If you know the Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior then you’ll enjoy hearing the Gospel one more time, as presented by Mark Driscoll from Seattle. If you don’t know the Lord Jesus Christ then, please, I urge you to hearing this gospel message and receive it. Go to the Scriptures and read it:

“What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?” Matthew 26:72

You must accept him. Why not today?

ShareThis

1. First I’d like to thank my good friend Armen of ArmenThomassian.com for bringing up the topic and allowing me to respond.
2. I think its always best to define what Dispensationalism is based on what the teachers, theologians and scholars who hold that position say, instead of defining it based on what a covenant theologian says about Dispensationalism.
3. Also, it wouldn’t be accurate to say Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology is a “biblical hermeneutic” or least it shouldn’t be … both approaches are broad frameworks for understanding where certain things fit in over history and in times to come.
4. I’d also like to stress for others watching or reading, that this discussion is not in an area of doctrine in which we both must agree otherwise one of us is damned.  Its safe to say that the discussion in that grey area where the error is not damning – albeit error with serious implications.  For instance, it isn’t a doctrinal issue which you must include in your gospel presentation.

So what is Dispensationalism?

1. Dispensationalism is a systematic theology of the Bible which is formulated from the study of God’s word using a consistent literal hermeneutic. The word dispensation comes from the Gr. “oikonomía” and means economy, stewardship, administration, epoch or era. Some people see as many as 7 dispensations, others only about 3. From Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to the time of Christ, the church age, then in the future the Millennial Kingdom, then Eternal State. Some people are overly rigid (Hyper-Despo’s) to the point where they only read Pauline Epistles, but thankfully most are not – for instance, I’ve never met anyone who hold to that.
2. “Based on the literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalists believe that God has administered history in successive stages, during each of which man is tested, fails, and suffers judgment.  This linear progress of history began in innocence, continued with man’s fall, was punctuated by the cross of Christ, and moves toward the second coming and the millennium.” Thomas Ice, Pg 1, “A Short History of Dispensationalism“
3. “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.” Thomas Ice, “The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism“

I’d encourage interested people to read and listen to teaching from Dr. Robert L Dean. Jr. at Dean Bible Ministries. There are several main things (the first 3 things especially) that Dispensationalists hold to:

1. Interpret the Scriptures in a literal and straightforward manner including prophecy which leads them to do the following,
2. Pre-Trib Rapture & Pre-Millennial in Eschatology (study of last/end things)
3. Hold to the distinction between the Church and Israel
4. Hold to the uniqueness of the Church – Church age believers are spiritually seed of Abraham but we are not the spiritual Israel.
5. God has a distinct plan for the Church which began at Pentecost.
6. God has a distinct plan for ethnic/national Israel that includes their glorious, spiritual restoration and conversion (Jer 31:31-40) as well as specific geographic destiny.
7. and a multifaceted emphasis upon God’s glory as the goal of history.

Armen: 1. Dispensationalism is a recent departure from historic Christian beliefs)

David: 1. Dispensationalism is a recovery to what the Bible teaches and the development of a whole area of Theology

What was recent, was the challenge to the existing historic, traditional positions of Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches …. not due to some alleged vision or dream but because of a fresh examination of this area of Theology.

Dispensational teaching cannot be slammed for being a relatively new thing.  Since when did freshness become the arbiter of truth? Sure Covenant Theology is only 200 years older, having emerged in the 1600’s.
I’m disappointed that John Nelson Darby would be named along with cult leaders and heretics who clearly denied the core tenets of the faith (Trinity, Deity of Christ, Christ’s Substitutionary Atonement, Resurrection of Christ and Salvation by Grace).  J.N. Darby did not do that.  He was an excellent scholar and defender of the faith in his time albeit he had an austere, controlling character.  Bottomline: You mightn’t like the guy because of Dispensationalism but he was no heretic. Read John Nelson Darby: Defender of the Faith by Larry Crutchfield.

Regain some perspective… read what dispensational critic and ‘now, not yet’ theologian George E. Ladd had to say about the men responsible for dispensationalism from this quote: “It is doubtful if there has been any other circle of men [dispensationalists] who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.”

I don’t agree with the characterization given of how dispensationalism emerged: You make it sound like Darby merely invented the doctrine of the Rapture of the church. Instead it came about from his study of the Scriptures in the 1820’s – 30’s. It was the first systematic expression of Dispensationalism formulated whereas down church history it was extant but crude in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and quite a few others.

Armen: 2. Converted Gentiles become part of a body which started in the Old Testament

David: 2. Believers in this age become part of the Church, not the existing nation of Israel.

