I’m an Englishman. An English Christian. I came to Christ through the reading of the Bible after a sojourn through the history of Art (where I also read about people like Savonarola, and his ‘negative’ impact on the likes of Botticelli), and through fruitless meanderings in the writings of Sophocles, Plato, Aristophanes, Cicero, Machiavelli, Bertrand Russell and the like. I have always felt it important to try to take authors at “face value” (although one must recall the famous dictum about Hegel meaning the opposite of what people imagine he means).
When it came to my encounter with the Bible; first through the Gospels, then Genesis, etc., I just took for granted that God knew how to speak plainly. That was important to me, because Jesus’ words were so revolutionary in their effect, so direct, so true. I simply could never believe that the God who spoke preeminently in Jesus could mean something other than what He says in the place He says it. So when I finally made it to Ezekiel and the fortieth chapter, I actually thought God was describing a real temple. I did not understand how such a huge edifice could be where the prophet says it would be, but since I took it to be a description of the far flung future I supposed that it was not my problem to solve a problem God had made for Himself. My problem is to believe what God says.
I realize the Bible contains many figures of speech (e.g. Psa. 96:12), but these are easily understood in their own contexts and are known to be such by all. However, passages like Revelation 7, where the tribes of Israel are plainly distinguished from the peoples of the earth ought to be interpreted in their plain-sense, regardless of our theological predispositions. When the Scriptures are interpreted in a consistently plain-sense fashion, the result is what is known as Dispensationalism.
3 comments On Why I Am A Dispensationalist (Despite Myself) – pt 1
Thank you for posting this re: dispensationalism. Don’t hear much about this anymore, and glad to have found your blog posts on this topic
I appreciate the article “Why I am a dispensationalist” I heard you speak a few years ago at Cornerstone Bible Institute and really, really, enjoyed your love for the word and dispensational theology. I have a question. Do you think covenant theology is growing in popularity? If so, do you think these same people that we call “our brethren” (i am not denying they are)could someday in the future turn against us when we are being persecuted for taking a literal approach and stand upon the Bible? I don’t see it going any other way. Our love for the nation of Israel and a historical- grammatical approach to the scriptures is something that I can see causing great problems within the “evangelical/fundamental” (i use the terms loosely) community. I guess I am looking at the trend toward the “emerging church movement” and their UTTER disregard for the scriptures especially the literal interpretation of them. Why wouldn’t Cov. theologians eventulally side with those who do not hold the scriptures in high esteem?
Hello Jared, I hope God is blessing you wherever He has placed you. Your question is might seem far fetched to some, but it is worth pondering. I don’t think the Emerging Church phenomenon will find purchase with Reformed believers, although I do think it wise to keep an eye out for some departures from standard Reformed views in the future. I say this for two reasons: First, the Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll fad, while doing some good work, may lead its followers away into more pietistic and even enthusiastic avenues. This will introduce a strong note of subjectivism and, maybe, man-centeredness into Reformed groups.
Second, (and I intend to write on this in the future) the works of Peter Enns and now Andrew McGowern attacking inerrancy have and will win over many young Reformed people. There may well see a real battle looming over this issue and I think Dispensationalists will stick out.
As to “persecution” from CT’s, well, preterists really don’t like us (see e.g. the site “Against Dispensationalism”), but I rather think we will be overlooked while evangelicals swoon to “speech-act theory” (which isn’t all bad) and other things.
Here’s the bottom line as I see it. Dispensationalists must take their theology more seriously and stop focussing on End Times. This does not mean our beliefs about future Israel are to be set aside, but our focus must be on the many things we have left undone, viz. the improvement of the system in all its aspects. If we do that – if we know what we’re talking about, we will be taken more seriously.
I rambled a bit but hope that helped.
Your brother,
P.