Significance of Dispensational Truth

Prev Dispensational Truth Next
 
SIGNIFICANCE OF DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH
What is the impact of dispensational truth on the Christian’s outlook and character? How has dispensationalism figured in Church history? How can we answer the attacks of Covenant theology? Part 3 of a three-part series on Dispensational Truth.
 

Preface

In two previous articles we have examined the fundamental elements of dispensational truth, and then examined the actual unfolding of the dispensations, with the principle, period, and progression of each. Finally, we will conclude this series by emphasizing the importance of dispensational truth.
 
 

The Impact of Dispensational Truth on the Believer

There are many ways dispensational truth affects the believer, but I will list four of them:
  1. A proper object: Christ Himself.
  2. A proper character: heavenly and not earthly.
  3. A proper outlook: the return of Christ.
  4. A proper foundation: grace and not law.

A Proper Object: Christ

As we have already shown, dispensational truth has Christ and His glory as the supreme object. This has an immensely practical effect on the believer. When we see that God’s focus is the glory of Christ, it will help us to have our focus the same! Covenant theology puts the salvation of man at the center of God’s purpose, and it has the effect of putting man at center of our focus as well. A lame attempt has been made Covenant Theologians to twist this fact, stating that Dispensationalism puts man at the center by focusing on his failures. This is a twisting of the truth. Dispensational truth centers around the glory of Christ and excludes the glory of the flesh. Covenant theology makes room for the flesh to have a place, and thereby detracts from the glory of Christ. More on this will follow as we further investigate Covenant Theology.

A Proper Character: Heavenly

Dispensational truth gives us to see that the Church is a heavenly people, in distinction from Israel who is an earthly people. Our blessings are not earthly, they are spiritual (Eph. 1:3). Our home is in heaven, where our object is. Covenant theology blurs or totally erases the line between the Church and Israel. The result is that believers become earthly-minded. They begin to get involved in politics, in cleaning up the planet, in advocating social reforms, in strengthening the union between church and state. We will only maintain our proper heavenly character if we know what administration we are living in. Two errors are common: to go back, and to go forward. In Galatians, the believers were putting themselves under law, going back to the previous administration of the law. In 1 Corinthians, the believers were “reigning as kings” ahead of time. They were acting as if they were in the millennium, but they had to be rebuked. Either mistake will cause us to become earthly-minded. Only by understanding “the administration of the mystery” (Eph. 3:10) will we maintain our proper heavenly character.

A Proper Outlook: The Return of Christ

A heavenly character is coupled with heavenly hopes. Although we are thankful for the Lord’s providence, whether it be food, money, good rulers and laws, etc., those things do not form the proper hope of the believer. We are looking for Christ Himself! God has given us an outlook that is bright and imminent. “The Lord himself” will come for us (1 Thess. 4:16)! There is no intimation in scripture of any other event that will precede the rapture, which we are to be expecting first. The Church’s prayer is to be “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20). By attaching our expectations to the return of Christ, God causes us to live expectantly; “But if what we see not we hope, we expect in patience” (Romans 8:25). This has a profound effect on our lives. Those who are living in the light of Christ’s soon return will be “faithful and wise stewards” in the meantime. But those who say in their hearts, “My lord delays to come” will tend to act inappropriately toward other believers and toward the world (Matt. 24:45-51). Our outlook affects our conduct. The parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) gives us further light on this. All the virgins began brightly by “going forth to meet the bridegroom”, answering to their calling to wait for God’s Son from heaven. Later, they all grew tired and slept. It speaks of the moral decline of Christendom in the dark ages. What woke Christianity from its sleeping state? Like the virgins, what woke the Church was the midnight cry, “Behold the Bridegroom, go ye out to meet him!” The recovery of the truth of Christ’s return for His saints woke the church, and the result was a bright testimony again among the faithful, while the foolish found that they had no oil (indwelling Spirit) to sustain their testimony. Covenant Theology denies the “any moment” expectation of Christ’s return, and substitutes the hope of earthly progress through the Church’s efforts.

