We're going to tackle a single topic today as I mentioned in our Tuesday morning update email that you got several hours ago. We're going to tackle a single topic but look at a couple of different issues under the heading of that topic. We've been getting a lot of questions recently about matters around eschatology and specifically questions about dispensationalism, questions about preterism, and I'm going to try and combine a number of those questions today. In preparing for this, I realized there may just be far too much material here for us to try to cover in one episode. And so if we need to carry this over multiple weeks or come back to it at a later point in time, I'm certainly glad for us to do that. But my intention today is not to try to be exhaustive, but hopefully comprehensive in terms of the specific questions that we'll be looking at. I'm sure that the discussion will raise additional questions in your mind. And as always, I encourage you reach out, communicate those to me, and we will be glad to continue that conversation either privately or in a future episode. Let's go ahead and begin to start our time together with prayer. And then we will work through the matters that are in front of us today. Gracious God and Father, thank you so much for the blessing of another day and for the opportunity, oh Lord, to connect in this way. We're grateful that the technology is cooperating and allowing us to engage in this time. We know, Father, that this is your blessing. that we are able to share together in times of study and prayer and meditation upon your word. And we pray, oh Lord, that these times would be precious to us. Bless us and help us today, Father. Guide our thinking, help us to be humble and teachable, but above all, faithful to your word, that we would sit under the authority of your instruction. Oh God, be submissive to your will as it is made known. Help us to understand more than we have before and guide us, O Lord, in our thinking together, we pray in Jesus, our Savior's name. Amen. All right, so today, again, we're going to focus on these two aspects of eschatology, kind of an overview of dispensationalism, and then also an introduction to preterism. And I wanna say at the outset, a thorough study of either of these issues would require multiple weeks. We would need to devote a semester or more of time to studying these kinds of questions. What I wanna give today is just a primer a very rudimentary introduction and overview that I hope will be helpful to you as you're thinking through these topics. I think a lot of these questions lately have arisen as a result of our studies in Mark chapter 13. We've been working through the Olivet Discourse, which has parallels in Matthew 24 and Luke chapter 21. There is a lot of language that is echoed in those texts from the Old Testament prophets. And of course, we've been working through the minor prophets since the spring of this year. And so I think because of that exposure to some of this prophetic language and imagery, some of the conversation in those particular teaching sessions, people have been asking more questions about dispensationalism, about preterism, about how these systems relate to a reformed understanding of Scripture and of the Christian faith. Let's start out by defining some terms. Eschatology is the study of last things, or the study of the end. Now, normally when people think about eschatology, they're thinking about the rapture, the tribulation, the thousand-year reign of Christ and what form that may take, even where that may be located. They're thinking about the resurrection of the dead. They're thinking about the second coming of Jesus. All of these things are wrapped up in most people's minds with the issue of eschatology or that heading of systematic theology. But really, eschatology is even larger than that, because eschatology relates to the purpose that God is seeking to accomplish by means of his plan of salvation. Eschatology is related very directly to God's eternal decree. And so in many ways, as some Reformed theologians, most notably Gerhardus Vos, have observed, we have to begin with the end. We have to begin our study of theology with eschatology in certain respects because we have to know where we're trying to go or where it is that God is seeking to bring his people to really understand so much of redemptive history. If you don't have a sense of that eschatological purpose, well then there are a lot of things in the Bible that you're not going to properly understand or relate to the rest of Scripture and redemptive history. Now, Christians of all kinds disagree on eschatology. Eschatology may be one of the most controverted areas of Christian theology. There's vastly more agreement on most other theological topics than there is on questions of eschatology. And you will find that even within particular Christian communions, there is still a lot of debate and disagreement. Now there are some Christian traditions that might be more unified, more monolithic in their thinking on eschatological issues, but certainly in the Protestant, Evangelical, and Reformed tradition, you're going to see a lot of disagreement, a lot of different opinions, and sometimes not a great deal of charity with regard to working through those differences. We can't simply say all Christians have this eschatological viewpoint, or all Protestants have this eschatological viewpoint, or all Reformed Christians fall into this camp. I know that in our presbytery, just as an example, we have ministers who are amillennial, we have ministers who are postmillennial, and we have ministers who are historic premillennialists. So all three of those major eschatological views are represented among ordained ministers in our own presbytery, and within congregations of our presbytery, including our own church, you would have not only those three views