Bible, Theology & Philosophy

By Dr. Dave Burggraff
Read Part 1. First appeared at SI on July 21, 2005. Original article and discussion thread.

The Distinctions between the Reformed and Dispensational Positions

Today there is seen a growing uneasiness over dispensationalists who seem to be moving toward a Reformed position on sanctification. To be sure, it should be noted that there is much agreement between the dispensational and the Reformed positions. Agreement would include the following: that the Holy Spirit plays an indispensable role in sanctification, that sanctification involves both sovereign grace and human responsibility, that sanctification must be progressive, and that the baptism of the Holy Spirit means the placing of people into the body of Christ—a divine blessing that is to be distinguished from the filling of the Holy Spirit, that the regenerated person has eternal security, that the believer cannot attain sinless perfection in this present life, and that such perfection will be reached only in the life to come. Both agree that sanctification is a process.

Nevertheless several significant differences remain. Basic areas of disagreement include the relationship between justification and sanctification, the relationship between divine sovereignty and human participation in the process of sanctification, and the question of whether the believer has one or two natures. In the responses by Hoekema and Walvoord to each others views, however, the most prominent area of disagreement seems to be on the issue of the believer’s nature(s). It is over this area where, in some circles, there is currently movement from/between the Augustinian-dispensational and Reformed positions.

It is not uncommon to hear dispensationalists express themselves in terms formerly considered strictly Reformed. Expressions such as God “cures our sinful nature,” or God “eradicates our sinfulness,” or “in sanctification the old nature is progressively being eradicated” are being used favorably by some dispensationalists—these were formerly expressions of the Reformed theologian, B. B. Warfield. It is also common to hear those of the Reformed perspective holding to variations from the traditional historic Reformed perspective, especially when it comes to the interpretation of Romans 7.

As N. T. Wright observes, “kingdom of God has been a flag of convenience under which all sorts of ships have sailed.”¹ These ships are social, political, nationalistic, and theological. Their corresponding agendas often have little to do with the arrival of the kingdom of God announced by Jesus. The kingdom as found and presented in the New Testament will not be pressed into a one-dimensional box. There are passages which indicate a present kingdom aspect (Luke 17:21) and others which indicate a future aspect (Matthew 25:34; Luke 21:17, 31). Multiple texts demonstrate that the gospel of the kingdom was the message of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 4:43; 9:1, 2). Jesus “instructed the seventy to proclaim, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you’ ” (Luke 10:1, 9). In Acts we find Philip who “preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ….” (Acts 8:12). The Apostle Paul in Ephesus “entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8). Near the end of his ministry, Paul “expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God….” (Acts 28:23).

The opening of the gospel of Mark proclaims the “beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Jesus arrives on the scene, “preaching the gospel [of the kingdom, KJV] of God” (1:14). He announces that “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in the gospel” (v. 15). The phrase “is near” can be understood as referring to something still to happen. However, as France comments, “If Jesus is understood to have proclaimed as ‘near’ something which had still not arrived even at the time when Mark wrote his gospel (let alone 2,000 years later), this is hardly less of an embarrassment than if he had claimed that ‘it’ was already present.”²

By Dr. Dave Burggraff
First appeared at SI on July 20, 2005. Original article and discussion thread.

Introduction

As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance. But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all conversation; Because it is written, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” (1 Pet. 1:14-16)

“I have found in many books many different ways of going to God and many different practices in living the spiritual life. I began to see that this was only confusing me…” (Brother Lawrence, seventeenth-century writer)

Visit your local Barnes & Noble bookstore, scan the shelves of a Christian bookstore in your city, or simply look at the covers of the past year’s Newsweek and Time magazines and you will see a resurgence of interest in “spirituality” within our Western culture and a renewal of interest in “Christian spirituality” amongst Christian believers. This has led Don Carson to point out that, “the current interest in spirituality is both salutary and frightening”—salutary because in its best forms this interest in spirituality is to be preferred over the philosophical materialism that governs the lives of so many people, frightening because “spirituality” has become such an ill-defined, amorphous entity that it covers all kinds of phenomena an earlier generation of Christians would have dismissed as error. Similarly Robert Rakestraw points out, there is a “crying need for a robust, Biblical theology of the Christian life that will refute and replace the plethora of false spiritualities plaguing Church and society.”

Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Thesis 24

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

Response: It is not advisable to refer to dispensational interpretation as “literalism”—so-called or otherwise, since this leads to misunderstandings and misrepresentations (see below). It is far better to treat the Bible the same way one would treat any other book. It seems preposterous to us to scout around for an alternative hermeneutics just because the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, it is precisely because the Bible is the Word of God to man that one would expect it not to require some esoteric interpretation unless very good reasons could be given for doing so.

Although some evangelicals would disagree, we think there is great wisdom contained in these words of Peters:

If God has really intended to make known His will to man, it follows that to secure knowledge on our part, He must convey His truth to us in accordance with the well-known rules of language. He must adapt Himself to our mode of communicating thought and ideas. If His words were given to be understood, it follows that He must have employed language to convey the sense intended, agreeably to the laws grammatically expressed, controlling all language; and that, instead of seeking a sense which the words in themselves do not contain, we are primarily to obtain the sense that the words obviously embrace, making due allowance for the existence of figures of speech when indicated by the context, scope or construction of the passage. (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1.47)

That many Jews in the time of Jesus expected Him to fulfill the Word by setting up His literal (not spiritual) messianic kingdom at His first advent was due in part to their not realizing that He must first suffer and become “sin for us” (Isa. 53) before He would come as king (e.g. Matt. 26:64, 27:11 with Dan. 7:13-14) They did not see that there would be a time-gap between the first and second advents (see Mic. 5:2, Isa. 61:1-2, Lk. 1:31-33).

Unless they are heretics, all Christians believe in a time gap between the advents. And they do this, not by employing some allegorizing hermeneutic (which would be suspicious as an apologetic), but rather, by believing what the Bible says. Christ will come again (Lk. 18:8, Jn. 14:1-3, Acts 1:11, Rev. 22:20).

Finally, how strange it was that those who were closest to Him, who heard more of His teaching than anyone else, should ask Him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Apparently not only did they expect a literal earthly kingdom in line with OT predictions, but they also appeared not to think the Church was the “New Israel”! And Jesus said nothing to alter their expectation!