This was
35 Jeffrey J. Richards, The Promise of Dawn: The Eschatology of Lewis Sperry Chafer, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), p. 23.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., p. 3.
38 C. F. Lincoln, "Biographical Sketch of the Author," in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), Vol. VIII, p. 6.
39 W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979 [1930].
40 Cited in Hannah, "Origins of the Evangelical Theological College," pp. 199-200. 41 Cited in Ibid., p. 200.
42 Cited in Ibid., p. 346.
43 Cited in Ibid., p. 346, f.n. 323.
www.pre-trib.org 7
not an issue as to whether they were Calvinistic in their soteriology, but an issue over their eschatology. In the late 1930s, "Dallas Theological Seminary, though strongly professing to be a Presbyterian institution, was being severed from the conservative Presbyterian splinter movement."44 In 1944, Southern Presbyterians issued a report from a committee investigating the compatibility of dispensationalism with the Westminster Confession of Faith. The committee ruled dispensationalism was not in harmony with the Church's Confession. This "report of 1944 was a crippling blow to any future that dispensational premillennialism might have within Southern Presbyterianism."45 This ruling effectively moved Dallas graduates away from ministry within Reformed denominations toward the independent Bible Church movement.
A BROADENING OF DISPENSATIONALISM ACCEPTANCE
Even though dispensationalism had made a modest penetration of Baptists as early as the 1880s through advocates such as J. R. Graves,46 a strong Calvinist, they were rebuffed by non-Calvinists until the mid-1920s when elements of dispensational theology began to be adopted by some Pentecostals in an attempt to answer the increasing threat of liberalism. Kraus explains:
Some teachers said explicitly that premillennialism was a bulwark against rationalist theology. Thus it is not surprising to find that the theological elements which became normative in dispensationalism ran directly counter to the developing emphasis of the "New Theology."47
Up to this point in history, those from the Arminian and Wesleyan traditions were more interested in present, personal sanctification issues, rather than the Calvinist attention in explaining God's sovereign work in the progress of history. However, the rise of the fundamentalist/liberal controversy in the 1920s stirred an interest, outside of the realm of Calvinism, in defending the Bible against the anti-supernatural attacks of the liberal critics. Dispensationalism was seen as a conservative and Bible-centered answer to liberalism, not only within fundamentalism, but increasingly by Pentecostals and others as well. Timothy Weber notes:
But in time, dispensationalism had its devotees within the Wesleyan tradition as well. More radical holiness groups resonated with its prediction of declining orthodoxy and piety in the churches; and pentecostals found in it a place for the outpouring of the Spirit in a "latter-day rain" before the Second Coming.48
LATTER RAIN PENTECOSTALISM
44 Ibid., pp. 357-58.
45 Ibid., p. 364.
46 See J. R. Graves, The Work of Christ Consummated in 7 Dispensations (Memphis: Baptist Book House, 1883). 47 Kraus, Dispensationalism, p. 61.
48 Weber, "Premillennialism," p. 15.
www.pre-trib.org 8
One of the first non-Calvinist groups to adopt a dispensational orientation can be found among some Pentecostals in the mid-1920s. This development must be understood against a backdrop of the Wesleyan and holiness heritage out of which Pentecostalism arose at the turn of last century. The American holiness movement of the 1800s was primarily postmillennial and if premillennial, then historical premillennial. They were not in any way dispensational.
Pentecostalism is at heart a supposed restoration of apostolic Christianity that is meant to bring in the latter rain harvest in preparation for Christ's return. The phrase “latter rain” is taken from Joel 2:23 & 28 and sometimes James 5:7 as a label describing an end-time revival and evangelistic harvest expected by many charismatics and Pentecostals. Some time in the future, they believe the Holy Spirit will be poured out like never before. The latter rain teaching is developed from the agricultural model that a farmer needs rain at two crucial points in the growing cycle in order to produce a bountiful harvest. First, right after the seed is planted the “early rain” is needed to cause the seed to germinate in order to produce a healthy crop. Second, the crop needs rain right before the harvest, called the “latter rain,” so the grain will produce a high yield at harvest time, which shortly follows. Latter rain advocates teach that the Acts 2 outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the “early rain” but the “latter rain” outpouring of the Holy Spirit will occur at the end-times. This scenario is in conflict with dispensationalism that sees the current age ending, not in revival, but apostasy. It will be during the tribulation, after the rapture of the church, that God will use the miraculous in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel. Thus, latter rain theology fits within a postmillennial or historical premillennial eschatology, but it is not consistent with dispensationalism.