represented, but you would also have dispensationalists, which would be a fourth eschatological view. We wouldn't have any dispensationalists as officers in the OPC, but we would certainly have members of our congregations that would be classified as dispensationalists, whether they are familiar with that term or not. There is basic agreement among Orthodox Christians on certain eschatological questions, and this is important to say at the very outset. There are certain boundary markers beyond which Orthodox Christians will not transgress, because to transgress those boundaries would put you outside of Orthodox Christianity. And so even with all of this disagreement among amillennialists, postmillennialists, premillennialists, dispensationalists, even with all of that disagreement, there is still a great deal of agreement on certain key issues. And I want to flesh that out here in just a second. We've talked before in prior episodes about the difference between premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism. If you're not familiar with that language, you can go back and listen to those earlier episodes, or I can just tell you briefly, premillennialists believe that Jesus will return prior to the thousand-year reign. And both amillennialists and postmillennialists agree that Jesus will return after the millennium, after the thousand year reign. Amillennialists and postmillennialists will differ in part on how successful the gospel will be in terms of cultural influence. They would all say that the gospel will succeed in gathering all of God's elect all those that the father has given to the son to save will come and be saved. Post-millennialists will generally be a little more optimistic about the broader cultural impact of the gospel as well as about the number of elect persons who are going to be saved. Amillennialists typically speaking in broad generalities here, but typically are going to be less optimistic about cultural impact of the gospel and maybe about the total number of elect persons that will be saved at the end. But don't let that terminology confuse you. Premillennialists believe Jesus will return prior to the thousand-year reign. Amillennialists and postmillennialists believe he will return after the thousand-year reign. All dispensationalists, which is this fourth category we're talking about, all dispensationalists are premillennial. but not all premillennialists are dispensationalists. There are some important differences and we'll talk about that today. Eschatology is ultimately shaped by what we believe God intends to do. In other words, your view of so many of these eschatological questions is going to be determined by what you believe God originally decreed. Historic premillennialists, postmillennialists, and amillennialists are going to disagree to some extent on some of those things, but they are going to be mostly agreed, especially Reformed Christians in those three camps. They're going to be mostly agreed in terms of what that decree said and what that decree aims to accomplish. Dispensationalists are going to have a very different answer. than those other three groups. And that's going to be a very fundamental difference. That's one of the reasons we would say dispensationalism is kind of its own thing. It's its own school of thought. It's not non-Christian. It's not outside the pale of orthodoxy, at least in its contemporary formulation. but it is very different than the other three schools of thought held by all other Orthodox believers. Now, we said that there's a lot of disagreement, but that there is agreement on certain core issues. And this would be any Orthodox Christian is going to affirm that Jesus is going to literally return and that that has not yet happened. He's going to affirm that Jesus will raise the dead bodily, that it will not just be a spiritual resurrection of some sort, but there will be a bodily resurrection of the dead and that that has not yet happened. That there will be a final day of judgment, single day of judgment in which all of the nations and all of the peoples in all the history of the world are going to stand before Christ. All Orthodox Christians believe that. And that there will be final disposition in heaven and hell and that those will be eternal, everlasting, and conscious states of existence. Those are the kind of basic eschatological convictions that are summarized in the great creeds, the earliest creeds of the Christian faith, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed. These are statements of belief that are affirmed by traditional Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, all Protestants who are Orthodox in their thinking. Those creeds are gonna be denied by cults, by certain heretical sects, and by those who have embraced liberal theology that have now jettisoned the authority of God's Word, the inspiration of Scripture as the God-breathed Word, and many of the fundamental tenets of faith held by Orthodox Christians historically. Now, what I'm going to say next may be controversial. It's not maybe. It is controversial. Maybe not to those of you who are watching today or listening to this later, but among many believers, there is tribalism and sectarianism to the extent that some believers would say, all Orthodox Christians fall into one or the other of these eschatological camps, and that those in other schools of thought, those who take other views, are probably not believers at all. Now, unfortunately, there are Reformed Christians that think that way, There have been books written by reformed ministers advocating that kind of a view, saying that basically you cannot be a dispensationalist and be born again, or you cannot be a post-millennialist and be orthodox in your theology, which I think would stun the Westminster divines, many of whom, if not all of whom were post-millennial, and many of