If you want to say that converted gentiles become part of God’s program of salvation, then fine.  But to say that converted gentiles become of a body (presumably Israel in a sense) which started in the Old Testament, no way. Why the Church and Israel are distinct: The Church (which is largely filled with Gentile believers) was a mystery hidden from the eyes of the Old testament believers. The church was previously undisclosed doctrine to the Old Testament. Rom 16:25-26, Eph 3:1-4.  For example, look at from Daniel 2 -  the Great Image spans history from the Babylonian Kingdom way back then, all the way forward to the Messianic Kingdom which the Son of man inaugurates when He comes on the clouds of heaven, Dan 7:13.  Where is the New Testament Church in that prophecy? Frankly, its not. The Church was not seen by Daniel because God hadn’t revealed that onto him.  The Church was a mystery concealed by in large until Christ Jesus came and started to tell us more (Matt 16:13-20, John 14:21-31).  It was also known that salvation would come to the Gentiles through Messiah (Isa 42:6-7, 49:6, Luke 2:32) but what wasn’t known was precisely how or in what capacity.

Armen said: “The question is, what precisely is this ‘commonwealth of Israel’ and how did it exist before?”
The “commonwealth of Israel” refers to the national community of Israel (the national and spiritual entity which it was) with whom God had been working (Rom 9:4+5).  In the context of Eph 2, it means that these believers from gentile backgrounds have been brought close to God through Christ.  Remember, it was Israel, that commonwealth, that had benefited from the unique blessing and protection from the LORD who was their God.  The Gentiles didn’t belong to Israel, they had neither rights nor privileges of being a citizen of Israel (in the same way as I experience as a foreign resident living in Australia, without the rights and privileges of Australians). Gentiles were on the outside looking in on the nation with whom the Living God had been working.  This alienation and distance is pointed out further in Eph 2:14 when Paul refers to “the middle wall of partition” which specifically was the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple at Jerusalem.  That was as close as Gentiles got in the worship.  All being said, Israel was close to God, the nations were far away. Because of their persistent rebellion to the point that the Messiah was rejected and crucified, God has set them aside.

“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?” Romans 10:11-12

The “covenants of promise” are these:
1)    Abrahamic Covenant
2)    Land Covenant
3)    Davidic Covenant
4)    Mosaic Covenant
5)    New Covenant

Interestingly, the Apostle Paul speaks of Israel as being the current possessor of these covenants in Romans 9.  I don’t think we in the church have some ownership of the Mosaic Covenant, nor the Land Covenant, nor the Davidic Covenant, nor even the New Covenant.  However, we do have relationship to the Abrahamic Covenant and a salvation relationship to the New Covenant (??????? ????????).  Looking forward, eschatologically I believe that the New Covenant will be fulfilled to the House of Israel and the House of Judah in its entirety.

1.    Q. From what are the Gentiles no longer “aliens” and “strangers” to? Answer: The unique blessings, protections and benefits which God ordained to come through Israel, His chosen people with whom He made the covenants with.
2.    Q. What have they been “made nigh” to? Answer: Made close to God through Christ. Made close to all that God is doing — specifically having relationship to the New Covenant which the New Testament Scriptures make clear, now having hope and following the Living God.

Armen said: “Doesn’t that make it clear that Paul believed New Testament Christians became part of something which already existed?”
Yes and no. Yes, we are part of God’s continuing redemption plan but we cannot be a replacement for Israel.  Furthermore, Paul says clearly that God has taken believing Jews and Gentiles and has made “one new man” v15, a whole new entity which was a mystery, “kept secret since the world began” Rom 16:25-26. I don’t think its fair to characterize the church as an after thought…it just wasn’t disclosed in the Old Testament.

Armen: 3. The Apostle Paul taught that there are two ‘types’ of Jews

David: 3. The Apostle Paul taught that there are two ‘types’ of Jews

I agree with your conclusion from Rom 2:28-29 that there is a distinction to be made between national and spiritual Jews.  I would go on to say that a true Jew is one who is a Jew ethnically & nationally and one who has believed in Jesus Christ.  The Apostle Paul was a good example of a true Jew; ethically Jewish belonging to Israel plus better than that, he believed in Jesus Christ.

And today, if we were to visit a sound Messianic Jewish gathering we would find some ‘true Jews’ because they are both ethnically Jewish and they believe in the Messiah, Jesus …. albeit, they may not be Israeli’s, and biblically speaking right now when a Jewish person gets saved they go into this entity called the “one new man” Eph 2:15, which is the church and not national Israel.

What’s going on in Deut 30:6?
This verse comes towards the end of the giving of the Law by Moses. The passage has two parties: the LORD God the giver of the Law and national Israel (Deut 29:1) the people about to sign on the dotted line.  Israel was promised blessings for obedience and cursing for disobedience.

