Why I Abandoned Dispensationalism

The short answer is because I don't believe the Scriptural data leads to it. Although it is often put forward as a position that comes from a solid exegesis of texts, I find that it is a systematic theological construct, which reads certain presuppositions back into passages. I say this as a former staunch Dispensationalist that taught this position for many years which includes in Sunday School and the pulpit. But as my once solid position was weakened years ago, namely, because of the Dispensational understanding of the rebuilt temple and sacrificial system on their understanding of Ezekiel 40-48. I decided to study outside of the Dispensational camp and became convinced by Scripture, as guided and taught by others, of Covenant Theology.

Of course this didn't all happen momentarily. It wasn't as if I picked up a book by a Covenant Theologian and abandoned ship. I first became troubled of the Dispensational view back in Bible college and as time passed by, more and more inconsistencies and flawed views of verses (which I believed violated their own view of a "literal" hermeneutic) arose. I tried my hardest to remain faithful to that system and bought as many Dispensational books that I could get my hands on. On top of my Dispensational text books from Bible college, I purchased more from Ryrie, Chafer, Ice, Showers, Benware, McLain, Pentecost, Toussaint, Walvoord and a few others. Looking for them to help me keep my Dispensationalism (I still have their books on my shelves) but to no avail. What I did notice was their tendencies to answer objections not from exegesis of texts but from a systematic approach, which has at it's foundation, interpreting the New Testament through the Old Testament with national Israel as it's root; with a return to the Old Testament types and shadows which the author of Hebrews warns not to return to. What I found ironic about the issue is not their systematic approach (I'm all for systematic theology) but that they take great pride in their hermeneutic and often chide Covenant Theologians for not taking the Bible at "face value" (which usually means not taking their rigid distinction between Israel and the Church) and constructing their own theological views not built on sound exegesis. Yet, while I was a Dispensationalist I had to be taught the Dispensational sine qua non (the absolute distinction between the Church and Israel)! Nor did I ever find a secret pre-tribulational rapture from any "face value" reading of Scripture. In fact, when I first became a believer I was a Covenant Theologian without knowing that term even existed. I believed the Church was the true Israel of God and that the Kingdom was a present reality for all believers. I didn't become a Dispensationalist until I was taught it's distinctives!

I also abandoned Dispensationalism for obvious Scriptural reasons but also as result of a study of church history. I found how disingenuous we were being. For example, many Dispensationalists will quote from church fathers or leading historical Church figures to substantiate their view of an earthly thousand year reign of Christ on earth (which it is true that many church fathers held that position) and as a result of this, one is subtly led to believe that these same people held the Dispensational view of Scripture. In other words, when these people are quoted to support the historical view of a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, people often get the idea that these same people believed in a "pre-tribulational rapture" and the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church. But one will find it almost impossible to find the idea of this "rapture" before John Nelson Darby in the 1800's (of course it is likely he was influenced by Edward Irving but Darby still popularized the position) . And the distinction between Israel and the Church, as taught by Dispensationalism, is flat rejected.

I will give two examples. Justin Martyr is often quoted to support the Dispensational view of the kingdom yet he did not uphold their view of Israel and the Church. In his book Dialogue With Trypho, found here, he writes,  "And besides, they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God, which the Scriptures have proved is not the case. For if so, Isaiah would never have said this: ‘And unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah" (Ch. 40). And,"For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham . . . are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ” (Ch. 11).  And "We, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelite race” ( Ch. 135). Furthermore, even Justin, himself admits that during his day other Christians did not hold to an earthly thousand year reign of Christ: "Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (Ch. 80). Thus, about the only thing Justin Martyr agrees with the Dispensationalist is an earthly thousand year reign of Christ. He believed that the the Church is the true Israel of God and, at least it seems, that the Kingdom will be for Christians, whereas the Dispensational view has it for national Israel.

Now Charles Spurgeon is often quoted by Dispensational premillennialists in their favor. Yet, he too rejected the sine qua non of their system. He is quite blunt about their position in regards to the Church. He says: "...we have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement" (from his sermon "Jesus Christ Immutable"). Not sure how one can use him to support their view, especially when you get down to the crux of it, when he calls your position stupid (his words not mine).

It is just a plain fact that history is not on their side and this is one reason why I abandoned the Dispensational system. Now I know they don't like to call or admit their view is a system. Especially from those that do not like to call themselves Dispensational (even though everything they believe is Dispensational) because they don't like labels and it seems far better to avoid the "label" and just say your position is from Scripture, built off of a sound exegesis of texts. But I still found it rather difficult to except the fact that the Dispensational view of Scripture was missed in the history of the Church (until John Darby in the 1800's) when their system should come from a simple "face value" reading of Scripture. I guess most of the Church did not know how to read the Bible until Darby! Or as Historic Premillennialist George Eldon Ladd aptly states, "The hope of the Church throughout early centuries was the second coming of Christ, not a pretribulational rapture. If the Blessed Hope is in fact a pretibulational rapture, then the Church has never known that hope through most of its history, for the idea of a pretribulational rapture  did not appear in prophetic interpretation until the ninteenth century" ( The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study Of The Second Advent And The Rapture p. 19). This was not the final factor but it was a very big one!

I am not ashamed to admit that I learned Covenant Theology from others. Of course I believe it to be completely Scriptural and this is ultimately what moved me to embrace the position. I've spent four years studying this view and testing the teachings with Scripture. I find their hermeneutic to be the right one and consistent. Time will not permit me, in this article, to deal with all the debatable verses but I have dealt with some and will continue to deal with others in different articles. So the objection- that to learn a theological position from others makes it less Scriptural than yours-just doesn't hold water. Especially when your position cannot be found before 1800 and has been learned and built on by others. In my own personal experience, I have never met one Dispensationalist (this includes the ones that do not admit they are Dispensational) that has just opened the Bible, for however many years, and came away with all the distinctives of that system! Of course they believe their views to be Biblical but they were still taught those views by someone.

Finally, it was not an simple road for me. Anyone that has left that system can testify to it. All my personal friends, family, the church that I pastor and the associating churches are Dispensational and often look at Covenant Theologians with suspicion and as inferior. Yet, my allegiance is not to any man or church association but to Christ and His Word. I still love my Dispensational brethren but believe them to be in error on certain important matters and my change in theological positions comes from the Word of God and Church history which includes the use of creeds and confessions. In the words of Philip Mauro, "Yet I was among those who eagerly embraced it (upon human authority solely, for there is non other) and who earnestly pressed it upon my fellow Christians. Am deeply thankful, however, that the time came when the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of the system itself, and above all, the impossibility of reconciling it s main positions with the plain statements of the Word of God, became so glaringly evident that I could not do otherwise than to renounce it." Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


Now we have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement.