Archive for Dispensationalism
Maybe It Ain’t Quite Like They Thought It Was
Since I started this blog back in July of 2008, I’ve had lots of correspondence from people who endorse the Preterist view. Preterists basically believe that most, if not all, of Bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The view strongly relies on the support of liberal scholarship, and agrees with that perspective known as “Replacement Theology.” Preterists believe that the church is the “true Israel.” And thus Christians who look for the future restoration of Abraham’s natural descendants are branded as misguided and erroneous – sometimes even subversive.
But when one hears these views espoused, one really has to wonder whether or not proponents of Preterism have seriously studied their Old Testaments. For even after the fulfillment of the curses of Deut. 28 (which Preterists say happened in A.D. 70), a restoration is promised, during which the Lord will re-gather His scattered people and bring them into the land of their fathers (Deut. 30: 1-5). This will be accompanied by the regeneration of the remnant (Deut. 30: 6) and judgments upon the Gentiles (see Deut. 30: 7). According to the Old Testament prophets, the Gentile judgments are inextricably tied to the outcome of the Day of the Lord (see Zephaniah 3: 8; Micah 5: 15; Zech. 14: 3).
Nobody who studies the Old Testament according to its grammatical, lexical, and obvious sense, will fail to see that Israel’s predicted blessings will be realized at the Lord’s second coming.
Even prophecies which speak of the New Covenant look forward to a restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31: 38-40). It is simply impossible to discount the many prophecies which speak of Israel’s ultimate salvation and restoration, without wilfully ignoring the entire meta-narrative of the Old Testament. And the New Testament doesn’t trump that, either. For Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8). And Paul says that the “gifts and calling of God are without change of mind” (Romans 11: 29).
One of the reasons I am a Dispensationalist, is that I believe in the literal, historical fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ. The prophecies regarding Christ’s first advent were all fulfilled in what spiritualizers would probably consider a ridiculously literal fashion. And yet past realization forms the foundation and precedent for future fulfillment. Even Preterists utilize this working principle when they (wrongly) cite Old Testament passages in support of their allegorical reading of Matthew 24.
But the prophets speak in literal terms. Consider, for example, the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 53: 4, in which the prophet said: “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Well, says the allegorizer, this must be restricted to something spiritual. No, says the New Testament! It involves physical healing of the sick (see Matt. 8: 16-17). We are not suggesting that the prophecy doesn’t also include spiritual healing (that is obvious from a literal reading of Isaiah). However, the New Testament record declares that the “fulfillment” of Isaiah 53: 4 was literal and historical in nature.
Now, since the Old Testament makes no distinction between the first and second advents of Christ, how are unfulfilled Messianic texts to be interpreted? They must not be carelessly relegated to Christ’s first advent, as some of the church fathers used to do. For if the Messiah’s work was totally fulfilled with His first advent, what need was there for a second coming? Neither should we relegate second advent prophecies to any A.D. 70 ‘judgment coming.’ For according to Preterists, that was not a personal coming of Christ. Yet the Old Testament Messianic prophecies deal with a literal, historical Jesus. Will Preterists be so bold as to claim that the Old Testament never refers to the second advent? If that is the case, then what Scriptures was Paul using when he taught Christ’s second coming? Ah, thou art beginning to see my point, young man!
The simple fact is, that the Old Testament predicts both advents of Christ, and the New Testament makes the distinction between the two, which allows us to go back to the O.T. and see which prophecies were fulfilled, and which remain future. Lest we be lost in confusion, all Messianic prophecies are to be interpreted according to the same “normative” hermeneutic. And once this principle is followed, it becomes clear that Israel will be saved and restored at Christ’s second advent. Paul says so (see Romans 11: 25-27).
Of course, I don’t have any personal complaint against those who endorse the Preterist view. I actually have friends who are Preterists! Nor do I have any personal problem with those who stand against Dispensational theology as a matter of principle – so long as no fines or anathemas are levied upon those (like myself) who respectfully disagree with them. My main complaint is against that straitened dogmatism which seeks to nullify the promises of God, and wipe Israel off the prophetic board. It is largely because of such views that this site exists. As long as Preterism remains an active theology on the internet, my business here is to point out the glaring possibility that perhaps — oh, just perhaps! — prophecy ain’t really like they thought it was. Maranatha!
The Ecclesiology Of I.M. Haldeman
A few months ago on Ebay, I was fortunate enough to snatch up an old harcover reprint of I.M. Haldeman’s 1904 book entitled “How To Study The Bible, The Second Coming, and Other Expositions.” It was originally published as “Friday Night Papers,” but when he issued a second edition, Haldeman changed the title and added over 200 extra pages of material. The book is a classic of Dispensational theology.
