Subscribe on Substack for free or for a paid subscription at

Subscribe on YouTube at https://youtube.com/@newyorktheologian.com.

Support me on Buy Me a Coffee at https://buymeacoffee.com/newyorktheologian.

The “only way to understand the Bible”? Yes! The distinction of Israel and the church and the not yet but future kingdom of God emerge from interpreting the Bible properly.

For the written form of this podcast, see the link below:

Why Traditional Dispensationalism

The second key doctrinal distinctive I am writing about is traditional dispensationalism. This is wordy phrase, what does it mean? It refers to an essential belief for me that includes key methods in how I interpret the Bible as a revelation from God. Most essentially, traditional dispensationalism believes that there are two peoples in God’s plan - the nation of Israel and the Christian church - and that the kingdom of God, centered on the nation of Israel with Jesus as its king, is entirely future (”not yet”). However, much more can be said about these two things. I agree with Charles Ryrie who summarized dispensationalism as consisting of (1) a distinction between Israel and the church, (2) literal interpretation of the Bible, and (3) a doxological purpose of God for human history beyond just individual salvation (Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded, pages 45-48).

The Culture and Dispensationalism

The easiest cultural expression for millennials who lived in the 90s to connect with traditional dispensationalism is the Left Behind series. I have always thought that the twelve book series at its heart was simply mainstream beliefs of dispensationalists and not idle speculation. The books tell a story based on what the Bible teaches will happen when the true church is taken up to meet Jesus Christ in the same way he left (Acts 1:9-11). The world “left behind” faces the judgment of God for seven years while the nation of Israel faces a final reckoning in which it comes to faith in Jesus Christ as her Messiah.

The present cultural moment has experienced a resurgence of criticism for dispensationalists. Significant critiques of the “fall” of dispensationalism have been written. It does feel that way as a popular movement blew through evangelicalism during my adult lifetime sometimes called “The Young, Restless, and Reformed” which was explicitly anti-dispensationalist (with few exceptions). The criticisms have recently even come to include people on the Far Right such as Tucker Carlson, blaming dispensationalism for his perceived faults in our approach to policy in the Middle East concerning Israel.

While dispensationalism did at a time influence popular concepts of “the world is coming to an end soon,” such is not the primary goal of dispensationalism. If you are one who has been taught to be critical of this viewpoint, I ask you to give me a chance. Listen to an actual person who holds it rather than others.

What is Traditional Dispensationalism

Recall the two key beliefs I mentioned that are at the heart of traditional dispensationalism. First, there are two peoples of God - the nation of Israel and the Christian church. Second, there is a firm belief in the future kingdom of God. Why are these two beliefs true? I would explain three areas to explain dispensationalism more fully.

Consistent Literal Interpretation of the Bible

It is certainly the legacy of the Protestant Reformation that there was a return from allegorical means of the interpreting Bible to the literal sense of Scripture. This means that the words of Scripture are interpreted using the standard ways we all use language. Just because the Bible is about spiritual topics does not mean we make everything mystical. However, traditional dispensationalists believe we uniquely use a distinctive approach to interpreting the Bible that is consistent. We uphold the author’s intended meaning of Scripture in all passages. We resist the impulse, unlike the Reformers at times, to try to find Christ in every text of Scripture or to read the New Testament in a way that allows it to change earlier parts of the Old Testament. We emphasize that even prophecy must be interpreted according to the intended meaning of the author of the Scripture as expressed in the words given. The use of human voices means that normal means of language must be used. Now, the authors may not have known all the implications that they wrote about or the actual historical fulfillment. However, they did not affirm one thing and have the fulfillment something entirely different. 1 Peter 1:10-11 describes the tension of this: “Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who prophesied about the grace that would come to you, searched and carefully investigated. 11 They inquired into what time or what circumstances the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified in advance to the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”

I believe that if we are to do proper service to the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration, we must affirm literal interpretation in the way that traditional dispensationalists do. If we allow a later text to re-interpret an earlier one, we lose the tight connection that is found between the Author (big A, referring to God) and the author (little a, referring to the humans God used to reveal Scripture). This puts the entire claim to divine inspiration at risk. Traditional dispensationalists emphasis a consistent literal interpretation, and in this way, they are unique even against a type of dispensationalism called progressive dispensationalism.

The significance for this approach to reading the Bible empowers you to read the Bible for yourself without being subservient as much to the “Bible experts.” You can read the Bible in its context, and fit it together understanding the historical development as you read. Dispensationalists are the champions of what used to be called Inductive Bible study.

Different Arrangements for Human Eras

Now the word dispensationalism comes from a word that is used in the Scriptural languages to refer to the economoics of the household. This is one of the areas were we are described as loving charts (prophecy time maps are also a chart area for us). At a minimum, dispensationalists have emphasized a dispensation for the ancient Jewish period (”law”), the dispensation of today for the church (”grace”), and the dispensation of the coming kingdom. Often, these dispensations are tied to the explicitly described covenants of Scripture - especially the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3), the Mosaic Covenant and its related material (Exodus 20-24), and the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7). However, that is not always the case - most dispensationalists observe four dispensations in the early period of Genesis—calling them Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, and Patrichal or sometimes Promise. Briefly, I will note that calling the present era as a dispensation of grace can be criticzed even among dispensationalists because most recognize there was grace for the Jews in their dispensation in the past. However, I don’t believe the term can be entirely thrown out in light of John 1:17: “[For] the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” The aspect of the future kingdom of God is found in that the dispensational of the kingdom is future--it is not now. While progressive dispensationalists and most other Christians affirm a concept that the kingdom is “already and not yet,” traditional dispensationalists see the Bible teaching a sharper distinction. We will be citizes of that future kingdom since we will be living eternally. But we do not have to say that the Davidic Kingdom of Christ has begun, since when it was promised in the Davidic Covenant it was an earthly kingdom. Christ has never reigned in Jerusalem, but he will in the future.

The most important thing these arrangements give to you is that they show that not every command applies to you personally. You live in the dispensation of grace. You have obligations under this dispensation - trust in Christ alone for salvation if you are not saved, and live according to especially the precepts of the New Testament epistles for how to live your Christian life. But you do not, for example, have to live according to the Jewish dietary laws or even the obligations of Adam and Eve to not eat animals after they left the garden.

A Multi-Faceted Plan for the World

The final point I want draw out is that traditional dispensationalism especially emphasizes that God’s purposes are more than just the individual salvation of souls. I believe that gospel-centric theology is a misreading of the Bible, though it is certainly a personally important category. We must allow God’s plan for the church, Israel, angels, and the nations emerge from the Bible and not read everything through a gospel-centric lens. When it concerns you and me, we rightly might favor emphasizing our personal salvation. However, the world is not merely about us. The church will serve as the bride of Christ, being co-heirs with him as He rules over Israel and the earth during the Millennium and into the eternal kingdom after the 1,000 years. He has a plan for Israel as they will be the vehicle of blessing on the nations during the Millennium. The nations will have a purpose in learning of God during the Millennium, bringing blessing to Israel at the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Even the lost, God has a purpose for them though they are not saved. They will bring God glory and honor through the expression of His righteous judgment on them.

The Reformed string of theology affirms that all is to be to the glory of God alone (soli deo gloria), but the Bible teaches that this glory is not manifested through individual salvation alone. I believe traditional dispensationalism better presents the glory of God through the multi-faceted nature of what He is doing.

What this means for you is that when you read the Bible, don’t just assume that the only thing you will find in the Old Testament is things related to your individual salvation. You can read the texts in the way the Israelites would have understood them. You can apply them to your life today, drawing parallels but recognize that you live in a different era and that God may have differences in what he plans to do in your life or in the future of the world.

Summary

The two most important ideas that summarize the traditional dispensational approach to the Bible is that God has a plan for two separate peoples and that the promised kingdom is entirely future. These two ideas are supported by three key ideas of dispensationalism - consistent literal interpretation, different arrangements for God’s will for people, and the multi-faceted plan of God to magnify himself. Several other areas are results of dispensationalism that warrant brief description.

The Results of Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism is based on consistent literal grammatical-historical hermeneutics. It leads to a recognition of different arrangements in how God governs His people and the understanding that God has a plan for the church, Israel, the nations, and the lost. In light of these basic ideas, what are some of the other results?

