Now there is a prevailing set of hermeneutics which has led to the mishandling of much of the word of God, and since I had to prepare a lecture in this field to deliver last week, I thought this might be the most appropriate time to give this lecture to you men. Now the set of hermeneutics that is peculiar to that system of interpretation that I'm referring to is that which is identified with what is commonly called dispensationalism. And so the subject for this morning's lecture is Dispensationalism, a General Overview and Critique. And I think much of the relevance of what I have to share with you will be clearer after Mr. Letham gets into his lectures. So if you don't quite see the connection now, hang in there and I hope you will see it eventually. Now the four major headings of my lecture this morning are these. First of all, some introductory caution. Then don't write the others until we come to them. Then secondly, the essential characteristics of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. Thirdly, the fundamental theological errors of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. And fourthly, the primary dangers of dispensationalism as productive of a quality of religious life. Alright, the introductory caution. The very mention of the name or term dispensationalism causes immediate emotional reactions. With some people, it causes them to become very hostile and aggressive, others very defensive, some skeptical. And therefore, whenever you touch a theological issue, the mention of which immediately brings emotional responses, we need to caution ourselves so that we think and act and react in our theological thought and discussion in a scriptural way. So my introductory cautions are four. Number one, we are under solemn obligation to receive as brethren all who hold to essential saving truth. The scriptures tell us, by this we know we've passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. 1 John 3.14. Our Lord commands us to love one another and therefore anyone who confesses the minimum of saving truth and who manifests in his life the minimum of the grace of that truth, we are under solemn obligation to receive as a brother. The only way we can do this is to make a distinction in our minds between theological novelties, errors, and heresies. Now a man may be a true believer and hold to certain novelties. I made reference to what I feel is a theological novelty a few minutes ago. There may be serious errors. Peter was in error when he hobnobbed with the Jews and wouldn't fellowship with the Gentiles. but he was still regarded as a brother. Heresy or heresies are those beliefs which are inconsistent with saving truth or saving experience. When a man rejects the two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, the test of orthodoxy in 1 John 4, we are not to receive him as a brother. If men profess orthodoxy with the lips, but live in open profligacy and immorality, they profess to know God, but in works deny him, Titus 1.16, we are to have nothing to do with such. But when a man confesses faith in the Christ of Scripture, when he confesses that his confidence is in the work that Christ accomplished on the cross on behalf of sinners, and when his life reflects a minimal measure of the ethical and moral implications of the gospel, We are under solemn obligations to receive him and to treat him as a brother, even when we're exposing his errors and underscoring his novelties. And I hope to manifest that spirit this morning. If at any point I forget, you raise your hand and remind me of my introductory caution, will you? Second introductory caution is we are under solemn obligation never to bear false witness. The ninth commandment is always our directive, even in theological discussion and debate. And the history of the Church would be a much more pleasant thing if the Ninth Commandment were remembered in the midst of theological debate. And therefore today, whenever I say that dispensationalism asserts thus and thus, I will not quote from secondary sources, I will quote from dispensationalists themselves. And I hope to quote them in context and to quote them with an accurate conveyance of their thinking. We must never bear false witness even in theological debate and discussion. Fourth introductory caution is we must learn to separate personalities from principles. There have been many good, godly, useful men who have held to the novelties of dispensationalism and to some of the errors of dispensationalism. My remarks must not be construed as a slap at these people. We must separate personalities from principles, and it is possible to regard a man in his person with love and esteem, while we insulate the principles that he propounds as religious truth, and to show a good degree of holy zeal in attacking his principles, without in any way attacking the integrity of his person. Now, it's just a fact of modern church history that some of the most significant advances of the gospel in our generation have been made around the world through people who hold to that system of interpretation called dispensations. Now, like it or not, that's a fact. Therefore, we are not attacking personalities, but we are dealing with principles. And then the fourth introductory caution is this, we must recognize that there are various expressions of dispensationalism. Goulden's is famous for its mustard. But Goulden's makes at least three kinds of mustard. There's light and creamy, standard, and spicy brown. So if you talk about Goulden's mustard, I want to know what kind are you talking about? Spicy brown, light and creamy, or just plain old Goulden's mustard? Well, Goulden's mustard is like dispensationalism, or dispensationalists are like Goulden's mustard. You have various kinds of dispensationalists. And what I will attempt to do is to address myself to standard dispensationalism. There is spicy brown. That's a little weaker. It's not quite as sharp as even the standard. You have mild dispensationalists. You have spicy brown. dispensationalists. I mean, they are strong. They even say to some of their fellow dispensationalists, you don't go far enough. And we'll have an example of that in one of the quotes that I will give to you. So I will attempt to speak to what would be called mainline dispensationalism. And we must understand that in our assessing of this movement. Some of the things I say will be a little bit strong for some of the light and creamy dispensationalists. They are weaker dispensationalists. Some of them will be too mild for the spicy brown dispensationalists. But you can't deal with the whole thing in one lecture in any comprehensive way. All right? Now, the introductory principles behind this. Now we address ourselves to this question. What are the essential characteristics of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. And remember that, brethren. Dispensationalism is basically a hermeneutical issue. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation. And I should like to suggest that it has three predominant characteristics. And wherever these three things are present, you have a dispensationalist. When they are not present, you don't have a dispensationalist. Now, you may have a pre-millennialist. You may have what is called an historic pre-millennialist or a covenant pre-millennialist. But he does not hold any of these three distinctives, therefore he's not a dispensationalist. So don't equate someone who holds to a literal earthly reign of Christ for a thousand years upon the earth, don't equate that tenet of belief with dispensationalism. Long before dispensationalism ever came on the scene, there were what we could call, and what have been called in terms of theological language, historic premills or covenant premills. So these three things are always present when there is dispensationalism. If they are not present, there is no dispensationalism. Alright? What are the essential characteristics of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation? A strict literalism in handling the language of the Bible. A strict literalism in handling the language of the Bible. I quote now from the man who is perhaps by many is considered, no doubt considered, the champion of dispensationalism as far as defending the system, Charles Riley from Dallas Seminary. And in his book, Dispensationalism Today, which is not an attack upon, but an exposition and defense of the position, this is what Mr. Ryrie says concerning the whole question of dispensationalism. This distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism, in other words, the thing without which you don't have it, is the matter of plain hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not so good as either the word normal or plain. Again, speaking to this issue, he says, this affects everything, and as we tried to show, I'm sorry, the hermeneutical principle is basic to the entire dispensational system, including its eschatology. This affects everything, and as we tried to show in Chapter 5, dispensationalism is the only system that practices the literal principle of interpretation consistently. Consistent literalism is at the heart of dispensational eschatology. Now, these are Mr. Ryrie's words. They can be underscored by many dispensational writers. I don't want to blot you with quotes, but this is an accurate and succinct statement of the first essential characteristic of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation, a strict liberalism in handling the language of the Bible. All right? No critique, just a statement. All right? Second essential characteristic is this, a rigid verticalism in structuring the epochs of the Bible. No one can read his Bible without seeing that the structure of revelation is epochal. That is, there are these periods of time in which there are noteworthy and characteristic events, developments, and persons. The revelation of God on the historical scale is not even. In other words, you do not have the beginning in the Garden of Eden, then a gradual accumulation. No. As Voss brings out so clearly, and a number of you have already read, the revelation comes in these epochs where perhaps very little is added, and then there is an epoch in which much is added. And then again, very little, and then much is added. So that reading through the Bible, you see these great epochs, creation, fall, flood, call of Abraham, Sinai, the establishment of the nation in Palestine, the captivity, the coming of John the Baptist and Christ and the Apostles, the descent of the Spirit, all of those unique redemptive events. Now then, the dispensationalist reads his Bible, as does every other Christian, and he sees these great epochs. What is characteristic of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation? Well, it is characterized by a rigid verticalism in understanding these epochs. The epochs are there. What do they say to us? How do we structure them? How are they tied together? And the mark of dispensationalism is this rigid verticalism. Hence, the very term dispensationalism is derived from the concept that God has worked in history in these vertical categories, each of which is called a dispensation. Now in old classic dispensationalism, if you can call something that's not even 150 years old classical, there was the structure of God giving a revelation that involved a testing of man, Man failed the test, and God ended the dispensation in judgment. Then God comes with a new revelation, giving a new basis of testing, ending in failure, and then another judgment from God. And the approach to these epochs is that they are to be understood primarily in these vertical categories. Clarence Bass, in his excellent book, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, quotes directly from Schofield, in which the dispensation is defined this way, a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. These periods are marked off in scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind in respect to two questions, of sin and man's responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment, marking his utter failure in every dispensation." End of quote, from Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, page 18. This is why dispensationalism can talk about the age or dispensation of conscience. Well, do you have a conscience? I hope you do. And I hope it's not seared. I hope it's a conscience void of offense to God and to man through the operation of the Spirit and the blood of Christ. The very idea of talking about an age of conscience is though you box up, you see, the function of conscience. The age of law, we're told, went from Sinai to the cross, and then it ended. Are you under law sitting here this morning? I hope you are, and I hope you love the fact that you are. Because you are, whether you acknowledge it or not. And the difference between the saved and the unsaved is, the saved man's under law and loves it. Oh, how lovely thy law! I delight to do thy will, O my God. Yea, thy law is within my heart. So you see, the fundamental principle of dispensationalism as a system of interpreting the Bible is this rigid verticalism in structuring the epochs of the Bible. Now, the third characteristic, this is no critique yet, It's hard just to lay it out without saying things, but I'm trying to do that, do it fairly, is this. There is an unbending separatism in assessing the major redemptive communities in the Bible. An unbending separatism in assessing the major redemptive communities of the Bible. Again, a cursory reading of the scriptures reveals that there are two major communities to whom revelation came and through whom the purposes of redemption were furthered. Now, what are those two communities? Israel and the Church. Now, what's the relationship between the two? We see that the Old Testament is basically, I'm not ignorant of the patriarchal period, etc., but in terms of broad categories, The redemptive community in the Old Testament is Israel. The redemptive community in the New Testament is the Church. Now what is their relationship? Is the Church the outgrowth of the heart of true Israel and the fullest expression of it? Is there an organic relationship between Israel in the Old and the Church in the New? Is it a relationship of Israel being foundational and the church being built upon it? Is it a relationship of two parallel lines and the twain shall never meet? Well, the characteristic of dispensationalism is this. There is an unbending separatism between these two communities. Israel is the earthly people of God, in calling and in destiny, and that she will always be unto eternity. And the Church is the heavenly people of God, in calling and in destiny, and that she will be for all eternity. I quote now from Professor Ryrie, speaking to this very issue, who says on page 44 of his book, What then is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold. One, a