I.M. Haldeman (1845-1933) was the longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in New York City. Although mostly forgotten today, he wrote a lengthy response to Philip Mauro’s “Gospel of The Kingdom,” a bitter diatribe against Dispensationalism. During the course of a busy ministry, Haldeman also produced countless expositions, some of which are included in ”How To Study The Bible.”
What makes this title so interesting, is Haldeman’s ecclesiology, which he must have developed and refined over a long period of years. Since I myself hold to certain aspects of Haldeman’s teaching on the nature, intent, and commencement of the Christian church, a review of certain elements of his system are in order.
Contrary to most Dispensational interpreters, who believe that the church began at Pentecost, Haldeman understood the bride of Christ as having two beginnings. The church age commenced secretly in John 20: 22-23 and publicly in Acts 2.
“On the day that Christ arose from the dead, He breathed on His disciples, and by that act quickened them into vital union with Himself as the Risen One, thus uniting them to one another in Himself, and forming the living, mystic, and spiritual body, the Church; this hour was the birth hour of the Church.
” ‘He breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.’ John 20: 22, 23.
“On the day of Pentecost the Spirit was made manifest in the earth, as the witness of the Risen Christ; and then, and there, the Lord baptized His disciples, in the Spirit, into the Body in which, and through which, He was henceforth to manifest Himself on the earth. On that day the Spirit deposited in this spiritual body all the gifts and powers required for service in the name of an ascended Lord” (pg. 354).
Haldeman’s concept of Pentecost was not that it marked the beginning of the church itself. The church officially began in John 20: 22-23, when the Holy Spirit came as the “Comforter.” The Holy Spirit did not come as the ”Comforter” in Acts 2, but as the ”Enduer.” Thus, on the evening of the resurrection the birth of the church took place in secret. On the Day of Pentecost, the church was endued with the gifts of the Spirit, and given power to fulfill its commission.
Such a doctrine as Haldeman’s would appear to solve some of the problems related to cessation of the charismata. While spiritual enduement applies to all believers today, the special gifts must have been in force only so long as they served as testimony to the Jews (see 1 Cor. 1: 22). When the Jews failed to repent, in response to Peter’s admonition in Acts 3: 19-21, their city was destroyed and the second coming postponed.
With the close of the Jewish Dispensation ended the charismata, or the general period of enduement with miraculous gifts. It did not, however, end the Holy Spirit’s role as Comforter. Because the Church really began prior to the miraculous outpouring of power from on high, the cessation of charismatic gifts in A.D. 70 was no indication that the Body of Christ was “complete” in any sense. The Holy Spirit still comes as Comforter today, sealing the hearts of all whosoever believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, to the saving of their souls.
Although there is no record that Haldeman held the particular conclusions inferred by myself, he did lay the foundation of what I believe is a better understanding of Christian ecclesiology. If Haldeman’s system were followed, certain difficulties relating to the Dispensational transition between the Jewish and Christian economies would be cleared up.
Because Haldeman conceived that the parenthetical church age (which he calls the “Holy Ghost Dispensation“) had two beginnings, he concluded that it must have two endings. It will end secretly with a pre-tribulational rapture, and publicly, with the return of Christ from the Mount of Olives with all His saints (see Zech. 14: 5). These facts can be gleaned through a careful reading of Haldeman’s book. Although it is no longer in print, I’ve heard that it is currently available on the “SwordSearcher” Bible software.
The First Baptist Church in New York City presently has one of Haldeman’s prophecy charts hanging in its hallway. The digital scan above is somewhat difficult to read. However, it is clear that Dr. Haldeman was an ardent student of prophecy, and one of the great pioneers of 20th century Dispensational studies. Although his works have been eclipsed in recent years, they contain hidden riches that will surprise and delight those who seek them out.
Review Of Fred DeRuvo’s “Does Believing And Espousing The Pre-Trib Rapture Create Unprepared Christians Doomed To Hell?”
I recently got through reading another brand new 168-page book by Fred DeRuvo, a Christian author, teacher, and lecturer, who has written a variety of excellent materials in support of Dispensationalism. This guy is really amazing. After closing the book, I am left with the impression that by the time I am finished writing this review, he will have written and published at least three or four more books which definitively slam some particular argument levied against Dispensational theology.