A Proper Foundation: Grace and not Law

It is impossible to decouple our understanding of God’s ways with man from the doctrinal foundations of Christianity. There is a moral connect between the denial of Christ’s glory in His ways with men on the earth, and the denial of His glory in redemption. Blurring the lines between the Church and Israel leads to blurring the lines between grace and law. We have a type of this in the life of Abram. It was when Abram went down into Egypt that he denied his relationship with Sarah who is a type of grace, and picked up Hagar who is a type of the Law (Gal. 4). In fact, numerous times Hagar is called “Hagar the Egyptian”. Losing his place in the land of Canaan led Abram to acquire Hagar. In a similar way, giving up our heavenly calling brings us a step closer to the ground of the law, which is a moral principle compatible with the world.
 

Dispensationalism in Church History

It is helpful to understand dispensationalism in Church history. Frequently we hear that dispensationalism was “invented” by J.N. Darby, along with the pre-tribulation rapture. However, this is simply not true. Darby and others were used to recover and proclaim dispensational truth which had been obscured for centuries, but he by no means invented it.

The Early Church. Paul and the other New Testament writers clearly held and taught the elements of dispensational truth. Ephesians, Galatians, and Romans 9-11 are shining witnesses to this fact. Sadly, a full understanding of these truths was lost early in Church history. However, we can still see evidences of it in the writings of the early church fathers. Some including Papias, Barnabas and Justin Martyr believed in a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ to be set up after His appearing. This view is called premillennialism, sometimes distinguished as historical premillennialism. Others including Irenaeus even believed in the seven-year tribulation, as a fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week. But these premillennial views quickly were lost under the growing influence of allegorism. Church fathers of the third century, including Clement and Origen, began to reject premillennialism, favoring a non-literal interpretation of prophecy. The allegorical interpretation of prophecy allowed for the view of the millennium as a spiritual kingdom being unfolded now. This view is called amillennialism, because it actually denies the reality of a literal millennium, although its does allow for the second coming of Christ in the distant future. In the allegorical, amillennial view, which Augustine popularized through his book The City of God, the church is responsible to transform the world to be more like heaven. This is the view that gradually grew stronger, and dominated the church’s eschatology for centuries, really until the early 1800s.

The reformation. The reformation brought needed relief to the church regarding the authority of the scriptures and salvation by faith alone. However, the reformers never got free from Augustinian allegorism, and consequently never saw the distinction between the church and Israel. The great reformers all formally rejected the notion of a literal millennium on earth. The Lutheran church called it “a Jewish opinion”.1 John Calvin called it “childish fiction”.2. Heinrich Bullinger called it “a Jewish dream”.3 The reformers viewed the church as the spiritual continuation of Israel, and believed that God was finished with the nation entirely. This was really the downfall of the reformation, because when the persecution came, failing to grasp their heavenly calling, the reformed churches joined with the governments of Europe for protection. This effectively derailed the forward progress being made by the reformers, and many years went by before God raised up other reformers to recover the truth of the church’s heavenly calling. The amillennial views of the reformers are known as reformed theology or covenant theology.

The recovery of dispensational truth. This recovery came in the early nineteenth-century in Ireland, where an interest was growing in the subject of Bible prophecy. Men such as J.N. Darby and William Kelly were used to recover and proclaim the truth of the rapture, the tribulation, the appearing, and reign of Christ for one-thousand literal years. Dispensational truth spread across Europe and the remnants of the British empire. Darby made seven trips to North America, strengthening the brethren assemblies and proclaiming dispensational truth to all who would hear. He met with men such as James H. Brooks and Dwight L. Moody, who then taught those principles to their audiences. Prior to this, the eschatological view held in America was postmillennialism, taught by men such as Jonathan Edwards. This was essentially the view that the church is responsible to usher in the Millennium, and Christ will return afterwards. By preaching the gospel and reforming the world socially, the interests of Christ would be accomplished in the world, and after the church had established the Millennium, then Christ would return to preside over the kingdom. This was quite a contrast to dispensational premillennialism. The “midnight cry” sounded out across North America, and before long premillennialism had made a remarkable recovery among evangelicals.