One of the most obvious is that there is a future for national Israel. Closely related to this is that traditional dispensationalists are Christian Zionists. This means we believe in Israel’s ultimate right, even present right, to live in the land of Israel that they were given by God so long ago. For dispensationalists, this is crucial issue because God’s truthfulness is at stake. Understood literally, God promised Israel through Abraham that they would receive an eternal inheritance in the land. Since they are not dwelling there eternally yet, we view a future for national Israel as one in which the promises of God are at stake. It is true non-dispensationalists interpret these promises differently, seeing Jesus as the true Israel or in other means to show that God is not going back on His Word. However, we view that a future of Israel is necessary for the absolute truthfulness of Scripture.

The pre-tribulation rapture is another result. This just means that truly Jesus can come back at any moment to take the true believers to heaven. It is pre-tribulation because there the tribulation is an expression of the righteous wrath of God on the earth, and believers who have been saved by the blood of Christ alone are not subject to that wrath.

Traditional dispensationalists also believe in the pre-millennial return of Jesus. This means that Jesus returns before a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on earth from Jerusalem. Some non-dispensationalists would believe in this kind of reign of Christ (e.g. Albert Mohler), but dispensationalists affirm that it has a uniquely Jewish element. It is a fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jews in the Old Testament.

It also believes in the futurist understanding of the book of Revelation. In no other book of the Bible is it necessary to recognize that figures of speech are found, but that they have a literal referent grounded in the author’s original intent. The book of Revelation can be taken in a more “present” reading rather than a futuristic one. However, as dispensationalists understand it, the book of Revelation after chapter 3 is focused on what will happen in the future rather than anything happening now.

Most of these things are the kind of eschatological areas that people assume are at the heart of dispensationalism. However, note that these are results of it more than the assumptions we bring to the Bible. They emerge from the proper interpretation of the Bible in the way outlined earlier.

Conclusion

Why does dispensationalism matter? One of the things that Thomas Aquinas (as well as many older interpreters) are criticized for is using a method in interpreting the Bible that just reads the Bible looking for hidden meanings in the text. Traditional dispensationalism answers this by insisting on consistent literal interpretation.

Thomistic philosophy lays the foundation for God and revelation. Traditional dispensationalism’s interpretive commitments lay the foundation for properly interpreting the Bible. It also lays the foundation for classic free grace theology. The beliefs and practices of fundamentalism and of Baptist theology align very well with traditional dispensationalism. While many books are available from non-dispensational publishers, I urge you to read my works other works from a dispensational perspective for considering the possibility that traditional dispensationalism is the truth taught by Scripture.

In conclusion, I like Charles Ryrie believe “dispensational premillennialism [is] the only way to understand the Bible.” (Dispensationalism, page 10) What we mean when we say that is that it is the only way that makes sense when one considers the entirety of Scripture. You may not agree, and that is okay. But I would encourage you to seriously consider it as a viable option.

Books on Traditional Dispensationalism

Amazon links are affiliate links. Purchasing with them helps support The New York Theologian

Basic: Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Amazon: Paperback).

Mid-range: Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Amazon: Paperback and Kindle)

Advanced:

Cory M. Marsh and James I. Fazio, editors, Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought From the First to the Twenty-First Century (Amazon: Hardback and Kindle)

Christopher Cone and James I. Fazio, editors, Forged From Reformation: How Dispensational Thought Advances the Reformed Legacy (Amazon: Paperback and Kindle).

Mark A. Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, editors (Amazon: Paperback and Kindle).

Subscribe on Substack for free or for a paid subscription at https://newyorktheologian.com.

Subscribe on YouTube at https://youtube.com/@newyorktheologian.com.

Support me on Buy Me a Coffee at https://buymeacoffee.com/newyorktheologian.

Why Thomistic philosophy? Thomistic philosophy is helpful to dispensational, free grace, fundamental, Baptist theology. Thomism includes realism, classical theism, analogous God-talk, the relation of faith and reason, and natural law.

For the written form of this podcast, see the link below:

Why Thomistic Philosophy

My work is focused around five key areas, and I want provide an introduction to each of these five key doctrinal areas. I briefly described them in my introductory article, but this article is an introduction to Thomistic philosophy. In this area, as with the other five areas, I plan to (1) explain, (2) develop, and (3) defend them in my work.

Beginnings in Philosophy

The philosophy of the scholar from the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas is an important area to me. While some may see the term “theologian” as something dry and academic and unpractical, the term philosopher is even more likely to generate a “groan” if you introduce yourself as such. The practice of philosophy as I envision it has to do with important first principles - things like how do we know there is a real world, how do we know that anything is true or real, theoretical issues concerning how language works, and even a bit of interaction with how we can know there is right acts and wrong acts. Philosophy is rightly viewed as the handmaid of theology, but we also must beware of human philosophy. This is what the Bible has in mind as it says, “Be careful that no one takes you captive through [human] philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ.” (emphasis mine). I doubt that a defense of Christianity’s truthfulness is possible without some of the prerequisites that are described as areas of philosophy.

Admittedly, I have had the least training in this area compared to some other areas. However, I can trace the influence of Thomism on my life for a long time. During my first Bible college experience in 2006, I was assigned for a class on defending Christianity a book. It was in this class that I was assigned the work Christian Apologetics written by the Thomistic philosopher-apologist-theological scholar Norman L. Geisler. As it pertains to the defense of the truthfulness of Christiantiy, a popular Thomistic contribution is his “five ways” of proving God’s existence as a precursor to defending the truth of Christianity centered in Jesus Christ. While I didn’t know it at the time, Geisler’s book was an early exposure to Thomistic-type thinking. Later, I also was impacted by Geisler’s approach to the preambles of theology as he laid out eleven foundational ideas that make orthodox, evangelical theology possible.

Areas of Thomistic Philosophy

I write here from the more existentialist Thomism stream than the phenomenological Thomism. This means my focus is on things as they actually are rather than how people are reacting to objects. Additionally, as has been implied, some Protestants accept Thomistic philosophy. However while some Catholics actually disagree with Thomas. What areas does Thomistic philosophy touch? There are five key areas I think of when it comes to Thomistic philosophy.

Realism

First, Thomistic philosophy is realist in that the world actually exists apart from our thoughts about them. If we understand Scripture to teach that God is eternal, then God must have existence apart from our thinking about him. An older movie called The Matrix was based on the premise that the world of humanity was basically unreal, existing only in the mind of the one inside. However, at the same time, implicit in the concept would still be that ultimately, the matrix itself is still real. So, the movie both could be said to illustrate the idealist position while still being undergirded by realism.

Classical Theism

Second, Thomistic philosophy affirms the classical view of God. This includes the ideas that God is simple (and not made up of component parts), self-existent (the theological term I have been teaching to my son is aseity), that he is eternal, that he is unchanging, that he has exhaustive knowledge of the future, and is omnipotent. While these things can be discovered from Scripture, Scripture also affirms that “[God’s] invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse“ (Romans 1:20 CSB). It is not unreasonable that something of God’s attributes would be discoverable by humans apart from Scripture. Typically, it is pointed out that the Trinity - God’s existence in three persons - is not something knowable by human reason, and Aquinas agreed it was a mystery. However, we can know something about the Trinitarian theistic God in creation, and we can know He exists through the classical proofs of God. God is the most basic metaphysical reality - without God, nothing else would exist.

Analogous Speech about God

Third, Thomistic philosophy affirms that we can speak meaningfully about the infinite God but only in an analogous way. This means that while God is unlike us, so far beyond us, we are not reduced to using words that have no connection to how he actually exists. It also means that while God is like us, we cannot speak directly about how He actually is. Instead, when we speak about God as loving, we mean that he loves in a way similar to our way of loving but that he surpasses us in some way. If you emphasize God’s transcendence so much, you can end up an atheist or an agnostic because you remove the possibility for any human to speak meaningfully of God. Aquinas’s defense of analogous language about God is crucial to making possible a revelation from God in human language (i.e. the Bible). The concept of anthropomorphisms where God is spoken of in terms that are like humans is a common instance of analogous speech about God. So, the Bible refers to God’s arm, eyes, and ears, but these are analogous to the way God really is but do not bring him down to be a mere human.