dispensation that keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. And then he quotes a foe, and then he quotes a friend, namely Lewis Barry Schaefer. the only man who's written an extensive systematic theology from this dispensationalist perspective. And Schaefer says, the dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes. One related to the earth with earthly people, earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism. The other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity. Over against this, the partial dispensationist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely, the general separation of the good from the bad, and in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people, that the earthly program must be given a spiritual interpretation, or disregarded altogether." Now Ryrie says, This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions, and the one who does will." So you have then this unbending separatism concerning the major redemptive communities in the Bible. Anything else you say of dispensationalism, I believe, can be reduced to one or two or all three of these heads. This is the structural backbone of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. Having given the cautionary principles by way of introduction, Having assessed the major characteristics of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation, now we come to our critique. What are the primary errors of dispensationalism as a system of interpretation? Well, its primary errors are to be found in its essential characteristics. May I say that again? Its primary errors are to be found in its essential characteristics. Error number one, it's strict literalism in handling the words of the Bible. Now brethren, if you can get hold of this, it's been worth all the labor of the lecture. When we come to the Word of God written, we can do one of two things. We can come to it with principles of interpretation that we impose upon it, or We can come to the scriptures with the question, what principles of interpretation do the scriptures themselves force upon themselves? See the difference? Now what does dispensationalism do? I don't know of a dispensationalist who's a liberal. And in the liberal modernist controversy of the early 1900s, we must thank God that some of the greatest champions for supernaturalism were dispensationalists. And the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration has always been part and parcel of dispensational theology, and we can thank God for that. But now when we come to interpret those words of Scripture, how are we to interpret them? Dispensationalism comes with a hermeneutical principle, strict literalism, and forces that principle upon the words rather than asking How is the language of the Bible handled in those places where the Bible gives us clues in it? You see? The Westminster Confession states this other principle so clearly in Chapter 1 on the Scriptures. The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself. And therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, which is not manifold but one, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. Now how are the Old Testament prophecies to be interpreted? Well let's come to the New Testament and let's see how the apostles interpret Old Testament prophecies. Now if you are reading in your own devotions, in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31, you read words like these. It shall come to pass afterward that I will make a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of David. Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers, but I will make a new covenant. And you say, well, that means that with A.B. and his cohorts, God's going to do something that's thus and thus and thus. And therefore, it's A.B. and... House of Israel, House of Judah means House of Israel, House of Judah. But wonder of wonders, when I come to the New Testament, and I find the writer to the book of Hebrews opening up the glory of the final revelation of God in Christ. Hebrews 1, 1 to 3, God spoke in diverse times, etc. Now He's spoken in His Son. What does He do? He takes those prophecies from Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 and He says, not that they have found some shadowy second part of a double fulfillment in Christ, but He says the Holy Ghost bears witness that Christ has fulfilled these things and He quotes verbatim from the prophecies concerning Israel and Judah and the New Covenant and says they find fulfillment now in the Gospel. You see? Now we could go through many examples in the New Testament. I'll take just one other that is a great stumbling block to the rigid or strict literalism of the dispensational hermeneutic. And this is very vivid to me because I think I may have mentioned it here in another relationship, but it bears repetition. in Acts 15, where the apostles and the elders at Jerusalem with the church are wrestling with this problem of these Judaizers who went down to Antioch and plagued the church. And brethren, never be driven off your ground when a Presbyterian tells you that here we have the example in Scripture of a general assembly or a semantical meeting. There's no synod here. There's a local church that happens to be the seat of the apostolate that is sorting out the problems of another church called the Church in Antioch. And when the representatives from Antioch are on their way to Jerusalem, it says they stopped at all the churches and gave reports, but it doesn't say they picked up the elders and presbyters along the way to bring them for a sinning. No, no. No, no. It just won't hold water. And I'm just amazed that good men try to support that whole structure on this passage. But anyway, that's another whole issue. Now when James is going to give his perspectives on this whole problem with reference to, what about these Gentiles? Do they come into the church as Gentiles? Or do we have to make Jews out of them first? Because that was the whole issue, you see. Not the question whether or not Gentiles could be saved. but whether they could be truly saved and become part of the visible community without circumcision. You see, the issue was, except you be circumcised, verse 2, chapter 15, after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. That is with the full-blown salvation. You're something less. So we could say that the issue was whether or not they were saved. Yes. So I take that back. This was the issue. But saved in the full-blown sense of salvation. Alright? They're discussing it. They're debating it. Now, James stands in verse 13 and says, Brethren, hearken unto me. Simeon hath rehearsed how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name. In other words, Simon has told us what happened when he went to preach at the household of Cornelius. God, through the apostle, has laid hold of Gentiles. Now, is this kosher? Or is this some kind of an accident? I mean, shouldn't that happen? To this agree the words of the prophets. Well, he says it's only right that this should be, because the prophets prophesied this. Where? Well, from the book of Amos. After these things I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen. And I will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up, that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, set the Lord, who make at these things from of old. Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God, etc. James is saying what is happening with these Gentiles being brought in is a fulfillment of God's own word, promise to return and build again the tabernacle of David. I'll never forget, not knowing about amillennialism, premillennialism, dispensationalism, none of these terms. I was as green as you can be. I sat in a hermeneutics course in my own bible college or the bible college where I graduated and when we were dealing with this literal interpretation perspective I raised my hand and I asked the question about this passage and I'll remember the teacher shaking his head saying well frankly Albert I don't understand the hermeneutics of the apostles and he wasn't being wise he was an honest man and he said frankly I don't understand their hermeneutics they don't interpret those prophecies the way I do And that was the end of the discussion. Now, of course, the clever jig that I'm sure Dennis knows they get around is they say, aha, verse 15 says, I'm sorry, verse 14, God will visit the Gentiles to take out a people for his name. And after the church is complete and the mystery age is over, then he will return and build again the temple. Well, what in the world does that have to do with the problem at hand at the Council of Jerusalem? You see, that interpretation is self-defeating. James is not quoting this to say, well, everything's going to be hunky-dory in the future for us Jews anyway, because the Lord's going to build the tabernacle or the tent of David, and there's going to be a big hoedown in Palestine. What in the world does that have to do with the argument at hand? But you see, they feel the force of this passage, so they have to try to do something to wheedle out of its obvious, quote, spiritualizing of the language, I will return and build again the tabernacle of David. You see? And again and again, the New Testament writers do what the dispensationalist says many times, not with kindness. To those who handle the word of God this way, that's spiritualizing. And they try to parallel it with the old allegorizing interpretation of origin in some of the early church fathers. My friends, listen. The Bible tells us that that which is earthy is first. God is speaking in types and symbols and shadows, and the spiritual realities cast their shadow back to the tangible and physical entities. You see? The church is a spiritual reality. Its shadow is the nation of Israel. christ is the spiritual high priest the shadow cast back is that tangible high priest that you could see and the bible itself forces upon us a system of interpretation that does not handle the scriptures with a strict literalism but recognizing that god speaks in type and figure and shadow that first of all that which is earthy then that which is heavenly we seek to handle the scriptures with that kind a flexibility that is essential if we're to handle the scriptures as the scriptures interpret themselves. And I would remind you, brethren, that it was this crass literalism of Pharisaic and Rabbinic leadership in Israel that contributed greatly to the crucifixion of Christ. I remind you that. It was this crass literalism that could not see in prophecies of a king, a spiritual ruler, that in great measure led to his crucifixion. Interestingly enough, and I don't quite understand the psychology of this, on the one hand claiming literal interpretation only, there has been no movement in the evangelical church in the past 100 years that has been more preoccupied with typology than dispensationalism. They get a type in every blade of grass in the Garden of Eden. Every stone in Jordan. A type, a type, a type, a type. Well, wait, I thought it was literal only. Literal only. It's as though, you see, the scriptures are too rich to be handled that way, and nature will eventually out, you see. But that's just a little aside. Well, let's hurry on now to the second major weakness, and that also is the second major characteristic. It's rigid verticalism in structuring the epochs of the Bible. Dispensationalism fails to grasp the organic unity between the various epochs in the Scripture. From Genesis 3.15 onward, what is the great theme of Scripture, or who is the great theme? Christ. What is the great thing? The retention of the elect of God. And what is the framework of all of this? The one covenant of grace, as we heard last week. You see? Now, within that framework, it is a growing organism, which as it grows, it loses some things moving from stage to stage. For instance, when the little seed is put in the earth, it loses something when it breaks up through the ground and becomes a seedling and sends down a root system. But is it qualitatively different from the seed that was planted? No, there's organic relationship between the seed planted and the seedling coming up. When it becomes a plant and begins to have its blossoms, it's lost something of what it was when it was a seedling. But it's not something qualitatively different. There is organic unity between the seed and the full-blown fruit-bearing plant. Likewise, then, the great unifying principle of Holy Scripture is the covenant of grace as its framework, Christ as its central theme, redemption as its essential concern. Now, an intelligent dispensationalist seeks to avoid this by saying, well, you see, that's your problem. You're a bit too narrow in your perspective. You make The central issue, salvation. I quote now from Ryrie. Perhaps the issue of premillennialism is determinative. Again, the answer is negative for there are those who are premillennial who definitively are not dispensational. The covenant premillennialist holds to the concept of the covenant of grace and the central soteriological purpose of God. And he goes on to say he holds the idea of the millennium, but it's incidental to the great issue which is Christ and salvation in Christ. But, he goes on to say, the great theme of the dispensation list is the glory of God. It's something bigger than salvation. Therefore, God will be glorified by taking the old apostate nation and raising it again, etc. Now, we come to the scriptures and we find that there's a false antithesis set up by Mr. Riley. Is it the glory of God or salvation? Well, it's the glory of God in the salvation of the church. And the classic text on this is Ephesians chapter 3 and verse 21. Unto him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all the generations of the ages of the ages. Amen. Do you get the thrust of that text? Unto him be glory in the church and in relationship to Christ Jesus for all the generations of the ages of the ages. In other words, what God is doing in the formation of the church, in the person and work of Christ, is the focal point upon which his glory will be manifested unto the ages of the ages. That being so, we see that the unifying principle of these epochs is Christ, the covenant of grace, the establishment of a people through whom his glory will be manifested unto all moral creatures. Now, this rigid verticalism cannot appreciate that. Furthermore, the rigid verticalism ends up with creating tremendous problems in terms of the law-grace issue. Up until dispensationalism came on the scene, theological literature often spoke of the contrast and mutual relationship and subservience between the law and the gospel. Dispensationalism came along and set up an antithesis between law and grace. Where law reigns, grace cannot reign. Where grace reigns, law cannot