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