The Relationship of Faith and Reason

Fourth, Thomistic philosophy affirms a place for both faith and reason in discovering truth. I am perhaps slightly more on the reason side of this issue, and there is a bit of a debate about how Thomas held this relationship. But what I think as I have read about this aspect of Aquinas’s thought is that he affirms that some things may be believed just on the basis of what someone else said. Thus, we do not need proof of everything God reveals - if we know He has revealed it, then we can know it is true even if we haven’t seen it. However, we can also move from things we see and reason about, to lead to a reasonable conclusion that it is true. I believe for most that is exactly how it’s supposed to work concerning God’s existence. The problem is that so many have already accepted philosophical ideas - most notably naturalism, the belief that all that exists is what is natural - that lead them to miss that God exists through the things he made. Others though may rightly just believe in God and are justified to do so. This area is one I feel need for more reflection on, and Aquinas’s thought is perhaps no better to help deal with the tension today between faith and reason.

Natural Law

Fifth, I would include here that Thomistic philosophy includes a sympathy to natural law. In theological categories, natural law relates to the general revelation of right and wrong in conscience (see Romans 2:14-15). There is more to natural law than just conscience, as it includes the idea that proper reasoning can lead one to the conclusion that certain deeds are morally right, and some are morally wrong. In some cases, the negative result is what makes it clear that something is wrong. For example, it is wrong for a person to kill another living human being because that man has the right to life and the other person’s murder of the other is a deprivation of that person’s right to life. Even the American founding arguably is based on a conception of natural law as it affirms that certain rights are self-evident (The Declaration of Independence). The words self-evident implicitly invoke the concept of natural law. The contribution of this tradition of natural law is a very important one in my view to the future of political theology for Christians.

Conclusion

My work focuses on Thomistic philosophy, but that does not mean that I follow Aquinas uncritically or that I agree with him in everything. Certainly, I am also a traditional dispensational, classic free grace, fundamental, Baptist. Each of these areas clashes with various aspects of Thomas’s full theology as a Roman Catholic in the Middle Ages. True, Martin Luther the German Reformer was particularly critical of Aquinas’s type of theology. But in my opinion, other Reformers were more reliant on the scholastic tradition than they are given credit for. There was a significant resurgence of Thomistic philosophy a generation ago (the era of R. C. Sproul and Norman L. Geisler), but in the current era there is a growing moving toward “classical theology” or “retrieval theology.” If you are on the Internet and hearing about moves toward Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, do not assume that I am exactly identified with those movements. I agree with most of the thoughts recently shared by Shawn Wright in The Good and Bad of Retrieval Theology. When you take, as I do, Thomistic philosophy with the other four areas, there is a protection against turning Roman Catholic and denying the gospel thereby. No one opposed the increasing joining of Roman Catholics and Evangelicalism than the Neo-Thomist philosopher-theologian R. C. Sproul in the 1990s.

In closing, the truths I believe that Thomistic philosophy contribute flow either from general revelation (anything explicitly about God or the natural law) or from God’s common grace. Certainly, other Christian philosophies may incorporate some of these views, and if they do great. However, as a package, I believe there is something helpful and indeed true in Thomistic philosophy. I believe that his philosophy represents a promising solution to the modernism and postmodernism that has undermined Christian faith the last two centuries. It is an expression of pre-modern philosophy. It lays the foundation in many respects for the rest of the truth by helping establish realism, classical theism, analogous religious language, a proper synthesis between faith and reason, and natural law. I look forward to giving it more attention in my research and writing.

Books on Aquinas

You can find his writings in the public domain but his manner of writing is difficult so some of these might be better! See below with Amazon Affiliate links (you support my work by purchasing things with my links!)

Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. Second Edition, revised & expanded (Paperback and Kindle—available for free for Kindle Unlimited subscribers!)

Does God Exist? A Socratic Dialogue on the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas by Matt Fradd and Robert Delfino (Paperback and Kindle—also available for free for Kindle Unlimited subscribers!)

Being and Some Philosophers by Etienne Gilson (probably not in print, but check your local library)

Over the last 3 months or so my wife and I have been doing a challenge to read the whole Bible in 100 days, and we have been reading the New Testament for the last few weeks. As i have been reading, it has proved to present me fresh with the challenges we face in understanding the ways the New Testament uses the Old Testament. This issue can be a major challenge for dispensational theology, though it can be for other areas too. With this in mind, I decided to get a digital booklet titled How Does the New Testament Use the Old Testament?: A Survey of the Major Views by Michael J. Vlach. I was very pleased by what I found as I have been able to read it over the last two days.

Dr. Vlach begins with a clear introduction of what he is trying to do, and that is summarize views without necessarily focusing on personalities. He then goes forward to discuss in seven chapters seven different views on this issue. The seven views he discussed are as follows:

1. Single Meaning-Multiple Application

2. Human Meaning plus Hidden Divine Meaning [sensus plenior]

3. Contemporary Judaism/Second Temple Judaism

4. Canonical Interpretation

5. Inspired Sensus Plenior Application

6. Historical-Exegetical and Theological-Canonical

7. New Testament Reinterpretation of the Old Testament.

After discussing each of these views, Vlach also spends a chapter going over four test cases that are very common to this debate: (1) Acts 2:25-28 (referring to Psalm 16:8-11), (2) Galatians 3:16 (referring to the "Seed" in Genesis), (3) Matthew 2:15 (referring to Hosea 11:1), and (4) 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 (referring to Deuteronomy 25:4). Interestingly, the last test case was one of the passages I had noticed earlier in my reading. Finally, Vlach concludes the book with some helpful suggestions for future study, and I especially found helpful his identifying of the topic of how much we can learn about Jesus from the OT as something for future study. This is something I have almost subconsciously felt I needed to do, given that some of our problems in this area of NT use of the OT do concern messianic prophecy.

There are two aspects that made the book extremely helpful. First, it was highly readable. I am not normally a fast reader, but at > 100 pages I was able to read it in 2 days. Second, Vlach effectively described the views with his own summaries combined with appropriate quotations from key figures along with concrete examples. Furthermore, he also hit on the key names concerning various views too, with extensive footnotes that would make future study easy to do on a given issue. His work was well researched, with references to a large amount of the literature on this topic. Reading his work makes me feel I got an unbiased summary of sorts of the literature on the topic (and a lot of it I haven't read yet). This booklet's summaries will make it easier for me to go back and read the other literature. Vlach also effectively gave helpful comments on the issues as he went along, while still staying faithful to his goal of faithfully summarizing what others were saying.

By way of critique, I will say that there were some times when I felt that he may have been a little too non-committal on issues under given discussion given the importance for this issue to dispensational theology. However, his final section does mitigate this by his discussion of dispensationalism versus covenant theology and its significance for the topic at hand. In that final section, he observed there is not a one to one relationship between one's views on this topic and the topic of dispensationalism and covenant theology (e.g. Kaiser being more dispensational and Beale being covenant shared a lot of similarities at various points), but he admits that one's position on this matter will tend that person often toward one or the other of these competing theological systems.

I recommend this work for anyone who is struggling with the question of how the New Testament uses the Old. It will be most useful for those who have had at least an introduction to some of the positions about this issue, but I would like to think that even people who aren't versed at all would benefit from it. I came away with an appreciation for the need for me to think deeper about certain options to resolve this issue. This book has given me some food for thought that I will be able to refer back to as future study of this issue takes place. However, more importantly, I am left with more confidence that this is something that can be resolved without compromising grammatical-historical hermeneutics and single meaning, either in the OT or the NT. As a traditional dispensationalist, that is admittedly what I desire.

For the written form of this podcast, see the link below:

Why Balance is Not a Bad Thing in Theology and Life

Is the idea of balance appropriate for formulating one’s beliefs and practices? In this article, I explain why I find it to be a very crucial idea in developing theology. Several writings within traditional dispensationalism (a key doctrine as I understand the Bible) are sympathetic to this idea, but the idea has found some criticism. This article begins with several quotes regarding the subject through history. Recall that dispensationalism understands that the Bible should be interpreted using normal methods for speech, not looking for hidden or secret meanings in texts. From this, one concludes that (1) Israel and the church are distinct in God’s plan, and (2) God’s plans are broader than just the gospel.

It is interesting to reflect on how dispensationalists considered the idea of balance. This balance is presented as being needed in both a well-rounded faith and a well-rounded life of faith. I will share quotes from James Hall Brookes, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Charles Ryrie with side comments on C. I. Scofield and John F. Walvoord, all teachers in the line of dispensational Bible teachers.

The first quote is from C. I. Scofield, the editor of the well-known Scofield Reference Bible, regarding his mentor and predecessor in traditional dispensationalism James Hall Brookes. The quote is found in Charles Trumbell’s work The Life of C. I. Scofield (emphasis is mine in all quotations).