Many Christians are aware that the Pentecostal movement began on January 1, 1901 in Topeka, Kansas when Agnes Ozman (1870-1937) spoke in tongues under the tutelage of Charles Fox Parham (1873-1929). Yet, how many realize that in the “early years Pentecostalism often took the name ‘Latter Rain Movement’”?49 This is because Parham titled his report of the new movement as “The Latter Rain: The Story of the Origin of the Original Apostolic or Pentecostal Movements.”50 Many are also aware that William J. Seymour (1870-1922) came under the influence of Parham in Houston, Texas in 1905 and then took the Pentecostal message to Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906, from where it was disseminated to the four-corners of the world. But, how many are also aware that he too spoke of these things in terms of a latter rain framework?
There is no doubt that the latter rain teaching was one of the major components—if not the major distinctive—in the theological formation of Pentecostalism. “Modern Pentecostalism is the ‘latter rain,’ the special outpouring of the Spirit that restores the gifts in the last days as part of the preparation for the ‘harvest,’ the return of Christ in glory,” says Donald Dayton.51 David Wesley Myland (1858-1943) was one of the early Pentecostal leaders. He wrote the first distinctly Pentecostal hymn entitled, “The Latter
49 Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), p. 27. 50 Dayton, Roots, pp. 22-23.
51 Ibid., p. 27.
www.pre-trib.org 9
Rain” in 1906. The “first definitive Pentecostal theology that was widely distributed, the Latter Rain Covenant” appeared in 1910.52 Myland argued in his book that “now we are in the Gentile Pentecost, the first Pentecost started the church, the body of Christ, and this, the second Pentecost, unites and perfects the church into the coming of the Lord.”53
Dayton concludes that the “broader Latter Rain doctrine provided a key . . . premise in the logic of Pentecostalism.”54 In spite of having such a key place in the thinking of early Pentecostalism, “the latter rain doctrine did tend to drop out of Pentecostalism” in the 1920s “only to reappear, however, in the radical Latter Rain revitalization movement of the 1940s.”55 One of reasons that latter rain teachings began to wane in the mid- 1920s was that as Pentecostalism became more institutionalized it needed an answer to the inroads of liberalism. As noted above, dispensationalism was seen as a help in these areas.
The Latter Rain teaching developed out of the Wesleyan-Holiness desire for both individual (sanctification) and corporate (eschatological) perfection. Thus, early perfectionist teachers like John Wesley, Charles Finney, and Asa Mahan were all postmillennial and social activists. Revivalism was gagged by carrying the burden of both personal and public change or perfection. It follows that one who believes in personal perfection should also believe that public perfection is equally possible. Those who believe the latter are postmillennialists. After all, if God has given the Holy Spirit in this age to do either, then why not the other? If God can perfect individuals, then why not society?
However, as the 1800s turned into the 1900s, social change was increasingly linked with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The evolutionary rationale was then used to attack the Bible itself. To most English-speaking Christians it certainly appeared that society was not being perfected, instead it was in decline. Critics of the Bible said that one needed a Ph.D. from Europe before the Bible could be organized and understood. It was into this climate that dispensationalism was introduced into America and probably accounts for its speedy and widespread acceptance by many conservative Christians. To many Bible believing Christians, Dispensationalism made a great deal more sense of the world than did the anti-supernaturalism conclusions of liberalism.
Dispensationalism, in contrast to Holiness teaching, taught that the world and the visible church were not being perfected, instead Christendom was in apostasy and heading toward judgment. God is currently in the process of calling out His elect through the preaching of the gospel. Christian social change would not be permanent, nor would it lead to the establishment of Christ’s kingdom before His return. Instead a cataclysmic intervention was needed (Christ’s second coming), if society was to be transformed.
Early Pentecostalism was born out of a motivation and vision for restoring to the church apostolic power lost over the years. Now she was to experience her latter-day
52 Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, editors, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), p. 632.
53 Cited by Dayton, Roots, p. 27.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid., p. 33.
www.pre-trib.org 10

glory and victory by going out in a blaze of glory and success. On the other hand, dispensationalism was born in England in the early 1800s bemoaning the latter-day apostasy and ruin of the church. Nevertheless, within Pentecostalism, these two divergent views were merged. Thus, denominations like the Assemblies of God and Foursquare Pentecostals moved away from doctrines like the latter rain teaching and generated official positions against those teachings. It was in the mid-1920s that dispensationalism began to be adopted by non-Calvinists and spread throughout the broader world of Conservative Protestantism.
Dispensationalism appealed to the average person with its emphasis that any average, interested person could understand the Bible without the enlightened help of a liberal education. Once a student understood God’s overall plan for mankind, as administered through the dispensations, he would be able to see God's hand in history. Thus, dispensational theology made a lot of sense to both Pentecostal and evangelical believers at this point in history.
