Does Dispensationalism Matter?

Lyndon Unger posted a lengthy comment on my post “Darby’s Dubious Method of Bible Interpretation.” I decided to post my response here as well:

I’m not sure you understand that this post is part and parcel of a larger refutation of Hyper-Dispensationalism. So when you say “I havent read anyone who says x,” it’s often clear that you have not read the Hyper-Dispys I’m primarily responding to, let alone the popularizers of Darby’s method today (i.e. Hagee, etc.) who hold several of the views I address, and perhaps of times past; I’m not writing this article specifically about your views (which is, as far as I know, only your own personalized version of dispensationalism), so don’t take it too personally.

Nevertheless, I’d like to respond to a few charges/questions in your comment:

9. How is this article doing apologetics?

Are dispensationalists enemies of the faith against which you need to prepare a defense?

Are we wrecking your churches with all our faithful expository preaching?

Of course, the answer is “no.” But if you were consistent, Unger, why don’t you ask these questions whenever a person posts a blog entry on infant vs. paedo baptism? Apologetics sometimes involves “in house” debate, to encourage one another to strive towards pure doctrine. Granted, I would rather be dealing with more anti-Christian stuff out there. But, surely you don’t see a problem with debates regarding presuppositional vs. evidential apologetics, infant baptism vs. believers only baptism, etc.? Then why is dispensationalism vs. covenant theology too touchy of a subject for you?

Why is it that people like yourself, RazorsKiss and others from the AOMin circle seem to not follow Dr. White’s wisdom and leave some of these “in house debate” issues outside of your public apologetics writing and work?

- Again, my primary concern is with Hyper-Dispensationalism. But to refute those absurdities, I have to first explain Dispensationalism and its history so people know the origins of Hyper-Dispensationalism. That’s the way good apologetic work is done.

I know White disagrees strongly with Phil Johnson, let alone me, but I respect that he understands that the “Covenant theology vs. Dispensationalism” hill isn’t one worth dying on in his public apologetics ministry and creates unnecessary division and needless enemies. The dispensationalists and the covenant theologians are brothers in reformed soteriology, doctrine of scripture, pneumatology, hamartiology, etc. We have so much in common that we’re basically only divided on questions of eschatology, principles of OT/NT interpretation (specifically regarding prophecy and the role of national Israel) and questions possibly regarding the baptism of children (and certainly not across the board).

- I’m not dying on any hill, and the topic of dispensationalism has been minimal on this blog when compared with the other dozens of topics covered over the past year.
As far as our agreeing and disagreeing, sure, we agree on alot of basic stuff. But, again, peripheral issues are still issues, and I suppose it also depends on how odd you think re-instituting the sacrifices are (a more central issue of the sufficiency and efficacy of the atonement), and of course, those issues you mentioned regarding hermeneutics, like saying Amos 9:11-15 quoted in Acts 15 isn’t talking about the church, and interpreting a numerical figure (1000) as literal in the most symbolic book in Scripture where the figure has never been used literally elsewhere in Scripture, etc.. More importantly, it also depends on how fruitful the consistent application of dispensationalism really is. Stam and Finck have outlined that result, as others have, and it isn’t pretty. Indeed, the party guilty for unnecessary division and creating needless enemies is the Dispensationalist who must substantiate his/her position, not the other way around.

I’m confused as to why, in your public apologetics ministry, you’re going after Dispensationalism…of ALL things?

- Again, you seem to be completely unaware that this post is part of a critique of Hyper-dispensationalism. Unaware still, that I’ve recommended on my blog listening to the dispensationalist Chuck Swindoll’s sermons. Finally, unaware that a great portion of this series has been posted on Dr. White’s blog. You’re just not making any sense.

I rejoice when someone comes to know the Lord through the proclamation of his word. I rejoice even when someone embraces covenant theology, as long as they’re doing so from careful study of scripture! I’m not worried if they systematize their theology in a different way than I do…they’re believers and I praise the Lord for that!

- I do as well. But, again, my simple plea in this series on hyper-dispensationalism is “look at the fruit.” Not merely questionable teaching about reinstituting the sacrifices, but the heretical conclusions of Stam and his followers who seem to be applying Darby’s principles a bit more consistently.