the Puritans who were certainly post-millennial. There is, I believe, an arrogance and a divisiveness in that kind of thinking. that is very, very dangerous. And as I've been thinking about this over the last week, preparing for this episode, I knew that I was going to need to make some comments about this at the beginning. And I thought, you know, really, this needs to be its own topic. It needs to be its own episode. And if we're going to kind of be controversial and get in a little bit of trouble for saying some of these things, we might as well go all the way and just outline for our own benefit what What is the boundary? At what point is orthodoxy transgressed? You see, I take for granted that my dispensational friends who profess faith in Jesus Christ and his righteousness alone, who accept the Bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God, who affirm all of the fundamental eschatological points that I mentioned just a moment ago, I take for granted that those are all my brothers and sisters in Christ. and that they are Orthodox believers. Now, I believe that they're in error on the questions of eschatology relating to dispensationalism, because I'm not a dispensationalist. I don't believe that dispensationalism is an accurate representation of what the Word of God teaches, and yet I have many friends and brethren whom I accept as brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus, and with whom I expect to spend eternity in glory in the presence of Christ, who are in that camp. Now, it works in the opposite direction as well. I have had dispensational friends who have believed that all millennialism or post-millennialism is heresy. and that you cannot believe those things and be saved. In fact, I'll never forget, I was meeting with a man for discipleship once a week and he came in one evening for our meeting and he said, I heard the craziest thing on the radio this week. You'll never believe this pastor was on the radio and he was saying that the kingdom has already been inaugurated and that Jesus is already reigning over his kingdom. I said, yep, that's what I believe. And he was stunned. Because in his mind, dispensationalism was the only game in town. And anyone who was not a dispensationalism was probably not a Christian at all. And here he's being discipled by a pastor who believes something that he thinks is heresy. We had a very profitable conversation that evening. We kind of set aside what we were going to talk about, and we just talked about that for a while, and he seemed to appreciate that and benefit from that. It was a good opportunity to say, you know, the family of God might be a little bigger than what you have imagined before. Now, I realize that tribalism seems to be the spirit of the age politically, socially, spiritually, ecclesiastically, that's unfortunate. I believe that there is a healthy form of partisanship, a healthy form of knowing who your people are and what you believe and what distinguishes you from other tribes. There's a healthy way to do that. That's why we need to have an episode on this. But there's also an unhealthy, unbiblical, an ungodly expression of that, that the New Testament refers to as divisiveness. And that's a very serious thing, because while I believe a person can be a Christian and a dispensationalist, I don't believe that a person can be a faithful Christian and be divisive. A divisive spirit will cause a person to be lost. The Bible is very explicit about that. That's why a divisive person is to be warned, and if you will not heed that warning, he is to be disciplined, and perhaps even to the extent of being excommunicated, if he will not repent. So this is an important issue. When I talk today about dispensationalism, I'm obviously talking as someone who is not a dispensationalist, even though I was educated at largely dispensational schools. And yet, as I describe dispensationalism, I want to do so in a very fair and careful and respectful way. And I want to offer those observations, and even to some extent a critique of dispensationalism, as one who believes that most dispensationalists are my brothers and sisters in Jesus. Praise God for that, and I hope that they are able to show the same charity toward me. Now, saying that there are many of these things we can disagree about and yet still regard each other as brothers and sisters in Christ does not mean that all eschatological disagreements fall into that kind of charitable category. For example, There is something called full preterism that we will talk more about, Lord willing, at the end of this episode or in the next. Full preterism denies the second coming of Christ. It says that the second coming of Christ that is predicted in the New Testament was the coming of Jesus in judgment against the city of Jerusalem and the temple, which happened in A.D. 70. In other words, they would say, yes, we believe in the second coming, and we believe that it already happened. Well, that denies a fundamental plank in the Apostles and Nicene Creed. Full Preterists will say, yes, the Creed erred at that point, but I would say it is not the Creed that is in error. It is the full Preterists. Full Preterists will also deny the general bodily resurrection of the dead. They will say, yes, the New Testament describes a resurrection of the dead, but it is describing something that has already taken place or some might spiritualize it and say it's not talking about a bodily resurrection. On that point, they are disagreeing with the historic consensus of the Christian faith, and I believe setting themselves outside the pale of orthodoxy. Annihilationism. Annihilationism denies eternal conscious torment. It believes that the condemned will perhaps go to a place of torment for a time, but then will eventually cease to exist. That denies the historic Christian consensus, and I believe denies something