Theses for Discussion with Dispensationalists. 2.

Heads of agreement. We all believe...

1. That the Bible is the Word of God, given by the Holy Spirit through Godly men of old, yet so as to be preserved without error in all its parts (we are not inviting liberals to this at-present notional conference).

2. That the Bible teaches that God has not dealt with all men in all ages in identical ways, but has used different means in different ages.

3. And therefore that it may be said that there are different economies or dispensations in God's dealings with men.

4. That the Bible teaches that Lord Jesus Christ will return again, bodily and visibly, to judge the living and the dead.

5. In the resurrection of the dead. that is, that the same body that was laid in the grave will be raised by God at the Second Advent of Christ.

6. That the BIble is to be understood on its own terms, according to its own words and context, not according to any externally-imposed system.

7. That no-one ever was, or ever shall be, saved by keeping the Law, because the Law cannot save sinners, but only condemn them.

8. And therefore that all who ever were or ever will be saved from their sin were not saved by anything other than the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

9. Therefore that there is only one way of salvation, and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

10. That since the Bible expressly states that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Spirit, no-one can come to Christ without the Holy Spirit working in them.

Next: Confession of sin.

Why I Admire John MacArthur More than Gary DeMar

Readers of this blog will know that we are not dispensational, and have been quite critical of John MacArthur's commentary on the Book of Revelation. Yet we do not think that MacArthur is outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy, nor do we think the less of him for his strongly-held views that we think are wrong.

Gary DeMar is another kettle of fish. While we have found some of his books, and his radio show (though the length of the commercial breaks is excessively excessive) quite useful, yet there is a problem with him. Not that he is a heretic, but that he has so reacted against dispensationalism that he is willing to join with heretics who deny the visible, bodily Second Coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment, in order to oppose dispensationalism.

DeMar is a Preterist, an orthodox one, we hasten to add, at least by all appearances, though one would be hard pressed to tell that from reading his books. We at first thought that his book against the 'Left Behind' series was hyper-preterist, so little time does he devote to the truth that Jesus really is coming back.

And here is the rub. Probably no-one has been more active in opposing the excesses of antinomian dispensationalists than John MacArthur. He is the sworn enemy of the so-called 'Non-Lordship' teachers, who deny the need for repentance, and say that Christians do not have to follow Christ. These heretics (A.W. Tozer called it heresy, so do I) are dispensationalists, like Dr. MacArthur, but he does not let that stop his opposing them. On the other hand, Gary DeMar actively partners with heretics in opposing Dispensationalism, and has said hardly a word against the hyper-preterists and quite a few words for them!

We should be most active against those heretics who are closest to us, not the other way around! Yet I see in DeMar the same attitude that allows Dr. J.I. Packer to partner with Anglo- and even Roman Catholics against the liberals.

Only the Liberals are denying the Bible. At worst the Dispensationalists are misinterpreting it. But the hyper-preterists are worse than the dispensationalists, for they are re-interpreting the Bible so as to empty language of all meaning, and to deny the 'blessed hope', namely the appearing of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So I'll go with MacArthur any day.


[Note on Preterism. Orthodox Preterism states that many Biblical prophecies which have been understood by many to refer to the Second Coming actually refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. All orthodox Preterists put part of the Olivet Discourse in that category. Some put the whole of the Olivet Discourse in, and some take the book of Revelation as referring to AD 70. All of these do, however, hold that Christ will come back visibly and bodily to judge the living and the dead, and to bring an end to the present age. They hold that the prophecies in 2 Peter (for example) are yet to be fulfilled, and refer to the Second Coming of Christ. They are therefore our brothers in Christ, like the moderate Dispensationalists.]

Theses for Discussion with Dispensationalists. 1.

We have had some words to say about Dispensationalists. But unlike Gary DeMar, who inconsistently works with heretical Hyper-preterists to attack Dispensationalism as a heresy, we think that most versions of it are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy (there is something called Hyper-dispensationalism that is not). Certainly Dr. John MacArthur and his variety of Dispensationalism, and the Progressive Dispensationalist school, are. So we present our ground-work for discussion between non-Dispensational Reformed Christians and Dispensationalist Reformed Christians.

I. Rules of discussion.

1. Arguments of guilt by association, such as 'Romanists are A-mil', and 'Futurism was invented by a Jesuit' are to be forbidden. Not only do they get us no-where, but they are unbecoming in a discussion between Christians. Not everything that the Roman Catholic Church believes is wrong. For one thing, they are Trinitarians, and despite attempts by anti-trinitarians to use the guilt by association argument against the doctrine of the Trinity, we are still Trinitarians.

2. Nor shall we use the argument of innocence by association, e.g. that because Augustine and Calvin taught a certain doctrine, it must be true. Good men see 'through a glass darkly', and can be wrong.