reign. And that's one of the peculiarities that we'll see later on in our practical application. But you see, that's part and parcel of this rigid verticalism. If you talk about an age of law, it had a beginning and it had an end. And if you're this side of the end, you ain't under the age of law. Well, that rigid verticalism, you see. Same thing with assessing the people of God. Where is the promise of Abraham to find its fulfillment? Well, the rigid verticalism says, well, Abraham was the first Jew in that sense, and then God promised a great seed to him, etc. Well, that's always got to be his earthly descendants. But the Apostle Paul doesn't interpret the promise that way. He says the pinnacle expression of the covenant made with Abraham, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is the church. If ye are of faith, then are ye Abraham's seed. Heirs according to promise. What promise? Promise made to Abraham. I don't have a hunk of real estate. You got something more. All things are yours. You got the whole universe. That's what's promised in Christ. All things are yours. We are Christ and Christ is God. So this rigid verticalism, you see, cannot appreciate that. It does not see Abraham essentially as the father of the faithful, having the promise made to him come to its fullest expression. No. There is this thing that we move now to the third realm. It's unbending separatism in assessing the major redemptive communities of the Bible. Although the glory of God is the ultimate end of all God's works, the focal point of reflection is Christ and His Church. I've already quoted the text. Now, the scripture tells us that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Christ is the lodestone of all the prophetic utterances. Remember in Luke chapter 24 you have two examples of this. He's walking on the road to Emmaus and later on after he reveals himself to them they say, did not our hearts burn with him while he spoke with us on the way and while he opened unto us the scriptures. In what scriptures? He said, O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets and Moses did say should come. He preached himself from all of Moses in the Psalms and the Prophets. And then in Luke chapter 24 and verse 45 we read, Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the scriptures. And what did he show them was the great focal point, the great theme of scriptural revelation. Christ should suffer, rise from the dead, repentance and remission of sin be preached in his name unto all the nations beginning at Jerusalem. You see what he does? He puts the Jews in the same category with all the nations and says there's only one gospel for them. Not the gospel of Abraham's genes. It's the gospel of repentance and faith. The great theme then you see is that there's one gospel. going out to all the nations. So Christ is the great theme and the great focal point of all the prophetic scriptures. His gospel days, another key text that you ought to be aware of, Acts 3 and verse 24. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and them that have followed after told of these days. all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they told of these days. Not incidentally. Now some spicy brown dispensations, more intense dispensationists, they actually teach that the prophets didn't even have a concept of the church. That was a mystery. It's ridiculous. The mystery, according to Paul in Philippians 3, the mystery that was not made plain until the manifestation of Christ and the sending of the gospel to the ends of the earth, is that Gentiles would come in on exactly the same footing as Jews. Because all the prophecies about the gathering in of the Gentiles in the Old Testament partook of the flavor of the structure of the Old Testament. What was that structure? Jerusalem was the center, the temple was the focal point of worship. So how are you going to describe to a Jew who sees that the central place of true worship is Jerusalem in the Temple. How are you going to make known to him, if you teach from the known to the unknown, how are you going to make him know that Gentiles are going to get in on all this? Well, you talk about Gentiles coming up to the Temple. You talk about the nations falling to the Temple, right? I mean, you couldn't give to a Jew the advanced concept of the New Testament saints. He couldn't take it. He thought of pure worship centered at Jerusalem. Pure worship, gathering to the temple. So when God is going to prophesy that Gentiles are going to be involved in this new thing, He says Gentiles will flow up to Jerusalem. Now we turn to the New Testament, what do we find? Ye are come unto Mount Zion. I've come to Jerusalem. He says you've come to the heavenly Jerusalem. You get excited about that? I got the goosebumps again. This is where you've come. You've come to a high priest. Jesus, me, leader of the new covenant. And so this terrible, unbending separatism between the major redemptive communities cannot appreciate this biblical richness. For what is the church in its New Testament form? It is but the final and glorious expression of that which Israel was as a nation, more particularly, what the believing remnant was in reality. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. And there is this organic unity because in Romans 9-11, how many trees of redemption are there? One olive tree. One olive tree, Paul says. And for centuries, with but few exceptions, All of the sprigs in that olive tree were Abraham's literal seed. Occasionally God would bring in a Gentile, a little here, bring in a Maimon here, one or another, as little as it were earnest of what he was going to do in the future. But one olive tree. Now he says, these natural branches are broken off. Gentiles are grafted in, not another tree. Jesus said, I'll take the kingdom of God from you. and give it to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And so when we come to understand these two major redemptive communities, it is wrong to think of them as two distinct entities that will go on forever in that distinctiveness and some of the dispensational, some of the dispensational exegesis is downright humorous at this point and fanciful where you've got the friends of the bridegroom distinguished from those who actually sit with the bridegroom. And you've got in some of the prophetic exposition, when God said to Abraham, one time my seed should be as the sand of the sea, where's the sand? That's on the earth, that's Israel. Another time he said, look abroad, see the heavens? That's the church. Because you see the stars are in the heavens. I'm not building up a straw man, am I Mr. Clark? No, no, this is what's taught, dear people. Yeah, this is what's taught. This is what's taught. Because there is this unbending separatism. Now, you didn't know this perhaps, but that's essentially where the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine got born. Now listen. Listen to the admission of Mr. Riley on this very point. The distinction between Israel and the church leads to the belief that the church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the tribulation, which is in one major sense preoccupied with Israel. Tribulationism, pre-tribulationism has become a part of dispensational eschatology. Notice he doesn't say that exegesis leads to the belief that the church will be taken out before the tribulation. He says the distinction between Israel and the church