In his latest work, DeRuvo takes up a touchy subject, and handles it with a great deal of Christian forbearance, not to mention rhetorical restraint in matters which easily send most people climbing the walls in anger. DeRuvo’s purpose is to showcase the unfair and uncharitable allegations of a large group of eschatological die-harders who claim that belief in a Pre-Tribulational rapture is inherently evil and will send people to hell.
When I first heard these arguments awhile back, I was surprised that anyone would come to such a conclusion. However, from reading DeRuvo’s book it appears that such opinions are represented by a large majority of those who fall into the “post trib” perspective. DeRuvo mentions many of them by name, and proceeds to document some of their crazy insinuations, even giving the substance of personal emails which were sent to him by people like Tim Warner and C.H. Fisher.
DeRuvo handles their allegations one by one, in his typical methodical manner. He shows what the real trouble with these people is, namely that they are overly dogmatic, and too often unwilling (or unable) to document the assertions they make. Not only that, but they make no attempt to keep their rhetoric within the bounds of Christian courtesy. Rather, they are better known for spitting vitriol at whoever disagrees with them.
The belief that a “Pre-Trib” rapture produces lazy and spiritually unprepared Christians is aptly answered by Fred when he writes:
“To claim that believing and espousing the Pre-Trib rapture creates lazy, spiritually weak, unprepared Christians, is like saying that by teaching that I could die today, I am apt to become lazy, immature, carnal, and worldly! It is the same thing, folks! I know there is a chance that I will leave this earth and be taken into His Presence before this day is over, whether by death, or by Rapture, that will (or should), give me a greater sense of what is and what is not important! It is as simple as that, and there is NO way to deny it.” (pg. 68).
The author then exposes one of the real reasons why these folks are so often against Pre-Tribulational teachings. It it because they deny the Protestant doctrine of “Eternal Security.” Fred quotes a large section from Tim Warner’s website, demonstrating that Warner himself (as so many like him) reject the “Eternal Security of the believer,” and actually teach a Romanistic concept of grace plus works. This seems to form the foundation of their apologetic attitude toward Dispensationalism in general.
DeRuvo also responds to their treatment – or should we say, mistreatment? — of the “early church fathers,” as they dismiss any evidence which validates a pre-tribulational understanding, while dogmatically fixating on statements which they use to bolster post-tribulationism. DeRuvo finds that in many instances, their ears are really closed to reasonable and constructive dialogue. Having headed out with their torches and pack-staves, no one can turn them aside.
What makes such behavior even worse, however, are the unfair insinuations and representations of people like Dave MacPherson, who actually had the nerve to call Thomas Ice’s academic validity in question. Although facts relating to Tyndale Seminary were produced in Ice’s favor (and DeRuvo is a graduate of Tyndale, who can attest to the documentary evidence given in his book), Ice revealed to the author that MacPherson never apologized to him for making crooked implications and misrepresentations regarding his seminary degree.
All in all, DeRuvo presents a very informative, well-balanced defense of Dispensational teaching. And he does so in a contained and reflective manner. He wraps up the book by stating that while it is easy for Christians to get carried away by bickering about non-essentials, it is not always easy to keep one’s focus on glorifying God and maintaining Christian unity regarding the essential doctrines of our faith. After reading this work, I am rather convinced than otherwise that the adversaries and opponents of Dispensationalism are not quite in tune with the mind of Christ.
For those interested in this book, copies presently may be obtained at Fred DeRuvo’s website. When Amazon makes this available, I will include a page-link. Incidentally, I am now in process of reviewing two more of Fred DeRuvo’s recent works, and am aware that another one is on its way! The author of this blog extends a cordial thanks to DeRuvo for making such books available to the Christian public. God is definitely using him, and I pray that special blessings will be shed on him and his ministry.
E.W. Bullinger And The Rapture
One of E.W. Bullinger’s greatest attributes was the ease with which he amended his views in light of his acquisition of fresh truth. He once said: “If anyone would know what I believe upon a subject, he must find out what I believe now.” Never claiming to have all the answers, Bullinger worked over a period of many years to produce a system of theology that is still airtight against the arguments of rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Replacement Theology. During the closing years of his ministry, he grappled with the doctrines of Preterism; and his researches in this field produced the monumental work, “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth” (1913). Although hastily written, the amount of scholarship poured into this work is amazing.
But because Bullinger modified his views on the rapture, many Dispensationalists steer away from his books, thinking that perhaps he capitulated on his stance toward pre-tribulationism. Well, this is not the case at all! While Bullinger revised his views concerning the timing of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, he never wavered from his belief that the church would not enter into the tribulation. In fact, Bullinger did more than any other writer to retain the distinction between the church and Israel. This comes into play more explicitly in his later writings, in which he draws a Dispensational frontier at Acts 28.