The waning of dispensationalism. There are a number of factors that have contributed to the decline of dispensationalism. It is hard to separate the decline of dispensationalism from the overall decline of evangelical Christianity, because certainly evangelicalism suffered in the twentieth century. First of all, there is the lack of sound dispensational teaching. The version of dispensation that was popularized by C.I. Scofield and others was not the same as Darby taught. Often dispensationalists have over reached, and claimed some scriptures to support the rapture that really don’t. Some modern dispensationalists have written sensational books, even fiction, aiming to stir up excitement about the rapture, but which result in making a mockery of dispensational truth. Some have even set dates for the rapture, which also results in dispensationalism getting a bad reputation. When honest seeking Christians inquire for answers from their dispensational pastors, the pastors are unable to provide sound answers. Secondly, the church has grown increasingly worldly, and worldliness is incompatible with the heavenly calling that is central to dispensational truth. With hearts separated from Christ by earthly objects, a theology that incorporates earthly progress becomes far more appealing.

Covenant Theology

When we speak of covenant or reformed theology in contrast with dispensational theology, we are referring to a certain aspect of reformed doctrine. Dispensational teaching has no quarrel with the doctrines of grace. In fact, J.N. Darby, who was one of the men God used to recover dispensational truth, was a strong supporter of election, predestination, penal substitution, and justification by grace alone. He did not agree with limited atonement, pointing out that propitiation is another aspect of the cross which is unlimited, and permits the evangelist to preach the gospel to “whosoever will”. Usually when we contrast reformed theology with dispensational theology we are referring to the teaching regarding prophecy, the nature of the church, and God’s purpose for Christ and the earth.

Covenant theology essentially views the entire Biblical history in terms of two covenants: a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. Covenant theology puts less emphasis on the changes in God’s ways throughout time, and views the covenants as the unifying theme of scripture. You could think of it this way: dispensationalists take note of the differences between Old and New Testaments, while covenant theology argues they are different forms of the same. Dispensationalists view the church as wholly distinct from Israel, while covenant theologians view the Church as the spiritual continuation of Israel.

What are the theological sacrifices a person must make to embrace covenant theology? It begins when human wisdom is introduced.

Step 1: Deny the Failure of the First Man. Human wisdom makes much of man. By nature we are proud. We do not like to hear that God has “concluded all in unbelief” (Rom. 11:32). Rather than see the successive dispensations of God as proof of man’s apostasy, instead an error comes in that man will eventually recover himself to fulfill the purpose of God. In fact, some teach that Jesus came to be the example of a perfect human, and all we need to do is model ourselves after Him. This is really a form of humanism. They believe that the Church is slowly conquering the whole earth through the gospel, and they support it with misapplied scriptures such as a the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13.

Step 2: Embrace Replacement Theology. The next step is to embrace a doctrine that the Church is the continuator of Israel, or the spiritual Israel. This is called replacement theology, because it is the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel. The revelation of the Mystery, of a new and heavenly calling, is simply incompatible with the denial that the first man is irrecoverable. Those who hold this error would certainly believe that Israel failed under the law, but view it as a failure of ethnic Jews, not as a failure of the First Man, of whom ethnic Jews are but a sample nation. This leads to the assertion that the Church existed in the Old Testament, going as far back as Moses or even Adam. They assert that that Church is not new, and also not distinct from the people of God in the Old Testament. They would like to blend everyone together, and not distinguish the earthly calling from the heavenly. The practical results of this are staggering. It directs the believer’s focus down to the earth, rather than to heaven where our true object is, and causes us to get taken up with earthly things.