leads to the belief that the church will be taken from the earth. Why? Because in their way of thinking this whole subject of the great tribulation is primarily something for the Jews, the earthly people. And therefore, since the destiny and dealings of God with them never mix with his dealings with the church, therefore God's got to get the church out of the way before he picks up his dealings with Israel again. You see, the concept is that up until, and they vary when this happens, but let's say the events clustering around the cross, God is dealing with Israel, alright? Now what does he do? Israel's over here, like some trains on the sidetrack, you see? Now God's dealings with the church, which was the mystery parenthesis. Now, when the Lord comes and snatches the church away, then he takes this train and puts it back on the track, and he's going to deal with Israel again. That's why they say the key to the prophetic clock is Israel, and we'll get into more of that in the application. Well, if you take this unbending separatism, dear men, and I say this, I trust, lovingly but firmly, you've got to rewrite The passage that we've just been parked in for a number of months, Ephesians chapter 2. You've got God himself raising again the wall that was leveled in that agony of Golgotha and all the amazingly moving events of Calvary. That wall's got to be raised up again. You've got to take the book of Hebrews. which says that everything that was prefigured in the earthly tabernacle and temple finds its fulfillment in Christ. And you've got to reverse the whole biblical theological development and go back to carnal types and shadows in the resurrection of a Judaistic form of worship. Well, that's all the result of this unbending separatism between Israel and the Church. Well, hurry on, and I know I'm giving you a lot, but I hope I'll give you enough time to bounce questions off me. What are the primary dangers and errors of dispensationalism as productive of a quality of religious life? Because remember brethren, as we emphasize again and again in this class, what you think affects how you live, how you worship. And dispensationalism has produced a quality of religious life. Now what are the primary dangers and errors of dispensationalism as productive of religious life? Well number one, It has produced an incipient antinomianism. Incipient, of course, means something in its beginnings. Antinomianism, anti, against, nomos, law. Antinomianism is the system of thought and teaching that is against law. Now, notice what has happened in dispensationalism. The kingdom is primarily what? Now or future? Future, right? Therefore, when you become a Christian, the emphasis has not been that you're passing out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Because if it were, then everyone would at least have some inkling of a notion you've got to have dealings with the King. And I've actually heard dispensations say to me, show me one verse in the New Testament that says Jesus is a King now in relationship to His Church. They've been offended when I've taught that saving faith is an embrace of the whole man, of the whole Christ, prophet, priest, and King. So you see, the antinomianism has been incipient right on the threshold. Alright? The sinner has not been told, look, you come into the kingdom of God, you stack arms and you bow to the gracious scepter of King Jesus. Psalm 2, kiss the son lest he be angry. Lo and behold, he no sooner steps over the threshold, without having been told he's got to have reckoning with the King, When he's told in this new room that he stepped in, the law of God expressed in the ten words of Moses has nothing directly to say to him. He is under grace, not under law. And the only guidance he needs is the principles of the word of God which he will follow in life. Now you see the incipient antinomianism in the evangelistic emphasis, furthermore, when there are people out there that they're trying to get in, rather than hold over them the ten words of Moses until they tremble and run to come in, what's happened? Well, you see, because of this anti-law emphasis, many preachers have not dared to preach the Ten Commandments, even in an evangelistic way, for fear their orthodoxy would be questioned. So the very instrument the Holy Ghost has given to bring the knowledge of sin has been laid on the shelf, collecting dust. and apparently it's going to come off in the tribulation or something, when as Tozer once said, he said, we're a slick bunch, we'll leave all the weeping and the wailing in the morning for the dudes in the tribulation. And he said, we go right on our slick, carnal, flippant ways. And I said, that's it, you see? This is what's happened as dispensationalism has been productive of a religious life. Do you even talk about the Christian Sabbath? while you're looked upon as if you don't know where it's at. And so there's been no honoring of the Sabbath principle and the Sabbath concept. It's interesting that this same man writer has come out in print now in his book, Balancing the Christian Life, in which he has come openly and said, those who teach that saving faith involves submission to Christ as Lord, as well as trust in Christ as Savior, are teaching another gospel. I heard him give a similar presentation in my years, but since it was verbal, I never quoted him publicly. But he's gone in print. And in his book, published by Moody Press, called Balancing the Christian Life, Mr. Ryrie states that to teach that submission to Christ is Lord is an essential part of saving faith, is to preach another gospel. Now that's where it leads to. Now thank God it doesn't lead to that in all dispensations. But I'm afraid to say it has in the majority. There's this incipient antinomianism. Alright? Second danger, as productive of religious life, is what I'm calling a practical escapism. Now anybody here like difficulty? Anybody here who does not have a natural aversion to difficulty, to hard work? Now we all do. Well I suggest that dispensationalism has created a climate of practical escapism. Escapism from what? Well, number one, escape from responsible churchmanship. Each dispensation is going to end up how? In a blaze of glory or in a frightful mess? Well, it's going to end up in a mess. The dispensation that says we're in the Laodicean church period. He waves the magic wand of his exegetical authority over Revelation 2 and 3, and says, you know, you see, you simple people just look upon these as seven messages to seven churches in Asia Minor, but this is an outline of church history. Oh, it is. That's interesting. What exegesis tells me that? I have not seen a shred. But it's asserted? It's passed on as fact? Well, where are we now? Well, the experts tell us we're in Church 7. We're the Laodicean period. We're the Lord's just going to keep the whole shoot and match out anyway. So the Lord's going to spew it out? Why be concerned about church order? Why be concerned about the centrality of the church? And it's interesting that the proliferation of non-church ministries has run parallel with the widespread inundation of evangelicalism with dispensational thinking. Independent Bible schools, independent mission boards. Why? Because we're in the Latter-day Saint age. The Lord could come at any minute. And why bother about careful churchmanship? The whole thing's going to go down the tubes anyway. Let it go. And brethren, at this point, my spirit, I