I am  distressed over a dissing dispensationalist. Dan Phillips (of Pyromaniacs fame) has posted on his personal blog an article entitled “25 stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism” (HT: Doxoblogy). And while he claims it is dispensationalists who are getting dissed, he is spreading the wealth liberally to us covenant theology (CT) proponents. Dan comes across as a dissing dispensationalist, and thus he deserves to be dissed 😛 . Well, I will not try to disrespect him, rather I hope to interact with his post here for the benefit of my readers.

I plan to comment briefly on each of his points, and then to critique his whole post generally. Finally, I will present the most important reasons I have for rejecting dispensationalism.    Now before we start, I encourage you to go read Dan’s post. I am going to list his 25 reasons here, just so that it will be easier to  interact with them, but do read his post. And before I jump into the task ahead of me here, I must stress that I represent my own views and can speak for the few critiques of dispensationalism I have read, both online and in books. I don’t want to presume to speak for all CT-ers. All right then…

1. All of the coolest guys are amillennial”historical” premill/covenant/whatever. — This illustrates the absurdity of some of Dan’s claims here. This is a loaded argument to say the least. Perhaps that is the true motivation of some who dis dispensationalism, but I would venture to say that no one would actually claim that. And while I realize I am prone to being swept away by all the “coolest” guys out there, I honestly do not believe that this has had any part in my departure from dispensationalism. I have rejected the system because of Scriptural reasons and it is Scripture that I hope I am following.
2. It’s new. — Now on this point, Dan has a legitimate beef, I’m afraid. He points out that Calvinism as a system dates from the Reformation, and that the doctrine of the Trinity was only precisely formulated in the 400s AD. Neither of these date back to the NT time period, but this does not invalidate those doctrinal formulations. And so yes, there are much more important merits upon which to evaluate dispensationalism than its age. That being said, there were clear precursors to the Trinity and Calvinism in earlier ages.   Can that be said of dispensationalism? I speak concerning its defining characteristic — viewing Israel and the church as absolutely distinct, not with regard to premillennialism (which does not necessitate dispensationalism). And certainly when taken together in consideration with other points, newness can be a valid critique. But I want to stress that “newness” is not one of the main reasons I or others (that I am aware of) reject dispensationalism.
3. It’s not Reformed/Calvinistic.   — I am sure some claim that dispensationalism is not the product of the Reformation, and it isn’t. And others might claim it is contradictory to the tenets of Calvinism. That claim would be false. Nevertheless, I would really doubt that this is a chief argument that CT guys use to dis dispensationalism. No one sets out to just blindly follow a system, they all pay lipservice at the very least to the absolute authority of Scripture.
4. So many dispensationalists are goofs.   — What an argument! Yea, there are some goofs, and they do turn guys like me off to dispensationalism. But I would hope that no one would use this argument as a primary reason for rejecting dispensationalism.
5. Dispensationalist writers have made false predictions.   — Just speaking for me here, but I have never used this argument. I treat the Van Impe’s and Hal Lindsey’s of this world as a separate subclass. Yea, they are dispensationalists, but their eschatology seems really far fetched. And I don’t think most dispensationalists would disagree too strongly with me. Dan backpedals a bit, and claims that dispensationalists sometimes make “educated guesses”, and then Dan claims that CT-ers don’t make such guesses because their system does not allow for this at all. I think Dan does have a point there. But again, this is not a chief argument used by CT-ers.
6. The best scholars hate dispensationalism.   — I think there are scholars on both sides of the gulf. I like the guys on my side, but they are not the reason I dis dispensationalism.