Step 3: Deny Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy. The third step is closely linked to replacement theology. If the Church has replaced Israel, than what is in store for the nation of Israel? Many who hold replacement theology believe that God has “cast away his people” for good (Rom. 11:1). They deny that Old Testament prophecies which speak about Israel’s restoration (e.g. Ezek. 37:1-11) are literal. But how do they get around such plainness of speech as in Jer. 31:37-40 or Ezekiel 40 – 48? They can only do this by spiritualizing or allegorizing the prophecies. It is granted that some of the language of prophecy is figurative or symbolic, yet we must concede that the Bible speaks in realities. The symbols in prophecy are often symbols of literal things. However, this is denied in covenant theology. Carried to its logical conclusion, the denial of the literal fulfillment of prophecy lead into amillennialism, which is the belief of no literal millennium, but that we are in a spiritual millennium now, where Christ reigns in the hearts of His people. To deal with the explicit prophecies of Jesus regarding the judgment of Israel and Jerusalem, many amillennialists also fall into preterism, which is the belief some or all (partial/full preterism) of prophecy has already been fulfilled in history, such as in the fall of Jerusalem, in 70 A.D. While it is true that some of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D., the majority has not, and awaits its future fulfillment in the tribulation period, and the appearing of Christ.

Result #1: Detracts from the Glory of Christ. The great result of the error in covenant theology is the diminishing (if it were possible) of the glory of Christ. In what way? There are a number of reasons, but here are a few. First, to deny that the first man is a failure, that all God committed to the first man has fallen into ruin, is to contradict God’s judgment against the flesh at the cross, and to slight the work of Christ. If man wasn’t fully ruined, then the death of Christ was unnecessary. Second, the assertion that Israel will not be literally restored in the Millennium is a slight against the moral character of God. If God does not keep His promises, what kind of a God is He? Third, to deny a literal Millennium is to deny Christ the fruits of the cross. Scripture makes it clear that “the sufferings of Christ” are vitally linked to “the glories that should follow”. To think that God could look down, seeing His Son abused, dishonored, and rejected, and not see Him vindicated here in this earth?

Result #2: Sets Aside the Heavenly Calling of the Church. As we have already showed, dispensational truth gives the church her proper character: heavenly and not earthly. It also gives the church her proper outlook: the return of Christ. By viewing the church as little more than a new version of Israel, the heavenly character of the church is eroded. The church settles down on the earth, and seeks to change the world by political influence. And finally, it brings the church closer to the principle of law, because Judaism is a religion suited to the earth.

Answers to Attacks from Covenant Theologians

In conclusion I would like to go over a number of attacks made by covenant theologians against dispensational truth, and answer them from scripture.

1. The Church existed in the Old Testament, but was hidden and later revealed.

This argument is essential to the covenant theologian, who does not make a difference between the earthly people of God and the heavenly people, the church. Paul states expressly that the truth of the mystery was unknown in past ages. The argument of the covenant theologian is that the church itself existed before, but the truth of it was made known later.

To answer this question, we may ask a deeper one: what formed the church? Paul answers this in 1 Cor. 12:13; “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” The descent and baptism of the Spirit is what formed the church, and therefore the church could not have existed in the Old Testament! Also, Jesus told the disciples in Caesarea Philippi, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18), putting the beginning of the church in the future.

2. The Apostles’ use of the Old Testament prophecies show the church is the fulfillment of prophecy.

Frequently in the New Testament, especially in the Acts, the apostles quoted passages from the Old Testament to support present events. The covenant theologian would assert that these quotations show that the events of the early church are the fulfillment of prophecy, thereby denying a future fulfillment in the millennium.

In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit was sent down on the Day of Pentecost, and this was accompanied by signs of power. The Jews had a mixed response (vv.12-13), and some accused the disciples of being drunk. Peter responded explaining that this was the result of the Holy Spirit acting through the disciples. To support this, Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32:

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Acts 2:16-21).

The Covenant theologian would assert that Peter’s words prove that the Day of Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. However, in the New Testament, whenever an event is shown to be the fulfillment of prophecy, the Spirit is careful to say so explicitly. To show the event, without which the prophecy could not be fulfilled, it will say “that it might be fulfilled” e.g. John 19:24, 28, 36; Matt. 21:4-5. To give an illustration of what was said in the prophecy, like a case in point, it will say “then was fulfilled” or “this is that which was spoken” e.g. Acts 2:16, Matt. 2:17. To bring a principle to bear on a New Testament issue it will say “as it is written” or “according as it is written” e.g. Acts 15:15-17, Rom. 8:36. What Peter was saying is that the prophecy of Joel proves that the use of ordinary people (sons, daughters, servants, handmaidens) to speak extraordinary things is attributed, not to drunkenness, but to the Spirit of God! He is not saying that Acts 2 is the fulfillment of Joel 2.