trust, is still under constraint of the grace and love of the Holy Spirit. But this demands severe censure and rebuke. Because Christ is committed to get glory in His Church. When he's wounded in the house of his friends, when there's an escape from responsible churchmanship. Pragmatism in missions. Minimalism in doctrinal standards. Why? Because the whole thing is going to go down the tubes. Therefore, wipe your hands of it. Matthew 28, 18 to 20 holds until Jesus comes back again. Make disciples of all the nations. baptizing them, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, lo, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age. And until the consummation of the age, we are to have a high churchmanship, with broad biblical views of evangelism, gathering those made disciples into visible communities, and committed to teaching to them the whole counsel of God's truth. Well, then it also provides an escape from responsible citizenship. This is under the second major heading. Incipient antinomianism, practical escapism. Escape from responsible churchmanship. Secondly, escape from responsible citizenship. You see what the mentality is? Societies and the skids. So what? And there's been a very narrow world and light view. The average Bible school has created the mentality, and some of us are the products of it, and we've been laboring with this for years. that if you don't, quote, go into full-time Christian work, your life really doesn't count, except as you make enough money to support those who have. The idea that there is something noble in every legitimate calling, and that as a Christian, in that calling, I'm to be light and salt, and bring every department of that calling unto the Lordship of Christ, and claim it for King Jesus, that's been almost totally absent from the dispensational mentality. There has been an escapism from responsible citizenship. No salt and light in the areas where if we are not salt and light, eventually we can't even preach the gospel intelligently. Machen's article on Christianity and culture is one of the finest things in this area. If you've never read that, I commend it to you. Because steering clear of the idea that the cultural mandate takes precedence over the Great Commission, and some men have gone, you see, to the extreme on that. We're in an emergency situation. The world is on the skids. It's in the lap of the wicked one. But at the same time, we're to be salt and light. And that means something more than just leaving a track in the men's room at the shop. Now it may mean that, but it means something more than that. You see? And thank God that some of you sitting right here have begun to learn this. And God willing, I hope we learn more of it in some of the Sunday night expositions as we try to touch on this. A third area of escapism is the escape from responsible discipleship. Now, listen. If you really believe that before things really get too hot, the Lord is going to come and take you out of the mess, what psychological effect does that have on you? Hardship? Self-denial? I mean, before things get too hot, the Lord will take us out anyway, right? It seems to me that in my study of the Word of God, responsible discipleship demands of every Christian, not only the employment of all of his faculties in the present moment, doing the will of God to the hilt, but the laying up in store of those principles and concepts, the subjection to those disciplines that will fit me by the grace of God to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. But this constant emphasis, Christians don't worry, When things begin to get hot, the Lord's going to take us out of it. And he'll leave all the trouble for the Jews in the tribulation. Well, someone was teaching that doctrine in China after one of the bloodbaths. And was teaching, you know, the Lord will come and take us out before the tribulation. One of the Chinese believers said, which one? Which tribulation? We've been through the Boxer Uprising. We've been through this. We've been through that. Which one? You see, this is a doctrine very popular in affluent, middle class, fat, sloppy, self-indulgent America that it's about the only place. And brethren, without being an alarmist, we've got our eyes open. We can see, as Mr. Masters reminded us this morning, the erosion of so many areas of common grace in our own society. And the time when we may be able freely to meet as we've done here Saturday morning may be much shorter than any of us realizes. And some of us may be called upon to endure measures of hardness for the sake of Christ in manners that up till now we've only read about in the biographies of others. And though we need not be morbid, though we need not go around with a heavy spirit, there ought to be that responsible commitment to the kind of discipleship that will prepare us for the worst eventuality. And if it never comes to us, we'll still be better off anyway. So we've lost nothing. All right, incipient antinomianism, weakness number one. Practical escapism, weakness number two. And then thirdly, weakness number three, an unwholesome futurism. An unwholesome futurism. Follow now how it works out. If you really believe, as does the dispensationalist, that the key to what God is doing in history is not primarily the church, there's a sense in which you could have come three days after Pentecost. I mean, you take the any moment theory seriously as they teach it, and you end up with the most ridiculous things. Because if it's a doctrine of the apostles, then Paul and Peter and all the rest believed it. The Lord could have come three days after Pentecost, and we'd have had a church of some what? Five, six thousand? That's all, for church, because there was no church until then. Abraham, Isaac, poor old Jews, they wouldn't be down here on the earth. We'll be the heavenly people. I mean, just think of the ridiculousness of something. restrain myself all the way through this and maybe I better keep restraining myself because irony is a dangerous tool of teaching and sarcasm and I don't want to become carnal but anyway if you believe that the key is not the church but Israel now then you see the unwholesome futurism you're all the time wondering what's happening to Israel the book of the revelation nothing is really to us directly but the first three chapters from chapter four on Where it says, I was taken up into heaven, ah that's the rapture. Now this is called by responsible exegetes, my friends. I'm not giving straw men. I've seen it with my own eyeballs. When the angel says, come up hither, that's the rapture. And therefore, from Revelation 4 on, everything is what's going to happen in about seven years of history, plus the thousand years of the millennium, and then you get a little peek into eternity later on. Well, if that is the way you think, no wonder there's this constant preoccupation with Israel. Sign watching, another inconsistency. The Lord can come at any minute, yet who is all the time preoccupied with the signs that must attend the circumstances just before he comes? Isn't he not a dispensationist who turns out his pamphlets by the reams of how to sign for the times? Well, if those signs need to be present for the Lord to come, then he couldn't come before those signs were manifest. So what happens to any moment in theory of the rapture? Yeah, two stages. Yeah, partial rapture. Alright, but brethren, do you see now why there is this preoccupation? In