3. Nor shall we make use of doubtful arguments about the ruinous effect of the others' doctrine, so that we on the non-Dispensational side will not argue that it leands to Antinomianism, nor will the Dispensationalists argue that our doctrine leads to anti-semitism. This is really only name-calling, and has no place in a serious Christian discussion. Also non-Reformed folk like to say that Calvinism is antinomianism. John Wesley used the two terms as synonymous.

4. Both sides will seek to understand each other, not through books written by their own side. Definitions will be sought that actually define our position, and are not either so broad as to include practically everyone, or so narrow as to exclude many in the camp of the one defining. Lists of distinctives will actually be drawn up that include real distinctives, not things that the other camp actually holds.

5. Being mindful of the need for charity, we will accept one another's professions at face value, and not try to tell the other side what they believe.

Next time: Theses on agreements.

Spurgeon on Hermeneutics

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a very sagacious writer, and a gifted preacher. His commentaries on the Psalms and on the Gospel of Matthew are still very useful. Therefore we would like to give two quotations from Spurgeon dealing with the question of Bible interpretation. In both of these quotations Spurgeon’s main target is the early Plymouth Brethren. The original dispensationalists, they taught the famous Dispensationalist catchphrase, “if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense”, and the notorious ‘law of first use’, which meant that a word was always to be understood in the Scriptures in the sense that it bore in its first use chronologically.

These have a show of wisdom, but both are false. Spurgeon explains below:

“In Holy Scripture the same word does not always mean the same thing. The Bible is a book meant for human beings, and therefore it is written in human language; and in human language the same word may signify two or three things. For instance, “a pear fell from a tree;” “a man fell into drunken habits.” There the meaning of the second word “fell,” is evidently different from the first, since it is not literal, but metaphorical. Again, “the cabman mounted the box; the child was pleased with his Christmas box;” “his lordship is staying at his shooting box.” In each case there is the same word, but who does not see that there is a great difference of meaning? So it is in the Word of God. You must explain the difference between a word used in a peculiar sense, and the ordinary meaning of the word, and thus you will prevent your people falling into mistakes. If people will say that the same word in Scripture always means the same thing, as I have heard some assert publicly, they will make nonsense of the Word of God, and fall into error through their own irrational maxims. To set up canons of interpretation for the Book of God which would be absurd if applied to other writings is egregious folly: it has a show of accuracy, but inevitably leads to confusion.

“The obvious literal meaning of a Scripture is not always the true one, and ignorant persons are apt enough to fall into the most singular misconceptions: a judicious remark from the pulpit will be of signal service. Many persons have accustomed themselves to misunderstand certain texts; they have learned wrong interpretations in their youth, and will never know better unless the correct meaning be indicated to them.”

CHS - The Swords and the Trowel’ Vol. 2, P. 293

The trouble is, the understanding of a text that is the ‘obvious literal meaning’ to me may be false. It may be anachronistic, so that some have understood ’through a glass darkly’ as having reference to a telescope - which had not been invented yet. The word ’mill’ may conjure up a false image to me. In my home county of Norfolk, we historically used water mills. In Kent and Sussex most mills were wind-powered. But in Biblical times they were either hand-driven or driven by an animal. Or take the word ‘corn’. In America that is usually understood of maize, but in Europe in the past it was used to describe wheat and Barkley and other cereal crops. We have laughed out loud when we have heard atheists use the mention of ‘corn’ in the Bible as evidence that the Bible is in error (what do they think, that it was made up in the last five hundred years?).

Again, in Apocalyptic and figurative language, the ‘obvious literal meaning’ as I might take it is false, because the author’s intent was to use language symbolically. What we seek in Biblical interpretation is not my ‘obvious literal meaning’, but what the Holy Spirit sought to communicate in the text.

Another caution that Spurgeon gives is against those who try to find new meanings for texts. This is always a very hazardous enterprise:

“Do not be carried away with new meanings. Plymouth Brethren delight to fish up some hitherto undiscovered tadpole of interpretation and cry it round the town as a rare dainty. Let us be content with more ordinary and more wholesome fishery. No one text is to be exalted above the plain analogy of faith, and no solitary expression is to shape our theology for us. Other men and wiser men have expounded before us, and anything undiscovered by them it were well to put to test and trial before we boast too loudly of the treasure-trove.”
- ditto, P. 296

It should be noted that Spurgeon was pre-millennial and held to a future restoration of the Jews. He was NOT, however, a Dispensationalist, and some of his harshest words about misinterpreting the Bible are reserved for the disciples of John Nelson Darby.