James H. Brookes was the greatest Bible student I have ever known. His great strength lay in the fact that he held truth in balance--he always balanced whatever truth he was giving by some other truth; that is, whether he mentioned the other truth or not, he held it at least in his mind over against the truth that he was giving, and thus was kept from unbalanced or false emphasis.

While speaking of James H. Brookes, one can rightly take this statement as Scofield’s person acceptance of this idea for himself. In this case, the focus is on balance in formulating doctrine from our interpretation of all the Word of God.

The second quote is from Lewis Sperry Chafer’s book Major Bible Themes on basic Bible doctrines. He studied under Scofield and founded Dallas Theological Seminary. In his chapter on sanctification, he offers this thought:

Disproportionate emphasis on any one doctrine, or the habit of seeing all truth in the light of one line of Bible teaching, leads to serious error. The doctrine of Sanctification, like all other doctrines of the Scriptures, represents and defines an exact field within the purpose of God, and since it aims at definite ends, it suffers as much from overstatement as from understatement.

Chafer’s work (published in 1926) was later revised by his successor as president of Dallas Seminary John F. Walvoord (published in 1974), and this statement is left essentially intact and thus would seem to reflect Walvoord’s agreement with it like previously noted with Scofield in his comment about James H. Brookes.

The final quote (emphasis is mine) is from Charles C. Ryrie who did overlap Walvoord’s generation to some degree, but I believe he stands as part of the subsequent generation slightly. The first is from his work Balancing the Christian Life.

Genuine and wholesome spirituality is the goal of all Christian living….By wholesome I mean balanced. There is nothing more devastating to the practice of spiritual living than an imbalance. One of my former teachers repeatedly reminded us that an imbalance in theology was the same as doctrinal insanity. The same applies to the realm of Christian living. An unbalanced application of the doctrines related to biblical spirituality will result in an unbalanced Christian life. Too much emphasis on the mystical may obscure the practicality of spiritual living, while an overemphasis on practicality may result in a lack of vision. A constant reiteration of the need for repeated rededications could lead to a stagnant Christian life in which there is no consistent and substantial growth. An overemphasis on confession could cause unhealthy introspection, while an under-emphasis might tend to make one insensitive to sin. Balance is the key to a wholesome spiritual life.

In this, Ryrie seems to give word to the essence of what was said by the others and gives word to all of it and applies it to both doctrine and life. The reason I view balance is so important is because it allows us to take the whole counsel of God together. In that light, it is not surprising to see the kind of continuity demonstrates in these quotes in the dispensational history all the way back to James H. Brookes in the mid- to late-1800s. The overall presentation from these voices of the past is that we must be balanced in holding our truth in both doctrine and life because to do otherwise will lead to error in our beliefs and our lifestyle.

In contrast, J. I. Packer's classic Knowing God (a non-dispensationalist) includes the following statement about balance while discussing the need to know God not just know about Him. He says:

The question is not whether we are good at theology, or 'balanced' (horrible, self-conscious word!) in our approach to problems of Christian living. The question is, can we say…that we have known God, and that because we have known God the unpleasantness we have had, or the unpleasantness we have not had, through being Christians does not matter to us?

With reference to balance, Dr. Packer seems to be speaking strongly against a concept of "balance" as it pertains to how we live our lives. He is not the only one today. One thinks of a book titled Radical by David Platt from several years ago expressing, in general terms, a similar sentiment. There was even a blog post a several years ago by Anthony Carver titled "Is ‘Balance’ a Four-Letter Word?" in which the author expresses the overall sentiment. He states, "I have found in my own life, and the life of many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, that balance is too often a means of covering up cowardice and even disobedience." He concludes his post, "The more I live the Christian life, the more challenged I am not for balance but for boldness; not for safety but for courage and strength."

Admittedly, I think that some of these authors and speakers are addressing specific concerns regarding Western Christian lifestyles whereas I am more speaking about the issue on a theoretical level. However, I do think some discussion of the concept is needed to better express what can be good and what can be bad about balance. First, there is the matter of balance in doctrine, which I do believe we should possess. Because of the way the Bible was written, we have a progress of revelation in which later revelation builds on earlier revelation. This building can come in more than one way, by details being added to existing doctrines and also new doctrines and concepts being added to previous doctrines. Thus, to use Lewis Sperry Chafer's example, we cannot let one thing taught in the Bible such as sanctification take anything away from justification by faith alone also taught in the Bible. This being said, it is easy at times to try to fit the middle of the road on a controversial issue just to try to not take side on an issue that we should be clear on. Perhaps as a non-Calvinist that area of doctrine is an area in which I am tempted to be guilty of this. This is not good. As always, we must be guided by the Bible, and thus when I say we should be balanced I am referring to our need to fit the Bible together properly.

What about balance in life? This is the major focus of the previously mentioned comments about balance. Some of those mentioned perceived, perhaps rightly, that some just are seeking to be balanced for the sake of being balanced rather than being faithful and Biblical. Like noted with doctrine, this is a legitimate danger. Is it ethically challenging especially with respect to the concept of an "American Dream", and how we shape our Christian lives. However, I also would be quick to say that so much of my Christian experience has been marred by overemphasis on one part of our duty in the Christian life to another. Some of the very verses in Carver's blog post are ones that have robbed me of a proper, Biblical spiritual life. It is true, as Carver quoted Richard Pratt, that "[b]ecause the deck of life is always shifting, balance can be nothing more than momentary synchronicity." (Richard Pratt) However, this does not mean balance is bad. It rather illustrates the need for consistent worldview thinking in order to keep on track spiritually, rather than saying balance is an unhelpful concept or a "four-letter word." We do though need to take seriously the calls for discipleship and radical action in our Christian experience, and seek to apply them in context to all the Bible says and also let them be guided especially by our doctrine.

In conclusion, I would say that we do need balance. I wonder if there is anything about dispensationalism with its emphasis on letting each text speak more firmly, rather than importing a doctrinal system on the Bible, that contributes to an impulse to express balance in theology and life. As Dr. Ryrie indicated in the quote above, a synonym for the word balance is wholesome. I don't think we should throwaway the word balance, but it does need to be used properly and not a cover up. In our balance, we must not have in view a purposeful attempt to "meet in the middle" in our doctrinal positions or a kind of life that is more akin to the American Dream. When we think of balance in our lives, we must have in view a full picture of everything God has revealed in His Word and all He expects of us, without diminishing anything that shouldn't be or magnifying anything that shouldn't be. We must know, proclaim, and live all the Word of God. We must be balanced in all our doctrine and life.

Amazon Affiliate Links for Books Mentioned (you can support my work by purchasing from these links):

• The Life of C. I. Scofield by Charles Trumbull: Paperback or Kindle

• Major Bible Themes Revised edition by Lewis Sperry Chafer and John F. Walvoord: Hardback or Kindle

• Balancing the Christian Life by Charles C. Ryrie: Paperback or Kindle

• Knowing God by J. I. Packer: Hardback or Kindle

(Picture AI Generated)

If you talk about New York, getting past the awkward “New York State” versus “New York City” discussion, in short order many think of “non-religious” (the unbeliever) or “non-Christian.” Certainly, the lifestyle of modernity that leaves God out of day to day life has left its mark strongly on New York just like it has New England. For your understanding, when I say “New York” I mean by default New York State. But, I am not an upstate NYer who scoffs about when New York City or Long Island.

Some may not understand New York State’s history. The same place rhat British Christians fled to first before they came to America as what we call Pilgrims was Holland. That is in the Netherlands, the same country that settled New York City as New Amsterdam. That country had a Protestant tradition rooted in Calvinistic-Reformation theology, but it also had a somewhat early emphasis on freedom of conscience - the ability for individuals to have freedom of faith. This kind of background was behind the New Netherland colony in which New Amsterdam was settled. The story is complex for sure, but one should recognize that it is the Dutch trend toward liberty of conscience, not Virginia or Massachusetts, that brought the concept of religious liberty to America. For more about the history of the Dutch founding of New York, I can recommend with caution Russell Shorto’s The Island at the Center of the World (Amazon Associate Link and my Goodreads Review) and Taking Manhattan (My Amazon Associate Link and my Goodreads Review) as excellent introductions to the Dutch history of New York City. America would be a very different place without religious liberty that came in.