What’s going on in Col 2:11
From the context of Colossians, it is taught that Christ is the supreme person: Christ the First Rank of all creation (Col 1:15), Christ the Creator (Col 1:16), Christ the Sustainer (Col 1:17), Christ the Head of the Church (Col 1:18), Christ our Saviour (Col 1:20) and Christ our Sanctifier (Col 1:22). In the next chapter Paul goes on to say that the Colossians “are complete in Him” and it is in Christ that Paul talks about circumcision … and when he does its clear that he was not talking about physical circumcision!  It is the spiritual circumcision i.e. salvation not by our works because the text says “made without hands”.  The “circumcision of Christ” refers to His substitutionary atoning death on the cross and our identification with Christ in His death.  Christ did it all, it was all His work, not ours.  He goes to talk about baptism, which is our identification with Christ in His burial and rising again.  Simply put: Your acceptance of Christ’s atoning death for your sin and subsequent position “in Him” has dealt with the inward problem of your heart and all your trespasses.

Is there a valid connection between Deut 30:6 and Col 2:11?
Yes, for there to be new birth there must be circumcision of the heart, which was true in the time of Moses, and is true now also.  It is absolutely essential.  No circumcision of the heart = no salvation.  However, even though there are two categories of Jews, (1. outward-only-Jews  &  2. outward-plus-inward-Jews) this does not mean that we gentile believers are now Jewish.  From the comparison of Deut 30:6 and Col 2:11, I agree with the salvation parallel.  However, only in some spiritual parallel sense would we become a ‘true Jew’.  Further to that, I don’t think from any of those texts its saying that when God circumcises that heart of a Gentile (like me) that he can now lay claim to ALL the promises and covenants made to the ethnic/national Israel (whether they were saved or not) nor can we replace them.  Wouldn’t that be overstepping the mark?

Armen: 4. The Apostle Paul taught that there are two ‘types’ of Israel

David: 4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about Israel?

Is there such a thing right now, in this age, as a national Israel, an ethnic Israel or an spiritual Israel?  There has been an ethnic Israel, if you want to call it that, otherwise just simply Jewry – all of the Jews together as a group of people who share the same heritage ie. descended from Jacob.  There was no political nation of Israel until 1948 when Israel regained some of its ancient homeland.  As for the spiritual Israel, when Israel is gloriously restored having repented and trusted in Messiah (Zech 12:1 – 13:1, Matt 23:37-39) then we could find an entity rightfully called ’spiritual Israel.’

Gal 6:16 What is the correct interpretation of this verse? Is the “Israel of God” the spiritual Israel?
Firstly, “as many as walk according to this rule” are believers.  Then, there are two groups being referred to in this verse, signified by the words, “on them” and the “Israel of God.” The church at Galatia had believers from both Gentile background and Jewish background.  The “on them” refers to believers of Gentile extract who were in this local church.  The “Israel of God” refers to believers of Jewish extract who were in this local church. I’m sorry, I just don’t find anything about the reformed concept of a ’spiritual Israel’.

“If there is a a national Jew and a spiritual Jew, is there a national Israel and a spiritual Israel? And, can a Gentile become part of this spiritual Israel?”
No. Whether Israel the entity has been obedient or rebellious it is always Israel.  By the way, I don’t find the term “spiritual Israel” in the Bible…and I don’t find the concept either.  Look at Israel in Deuteronomy, because the LORD God made the covenant with everyone there as He addressed them all.  Skip over to the New Testament and both Israel and the Church existed side by side in the Book of Acts but are kept distinct by the author.  The two names are never used synonymously.

“What were they? “Gentiles in the flesh”. What are they now? Well, tie it in with v12-13 and you’ll see that he is clearly teaching that they are now of this ‘commonwealth of Israel’, or what we might term, ‘Spiritual Israel’.”
You said that the Gentiles who got saved are now of the “commonwealth of Israel” – either they now join the “commonwealth of Israel” or belong to it and therefore can be called the ‘Spiritual Israel.’  Again, I would say that Gentiles that get saved come into relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant.  So therefore we now enjoy the blessings of salvation.  However, we haven’t become the spiritual Israel, nor have we superseded Israel or replaced them.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Paul the Apostle should use frequent references to Israel and the things of Israel and the Mosaic Covenant since the Church is graffed into the root (Rom 11).  Therefore, the church has thoroughly Jewish roots.  The Church and Israel have a relationship in the New Covenant (Jer 33:31-34) because of the blood of Christ (Matt 26:28).  The thing that Dispensationalists see in the Scriptures is the distinction between the two groups.  The Church and Israel are not utterly detached, albeit right now, Israel is set aside and is in unbelief.

Conclusion

You’ll have to do another post on just what Covenant Theology is, what its main tenets are, what it stands for, who holds to it because your post was more of a critique on Dispensationalism. I’m interested in what you’d have to say on Covenant Theology.