that is fundamental to the Christian faith. Universalism affirms that every creature, including in most iterations, maybe not all, even the devil himself, It affirms that every creature will eventually be saved, that hell will essentially cease to be, and that all creatures will one day end up in glory. That is a denial of historic Christian consensus, and I believe a radical departure from orthodoxy. I said that most dispensationalists I take for granted are my brothers and sisters in Jesus. I realize that there may be some dispensationalists that are hypocrites, just as there are some amillennialists that are hypocrites, just as there are some postmillennialists that are hypocrites, and just as there are some historic premillennialists that are hypocrites. And so I'm not trying to smear dispensationalism by saying that some dispensationalists may not prove to be my brothers and sisters in the Lord, But I will say this, that some early forms of dispensationalism, and in fact dispensationalism in its original form, affirmed that there were two ways of salvation. That the Jews in the Old Testament were saved by keeping the Mosaic Law, and that Christians in the New Testament are saved by grace through faith. That is That is a denial of the gospel of the Lord Jesus. That is a false gospel that Paul anathematizes in the book of Galatians. And therefore I would say that those who affirm such things are outside the boundaries of Orthodox Christian faith. Now, that is not most dispensationalists today. Praise God for that. I think the vast majority of dispensationalists today, some of whom are aware of that historical teaching, would in fact repudiate it and say that is not faithful to scripture. And we would certainly concur on that. So there are errors with regard to eschatology that are outside the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity. I do not want you to hear me saying today that whatever a person wants to believe on eschatology or eschatological issues is automatically to be accepted and approved. Now, let's get into dispensationalism and we'll see if we can get beyond this to preterism today. If not, we'll come back to preterism next week. What is dispensationalism and what are its defining features? Well, again, I do not want to even attempt an exhaustive study of dispensationalism. There's no way to do that in the time that we have, and I don't really want to set aside the next three months of this series in order to simply study a viewpoint that I am persuaded is not correct. It would take many weeks and a great deal of work to put together that kind of study. I also want to be very careful in how I describe and summarize dispensationalism today, because dispensationalism, as these other eschatological viewpoints, has many varieties within it. Now, dispensationalism may be a little bit more unified than some of these other schools of thought might be. But if I describe dispensationalism in a very specific way, inevitably, there are gonna be some people that raise their hand and object and say, no, that's not what I believe. You're misrepresenting dispensationalists. Well, I'm not wanting to misrepresent anyone. I recognize that on any given point, there may be some dispensationalists who do disagree with some of the things that I say in my summary description. For example, The vast majority of dispensationalists affirm a pre-tribulational rapture. But there are some dispensationalists that affirm a mid-tribulation rapture. And you may not even be familiar with those terms. If you're not, don't worry about it. I want to acknowledge the fact that there are some in-house disagreements within the broader school of dispensationalism. And I want to be careful not to offend or misrepresent anyone by what I say. But I will try to give a fair summary of the system and a summary that my dispensational friends would affirm. And those of you who are my friends who affirm dispensationalism, who may be watching or listening to this, please feel free to communicate with me and say either, yes, that was a fair summary or nope, you missed it completely and here's the mistake that you made. Now, Dispensationalism is a theological system. I need to emphasize this, because while there are certainly Calvinistic dispensationalists, and maybe most famously John MacArthur, Calvinistic dispensationalists that will describe themselves as reformed, and I will give the judgment of charity to their own self-description. What I want to say is that dispensationalism is way more than just a view of the end times. It's way more than just a particular thought about rapture, tribulation, second coming, nature of the thousand-year reign, all of those things. Dispensationalism is its own theological category. And for that reason, I personally would distinguish dispensationalism and Reformed theology. I don't think you can affirm both, at least consistently affirm both. I think it's one or the other. It would be like saying I'm an Arminian Calvinist. I don't think that works. I think you're going to have to choose. Now, I realize that there may be some Arminians that are a little more Calvinistic in certain areas of their theology, and there are certainly some Calvinists that, unfortunately, are more Arminian in certain areas of theology. But these are two systems that are separate and that are really not compatible. A Reformed Christian can consistently be a post-millennialist, or an amillennialist, or even, in some ways, a historic premillennialist. But I don't believe that a Reformed believer can consistently be a dispensationalist, and I'm saying this carefully, charitably, because I realized that I pastor a church where we have, in a reformed church, some members who are dispensationalists. And I don't mean to say, oh, you should be, you should feel unwelcome. You should move on and find another church. No, no, no, no. You're