Even as America grew, New York was understandable one of the earliest frontiers. The economic growth of the United States as a whole in many ways flowed from New York especially because of the construction of the Erie Canal in the early 1800s. However, the religious climate certainly took some problematic turns. For more on that in an interesting interesting narrative on this period, see Heaven's Ditch by Jack Kelly (Amazon Associate Link and My Goodreads Review). But many New Yorkers were Christians of some variety like many other colonies. Two key eras stand out to me in the the religious history of New York. First, there was the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s. In this period, New York experienced perhaps an unprecedented, if not exceptional, degree of emotional religious activity. This combined with “backwoods” frontier living led to the development of aberrant, even strange, religions. The emotionalism left a sour taste in the minds of more rational minds, such that scholars call parts of upstate NY as the “burnt over district,” referring to how the excessive emotionalism led to an almost increased skepticism.

The second era that certainly marked New York was the controversies between conservative theology and the liberal theology. Many key events and figures from both sides happened in NY. By was of liberals, we had Harry Emerson Fosdick who preached “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” pastoring a Baptist church as a Presbyterian(!) in New York City. We also had Walter Rauschenbusch as well. He was an early thinker of the “social gospel” that man’s needs for salvation from poor living. He was a pastor in New York City’s infamous “Hell’s Kitchen” neighborhood, and later he was a seminary professor in upstate NY’s Rochester Theological Seminary. On the more conservative side, another noted Baptist theologian Augustus H. Strong also taught at Rochester. Even in Buffalo, NY, my current residence, the initial meeting of what now constitutes the Foundations Baptist Fellowship International happened in the 1920s. The school both Rauschenbusch and Strong taught at now is the markedly liberal and progressive Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

Baptists especially were a noted group within New York life. I know people who grew up in Baptist churches that did not preach the gospel who, praise the Lord, are now saved. Even the noted Rockefeller clan were Baptists. However, their mark on NY in that realm was not positive as they trended toward the liberal variety.

These religious challenges combined with the massive growth of New York City and its metropolitan region over the last 125 years made orthodox Christians more and more on the “out side.” Political structures enabled conservative minded people upstate to maintain some degree of power for a long time, but the condition eventually led to New York’s domination by the more liberal perspective centered in the downstate region. Nelson Rockefeller, for example, was a liberal Republican governor who legalized abortion in New York a few years before the Supreme Court did in the 1970s. The trend continued, as one might predict, when so-called same-sex marriage passed as well a few years before the Supreme Court did 15 years or so ago. Yet, not all is bad - for example a Republican governor Thomas E. Dewey passed a very early civil rights law in New York in a time when the Bible Belt was still holding on to Jim Crow segregation of blacks and whites.

In some ways, the life-cycle of New York is not surprising. At its peak, New York sent nearly 50 congressmen to Washington, peaking just before the 1950s. Now only 27 congressmen go to Washington from New York. The fact that states like Florida and Texas are growing just shows that their states are younger, the new is better so it seems for human nature (as well as weather and any number of other things).

The decline of New York is an opportunity for people to come and invest in gospel preaching churches in a neglected area—New York may not have the romance of being the land of the Pilgrims like New England, but it is just as needy and is a fair land.

Western NY tends to have many small villages, and the feel (and cost of living) can be close to the mid-west like Ohio. There some opportunities in the mid-sized cities of upstate, and New York City is not very far away. I enjoy the quaint villages and the recreational opportunities. I also loved New York City. It has something larger than life reputation--many, even critics, would admit that. I am not blind to the serious anti-God things there. I have heard a bible-believing pastor still refer to NYC as “The Greatest City in the World.” Other missionaries I know have perhaps rightly called it “Modern Nineveh.” Like Jonah, someone needs to be sent there. A couple with a heart for the city came to my town on deputation to support a Bronx Church plant years ago, and I personally supported them while they served there for a few short years.

As a committed Bible-believer, I believe the voice of truth must emanate from New York. As God has given me a heart for New York, I pray that I can be a witness to unbelievers and let believers elsewhere remember God has many people in this state (like Acts 18:10). Don’t expect that I will sound like one from NYC, but I do have an understanding more than some upstate NYers about the issues. I believe that in the Lord the faith can still sound out from here. By God’s grace, as I seek to teach the Word, I hope to have some measure of influence on New York and for New York as I continue to live here.

’Note: I may receive money if you purchase from an Amazon Associate link in this post.

I am Dr. A. Jacob W. Reinhardt. I recently completed by doctorate in Bible & Theology from Calvary University, Kansas City, MO. I did have a small blog on the web under two different iterations (one, Techie in Love with Jesus; the other, Biblical Worldview Musings). Most of the content from the more recent Biblical Worldview Musings is on this new website.

I have spent almost each of the last twenty-one years in college in some manner. This included six different institutions, and I have earned two associate degrees, one bachelor’s degree, one master’s degree, and a doctorate. All of it was spent in attending schools either in New York in person or online while living in western NY. The result of this education has led me to focus on several key Christian and Baptist emphases which I plan to write about. On the side, I do interact with cultural issues so I do expect to write on those from time to time.

These key ideas include the following:

1. Thomistic philosophy—the philosophy of medieval scholar Thomas Aquinas—of the Protestant variety (in the tradition of R. C. Sproul and Norman L. Geisler).

   This refers to realism, classical view of God, natural law, and pre-modern concepts of knowing truth and other aspects.

2. Traditional dispensationalism (in the tradition of Charles Ryrie and his forbears at Dallas Theological Seminary).
   This refers to a consistent literal interpretation of the Bible that leads to a distinction between Israel and the Church, that leads to an entirely future kingdom of God, and that God’s purposes are broader than just salvation.

3. Classic free grace theology (again, in the tradition of Charles Ryrie that is in the middle between hyper grace and Lordship Salvation). I do not use these terms as derogatory terms, but as descriptive terms.
   Classic free grace refers to a firm distinction between salvation and discipleship, an emphasis on faith plus nothing as the basis of salvation, and the security of salvation apart from final perseverance.

4. Fundamentalism.
   Two ideas are referred to here: (1) holding to the key essentials of Christianity against liberal theology and (2) separatistic fundametalism that recognizes a need to avoid partaking in serious errors that undermine the gospel and the goal of having the maximal level of Christian fellowship especially in the local church context.

5. Baptist distinctives for the way the church should operate.
   This includes such ideas as congregational government, believer’s baptism, local church autonomy, and liberty of conscience.

I hope to prepare content that will be understandable for the average person. I want you to go deeper in your understanding of the Christian faith. I want you to be converted if you have not recevied Christ as savior. I want you to walk with me in understanding these five key doctrinal categories. I want you to be living your life, having been saved, in a way that will lead to your being rewarded for good works in this life as you wait for the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

Welcome as I get into a cadence of writing on The New York Theologian!

If you are reflecting on what a loss his departure is, and it is indeed a loss, I encourage you to gain a better understanding of the problems with Lordship Salvation. Furthermore, I suggest that a shift in thinking is necessary to avoid assuming that the solution to the worldliness of the church is to make getting saved harder (see other blog post Free Grace Theology and the Requirement of Holiness). Ernest Pickering, a leader among fundamental Baptists, authored a short and to-the-point criticism of MacArthur when the book came out. I suggest it is a safe place to start. The article is available at Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur's Book, The Gospel According to Jesus. I can guide you to classic writings that would avoid the excesses of some groups (such as the Grace Evangelical Society) while still maintaining a better perspective on this. Two other good online sources to start are True Grace Books and Grace Global Radio. Finally, Charles Ryrie's classic So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ is worthy of consideration. I believe there is a need to renew a discussion and debate about the real issues that matter on this subject.

I trust that his overstatement of the terms of how one can get saved was only misleading at best. But there is a real sense that this view could come dangerously close to a denial of sola fide, and that would be going in the direction of heresy at worst.

• I am glad that he continued to keep dispensational premillennialism and the pre-tribulation rapture in the discourse of evangelicalism to some degree.

• I am glad for his work for young-earth creationism.

• I am glad for his stance in defense of the church's need to gather during COVID.

However, in my book, John MacArthur's legacy is tainted by 1988 and all that flowed from that book in his subsequent preaching and theology. God will be the ultimate judge, and I trust that classic free-grace Christians will be reunited with him in heaven by their mutual reliance on Christ alone and no works of discipleship for salvation.