In Acts 15, the apostles and elders came together to settle some doctrinal issues that had arisen around the salvation of Gentiles through the preaching of the gospel. The issue was over whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Those who spoke (Peter, Paul, and James) zeroed in on the root of the issue: is God’s heart toward the Gentile any less than the Jew? Peter and Paul gave their evidence, showing that God was indeed working among the Gentiles. So then James speaks up:

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (Acts 15:15-17)

The covenant theologian would assert that the quotation from Amos by James shows that the salvation of Gentiles in the church period is the fulfillment of Amos’s prophecy (Amos 9:11-12). They would insist the “the tabernacle of David” is the church. Yet we can see that once again, the prophecy is not said by the inspired speaker to be fulfilled by the current events. Rather, James is showing that what was happening with Gentiles being saved is consistent with the prophecy. The word “agree” that James uses comes from the same root that we get our English word “symphonize”. The final fulfillment Amos’s prophecy is in the millennium, when Israel is restored in their land. A simple reading of the prophecy will show that. 

There is a common theme with these misunderstandings about Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament. It is confusing the millennial blessing of the Gentiles with the incorporation of Gentiles into the assembly. This circles back to the important of understanding the mystery, and that the assembly is a new thing, distinct from Jew and Gentile.

3. Both Jesus and Paul taught that the New Covenant is with the church, not with a future Israel.

In Jeremiah 31, the new covenant is introduced. It is said to be made in the future “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31). This will be fulfilled in the Millennium when the house of Israel and Judah are restored to the Lord. However, covenant theologians insist that the church is the spiritual Israel, and therefore the new covenant is made with the church, setting aside the notion of a restored future Israel.

To support this, covenant theologians point to several New Testament texts. When instituting the Lord’s Supper, Jesus took the cup of wine, blessed it, and gave it to His disciples saying, “For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Does this show that the church is under the new covenant? No. The new covenant will be made with the future house of Israel and Judah. The epistle to the Hebrews shows that, for a covenant to be in force, it must be accompanied by the shedding of blood. It was the blood of Christ that laid the foundation for the new covenant, just as the work of Christ makes it possible for Israel to be restored. Notice that Jesus does not say, ‘I am making the new covenant with the church’, but simply ‘this is the blood of the new covenant’. The same blood that secured the blessing of those formally under the new covenant in the future is also what secures our salvation in Christianity.

Paul in writing to the Corinthians said that Christians are “competent, as ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6). Again, it does not say that the new covenant is made with the church. If you understand that context of 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is contrasting the ministry of the Spirit with the ministry of death. The fact that Christians are competent ministers of the new covenant shows that the blessings of the new covenant are part of Christian blessing. However, Christian blessing goes far beyond the blessing of the new covenant, the tenets of which are enumerated in Jeremiah 31. This is confirmed in the following clause; “not of letter, but of spirit”. That is, we are not under the New Covenant as a binding contract (“not of letter”), but we partake of the spiritual blessings of it (“but of spirit”). Paul is careful to make this distinction lest anyone think the Church has replaced Israel, who is the proper heir of the New Covenant. Read more…

To conclude, if the new covenant were made with the church, the Bible would say so. Instead, the Bible says that the new covenant will be with Israel, “to whom pertaineth … the covenants” (Rom. 9:4). We are saved by the same blood that will establish the new covenant, and we enjoy the blessings of the new covenant, but our portion as believers “in Christ” goes higher than the portion of believing Jews in the millennium.