Bullinger believed that the Book of Acts describes the transition from the kingdom to the church. In his scheme the church of the “one body” actually begins after Acts 28. The Acts Dispensation chronicles the final offer of the kingdom to the children of Israel upon the one condition of national repentance (see Acts 3: 19-21). When Israel rejected this offer in Acts 28, the nation was temporarily set aside by God as unuseable, and salvation sent to the Gentiles. A new body began to be formed at this juncture, designated by Paul as “one new man” (Eph. 2: 15). According to Bullinger, this is where the church age officially begins.
Although I do not agree with Bullinger’s teaching concerning the commencement of the Christian church, I tend to agree that the Book of Acts is transitional in nature, and that the present parenthetical Dispensation begins after Acts 28: 28. However, in my understanding the ‘pure parenthesis‘ does not officially begin until A.D. 70, when the “people of the prince” sacked Jerusalem (Dan. 9: 26). The period between this desolation of the city and the sanctuary and the advent of the “prince” himself, is filled up by the present Dispensation of Grace. Not that grace didn’t have a place before A.D. 70. But that from A.D. 30-70 the Israel question was being settled — ”Let the children first be filled“ (Mark 7: 27). The Gentile economy did not come into full swing until Israel lost its dispensational advantage over the Gentiles. This was in A.D. 70.
Clarence Larkin seemed to hint as much when he wrote: “This Dispensation [i.e., the church age] is a parenthetical Dispensation thrown in between the ‘Dispersion’ of Israel, and their ‘Restoration’ to their own land. The purpose of this Dispensation is to gather out a ‘People for His Name,’ called the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile” (Dispensational Truth, 1920 edition, pg. 39).
If Larkin saw the parenthesis of the present age as connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then it quite possible that he derived his views from Bullinger. Even modern scholars such as Randall Price, have marked on their prophecy charts the significance of A.D. 70 in God’s purpose to call out the church (see Jerusalem In Prophecy, pg. 234, 239, 257). Larkin, however, does mention that the Dispensation of Grace extends from the Cross (A.D. 30) to the Crown (Second Coming of Christ). Perhaps he saw the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem as transitional in nature. We’ll probably never know.
Anyhow, because Thessalonians and Corinthians were written prior to the Acts 28 council, Bullinger construed that the rapture of saints described therein must be tied to Israel’s kingdom blessings (which were forfeited and postponed in Acts 28), rather than to the church age proper. I would, again, disagree with him on this point. However, far from denying the pre-trib rapture, Bullinger saw Paul’s later revelation of the “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (see Phil. 3: 11, 14) as entirely pre-tribulational in nature.
In the Companion Bible, he writes:
“The term ‘resurrection of the dead’ (anastasis nekron) is of frequent occurrence (Matt. 22: 31; Acts 17: 32; 23: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6: 2, etc.), and includes the resurrection to life, of the just, and the resurrection to judgment, of the unjust (John 5: 29; Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2). Resurrection from the dead (ek nekron) implies the resurrection of some, the former of these two classes, the others being left behind. See Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2. Paul had no doubt of attaining to this, as as may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, written some ten years before. The exanastasis must therefore mean a further selection of some before the anastasis of 1 Thess. 4: 14, and Paul was not yet sure of attaining to this. Perhaps he had the assurance when he wrote 2 Tim. 4: 7. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to any living ones being caught up, or any parousia of the Lord, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, 16.” (note on Philippians 3: 11, Companion Bible, pg. 1778).
In his later books, Bullinger seemed to relegate the rapture of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15 to the close of Daniel’s 70th week. But since he held that Acts 28: 28 commenced a new economy, he saw in Philippians 3: 14 the church’s charter for a pre-tribulational up-calling. As he came to this view gradually, his books must be diligently studied in order to see exactly how his understanding of the rapture evolved.
In later years, theologians such as A.E. Knoch corrected Bullinger on some of his views. Whereas others took the more unique elements of Bullinger’s theology and ran them out into what is now known as “Acts 28 Dispensationalism.” Interestingly, however, all of Bullinger’s works are still in print today; and though he exercises little influence in modern Dispensational circles, his contributions to Biblical and exegetical scholarship are never downplayed. It is hoped that in future months his work will be seriously studied afresh by all who love the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1: 19) and look for that “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13).