“America’s Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers and the Future of the United States” was written by Cal Thomas, and released in January. In the book, Thomas goes through several historic world empires using a model of empire history that sees world empires as having 250 years of greatness before they fall from a position of great influence. Each empire (Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Arab, Spain, Ottoman, Britain, Russia, and finally the USA) is taken through seven stages – pioneers, conquests, commerce, affluence, intellect, decadence, and decline. He hauntingly asks us at the beginning, “How would your life change if you knew the exact date of the end of the world, and that date was only a few years away?” Based on this model (it‘s only a model, and not a prediction), America has until July 4, 2026 until it has fully declined from “greatness.” Even with the Trump MAGA phenomenon (not an endorsement; I am not an enthusiastic Trump supporter like some of my Christian brothers), the events of this year seem to lend support that the direction is down and recovery may be impossible. The latest flareup around police brutality seems to be particularly bad, and in a direction toward anarchy.

“The Gathering Storm: Secularism, Culture, and the Church” was released by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. just this month. This book is truly about a loss of religious liberty which will lead to a loss of freedom in general and comes from a denial of God. It deals with the development of secularism, the mindset of a rejection of God practically and often actually, along with how it has impacted various aspects of American society with appropriate engagement of developments from Europe. Sadly, Christians have not been able to successfully stop the trend since the Enlightenment of the 19^th century. Mohler addresses the denial of God’s design in the value of life, marriage, family, and gender/sexuality. These four areas are the foundation upon which the main threat the book builds toward -- the threat of secularism for religious liberty. He also sketches the outcomes of the underlying secularization in two areas: (1) the lost and wandering generation (my generation) and (2) the secularizing influence of the cultural engines of Hollywood, big business, Silicon Valley, and academia. His conclusion is that we are here because God was denied as a fruit of the Enlightenment and modernity. The outcome must be a denial of religious liberty, and therefore the only solution is to reaffirm God’s existence, truth’s existence, and the idea of liberty as a corollary of proper value of human life.  

At the end of their books, both Thomas and Mohler in general terms call us Christians to be faithful to our faith, even in the face of these troubles. Thomas outlines several suggestions for us, but it all boils down to being faithful to live like a Christian even as society may fall around us. He upholds the hope of 2 Chr. 7:14 as a general principle for the possibility of turning things around, though I would caution such an application of that verse though the principle still is valid. Mohler ends his book using the triad of faith, hope, and love—calling Christians to hold firm to the doctrines we profess, to have hope in God and in His ability to still work through the gathering storm, and to love people--people who may hold beliefs that are indeed harmful to themselves and persecute us for holding the very beliefs that are for their benefit and salvation from a society that cannot sustain them. I need to still deepen and strengthen my faith in view of the myriad of challenges we face.

I recommend both of these books to you--believers and even unbelievers.

If you are a non-believer, you will gain insight into history through Cal Thomas’s book and into Christians perspective about the trends that are popular in America while contrary to Christian faith.

If you are a believer, read these books to gain more insight into what we are seeing, and gain some motivation to face the course we are called to with joy and faithfulness. We must focus on revelation as the answer to the revolution posed by secularism. Deepen your faith, as I am am trying to do. Keep on serving God and building your families as you are able, and look to the soon and imminent return of Jesus Christ. 

Chapter 13: Dispensationalism Advances Sola Gratia by Grant Hawley. He rightly traces the general direction of how reformation theology had a mix of both a recovery of grace and marring of grace. His insight that the Reformation was more about the Pelagian versus Augustinian distinction of effort and effort as opposed to the Biblical distinction of grace and law is correct. I have had similar thoughts over the years of my contemplation of Calvinist controversies. However, Hawley does leave room for more work to be done on this. 

Chapter 14: Sola Fide in Every Dispensation by Glenn R. Krieder. The author gives an extended discussion of sola fide especially as it concerns early dispensationalists. Of particular interest to me was a discussion of Lewis Sperry Chafer's eccentric view of the offer of the Mosaic covenant, a view that holds that God wanted them to reject it and call out for grace instead (see Chafer’s work Grace for details on this in Chapter 4, Section Two, Sub-section II, I use a Kindle edition but it can be found easily in various formats online).. However, the explanation Chafer seems to give, according to Kreider, to the matter seems to place him in a strange way in the very (Augustinian) Reformed position that Hawley previously claimed to be an area in which dispensationalists developed further. Perhaps the solution to this is to still give Chafer some degree of charity, since elsewhere he squarely distinguishes the law versus works as the essential characteristic of this dispensation. If it may be so that he permits a grace versus efforts distinction in the earlier dispensations, then perhaps one can allow that. It would seem that this very issue of effort versus grace or law versus grace is a decent theological argument against Chafer's novel understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. It is better to take the posture of later folks along the lines that the law was a rule of life of works under the superstructure of an overall salvation by grace through faith.

Chapter 15: Solus Christus by Paul J. Scharf. This essay had good historical data about Catholics and Mary, which I found interesting. The author also gives some careful and promising explanation at the beginning of the disepensational section of the essay on how dispensationalists should not differ further from the reformed position on Christology but that they can go somewhat further and give some new emphasis, especially the known dispensational emphasis on the truth that believers are in Christ. It was an interesting discussion.

Chapter 16: Soli Deo Gloria as Pinnace of Dispensationalism’s Sine Qua Non by Christopher Cone. In this essay, there were some challenging thoughts from Dr. Cone about the various dispensationalists who don't quite take Ryrie's approach that the glory of God is the end of human history. I am left however wondering if he hasn't made the case as strongly as he claims that many dispensationalists weren’t like Ryrie on this issue. I just question if he is reading the figures accurately, but I may be mistaken and I will save final judgment on that for another day. There is a key description of all the ways God's glory is manifested that would be useful material for anyone studying the topic (pp500-501). He also gave an interesting comparison of grace and glory (pg509). In discussing the Reformers, he speaks well of Calvin as opposed to other Reformers. The key insight that he reaches is that there seems to be the distinction between intermediate ends, typically pertaining to man and/or creation, and the final ends, pertaining especially toward God and His own glorifying of Himself. Perhaps there is some explanatory value in those thoughts concerning how we live our lives day to day but not consciously thinking about God’s glory in every single thing we are or do. In fact, this line of thinking also shows up in the next essay.

Chapter 17: Soli Deo Gloria Revealed Throughout Biblical History by Luther Smith. The author ultimately agrees wih the preceding essay, but this author does note a different aspect of the glory of God through vocation. Interestingly, contrary to Cone, he painted C. I. Scofield favorably. This also would support my questioning if Cone is a little too hard on how he interprets older dispensationalists. In this essay, I also have more to consider as the interpretations of Dr. Smith about the glory of God in the seven dispensations didn‘t always seem natural. He also had an interesting description of the failure at the end of the church age.

Chapter 18: Semper Reformanda: Always Reforming by Christopher Cone. The book concludes with a short essay by Christopher Cone on the topic of Semper Reformanda: Always Reforming. This essay well concluded the book by reminding the reading of the place we have in the Reformataion lineage—that to be always reforming our views to be in more consistency with the truth. He links agility with the willingness to be always reforming, and cites both Martin Luther and the Biblical king of Judah named Josiah as examples of how to be always reforming. At the end of such a book of theological reasoning, this chapter provided an edifying conclusion to the book.

This book is an excellent historical theological discussion of the relationship of modern dispensational theology to the Reformation, and any theology student who loves the Reformation but is skeptical about dispensationalism has got to read this book. No critic of dispensationalism should ignore it. It is a great book! May we continuously reform our views to be more in accord with Scripture, and dispensationalism is a great way to start.

After a long hiatus, I am offering up the next to final part of my series from last year on Sunday and how we are to view it as Christians. I encourage you to review the previous posts to get back into the swing of what I've been writing here. I am continuing to list several problems I see with the traditionalist position on the Lord's Day.

Fourth, there is a definite reference to the “Lord’s Day” in Rev. 1:10. Dr. Beale helpfully notes that there is a unique adjective for “Lord’s” used here that is not used much elsewhere. It is not correct to take that as a reference to the prophetical Day of the Lord. The very early 2nd century testimony of the post-apostolic church seems to support that Sunday came to be known as the “Lord’s Day” and that the church was gathering that day. Some of these references may be within a generation of when the Revelation was written, and that makes it possible that the two phrases have the same reference. Still, this later evidence seems to me to be insufficient justification to reach such a conclusion. Even if John meant to say "I was in the Spirit on [Sunday]," it falls short of requiring any kind of particular practice or significance for Sunday. We can justify our worship on Sunday as our honoring of the day Jesus rose from the dead, but that is not the same as observing a weekly Lord’s Day as an institution.

