Dissing Dispensationalism

If you don't know what dispensationalism is - and don't care how it affects how you interpret the Bible, this post will be quite boring to you.

That said, I was pointed to an article by Dan Phillips, one of the authors of the Pyromaniacs blog (here), called Twenty-Five Stupid Reasons for Dissing Dispensationalism (here).

Now, I admit, I do like to make fun of dispensationalism. Not out of spite or anything. I have great respect and love for Team Pyro. They love Jesus. And we agree on a heck of a lot.

But I thought I'd take a few moments and write a brief response to Phillips' exposition of these 25 Stupid Reasons.

That said, I took these 'reasons' as actual arguments, rather than merely 'disses.' I'm not sure technically what 'dissing' entails to be honest. So that said, I'm considering these arguments legitimately made against dispensationalism.

Here we go.

My response to ’25 Stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism’

My responses are in italics.

1) All of the coolest guys are covenantal.

That’s just true. Granted, it’s a stupid argument. Not even an argument, really. But it’s true. It’s more like a kind hearted jab. Well, hopefully kind-hearted. Us Reformed can be jerks at times.

2) It’s new.

Well, it is. Though the solas and five points weren’t systematized before the Reformation, they were certainly around. Dispensationalism was not. Premillenialism was. They are not the same.

3) It’s not Reformed

This is true. Semantic issue, though, really. And agreed – bad argument.

4) So many dispies are goofs.

This is also true. I think there are more crazy dispies than crazy Reformed people, though.

But yeah – bad argument.

5) Dispy writers have made false predictions.

Again, true – but agreed, bad argument.

6) The best scholars hate dispensationalism.

I mean, yeah, this is, again, true. Even the good ‘dispensational’ scholars aren’t true dispies – they’re progressives.

But point conceded – scholarship doesn’t prove something. Arguments must be analyzed.

7) But someone wrote a book destroying dispensationalism.

I’ve never heard that one. I’ve never read a book that attempts to do so. But…. That’s okay. No response needed or given.

8) You can’t prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the NT alone.

Never heard this argument. I agree, not a good one. But I also believe that we should base doctrine out of the many clear passages which interpret the few harder ones.

9) It isn’t a spiritual hermeneutic.

I don’t know what this even means.

10) Dispensationalists are antinomian.

Depends on what you mean by antinomian. If by it you’re referring to the OT moral law, then yes you are antinomian. That doesn’t mean you don’t care about morality, though.

11) We should interpret the OT by the NT.

And we should. We should look at how the NT interprets OT prophecy. Sometimes it is indeed difficult. Jesus held people accountable. They didn’t see because they were stupid. They didn’t see because of sin. Same is true of us.

12) You can’t take everything literally.

Again, I’ve never heard nor would I ever use this argument. What I would say is that you can’t take stuff in isolation.

13) Dispies are overliteral.

I’d never use this. Nor have I ever heard it.

14) I think Hal Lindsey is stupid. I like making fun of him.

I admit, I like making fun of Hal Lindsey. Granted, not an argument. But it’s so very much fun. I’d also probably do more than make fun of Harold Camping. I’d probably excommunicate him.

The only problem is that he wouldn’t mind.

15) People have converted from being dispy to other things

Agreed. Stupid argument.

16-19) Disp. Is divisive, defeateist, fatalistic, and escapist.

Eh, people who hold it can be. But agreed. Stupid argument.

20) Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ.

Now, okay, I’ve never heard this. I’m not sure what’s meant, exactly. If it means that Jesus was offering them the physical fullness of the Kingdom then – then… that’s just silly.

21) ‘All the promises of God find their yes in him.’ – 2 Cor. 1:20.

Dan’s argument here is interesting. I think the difference is that he’d take it to mean that Jesus mediates God’s promises, and we’d take it to mean that the promises are sure to those in him.

This requires much more serious discussion than Dan gives it.

22) Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation.

Some hypers did. Qutoing Berkhof there isn’t really relevant . Not sure Dan understands what Berkhof was saying.

23) I’m CT and use a grammatical-historical approach…

We do. We just don’t do it in isolation from the rest of Scripture, using our best guesses as assumptions for what we think God meant.

24) Dispensationalism divides the people of God.

Never heard this as an argument. It’s just kinda defining what dispensationalism is.

25) Dispensationalism fails to see Jesus in every verse of the Bible.

I think this is more of a charge of what practically happens in dispensational preaching. Often, it tends to be moralistic, rather than gospel centered.

That’s not an argument. Just an observation.

But yeah, I think Dan does reveal the problem with dispensationalism in this critique. He fails to understand covenants. The promises were not made to everyone in the visible community, dude. And we are in covenant relationship with Christ. And engrafted into Israel.

This isn’t decoder ring. This is just taking seriously what the Bible has to say about covenants, our position in Christ, and its own interpretation of OT texts.

We don't believe that the Church merely replaces Israel. We believe that those promises are made to elect Israel, ultimately through union with Christ, with whom the Church is united and engrafted into the covenant promises.

There is no replacement of Israel. Just an expansion of its borders.