other words, it's not an accident that the dispensationist is an Israel watcher. And a sign watcher. It's all part of this whole mentality. And then there is, in the fourth place, what I'm calling a de facto Gnosticism. That is an, in fact, Gnosticism. Now the Gnostics, I'll give you a poor man's explanation, as they plagued the early church, they came along, as we find in the book of Colossians, they said, now you Christians have believed the apostles' simple message, that Christ is the one mediator. But now we want to initiate you into the super secrets. Those common Christians, they just see God, themselves, Christ the one mediator, will initiate you to something more wonderful. And so they had their system of many intermediaries, you see. And coupled with it was a form of asceticism that denied the goodness of matter, the goodness of all of God's gifts. Now you see what happens? Here an average believer, he picks up his Bible and when he reads through, he's never going to come up with their 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 second comings of Christ. Someone asked me if I ever believed in the pre-tribulation rapture. I said yes before I started studying my Bible. But when the Lord saved me as a senior in high school at age 18 and I wore out a Thompson chain reference Bible in the first two years. I wore it out. I devoured that thing day and night. And for the life of me I could find but one second coming with Christ. And it was about the noisiest thing I'd ever read about. Trumpets blowing and angels sounding, and clouds descending, I never could buy that secret business. I just couldn't buy it, because no one could produce a text of scripture. Oh, the First Thessalonians 4, I said, what's it say? We would not have you ignorant, for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven. It's a trumpet. Ta-da-da, ta-da! What's he going to do, make the whole world deaf? Voice of the archangel, lo, he comes with clouds I said, don't tell me secret rapture from 1 Thessalonians 4. I got eyeballs! Trunks! Voices! What's this? Well, I, uh, yeah, yeah, well you did, that's right. You read it into it. You didn't read it out of it. You read it into it. You see? The average believer, you see, then he loses his confidence he can understand his Bible, because he didn't get those super insights until he read so-and-so's notes. He was simple enough to think that when Paul said, Peace be upon the Israel of God, he was talking about the Church. And when he reads in Hebrews 12, You are come to Mount Zion, unto the heavenly Jerusalem, he was simple enough to believe that what that saying is, that all of these things have their spiritual fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Someone comes along and says, aha, but don't you know that? And then he reads about Jesus coming and preaching the gospel of the kingdom. And he reads about Paul preaching the gospel of the kingdom. And he says, that's one gospel. He says, oh no, don't you know? There's the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the grace of God, the everlasting God. They end up with five or six gospels. Well, what happens? The poor believer loses his confidence that he can even understand his Bible without the experts to sort it out for him. Reverend, that's been one of the tragedies, and that's why, and I speak now again guardingly, I believe it is positively wicked, now I've chosen my two words carefully, positively wicked for any man to allow his interpreted notes to be included with the very text of Holy Scripture. For a Bible to have cross-references, to have footnotes that say, in the Greek, it could be rendered thus and thus, that's helpful to the person who has no acquaintance with the original. But I know places where, if you were to rip out the Schofield interpreted notes, people would feel you had thrown away half of the inspired work. And I'm convinced the climate for that was created by these de facto Gnostic perspectives. The average believer cannot in the language of the Westminster Confession understand his Bible, letting scripture interpret scripture. He's got to have these insights. And that's a tragedy because it takes the Bible out of the hands of a layman and does essentially what old Romanism did. It puts its understanding in the hands of a few experts. Well, I'm done my lecture. I hope you found this helpful in bringing into focus something of what we're talking about now when we talk about dispensationalism as a system of biblical interpretation and I trust by the grace of God we will be preserved from the errors of that system that under God will be used to help some who are enmeshed in it and that when we meet those who are true men we'll love them, separate personality from principle and seek to be of use to them. If you don't have, let me give you a little quick bibliography, may I do that? If you don't have Oswald Alice's book, Prophecy and the Church, I would greatly encourage you to get that book by Presbyterian and Reformed, Oswald Alice, A-double-L-I-S, Prophecy and the Church. And then for a history of dispensationalism, I haven't found anything more helpful than this book by Clarence Bass, just like catching a bass fish, B-A-S-S. Backgrounds to Dispensationalism. And it's an Erdman's publication, that's W-E-R-D-M-A-N-S. Now he is a historic pre-mill. He does not write as an R-Mill, and that in some way makes his thesis even more helpful. And he'll give you all the history of how Darby came on the scene and how Darbyism became what we now know as full-blown modern dispensationalism. All right, Alice, and then Bass, and then some of the books by Cox that are on our book table by Presbyterian Reformed. He has a little one, Why I Left Dispensationalism. A number of titles, just the author Cox, C-O-X, contemporary writer. And if you want the best, most complete bibliography on I don't know what else to call it, but anti-dispensational literature, you can get it from Reiner Publications in Swingle, Pennsylvania. Reiner, R-E-I-N-E-R Publications, Swingle, S-W-E-N-G-E-L, 17880, and just ask for their list of books dealing with prophetic issues. Yeah, Reiner Publications, Swingle, S-W-E-N-G-E-L, Pennsylvania, 17880. And then a classic work, and I don't know if they still have any left, Fairbairn, Patrick Fairbairn. He was a fair boy, a fair baron, a fair-born one, alright? B-A-I-R-N, Fairbairn, Interpretation of Prophecy. This is the fruit of 25 years of having this as his hobby and study, and he came all the way around full circle from one position to another after 25 years. I've read sections of this three and four times because I feel it is most profound in seeking to grapple with how the Bible interprets its own context and getting the hermeneutics of prophecy out of the Bible itself. That's Banner of Truth. And then this excellent little book by Hendrickson, Israel in Prophecy. I don't think I've found anything that is more balanced and sound in its exegesis in Israel in Prophecy by William Hendrickson. That's Baker, and we have it on our own bookstore. Okay, brethren, questions? Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes the Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources. It's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan Hard Drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan hard drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan hard drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.