Fifth, with regard to Dr. Chafer’s argument from Psalm 118:19, his connection is interesting but troublesome. First, the description there I always thought had connection to what happened on Palm Sunday, though it could be better linked to the day of His resurrection. Second, if this idea is applicable to the church, it makes more sense to rejoice in the Day of the Lord's resurrection rather than rejoice on a day that is devoted to commemorate the day of the Lord's Resurrection. We can choose to commemorate this day of resurrection on the same day of the week as He actually did rise from the dead, but this is not the same as regarding every Sunday as a day mandated as commemoration.

Sixth, there is the still more curious line of reasoning from Dr. Chafer, who typically (and sometimes, even oftentimes, rightly) calls for a distinction between law and grace. He seems to argue that there is a theological justification for the Lord's Day to serve as an anti-type of sorts to the Sabbath. He upholds his (albeit valid) distinction between law and grace with the Sabbath Vs. Lord's Day as a center piece Yet, he seems to me to contradict himself just a bit as he tries to forbid worldly pleasures and to call for a special day of spiritual activity. On the one hand, he tries to say the Lord's Day is not subject to rules since it is of the dispensation of grace. Yet, he still suggests rest is not something fitting for the Lord's Day or entertainment. It just doesn't make sense to me. He wants it all to be driven by God's Spirit at work, rather than rules, and that is good. But in essence, he seems to make rules that are a part of the "law of Christ" effectively. I have no objection with there being rules in a law of Christ, and I agree that we ought to focus on the grace of God empowering us rather than legal rules. But, Chafer still seems to just tangle a bit of a web that is overstated—and sometimes he does do that. I love his writing, but at times you do have to just move on.

I encourage you to read my previous posts (see above) since it has been a while. I hope in the coming month or so to wrap up this series with some concluding comments on why I do not accept the position that Sunday is a divinely ordained day for Christian purposes.

Up to this point, I have offered a historical summary of Sunday among Christians and given a summary of the traditionalist position. The summary of the traditionalist position showed the lines of evidence they use to defend that Sunday is a specific day for Christian worship by divine intention.

While these lines of evidence are interesting, there remain difficulties associated with understanding what precisely has happened in church history with regard to the emergence of Lord’s Day gathering. In fact, the major problem is determining whether this is some kind of divinely intended practice or a legitimate practice that the church developed in accordance with the doctrinal principles the apostles taught. Put differently, do we worship on Sunday in valid application of valid doctrinal principles or because of a divinely required practice. I remain unconvinced that the institution is more than a valid application. Allow me to explain some of my reasons to remain unconvinced that the weekly practice of Sunday worship is specifically implied in Holy Scripture.

First, why is there no explicit command in the New Testament for the church to gather on Sunday? Admittedly, one must be careful with this. My tendency is to miss obvious connections in the Scriptures of this sort. But, I don't think I'm too far off-base on this. The lack of explicit instruction is important.

Second, with reference to historical events (e.g. the Day of Pentecost) and narrative accounts of the early church doing things on Sunday (e.g. Acts 20:7), one cannot ignore the challenges faced in using such narratives to determine normative truth. These narratives, like all narratives, must be carefully applied because they do not provide an explicit basis for following a certain practice. The larger issue of Acts and the transitional nature of its period make the problem even more difficult. I can't help but wonder if a case can be made that the daily aspects of church gatherings are normal in the book of Acts and elsewhere. If so, then these descriptions of "Sunday" activities may be understood in light of the frequent meetings of the church and not the traditionalist conception of the Lord's Day. One wonders if the traditionalist position reinforces the faulty idea of “I’ve done my duty for God and for the church by coming on Sunday.” In reality, we should be active daily, or at least as much as possible.

Third, one of the items in the various discussions I read this time is a command for something to be done on Sunday—the gathering of donations (1Cor. 16:2). It is often taken as something to be done at the church weekly gathering, but I wonder if the verbiage of v2 requires that. Could it be that this is merely saying people should every Sunday put the stuff aside and then bring it all in to Paul when he comes? This is an area of further study for me. A second point would be the applicability of this command as normative for the church. This command in 1 Cor. is especially tied to the need for donations for the poor Jerusalem church. It seems that one could question whether it is a valid application to require donations every Sunday, let alone require that they happen at church gatherings. A final point would be that this passage does not really speak to ideas of the Lord's Day as a "day for service and rejoicing." (as Chafer described the Lord’s Day). To use this verse to make that kind of a point seems to read into it more than is warranted. In conclusion, 1 Cor. 16:2 does not give sufficient evidence to suggest that we are to gather ever Sunday on the basis of Paul's specific command that people gather donations for Jerusalem.

Next time, I will offer three additional thoughts why I remain uneasy with the conclusion that the Lord's Day is a required and divinely commanded or intended institution.

At this juncture in this study of Sunday, I will now define and discuss the traditionalist position of the Lord's Day--this term originating from Dr. Beale. The traditonalist position seems to be the view that Sunday is a divinely intended day for Christian worship and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dr. Beale does give a list of about 10 points defending the justification for Sunday worship (Historical Theology in Depth: Part 2, pp103-104). These could be summarized as follows:

1. Multiple historical events post-crucifixion occurred on Sunday (from the resurrection to the Day of Pentecost). This covers his points 1-4.

2. Three theologically significant events that happened specifically on the Day of Pentecost, which was on a Sunday. This covers his points 5-7.

3. Three references to Sunday are found in the apostolic church, which are interpreted to give sanction to our current practice of Sunday worship. This covered his points 8-10.

More can be amplified concerning the three instances of Sunday in the apostolic church, apart from the early historical references. These references are significant as to their categorization – one is descriptive of Christian gathering on Sunday (Acts 20:7), one is prescriptive of gathering donations on Sunday (1 Cor. 16:2) , and one is descriptive of "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). Whether this is a reference to Sunday is debated. Dr. Beale is especially helpful by noting that the word used here is a unique adjective that is not used anywhere else except in one reference (1Cor. 11:20, "the Lord's Supper"). By contrast, it is not the construction we find in reference to the prophetic Day of the Lord (e.g. 1 Thess. 5:2). Given that John spends the first three chapters of the Revelation talking about the present, it does not seem to refer to the prophetic day of the Lord. Still, identification of what John meant in context is difficult in my opinion, without resorting to later historical studies and doing some form of eisegesis.

Now, at this point Lewis Sperry Chafer's discussion of Sabbath and Lord's Day contributes more to the discussion. While offering a similar defense of Sunday as the Lord's Day to the other two, he gives his own emphasis. He ties the subject to the broader theological themes of the distinction between law and grace and the Spirit-filled life.  His unique contribution is the position that Psalm 118 prophesied of Sunday as the Lord's Day and therefore as a weekly day of worship.

In conclusion, in contrast to the Christian sabbath position, this traditionalist position is helpfully summarized by Overmiller. He points out that the Lord’s day is a result of the new covenant in contrast to the Sabbath as a requirement of the old covenant. It correctly identifies that there was no specific requirement for Sunday worship in the early church, even though it did come to be a day of worship. It is logical, and reasonable for us to select a day to worship once a week, and Sunday being the day of the Lord's resurrection is surely a good day to do so. However, what is wrong with this position? I will begin to offer some disagreements I have with this in my next post or two. In a word, I will again affirm that I love Sunday as a day for spiritual focus, and I question that any church should change this pattern today before Jesus comes.

Today I will begin my analysis of Sunday in Christendom. As in the first post, I have introduced the topic at hand as a discussion of the way we got to modern views of Sunday as some kind of a ritual day for worship and/or rest. Today's post will summarize Dr. Beale's historical summary of Sunday in Christian thought.

The historical analysis of the data from church history by Dr. Beale (a retired Bob Jones University Seminary professor of church history) is very surprising on several accounts. Overall, the testimony of church history is an affirmation of Sunday as the Lord’s Day with no connection to the Jewish Sabbath. Most early church folks were careful to reject a Christianized sabbath, but still calling for some observance of a day (even though there was not explicit Bible instruction). In fact, according to Dr. Beale the idea that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath is one that originates from the post-Reformation Puritan period in England, This is very surprising. But, a reasonable explanation is the anti-Jewish character of the early church. Over time, even overt anti-Semitism settled into the church. The direction toward Sunday as a Christian Sabbath had perhaps a brief period of growth from the 1600s to the 1800s. But, with the beginnings of the dispensationalism of the 1800s a segment of the church returned toward a traditionalist view of Sunday.