right where we want you to be. We trust that you're right where God wants you to be. But you do have to think about the inevitable conflicts and points of tension and friction and the question of consistency to say, on the one hand, I'm affirming reformed theology, at least to the extent that I'm a member of a reformed church, but I'm also affirming a theological system that in many places and in many respects is somewhat at odds with that system of reformed theology and doctrine. Dispensationalism, as a theological system, did not appear until the 1800s. Now, I realize immediately all of my dispensational friends will say, no, no, no. Dispensationalism is very ancient. It was the original view of the early church. Well, that is a point on which obviously we are going to disagree. Premillennialism is a very ancient view. We have clear descriptions of a premillennial conception of the thousand-year reign of Christ as early as the mid-2nd century in the writings of Irenaeus. And so premillennialism is very, very ancient. It's one of the reasons that it is compatible with Orthodox Christianity. Dispensationalism, though, while it is premillennial, affirms a form of premillennialism that is not historically attested until the 1800s and the work of Darby and then his work being promoted by Schofield in the Schofield Reference Bible, for example, and other subsequent prominent dispensational pastors, preachers, and writers that have made dispensationalism the majority report among Western evangelical and conservative Christians. In fact, as I illustrated with the story just a few moments ago, there are many conservative evangelical believers who, if they ever heard an amillennial or postmillennial perspective would immediately think that it was heretical, that it is not Christian, unaware of the fact that historically, postmillennialism and amillennialism have been the dominant view among Christians for most of the last 2,000 years. That doesn't mean, by the way, that those views are correct, They may be wrong, ultimately scripture has to settle that question, but they are undeniably historical, and they are undeniably the majority report through most of Christian history until the last 150-200 years or so in the West. What are the major features of dispensationalism? There are several, let me give you six. First, dispensationalists place a very strong emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Bible. And in fact, in at least some resources by dispensationalists on the system of dispensationalism, they will say this is the defining feature. It's not a particular view of the rapture. It's not a particular view of the kingdom. It is an emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Now, as I've talked about in earlier episodes and in many other classes and sermons that I have delivered, I would disagree, to some extent, with how dispensationalists use the idea of literal interpretation. I think we have to be careful here, because literal interpretation means taking language in the sense that the author originally intended. If I say it's raining cats and dogs, I literally mean it's raining hard. I don't literally mean puppies and kittens are falling out of the sky. and yet a dispensational approach to interpretation often, I think, veers into that kind of literalistic or hyper-literalism that actually misses the point of the text. Now, that's not to say it always is guilty of that error, and I'm thankful, actually, for the emphasis on literal interpretation that many dispensationalists make because dispensationalism arose and gained prominence during a time when many Protestants were abandoning any meaningful commitment to the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. It arose during a time when liberal theology was moving from Germany into the rest of Western Europe and into North America as well. Dispensationalism became very prominent during the early part of the 20th century and the battle over the Bible. This was the time when the fundamentalists were standing up against liberalism and saying, no, the Bible is not a book about God. It's not a book written by men. It is the very Word of God written, inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative for faith and practice. It was dispensationalists that in many ways fought that battle. Now, not only dispensationalists, obviously. But dispensationalists were at the forefront of that battle. Praise God for that. And yet, oftentimes, I think their commitment to a literal interpretation veers into kind of a hyper-literalism. that fails to appreciate the use of figurative language, the use of poetic language and structure, that fails to recognize symbolism, especially in prophetic discourse. At any given point, we can debate and discuss Is this literal? Is this figurative? Listen, I thank God that my dispensational friends look at the miracles of the Old Testament, look at the resurrection of Jesus, look at the predictions of the resurrection of the dead on the last day, And they say, that means what it says. Those things really happened historically, and those prophecies will be literally fulfilled in the future. Amen, and praise God for that. But that doesn't mean that I think that the demon locusts in the book of Revelation are actually Apache helicopters, right? See, I don't think that's reading the Bible literally. And I think that if we're to read the Bible in that way, well, we have to reckon with the fact that the three generals of the enemy army at the Battle of Armageddon are described as demoniac frogs. Now, I'm not expecting that frogs are going to be in the command of any earthly army at any point, either in the past or in the future. But if we want to be hyper-literal, that's what we're going to have to reckon with. So I think all of us recognize there are certain things in the Bible that are figurative. There