Comments on: Understanding Dispensationalism

By: Chris Poe

Chris Poe — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:51:05 +0000

I just received Dr. Vlach’s book a couple of days ago and read it the same day. I agree with Matt’s opinion of it. As someone who has recently moved from a Reformed paedobaptist position to a baptistic one, I am keenly interested in issues of continuity and discontinity between the two testaments. In my opinion this book is quite helpful in surveying the history of dispensational thought, establishing the foundational beliefs of dispensationalism as well as dispelling common myths about it.

“Continuity and Discontinuity” edited by John S. Feinberg is a book that I have been wanting for several months. Given the number of times that Dr. Vlach references it in this short book, I am more anxious than ever to obtain it.

By: Chris J.

Chris J. — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:59:41 +0000

Dr. Vlach has shown a reasonable and steady hand in his dispensational perspective. My mentor, a four point Calvinist, was asked once why he believes the Bible to be the Word of God. His reply, “The Jews.” Nothing explains their continued existence in this deeply antisemitic world. It seems that this answer is Biblical and rational. Also, it seems that dispensationalism is the most consistently literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Interpreting everything literally except for eschatological passages is inconsistent and ignores much good work the reformers did in their more solid approach to studying the Bible. God Bless Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al. They had bigger fish to fry when they battled the established church. Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Vlach have done an excellent job in merging the deep doctrines of grace and truth with a consistent literal interpretive approach to all of scripture.

God Bless,
Chris J.

By: Don Lowe

Don Lowe — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:04:02 +0000

For all of those who are saying “neither dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology,” I also echo the sentiment. The work I’ve found that best steers a middle ground is John Reisinger’s “Abraham’s Four Seeds.”

http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Abrahams_Four_Seeds_menu.html

Reisinger is a New Covenant theologian, although I would not identify myself as a New Covenant theologian because I don’t agree with the NCT view of the law, which is what they are most known (and criticized) for.

By: Larry Klassen

Larry Klassen — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:12:43 +0000

There is too emphasis on dispensational systems without ever answering the fundamental question: What does the BIBLE say is a dispensaton? How did the Apostle Paul use the Greek word translated “dispensaton” in the KJV 1611 or “steward” in later versions? Hint: It has nothing to do with periods of time.

By: Steve Scott

Steve Scott — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:18:45 +0000

Quoting Vlach: “These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a nondispensationalist (p. 18).”

Michael C: “Although there are points in both Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies with which I agree, I have come to the firm conviction that neither is totally biblical”

I’ve reached the same conclusion. I find each system lacking in its relating Israel to the church. I don’t see the church replacing Israel, nor do I see them as different peoples so that there is yet to be another Israel. I see one tree in Romans 11, Israel. The tree was Israel before Christ. Unbelieving branches were broken off, but not all of them. Wild branches (Gentile converts, like you and me!) were grafted in. Into the tree Israel. I think we are part of Israel. Future Jewish converts will be grafted back into the same tree Israel. All God’s people are Israel. That is why Gentile believers are true Jews. I see the church as simply an assembly of God’s people – a functional subset of God’s people Israel. So I think God’s promises can still be fulfilled to Israel – us.

Eschatology is a logical conclusion of one’s own beliefs. I think Dispensationalism has given us some wacky eschatology, while Covenant Theology gives us almost none at all. The next 100 years should be interesting as these theologies reform and develop, or maybe disappear.

By: Ray B.

Ray B. — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:34:07 +0000

Truth unites ,
I agree. We can spend so much time on eschatology until we forget about reaching the lost and gloriying God through daily obedience to His will. Also , so much of what is being written and is taught is sensational and gets people so focused on end times until we forget the souls that are not ready for death or the return of the Lord.

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:50:15 +0000

Thanks for the review!

As someone who totally likes the writing of both covenant theologians and dispensational theologians on topics outside of eschatology, would it be alright to simply say:

“Jesus will return. I’m to live my life to glorify and honor Him. And I will obey the 2 Greatest Commandments and the Great Commission.”

I.e., I’m relegating the Doctrine of Final Things to second-order doctrinal status. Okay or not okay?

By: Michael C

Michael C — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:22:45 +0000

Massimo,
True, I have not read any of the works of the Progressive Dispensationalists, and you may be right, that there is more willingness to question and ‘reform’ on the Dispensational side. When and where this is true, I applaud, and I will read the books you’ve suggested.

By: Vince

Vince — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:00:06 +0000

My concern with Covenant Theology is that, when it is all said and done, it makes God a liar. The teaching that God replaced Israel with the church does exactly that. Why should anyone trust God today if He has proven Himself not to be trustworthy in the past? That is what Covenant Theology gives us. This is the result of a non-literal understanding of Scripture – it says “Israel” but it means “church.” Thus Replacement Theology is an assult on God’s Word.

The same is true regarding Calvinism – a non-literal understanding of Scripture – it says “all” but it doesn’t mean that, just like it says “world” but it means elect.

What does Covenant Theology and Calvinism have in common? They are two system based on the principle that God doesn’t mean what He says.

By: Massimo

Massimo — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:53:28 +0000

Michael C.

I agree with much of what you said. We need not be system driven in our approach to Scripture, but rather we need to let Scripture shape our theology. With that said, I think that what you will find within dispensationalism and progression of doctrine as Scripture has become clearer. Dispensationalism of 50 years ago is different than it is today. You’ll find growth in the way various texts of Scripture are understood and integrated into a larger understanding of Scripture. I think above all, dispensationalists have shown a willingness to modify their position. Consider the presence of the three forms of dispensationalism Matt refers to above. There is Classical, Revised, and Progressive dispensationalism. In my opinion this shows a willingness to jetison that which is unbiblical, or at minimum, it shows a teachability and willingness to be Bible-driven and not system driven.

On the other hand, as Vlach points out in his book, there is a set of issues that all dispensationalists would agree with, not because they are precommitted to their system, but because of the teaching of Scripture.

I think you are right in your observation of more creed-driven denominations. It seems that too much authority is given to the creed and questioning it is frowned upon.

Whether or not dispensational or covenantal theology as a system is Biblical or not, I’ll leave to your own study. However, the non-negotiables laid out in Vlach’s book are critical issues that will cause you to land on one side of the camp more than the other. Those are the issues you must come to a firm conviction on. If you agree with Vlach, then you land more in the dispensational camp than the covenantal camp. I would recommend Vlach’s book and also Robert Saucy’s “The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism.”