Sunday, November 26, 2006

25 Stupid Reasons for dissing Dispensationalism Review

Ok, I know I promised a continuation of Matthew 24, but I got sidetracked while reading Nathan’s latest post and then being directed over to Dan Phillips post on Dispensationalism. I can’t help it, but for some reason when I read Dan’s stuff, sometimes it just seems that he’s trying to get under people’s skin, maybe it’s just me. Anyway, many times I am in agreement with him on subjects that he writes on. However, this post of his will probably be one thing that I will have to critique, for in it is good material from the author to refute. With that said, I want to be clear that the issue concerning my previous post on Psalm 2, in my opinion is the death blow to Dispensationalism. As soon as it has been proven that Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, as well as, the Davidic covenants, then all the other stuff goes right out the window. This is the definitive issue brothers on this subject. So, I am sorry to run rabbits, but it seems appropriate, at least for me to do so. This first post will simply place my response to just a couple of the arguments he made in regards to Acts 15 and claiming people don’t believe in the perspicuity of the Scriptures, which I thought was the silliest argumentJ Here’s my response.


I was linked from Nathan's blog and read the comments. There is much I would like to respond to. However, I am pretty much taking my time doing that over at my blog via some exposition:)

This last comment, and I don't know who Ruben is:), that you made concerning Acts 15, you made mention of Johnson's quote. The problem as I see it is precisely what you cited. No where in that passage is anything remotely like a "nod to the Jewish faction, assuring them that the nation will have the promised future." As a matter of fact, nothing of the Jewish nation is even mentioned. Simply a mention of the tabernacle of David and this rebuilding is so that the Gentiles may seek the Lord. Surely this would be referenced in other NT passages where the church is spoken of in such terms (ie. Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 6; Rev. 3:12). Of course in these passages the believer as well as the church is spoken of as the temple of God. The term used in Acts 15 denotes the movable tabernacle. In either case, the nation is not in focus.

This leads to part of the problem I see where you say others are denying the perspecuity of the Scriptures. Were the Scripture unclear to the Pharisees and disciples during Jesus' time concerning the nature of the kingdom??? It seems their "literal" (and I use that lightly) reading of Scripture led them to the wrong concclusion. Jesus seems to constantly be correcting them in regards to a "physical political kingdom" (see Luke 17:20,21).
Maybe somehow the words of Christ were unclear when He stated,

Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."John 2:19

Yet those around him believed he spoke about the standing temple and not the temple of His body. If you were standing there would you have assumed He spoke of His body? In regards to that several passages that dispensationalists claim are somehow future, such as the reign of Christ from David's throne are simply shot down in the face of apostolic New Testament statements. I point this out in a recent post on Psalm2. There is no reason to assume that we are waiting on Christ to come to a throne in the middle of the desert to reign from earth when He already is seated at the right hand of His Father (Mr 16:19; Ac 2:33; Ro 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 10:12; 1Pe 3:22) till all His enemies are put under His feet (1Cor. 15) and already has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) and is currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 3:27). If this is indeed the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and I believe it is since the inspired apostle Peter says so in Acts 2, and I quote,

25 "For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. 27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’ 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."’ 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

This has been fulfilled. Now I ask anyone in the forum, what is not clear and literal about that passage??? If that is true, then at its heart dispensationalism's foundations crack. Respectfully submitted.

For those who may come here and are dispensationalists, you are welcome to comment. I have no ill feelings toward dispensationalists, unless they are the simply wacky kind (Lahaye, Van Impe, Lindsey, etc.). Please take these comments in the tone they are given and that is that we may arrive at the Truth and a love for it.


Ruben said...

Hey Tim,

I noticed in the comments over at Dan Phillip's blog that you said you didn't who I was, so I'm just introducing myself.

Gordan said...

Nice post, Tim.

Keep us updated on any responses to you.

Tim said...


Hey man! Thanks for stopping by and introducing yourself. I appreciate that:) I am about to post the first part of responses to Dan's post. While he is very able in other areas to post well, I just don't see the interaction and dealing with the arguments that I would hope to see. Maybe that will change. I think there are able dispensationalists to argue their point, but I just haven't heard a really convincing argument.


Brother, I can't post every response:) However, you may have to take the "model citizen" off your blog when you see that Dan thought I was condescending towards him. However, I did apologize if it came across that way. You know that's not my style. I should have the first part of the post up shortly.