All this is to say, the Christian Sabbath does not have much going for it, In passing it should be noted that there is simply no place to change any Jewish legislation to be directly applicable to Sunday. Lewis Sperry Chafer (in his book Grace) was quite strong on this point. There would have to had been some kind of explicit precept in the New Testament for such a change, and there is none. Even then, such an institution would not be a Christian sabbath, but a new institution. Some point to a supposed creation ordinance of the Sabbath, but this is not true. I used to think that it was a valid idea. However, concerning the period between creation and Moses I would point out (as do some of these authors): (1) God did not command the Sabbath in Gen. 2, He took a sabbath rest once, (2) It is not valid to assume from silence that Abraham or others practiced Saturday rest, (3) the prohibition of the gathering of Manna in Exodus is a foreshadowing of the Mosaic Covenant soon to come in a few short days, not an example of the on going practice of the Sabbath that had been going on since creation, and (4) the reference to Creation in the Mosaic Covenant is one of analogy but not reaffirmation, and (5) the Sabbath was a distinctively Jewish sign (Exo. 31:12-18) with no meaning or significance for anyone outside of that nation and the promises to it. This all being said, it is the traditionalist view of the Lord’s Day that I wish to speak to primarily—and not so much the Christian Sabbath. Next week, I will offer part two of this series with a review of this traditionalist position held by Dr. Beale, Thomas Overmiller, and Lewis Sperry Chafer. I will attempt to better define this term next time.

One of the more interesting areas of Christian faith and life concerns Sunday, also known as the Lord’s Day. This is a weekly day when Christians all around the world meet as local churches. This weekly day is a challenge to understand, when one studies the Scripture. It is not to say that the gathering on a weekly day is unusual, but it is the combination of what the Bible does not say about Sunday and what the Bible does say about Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, that make its consideration difficult. Some tend to link Sunday with Saturday in some way, but that is not the right approach. The real question is this: “Why does the church practice Sunday at all?” I recently read some interesting literature on this topic, and these writings have helped me to some degree on this. Below is a list for reference:

• Committed to Lord’s Day Worship by Thomas Overmiller, a fundamental Baptist pastor in New York City.

• “The Sabbath Day: Christian Views from New Testament Times to the Present” by Dr. David Beale in Historical Theology in-Depth: Part 2

• “The Sabbath: A Test Question” by Lewis Sperry Chafer, in his work Grace (available here).

I suppose that many of us may think about the Lord’s Day in terms that are more Jewish in origin. Instead, it is not a stretch that the early church tied the idea of the Lord’s day more to a commemoration of the day Jesus rose from the dead (c.f. Overmiller and Chafer, section II. A. 2. of Chapter 4 Section 6 on the Sabbath). But most of us, may link the Lord’s Day with the idea of rest (fitting to the Jewish purposes of Saturday). I myself have practiced Sunday as a day of rest, not even doing my seminary studies on Sunday.

These resources were of interest and at this time, they helped me reach some clearer thought about the true Biblical understanding of Sunday. What will follow are share some of my musings on this topic. First, I will share concerning the idea of a Christian Sabbath and how it does not find support in church history or in theology. Second, I will summarize the case made by these three authors for a traditionalist understanding of the Lord’s Day—by traditionalist is meant the idea that the Lord’s Day is a divinely intended day of worship and Christian activity without reference to the Jewish Sabbath. Third, I will offer several counters where I remain unsatisfied by this traditionalist position. At the end of the series, I will summarize my approach to Sunday at this time, explaining the Biblical rational for why I continue to worship on Sunday, indeed why it is the best day of the week in my life!

Today I offer the second part of my synopsis of Forged from Reformation. The second section of the book is on "The Five Solas of the Reformation." I will be focusing on the five chapters covering sola Scriptura.

Chapter 8: The Protestant Reformation: An Important and Yet Incomplete Hermeneutical Reformation by Dr. Andy Woods.This chapter overlapped to some degree with prior content and in fact covered material that will be familiar to dispensationalists. It does though give a good summary of the way that the Reformers failed to apply their new hermeneutics to the areas of eschatology and ecclesiology. I would espeically recommend and desire that covenant theologians read it to understand where dispensationalism is coming from!

Chapter 9: The Protestant Hermeneutic and the Revival of Futurism by Dr. Ron J. Bigalke. This chapter is a very interesting historical essay about In a word, it seeks to demonstrate the complex connections found through church history between the two related areas of the when of prophecy's fulfillment (preterism, historicism, idealism, and futurism) and the timing of Jesus' return with respect to the Millennium (amillennialism, postmillenialism, and premillennialism). The essay is very helpful in giving a comprehensive overview of how we got to where we are now, and clarifies why today's categories of futuristic premillennialism and preterist or idealist amillennialism are not to be superimposed on historical figures. The author, for example, concludes that many early church fathers were imminent intratribulational premillennialists, believing they were in the era of prophetic fulfillment in a historicist model while still believing the return of Christ was imminent. The main point of the chapter seems to be a recognition that since eschatology wasn't the main issue in the Reformation, the topic was left to later dispensationalists to develop a Biblical eschatology.

Chapter 10: Sola Scriptura: Return to Literal Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics by Dr. Thomas S. Baurain.The third chapter was a short, but excellent exposition of the proper hermeneutical system that happens to be espoused by dispensationalists, and I can especially recommend it to almost anyone for its clarity and simplicity in presenting the topic.

Chapter 11: The Hermeneutical Foundations of Sola Scriptua: A Critical Examinatino of Luther's Christocentric Method of Interpretation" by Dr. James I. Fazio. This chapter was a good summary of the primary ideas of interpretation that lie behind sola Scriptura. The author helpfully tied together many important ideas such as the role of reason in interpreting the Bible, the sufficiency of Scripture, the clarity of Scripture, and more. All this is to lead to a criticism of the principle of Christocentricism in Luther's thought. It helpfully concludes that one does not violate the preeminence of Christ across Scripture if one does not find Christ in every passage in the way that Christocentricism does.

Chapter 12: Neither Woodenly-Literal Nor Allegorical: The Dispensationalist Legacy of the Refomrers' Doctrine of Sola Scriptura by Dr. Jeremiah Mutie. While not exactly what I was expecting, this chapter is essentially a historical analysis of four streams of thought from the Reformation--the Reformed, Lutheran, Millerite, and dispensational. These streams of thought are analyzed as it their faithfulness the principle, both in its literal terms and its spiritual intent, of sola Scriptura. Following the preceding chapter by Dr. Fazio, it actually overlaps a bit since they are both ordered around a similar conception of what principles entail sola Scriptura. The analysis of the Reformed and Lutheran streams were somewhat predictible, and good. The Millerite discussion though seemed to not adequately explain how that group was implementing a woodenly-literal hermeneutic to me. But, it did add more information by placing the Millerite group in the stream of historicism that was discussed by Dr. Bigalke in his earlier chapter. I was overall disappointed that the woodenly-literal aspect was not better dealt with in the section, since I tend to move in that hermeneutic direction. But, perhaps it is harder to deal with that topic since fewer groups are comitted to wooden-literalism explicitly. To conclude the chapter, the dispensational stream is placed in a positive light by its faithfulness to sola Scriptura.

The most important three takeaways I have are (1) The important connection that exists between sola Scriptura, the perspicuity of Scripture, and the literal grammatical-historical method of interpretation. (2) The very real reality that the Reformers did affirm both a historicist approach to prophecy and a Christocentric hermeneutic practically. (3) The real need to deal with adequately the subjective element of clarity in interpretation and the objective element of clarity in interpretation. In regards to #3, this found its fullest expression in Dr. Fazio's chapter on the Christocentric hermeneutic. There, it was clearly explained how Luther delineated the internal clarity that is provided to the true Christian by illumination from the external clarity in the text as written and inspired by God. I follow an approach that focuses the Spirit's illuminating work as pertaining to receiving the truth interpreted by the literal hermeneutic and not understanding it in the sense of arriving at the meaning of a passage. I'm not certain that Luther is entirely on the same page with me on this, but he was close. I still remain interested in trying to better understand the interplay of the Spirit's work in my life as I seek to understand the Bible and the following of my rational faculties in seeking the clear meaning of Scripture.

In conclusion, this section was a bit more historically focused than I expected. I confess my need to study further the issues of Scripture's clarity, the defense of Biblical authority, and the difference between woodenly literal and grammatical-historical. However, this is definitely a section worth reading for me and especially for non-dispensationalists. It does indeed show how dispensationalism is the true advance of the Reformed legacy.