Further thoughts on the Todd Bentley Affair

While we are glad that Todd Bentley's false revival, that has devastated hundreds, maybe thousands who were falsely told that they had been healed from life-threatening diseases and crippling conditions, we are deeply concerned that what is causing many people to distance themselves from Bentley now is in fact the false prophet's separation from his wife. Only now are these leaders in the Charismatic movement coming out and speaking about concerns about Bentley's doctrine and behaviour that ought to have been apparent at least from June, if not May. J. Lee Grady, who in April was declaring that this was a "Holy Ghost outbreak", is now bemoaning the fact that so many were taken in by Bentley. Thankfully he has been asking questions since May, but oh how timidly he began, even when Bentley's violent techniques became apparent! It seems that the assumption was that this was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. In May he wrote:

"But I would be dishonest if I told you that I wholeheartedly embraced what I saw in Lakeland. Something disturbed me, but I kept my mouth shut for three weeks while I prayed, got counsel from respected ministry leaders and searched my heart to make sure I was not harboring a religious spirit. The last thing we need today is more mean-spirited heresy hunters blasting other Christians."

Now, apart from the fact that 'religious' is a perfectly good word, if Mr. Grady had these concerns from the beginning, why did he not just say nothing about the events in Lakeland for those three weeks, instead of immediately calling it a "Holy Ghost outbreak"? For weeks he was one of those encouraging others to get on the Bentley bandwagon, but now he is declaring that the whole thing was wildfire. What has changed? Bentley has separated from his wife. No new false teaching from the Lakeland platform, no new false prophecy. We have always based our criticism of Bentley on his public behaviour, and we have not changed what we are saying.

We hope that men like Grady will be more wary in future, but we really have no confidence that they will not be taken in by the next false revival. And please note, despite statements to the contrary, no organic condition has been certified as healed at Lakeland.

Others have expressed similar opinions. See here, and here.

Critics of Lakeland 'Revival' Vindicated

Our deep suspicion of Todd Bentley has been further vindicated by the news that this supposed 'Man of God' is to separate from his wife. The false revival at Lakeland in Florida is over, and as the post mortem examination begins, the great question that Charismatics are asking is: "How could we be so gullible?" Here is a good example:

"Why did God TV tell people that “any criticism of Todd Bentley is demonic”?

This ridiculous statement was actually made on one of God TV’s pre-shows. In fact, the network’s hosts also warned listeners that if they listened to criticism of Bentley, they could lose their healings.

This is cultic manipulation at its worst. The Bible tells us that the Bereans were noble believers because they studied the Scriptures daily “to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11, NASB). Yet in the case of Lakeland, honest intellectual inquiry was viewed as a sign of weakness. People were expected to jump first and then open their eyes.

Just because we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit does not mean we check our brains at the church door. We are commanded to test the spirits. Jesus wants us to love Him with our hearts and our minds.

Because of the Lakeland scandal, there may be large numbers of people who feel they’ve been burned by Bentley. Some may give up on church and join the growing ranks of bitter, disenfranchised Christians. Others may suffer total spiritual shipwreck. This could have been avoided if leaders had been more vocal about their objections and urged people to evaluate spiritual experiences through the filter of God’s Word."

We have been deeply suspicious of the movement since we first heard of Bentley's claims, since we tend to treat claims of revival with caution. An examination of Bentley's teaching and behaviour convinced us that this was not the real thing, and so when Justin Peters reported that Lakeland 'healings' were nothing of the kind, we merely nodded and prayed for those who were thus deceived. And it wasn't only people in the Charismatic churches. God willing, this coming Lord's Day we shall be attending the chapel where we first heard of Todd Bentley and the goings-on in Lakeland. We may have some words of advice for friends.

John Piper has a good article on the subject. His advice to test claims of Revival with doctrine must be heeded.

While we applaud the editors of Charisma magazine, we have to ask, why did it take Bentley's marriage breaking down for them to print a critique of the man that was true whether or not he separated from his wife?

Let us also praise God that He has taken this false prophet out of the way. And let us pray that Bentley will repent of his spiritual wickedness.

We were alerted to these articles by Rhett of Rhett's Rants.

A Refreshing change from Lambeth

For those readers who have read of the total failure of the Anglican Communion to decide anything on the question of homosexuality, we would recommend this paper produced by the Committee on Doctrine of the United Free Church of Scotland in 1995. This is how to deal with the issue - Biblically. What does the Bible say?

Our own favourite point of this document was this comment:

"c) 1 Samuel 18: 1, 20:30

These verses have been adduced as evidence in support of the claim that the much vaunted friendship between David and Jonathon was a homosexual relationship. There is, however, no hint of erotic behaviour in the Biblical text and the 'shame' described in 20:30 related to Jonathon's [sic] disloyalty to his father and family when siding with David against Saul. Indeed it was the Panel's view that the current preoccupation with homosexuality could devalue and cast unnecessary suspicion upon those wholesome relationships that are possible between same-sex friends."