are certain things that are to be taken in a symbolic way. And there are other things that are literal. Dispensationalism places a premium on literal interpretation of the Bible, but in a way that sometimes steers into a form of hyper-literalism. Secondly, dispensationalism has, as one of its defining features, a idea of progressive dispensations in redemptive history. Now, one thing that may surprise you is to know that the original dispensationalists, the man who founded, from my standpoint, dispensationalism. And many of the early promoters of dispensationalism were all Presbyterian. They were originally covenant theologians. And they advanced dispensationalism as essentially a revision to covenant theology. Now, that's shocking to people today because dispensationalism is like the antithesis of covenant theology today. In fact, dispensationalists will often characterize covenant theology in very pejorative and unfair ways. And sometimes covenant theologians return the favor and speak about dispensationalists in a very negative and unbrotherly way. That's regrettable. The reality is dispensationalism was originally a revision to covenant theology. I think it was an errant revision, but nonetheless a revision. And so when you look at dispensationalism and these progressive dispensations that they believe in over the course of redemptive history, you may say there are many things there that look like the various administrations of the covenant of grace that we as covenant theologians would affirm. But there was actually a radical difference, and it would take time to unpack that difference, but I think I can summarize it briefly in this way. Dispensationalists see the progressive dispensations of redemptive history as essentially individual, distinct, isolated, isolated may be the wrong word, but hopefully you understand what I mean, independent segments of redemptive history, whereas Reformed Christians and covenant theologians are going to see various administrations, but one covenant. One covenant of grace. and they're going to see the various administrations as administering that same covenant of grace. In other words, covenant theologians are going to see continuity uniting all of the various periods of redemptive history, whereas dispensationalists are going to see more discontinuity. there's going to be more independent dispensations. And with covenant theology, there's gonna be one continuous covenant of grace and various ways in which it's administered at different points in time. Third, dispensationalism has, as one of its major features, a very sharp distinction between Israel, considered ethnically, and the church, two people groups. Now, they will recognize that Jesus is the Savior of both, and they will depend on passages like Romans chapter 11 to make this distinction. Here you have the stock of Israel, and you have the church, and specifically Gentile believers as a separate thing. But we would say, as Reformed Christians, no, no, no. Gentiles are grafted into the stock of Israel so that there are not two people of God, there is one people of God. And that is what Paul refers to in Galatians chapter 6 as the Israel of God. Remember that he says in Romans chapter 9, they are not all of Israel who are descended from Israel. They are not all the children of Abraham, who are biologically descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And so we would say there is one church, and it is in the Old Testament, consisting largely of the nation of Israel, but not unbelieving Jews, at least not in its spiritual and truest sense. And it includes believing Gentiles who are being grafted into the true people of God. And in the New Testament, right now at least, it consists largely of Gentile believers in Jesus, along with Jewish believers in Jesus, who we pray will increase in number and be continually united with the believing Israel of God. But see, dispensationalists would say, no, no, Israel, is a nation in the Middle East that was reconstituted in 1948, and it includes Jewish people all over the world, and then there is the church. So there's Israel, ethnically defined, and then there's the church. And these are two different groups, and God has two different plans for them. And so Jesus is the Savior of both, but... Israel's future is one thing, and the church's future is another thing, and that sharp distinction is a critical feature of dispensationalism, and it is a feature of dispensationalism that is strongly rejected and critiqued. by Reformed theology, by Covenant theology, and historically by the consensus of the Church. Fourth, dispensationalism has as one of its major defining features a rapture of the Church independent of the Second Coming. Now, as I said earlier, the vast majority of dispensationalists believe that that rapture will occur prior to the seven years of tribulation. Some dispensationalists would say it's gonna happen at the middle of that tribulation after three and a half years, but all dispensationalists are going to say the church will be raptured, that is caught up by the Lord, taken out of the earth, independent of the second coming of Christ. The rapture and the second coming are two different events, whereas historic premillennialists, all postmillennialists, all amillennialists are going to say the rapture and the second coming happen at the same time. It's the same event described from two different standpoints. From the church's perspective, it is a rapture. From Christ's perspective, it is a second advent. It is a second coming. Fifth, dispensationalism has as defining feature an earthly kingdom for a thousand years. Now, this is a point on which all historic premillennialists would agree. they would say, yes, we believe that Jesus will reign on the earth for a thousand years. But this is a key feature of dispensationalism that distinguishes it from