REVISITING THE
DOCTRINE OF DISPENSATIONALISM
Part IV: A Biblical
Critique Of Errant Schools Of Dispensationalism
I.
Introduction
A.
Though
we have learned that the consistently literal way to interpret Scripture produces
dispensationalism, some dispensationalists push their views beyond what the
literal interpretation of Scripture permits.
B.
We thus
correct their errors in keeping with the consistently literal
interpretation of Scripture (as follows):
II.
A Biblical Critique Of Errant Schools Of
Dispensationalism
A.
The
consistently literal interpretation of Scripture counters errant "Ultradispensationalism"
as follows:
1.
Charles
C. Ryrie (Dispensationalism Today, 1970, p. 192-196) notes all
"ultradispensationalists" (a) claim the Church did not start at Acts 2, (b) they hold
to more than one dispensation between Acts 2 and the rapture, (c) they deny that
the ordinance of baptism and/or the Lord's Table is/are for our era and (d)
they hold to varying parts of the New Testament as being directly applicable to
the Church, Ibid., p. 192-196.
2.
However,
Scripture shows that all ultradispensationalists ERR in NOT starting the Church at Acts 2:
a.
1
Corinthians 12:12-28 claims Jews and Gentiles are baptized by the Spirit into one
spiritual Church.
b.
That
ministry began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4 with Jews, it continued
with part-Jewish Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17, then with full-blooded Gentiles in
Acts 10:44-48 and last with Jews in Acts 19:1-6 who were formerly believers
under the Law, but who had been ignorant about Christ!
3.
Thus,
the consistently literal
interpretation of Scripture shows
ultradispensationalism to be in error.
B.
The
consistently literal interpretation of Scripture counters errant "Progressive
Dispensationalism" as follows:
1.
Progressive
dispensationalists claim the Church is currently
partly fulfilling Israel's Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants, so
the Church should be
involved in the social
redemption of the world.
(Fred Moritz, "Progressive Dispensationalism: An Evaluation," The
Biblical Evangelist, Jul.-Aug. 2001, p. 3-4)
2.
However,
the address of the Apostle James in the Acts 15 first Church council shows this
view errs:
a.
James there
claimed that God would initially
call out a people for Himself from among literal Gentiles, citing Peter's Acts 10 interaction with literal Gentiles in Cornelius' household,
cf. Acts 15:13-14; 10:1-48.
b.
James
there further explained how the Old Testament prophets agreed with this past
event of the conversion
of Gentiles, and he cited Amos 9:11-12 as evidence of this fact,
cf. Acts 15:15-17.
c.
Yet, though
citing Amos 9:11-12, (a) James added the words, "After this" that do not exist at
Amos 9:11-12 in the Hebrew text or in the Septuagint translation of that text.
(B. K. C., N. T., p. 394) (b)
James also added the words (that God said) "I will return" that are
not in the Amos 9:11-12 Hebrew text, using the Greek verb anastrepso that also does not appear
in either the Septuagint or the Hebrew text. (Ibid.; Sir L. C. L. Brenton, The
Sept. with Apoc., 1998, p. 1092; Kittel, Bib. Heb., p. 927) (c) Since anastrepso exists elsewhere in Luke's writings only at Acts
5:22 to picture "a literal, bodily return" (Ibid., B. K. C., N. T.),
James then taught that the Amos 9:11-12 events will occur AFTER
Christ's literal Second
Coming. [(d) His argument before the
council was that if God will justify Gentiles as UNCIRCUMCISED Gentiles at Christ's FUTURE return, we in the Church era should accept Gentiles who are being justified
by faith AS GENTILES WITHOUT
requiring them to be CIRCUMCISED,
Acts 15:18-19, Ibid., p. 395.]
d.
Amos
9:11-12 also claims David's Kingdom will STILL be broken down, so with James' view that Amos 9:11-12
occurs at Christ's future Second
Coming seven years after the Church is raptured out of the
world, the Church is NOT NOW restoring David's
Kingdom! Progressive Dispensationalism
errs.
3.
Also, in
Revelation 3:21, Christ DISTINGUISHED
His EARTHLY Davidic throne FROM His Father's HEAVENLY throne where Christ currently reigns! (Hebrews
1:3-4) Christ's current reign is thus NOT His future reign on David's throne on the earth opposite the Progressive Dispensationalism view!
4.
Thus,
the consistently literal
interpretation of Scripture shows that BOTH
Progressive Dispensationalism AND
its consequent belief that the Church should be involved in social
redemption are in error!
Lesson: The
consistently literal interpretation of Scripture leads to the historical
dispensationalist stance that the dispensation of the Church began at Acts 2
and ends at the rapture, and that Israel's covenants are only for Israel.
Application:
(1) May we interpret Scripture in a consistently literal way as historical
dispensationalists. (2) Thus, unlike
ultradispensationalists, may we see the Church as one body between Acts 2 and
the rapture and practice the ordinances of believers' baptism and the Lord's
Table. (3) Also, opposite Progressive
Dispensationalism, may we not view the Church as partly fulfilling Israel's
covenants so as to have to redeem society, but disciple individuals.