POST WAR DEVELOPMENT
Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism/Charismatic movements spread rapidly in America after the second World War and since dispensationalism was attached to them, it also grew rapidly. Many baby-boomers within Pentecostal and Charismatic churches grew up with dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture as part of their doctrinal framework. Thus, it would not occur to them that dispensationalism was not organic to their particular brands of restoration theology. Further, as non-Calvinist Fundamentalism grew after the War, especially within independent Baptist circles, there was an even greater disconnect of dispensational distinctives from their Calvinist roots.
We have seen that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has a tradition of both Latter Rain/restoration teachings as well as the later rise of a dispensational stream. However, these are contradictory teachings which appear to be on a collision course. Either the church age is going to end with perfection and revival or it will decline into apostasy, preparing the way for the church to become the harlot of Revelation during the tribulation. It is not surprising to see within the broader Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, since the mid 1980s, a clear trend toward reviving Latter Rain theology and a growing realization that it is in logical conflict with their core doctrine. Many, who grew up on Dispensational ideas and the pre-trib rapture, are dumping these views as the leaven of Latter Rain theology returns to prominence within Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders like Earl Paulk56 and Tommy Reid, to name just a couple among many, are attempting to articulate the tension over the struggles of two competing systems. They are opting for the dismissal of dispensational elements from a consistent Pentecostal/Charismatic and Latter Rain theology. Tommy Reid observes:
56 See Earl Paulk, Held In The Heavens Until . . . God's Strategy For Planet Earth (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, 1985). Earl Paulk, Spiritual Megatrends: Christianity in the 21st Century (Atlanta: Kingdom Publishers, 1988).
www.pre-trib.org 11
This great Last Day revival was often likened in the preaching of Pentecostal pioneer to the restoration promised to Israel in the Old Testament. . . . Whereas Dispensationalists had relegated all of these prophetic passages of restoration only to physical Israel, Pentecostal oratory constantly referred to these prophecies as having a dual meaning, restoration for physical Israel, AND restoration for the present day church. WE WERE THE PEOPLE OF THAT RESTORATION, ACCORDING TO OUR THEOLOGY. (emphasis in original)57
At the same time, the purge of Dispensationalism from Reformed Christianity, begun in the late 1930s, has been pretty much completed. Typical of this polarization is found in books like John Gerstner's Wrongly Dividing The Word Of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism.58 While admitting on the one hand that a "strange thing about Dispensationalism is that it seems to have had its strongest advocates in Calvinistic churches."59 Gerstner so strongly opposes dispensationalism, that it has blinded him to the true Calvinist nature of such a God-centered theology. Gerstner claims that he and other Reformed theologians have raised "strong questions about the accuracy of dispensational claims to be Calvinistic."60 It appears that since Dispensationalism arose within the Reformed tradition, as a rival to Covenant Theology, some want to say that they cannot logically be Calvinistic. This is what Gerstner contends. However, in spite of Gerstner's sophistry on this issue,61 he cannot wipe out the historical fact that dispensationalism was birthed within the biblical mindset of a clear theocentric theology and by those who held strongly to soteriological Calvinism. The fact that Dispensationalism arose within a Reformed context is probably the reason why the Reformed community has led the way in criticism of Dispensational theology.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this article is to remind modern Dispensationalists and Calvinists of the historical roots of Dispensationalism. It is precisely because Dispensationalism has penetrated almost every form of Protestantism that many today may be surprised to learn of its heritage. In our day of Postmodern irrationalism, where it is considered a virtue to NOT connect the dots of one's theology, we need to be reminded that the theology of the Bible is a seamless garment. It all hangs together. If one starts pulling at a single thread, the whole cloth is in danger of unraveling.
I personally think that if systematic Dispensationalism is rightly understood then it still logically makes sense only within a theocentric and soteriologically Calvinists theology. After all, Dispensationalism teaches that it is GOD who is ruling His household, as administered through the various dispensations of history. However, the
57 Tommy Reid, Kingdom Now . . . But Not Yet (Buffalo: IJN Publishing, 1988), pp. xv-xvi.
58 John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing The Word Of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1991).
59 Ibid., p. 106.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid., pp. 105-47.
www.pre-trib.org 12
reality is that Dispensationalism, or elements of Dispensationalism (i.e., pretribulationism, futurism, etc.), have been disseminated throughout a wide diversity of Protestant traditions. Dispensationalism is best seen as a system of theology that sees views God as the Sovereign ruler of heaven and earth; man as a rebellious vice-regent (along with some angels); Jesus Christ is the hero of history as He is saves some by His Grace; history as a lesson in the outworking of God's glory being displayed to both heaven and earth. Dispensationalism is a theology that I believe is properly derived from biblical study and lets God be God.