postmillennialism and amillennialism. And then sixth, dispensationalism affirms multiple resurrections of the dead. They believe that all of the dead will be bodily raised, part of their literal interpretation of scripture, for which we thank God, but dispensationalism teaches that all of the dead will be raised at least on two different occasions, and some would have many more resurrections than that, but at least all dispensationalists will say there are two different resurrections. The righteous are raised at the second coming of Christ, which will begin the thousand-year reign of Jesus on earth, And then at the end of the thousand year reign, the wicked will be raised. And so these two resurrections of the just and the unjust are separated by a thousand years. Now, what are the problems with this? I've already indicated some places of disagreements. What are some of the problems here? Let me give you just a few. First, early dispensationalists taught that there were two ways of salvation. Now again, the overwhelming majority of dispensationalists repudiate that idea today. Depending on which dispensationalists you read or interact with, you will find that some of them acknowledge that history, some may not. But some will acknowledge that history and say, yes, there were advocates and proponents of dispensationalism early on that said Israel was saved by obeying the law of Moses in the Old Testament. That, of course, is not true. That is not what the Bible teaches. That has never been the case. The only way to be saved has always been by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. But for any dispensationalist that would affirm that early error to this day, that is a problem that denies the very clear teaching of the Book of Romans, of the Book of Galatians, of the Book of Ephesians, and really the totality of Scripture. It cannot be sustained. Secondly, this idea that God has two people and two programs is very problematic. In dispensationalism, Israel is always understood ethnically, and yet you cannot sustain that by reading the New Testament. Now, I realize that my dispensational friends will say, of course we can, we're reading the same New Testament you are. Yes, indeed. But, A careful study of many passages is going to suggest that God has one people, and he's always only had one people. It's not Israel and the Gentiles. It's not Israel and the church. It's not the Jewish people and everybody else who believes in Jesus. No, it's always been one people. And the Jews who do not believe in Jesus are not the people of God. And the Gentiles, who do believe in Jesus, are the people of God, right along with believing Israelites. Paul says in Romans 2, verse 28, "...for he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God." He describes in Romans chapter 9 the fact that all unbelieving Israelites are not truly Israelites. He describes in Romans chapter 11 all believing Gentiles are grafted into the stock of Israel and thus are accounted by God as Israelites. He says in Galatians chapter 3 that those who believe in Jesus are true children of Abraham. He says in verse 26, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek. Now, in dispensationalism, there is to this very day still Jews and Gentiles. There's Israel, and there's the church. But the Bible says there's neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither slave nor free. There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ. You're one in Christ. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise. Gentile believers are true Jews. And Jewish individuals, ethnically Jewish, who don't believe in Jesus are not part of the Israel of God. And we need to grapple with the fact that the modern state of Israel, where I have friends and with whom I share many political commitments in terms of freedom and representative governments and all of those kinds of things, I'm a supporter of the state of Israel. But the state of Israel is largely secular. The state of Israel is overwhelmingly secular. The state of Israel is not even Orthodox Jewish, much less Christian. And unbelieving Jews are not the Israel that God accepts. The Israel of God is defined by faith in Jesus Christ. A third problem that I see in dispensationalism is that the law and the gospel are never properly related. This is a huge issue, again, it would take multiple weeks to draw this out. But in dispensationalism, the Old Testament is law, the New Testament is grace. It's a misreading of John chapter one, where in the prologue of John's gospel, John says, the law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. They say, well, there you go. The Old Testament is law, the New Testament is grace. That's a misunderstanding of what is being said there. There's a lot of grace in the Old Testament, obviously. I think most dispensationalists would affirm that. And there's law in the New Testament as well, and I think some dispensationalists would affirm that. There's never a cohesive consistent understanding in dispensationalism of how law and gospel are related to one another. In the same way that unfortunately some evangelicals collapse law and gospel and see it as one thing, many dispensationalists divorce law and gospel and see it as radically different things. And so there's not a careful biblical understanding of how to properly relate those two. And then fourth, one of the problems with modern dispensationalism is its belief that a third temple will be constructed in Jerusalem and that animal sacrifices will be resumed in the millennium. Now I realize this is a point of dispensationalism that some dispensationalists will disagree with. But it does appear to be a very significant part of modern dispensationalism, if not even the majority of dispensationalists today. And lest I be misunderstood or be thought to misrepresent, let me read to you from a