Picking up on some other things you said, I think the concept of progressive revelation fits hand-in-glove with Dispensational teaching. Its one of the presuppositions of Dispensationalism.  The clearness and sophistication of that revelation increased in definiteness, clarity and fullness as it was revealed over time moving from one dispensation to the next.

There’s another thing that comes up which is the continuity/discontinuity issue.  My position is this; overall the Bible is one story about how the LORD God is rescuing and redeeming fallen humanity – so there is a real continuity present in the Scripture.  But within that one redemption story, there is some discontinuity. I can see a lot of validity in the Dispensationalist position because it maintains the real and proper distinction between Israel and the Church.

A few honest questions I need someone from the other side of the debate to answer:

1.    What is the reasoning and motivation behind a non-literal interpretation of prophecy?
2.    When the LORD God addressed the people of Israel and made the Mosaic covenant with them… was He making it with all the people of Israel? or just the spiritual Israel within the group?
3.    What relationship do you see between the New Testament believer and the covenants of promise?
4.    Will there ever be a full scale restoration of the people of Israel with mass conversion to Christ Jesus?
5.    What becomes of the unfulfilled covenants and promises of the Old Testament?

ShareThis

I love this hymn, its words and this arrangement. Very very good. It can be a really struggle in some churches – the music that is. What do we sing and in what style do we sing it? To what I know of, of course, its really only a problem that churches in Western countries or Western-looking countries seem to struggle with. However, for the most part (and at times only just) I’m glad to still be sing hymns in a fairly traditional, organ n’ piano style although I do wish we’d give the style a lift. I want to take a moment to think about this.

Take for example this problem: artistic abilities. What are the chances (or should I say providence) that each church here in Australia or in the UK or America will have in their gathering, a decent 6 piece contemporary band? Usually to be soft-rock and contemporary you’ll need a keyboard, drummer, bass, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, lead singer, 1 or 2 backing vocals and maybe someone shaking a tambourine. Pretty slim I think from my experience. I suppose I’m working from the premise of, ‘a job worth doing is a job worth doing well.‘  BTW: The same goes for the organ-n-piano-only brigade – if you’re gonna play in that style, then it’d better be good. If you’re going to sing unaccompanied shouldn’t it also be done well as onto the Lord?

So if singing praise to the Lord isn’t all tightly wound up in the quality of the performance then it only matters how? The response of our hearts? Yes but not entirely perhaps.

Here some of my thoughts and principles which I hold to be true:

• The Lord Jesus himself said, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24
• Traditional does not automatically equal biblical; neither does contemporary automatically equal true, vibrant worship.
• Musical style and doctrinal emphasis are bound to be expressed differently from one culture to another and from church to another – and there should be Christian liberty enough to allow for that.
• Musical style and doctrinal content of songs is an issue worth examining in order to see how we can do better.
• We need to be aware that different people have varying taste and there are real and actual distinctions between the tastes of generations.
• When believers gather together to break bread or hear teaching from God’s word it is for believers, not unbelievers.
• The leadership of the church should be making the decisions on music.
• In matters of style music should be convey key doctrinal truth.
• Some songs should be about God objectively i.e what God says about Himself.
• Some songs should be about our corporate response to God.
• Some songs should be about our individual response to God.
• Music style and words should sometimes be lofty and grand.
• Musical style should take backseat to the words!
• Musical style should avoid being glib, frivolous, trite or hackneyed.
• Musical style should avoid being overly repetitious. Whilst it is true that there is an acceptable level of repetition found in Scripture (Psalm 136) we should mantra-like repeating of vacuous lines in our own songs.
• Some musical styles should be avoided altogether (such as trance, really heavy rock) because could they convey to us about God?
• We’ve all got favorites but particular songs should not be endlessly over-sung.
• The musical performers must be believers if they are leading the congregation in worship to God.
• The musical performance should be as good as possible.
• In regards to the singing, believers should invest time and energy in getting better at singing.
• The musical performers must not be unnecessarily distracting.
• The local assembly should strive to make strike a good balance between time/importance put on music practice and teaching/preaching.
• The doctrinal level of the songs should follow along with the level of maturity that the teaching is at.
• Should avoid being exclusive in choice of songs. So hymns and Psalms should not be neglected in favor of “Hillsong“/soft rock songs only. All hymns and “contemporary” songs should be evaluated on the basis of their doctrinal merit and musical style. Bear in mind, some hymns are rather poor in the doctrinal front but are popular among older generations.
• Surely the Holy Spirit of God still inspires (in a non-revelatory way) wonderful, doctrinally rich and powerful songs & hymns in the midst of our time.
• Surely a church that is writing its own doctrinally rich and true songs written in response to the teaching from the word of God is healthy.

What do you think? Have you say in the comments.

ShareThis