Dispensationalists Practice Inconsistently

Thanks. Appreciate the kind words. However, it's clear the information in these posts is confrontational to some. Therefore, let me share a little of my personal orientation and approach to information when it's viewed as challenging. I share this solely for the sake of fostering collaborative discourse amidst disagreement. It will be necessary discussing the problems within Dispensationalism (and I've only posted two of the intended six ops). I do not intend to digress further on this subject in this op. If there is an interest, then I'll repost this in a separate op for separate discussion.


I like to start with John 3; specifically, John 3:19-21. Even though I prefer the more literal translations, on this occasion I think the NIV serves us best, 

John 3:16-21 NIV 
16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

This was written as a gospel, an announcement to the entire world regarding the victory of Christ. Unlike the epistolary, the gospels were not specifically written to the already-regenerate believer in Christ about the already regenerate believer in Christ. This passage tells us everyone once stood in a state of condemnation simply because they did not believe in Christ. The passage states we love darkness, and that's quite confrontational to the Christian sensibility because we are changed by Christ. Any inclination to think, "I don't love darkness," is betrayed by the witness of epistolary which elaborates on the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit and is a historical record of the early Church's congregational struggle with light and darkness. It would be completely unnecessary for us to be told, "Light has no fellowship with darkness," (2 Cor. 6:14, Eph. 5:11) or for the epistolary to expound upon the difference between the works of flesh versus those of the Spirit (Rom. 8, Gal. 5), if they weren't contemporary concerns oon the converts to Christ. 

So, John 3:19 is applicable to all, both those in Christ and those without Christ. 

John 3:21 is a possibility for the non-convert only when s/he becomes a convert. For those in Christ it is the standard by which we are to live, a goal for those persevering in Christ. 

In short, we all love darkness, and the "love" can be seen in our errors. We are not yet perfected, so we are not perfect people and we therefore do not behave perfectly. The alternative, according to John, Is not to hide for fear our deeds will be seen for what they are but to walking the light, look at our deeds, look at our darkness, and change it with God through the working of His Son, His word, His Spirit. 

Those who walk in the light can see. 

Thise who walk in the light can see what has been done - what has been done to change our darkness, our love of darkness, our deeds from which we would otherwise normally hide, - hwat has been done to change those matters has been done in God. 

So we find the Christian life is one of courage. It is necessarily one of courage. We no longer hide, even though that is the inclination of the flesh.  This goes all the way back to Eden. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God the first thing they did was hid. They covered themselves and hid. The problem with that way of living is that whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed (Mk. 4:22) and it will be one way or another (Lk. 6:17). The question for all of us in Christ is will we live this way in the light will the uncovering being soteriological - working out our salvation - or eschatological (waiting until the end before we face it). 

Thise of us who were formerly Dispensationalist often had a crisis of faith. We came face to face with the reality what we believed is not true. We had not been believing the truth even though we thought otherwise. Those of us who lack knowledge of Christian history, knowledge of mainstream, orthodox Christian doctrine, knowledge of the diversity within the pale of orthodoxy were at a loss: where do we go to find the truth?!?!? Blessedly, there are answers to that question. We can, in fact, leave Dispensationalism and remain saints. Millions of Christians did so before the introduction of Dispensationalism and millions more have done so since. 

So there's no reason we cannot and should not have these conversations. 

The truth is there is a debate going on within Dispensationalism about some of these problems. It started in academia and is now making its way into more common discourse. People like Blaising and Bock recognized some fo the problems within Dispensationalism and made/are making a conscious effort to reconcile Dispensationalism with the more historical standards of Reformed Protestantism. They call their position "Progressive Dispensationalism," and they were not met kindly in the beginning. Those who have read more contemporary and old-school Dispensationalists like Vlach have read how Vlach gives some consideration to 1) the ideas of Blaising/Bock and 2) the fact Dispensationalism needs to address some of its problems and is imperfectly doing so. 

So, when otherwise good, conscientious, and earnest Christians of Dispensationalist variety deploy fallacy... it is completely understandable in light of John 3:19-21! However, it cannot stay that way. Fallacy is darkness. Walking in the truth further empowers our walking in light of Christ, and it will enable us to 1) face the fallacies, 2) correct the fallacious reasoning, and 3) walk in ever-increasing truth and light. 

In these ops on the problems inherent in Dispensationalism I have suggested two options for the Dispensationalist: 1) work for reforms beginning with yourself, or 2) leave Dispensational Premillennialism for more scripturally consistent alternatives. I, personally, believe option 2 is the better choice, but I have room for reform. Christianity has a long history of reform. Correction is not rejection. Or more accurately, correcting bad doctrine is not a rejection of the person. There is, therefore, absolutely no justification for ignoring these ops, not engaging the discussion of these very real and significant problems with manners and respect, or employing methods of the flesh. The exact same Spirit at work in me is at work in all of us who profess Christ as Lord and Savior. 

It's taken me twenty years' worth of reading to get to these ops. These ops are not a matter of impulse. I read every single noted Dispensationalist I could get my hands on, and I have read as much as I can find from the original sources. I have, to be fully forthcoming, also read plenty of their critics, beginning with the early contemporaries like Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield and Arthur Pink, as well as more contemporary critics from very diverse perspectives like George Eldon Ladd, Anthony Hoekema, Kim Riddlebarger and even those on the complete opposite end of the spectrum of Dispensationalism like Gary Demar.  I've done my homework. It's laughable that someone might think I need to read another book or do not correctly understand Dispensationalism. 

These ops are not intended as fleshly provocation and there is no rancor in them (re-read them and verify that). What provocation they prompt is solely a function of the objective facts confronting our lack of critical examination. All I am asking the folks here to do is to consider the actual content and not fall prey to the impulse of more worldly responses because there is nothing in these ops from which to hide. We, myself included, may discover there is something within us from which we feel that impulse but the remedy to that problem is to show up for the conversation with courage, manners, and respect. We covenanted with each other for that specific purpose when we joined the forum. This will prove important with the remaining ops because I started with the easiest of the six.