well-known dispensational scholar, Thomas Ice, an article that he wrote called Literal Sacrifices in the Millennium. This is published by the Pre-Trib Research Center. You can find it online. He said this, quote, the sacrifices of the millennial temple will not be a return to the Mosaic law since that law has forever been fulfilled and discontinued through Christ. Instead, it will be a new law. containing a mixture of Mosaic-type new laws under the jurisdiction of the New Covenant. The millennial system will have Jesus the Messiah physically present instead of the Shekinah glory in conjunction with the Ark of the Covenant, a new law instead of the Mosaic law, a new priestly order from the sons of Zadok instead of the Levites, a new temple measuring one mile square instead of the much smaller Solomonic model." Thomas Ice, who I take as a true believer in Jesus, is saying there will be a new law, there will be a new priesthood, there will be a new temple, and there will be animal sacrifices offered. That's a problem. That's a problem. For more reasons than I can describe today, we simply have to remove Galatians and Hebrews from our New Testaments. to support the idea that there could be a return to the law of any kind, not just the Mosaic law, any new law, and that there could be a new temple, and that there could be a new altar, and that there could be a new priesthood, and that there could be the resumption of animal sacrifices. There are many other problems with dispensationalism, many other points of departure between a consistent reformed understanding of scripture I think that dispensationalists very often in their thinking of the Old Testament treat it simply as a collection of moral examples. They will moralize, be like David, be like Moses, be like Abraham. We talked in an earlier episode about the propriety of imitation in the Christian life, but ultimately that imitation and those moral examples have to be placed in a secondary position secondary to the more important, more significant presentation of Christ that is going on in those passages. Dispensationalism fails to see continuity between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant. This is a dominant feature of dispensational handling of the Old Testament. Galatians chapters 3 and 4 make very clear the Abrahamic covenant is the New Covenant. The New Covenant is simply the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant that God made. There is, in dispensationalism, I think, a form of soft antinomianism as a result of the rejection of portions of the Decalogue, rejecting the fourth commandment, saying that there is no sense in which the Sabbath law continues, often a revision of the second commandment permitting the use of images of Christ. And I think that there is, within dispensationalism, frequently very ignorant criticisms of covenant theology. And when I say ignorant, I don't mean that in a pejorative way, but it's just, it's not remotely fair to describe covenant theology as inherently anti-semitic. And yet that is the critique that is frequently made, and even by men who I respect, such as John MacArthur. Last year, John MacArthur was interviewed by Ben Shapiro in a long-form interview, and he said that basically covenant theology is anti-Semitic. And John MacArthur was very close friends with R.C. Sproul, who was a covenant theologian, and I think Sproul would take him to task very quickly for that kind of a characterization. That is simply untrue and unfair. And I don't believe that Dr. MacArthur or any other dispensationalist is willfully misrepresenting covenant theologians, but it is an ignorant criticism that I find very problematic. If I cannot summarize dispensationalism fairly in a way that my dispensational friends will acknowledge and accept, then I've got no business critiquing it. And if you cannot fairly summarize and describe covenant theology. You have no business critiquing it. First, seek to understand, and then let's sit down and have a debate. Dispensationalism is a theological system with a hermeneutical grid for interpreting scripture that is radically different. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's radically different than most of historic Christianity. It is not merely a difference of opinion about the rapture, about the tribulation, and about the millennial kingdom. If that's all that the disagreement was about, it would be fairly insignificant. But dispensationalism as a system is in many respects a major reworking of the kingdom of God, of what God is doing in the plan of salvation, of the nature of the church and of the resurrection. And for that reason, I reject dispensationalism and would critique it while at the same time regarding the vast majority of dispensationalists as my brothers and sisters in Christ, whom I love dearly and with whom I stand united on so many points of theology, and a common commitment to the authority, inerrancy, and inspiration of the Bible as the Word of God. That's really all the time that we have today. I'm not even going to try to tackle anything that we prepared to say about preterism. And it may be that prior to next week's episode, what we've said in the last hour has raised some questions or there may be some concerns about the way I described or summarized certain features. And you could communicate with me about that. And I would be glad to make any correction if I made any misstatements. If I've shown my own ignorance in the way that I've discussed this issue today, please feel free to reach out to me. You can send me an email at joelmarkellis at gmail.com. You can reach out to me through the website. Please communicate with me and let me know if there are corrections that need to be made or further issues that need to be clarified. If there's anything I need to revisit on this topic next week, I'll be happy to do so. You can let me know.