4. Dispensationalists are inconsistent in their hermeneutics: they don’t always interpret literally.

Because dispensational truth emphasizes the literal fulfillment of prophecy, covenant theologians will often point out that dispensationalists don’t interpret everything in the Bible literally. This is true, but the point is moot. The covenant theologian would argue that dispensationalists are inconsistent because, while insisting that the prophecies pertaining to Israel’s restoration are literal, they take Isaac and Rebecca as a type of Christ and the church, in a non-literal sense. However, there is no inconsistency there. The story of Isaac and Rebecca is not a prophecy. It is a pattern of events that only later, once the truth of the mystery was revealed, could believers look back and see the type. Meanwhile the prophecies are spoken in the plainest language; “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the city shall be built to Jehovah from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner” (Jer. 31:16). This means that the literal city of Jerusalem will be literally rebuilt by those whom God’s law is written in their hearts. What license do we have to transmute the prophecies about the walls of Jerusalem being rebuilt into a vague notion about the blessing of the Church? None. In fact, when we come to the New Testament, rather than find the Old Testament prophecies spiritualized, Peter says “And we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which ye do well taking heed, etc.” (2 Pet. 1:19).

Yet a few words more on the subject of hermeneutics are warranted. Men come up with hermeneutical rules for interpreting the Bible. Many of these “rules” are sound principles, but some are not, such as the “Law of First Mention”. These rules comprise systematic hermeneutics, such as the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Many dispensationalists, especially in the late twentieth century, adopted a “wooden” literal hermeneutic. For instance, the stars falling to the earth in Revelation 6 were insisted on being meteorites, etc. Since the branches of dispensationalism that became the most popular and publicized were those who had the literal hermeneutic, dispensationalism as a whole began to be branded with it. However, the men God used to recover dispensational truth at the beginning held no such hermeneutic. Expositors such as J.N. Darby believed that the Old Testament prophecies often used figurative language to describe literal events, and also believed that the literal events were often representative of a spiritual or moral condition in general. When it comes to the book of Revelation, which is most frequently abused, the apostle John states in the very beginning that the things contained in the revelation are the things which must shortly come to pass, but “signified” (or demonstrated with figures), and communicated to John (Rev. 1:1). How false and foolish then is the idea that every word of scripture must be interpreted in a wooden, literal sense. However, equally false and foolish is the notion that the plain statements of prophecy have no literal fulfillment. The Spirit of God alone is the interpreter of scripture (1 Cor. 2:11).

Literal language can have more than literal meaning. For instance, “And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying” (Isa. 65:19). This is a poetic way of showing that the state of Jerusalem in the future will be one of joy rather than sorrow. Surely, the words speak of no more weeping and crying, but it is evident that the prophet means more than this. “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed” (Isa. 65:20). How can you spiritualize this? It is obviously talking about the human lifespan being extended. And yet it goes deeper, showing that the effects of sin will be relieved. “And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.” (Isa. 65:21). Again, I have no doubt that the restored Jews will build and inhabit houses, plant and eat grapes, etc. Yet the meaning goes deeper than that. The prophet shows that the people of Israel will be settled in the land, and will enjoy it in an earthly sense as God originally intended it. “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD” (Isa. 65:25). The covenant theologian would insist that the ‘wolf’ represents the Gentile and the ‘lamb’ represents the Jew, living in harmony through the gospel. But this is a great leap of reasoning. In keeping with the context (v.20), this verse gives the added effect of the curse being lifted; i.e. the animals even living together without harming each other.

5. Dispensationalists argue for two grounds of justification: law for Old Testament saints, and grace for New Testament saints.

The allegation that dispensationalists teach a different ground for justification of Old and New Testament saints is totally uninformed. 

6. Dispensational truth is a modern invention and therefore untrustworthy.

7. Dispensational truth is pessimistic because it focuses on man’s failure.

8. Dispensationalism appeals to consensus in some cases, and not others.

The accusation is that dispensationalism depends on external consensus such as the date Revelation was written. However, this is not true. In fact, it is Preterism that appeals to consensus on the date of Revelation, because their system depends on the prophecies of Revelation being given before 70 A.D. In fact, dispensationalism makes no appeal to external consensus, but rather appeals only to the authority of the Word of God.

 
Prev Dispensational Truth Next
  1. Augsburg Confession, Article XVII.
  2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, XXV.V
  3. The Second Helvetic Confession.