7. But the Reverend Doctor Professor _____ wrote a 600-page book destroying dispensationalism! — Now this argument rubs me the wrong way, let me tell you. First, I have never heard anyone argue in this fashion. They may cite arguments that “Reverend Doctor Professor So and So” made. They might have been convinced by him. But they don’t cite chapter and “verse” from his book as their only defense for their position. This argument is also inaccurate in that there really aren’t any 600 page books against dispensationalism (that I know of). They might be around 200 pages, but not 600. And finally, such an argument insinuates that we should not use books or lean on professors to come to our doctrinal positions. But didn’t God give us teachers? And don’t dispensationalists lean heavily on Lewis Sperry Chafer and CI Scofield, to name a few Reverend Doctor Professors?
8. You can’t prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the New Testament alone! — I haven’t heard this weak argument.
9. It isn’t a spiritual hermeneutic. — Dispensationalism does employ a primarily naturalistic method in interpreting texts. But again, just stating that it isn’t spiritual does not win any argument. Dispensatinalists  don’t stop at a naturalistic evaluation, however. They have a presuppositional approach that Scripture is spiritual and they seek to apply spiritual truths to their lives from any Scripture they are exegeting. Once again, this is a B or C argument, and not one that wins the day for me.
10. Dispensationalists are antinomian. — It is true that some hyper dispensationalists write off the Law to enable them to live however they please. But mainstream dispensationalists have every bit as much of a desire to please God and live holy lives as do CT-ers. I and the articles and books I have read do not employ this argument.
11. We should interpret the Old by the New. — Dan makes it clear that he would agree with the surface level of this statement. But he assumes CT-ers really mean more than this. They reinterpret the Old and turn it into a “lie, a fake, a trick” on the basis of the New. What Dan fails to consider here, is that the New Testament gives us a hermeneutical model to follow. We follow the practice of the apostles in so many other regards, why not in how they interpret and use the Old Testament too? And when rightly understood, this method of interpretation does not replace the Old, but rather fills it up. This is a major argument  used rightly, I believe, by CT-ers. And Dan really does not dismantle it at all. (You can go read his one argument he gives, but I don’t think it is strong enough on its own to counter the argument I gave above).
12. You can’t take everything literally. — I think we all agree here. This argument is not very clear so if some use it, they shouldn’t lean too heavily on it.
13. Dispies are over-literal. — Dan gives a good case against this argument. And again, the argument is not stated clearly. The truth of the matter is that in some passages Dispies are very literal despite what the genre and/or related passages would seem to indicate, and that in other places Dispies opt for the genre or related passages over and against what would seem to be more consistent with the context and a literal interpretation. Dan repeatedly insinuates that dispies are just universally literal and hence consistent, but it is not as simple as this. I can understand the charge that dispies are over literal, but I don’t base my position on that claim. Actually that charge would only be made after one understands and embraces CT, which makes the charge not a chief argument for CT.
14. I think Hal Lindsey is stupid, and I like to make fun of him. — I don’t know who is making such an argument. Hopefully this argument is as rare as I think it is.
15. I know some big names who used to be dispensationalists, and aren’t. — Dan clarifies his point on this one stating that this is all about the fact that we need to go with the Bible more than with “big names”. I agree. And I would venture to say most reasonable CT-ers who advocate their position in the blogworld, for instance, would agree too.
16. Dispensationalism is divisive. — Dan points out that by this standard,  Calvinism and complementarianism are divisive. We stand for those positions because they are Bible truth, and we let the cards fall how they may. Same goes for dispensationalism from the Dispies’ viewpoint. I agree. This should not be an argument used in this kind of a debate.
17. Dispensationalism is defeatist. — Haven’t heard this argument. What Dan explains seems correct to me. Again, this is not a major argument made by anybody out there, that I can tell.
18. Dispensationalism is fatalistic. — Ditto #17.
19. Dispensationalism is escapist.   — Some might be saying this with the idea of a pre-trib rapture in view or something. But again I would claim it is a useless argument for the discussion at hand.
20. Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ. — This again is a secondary argument, but Dan makes a good counter. He claims that Calvinists would be forced to admit that the offer of the gospel is “false” in the same sense that the offer of the kingdom was “false” if indeed it was. Interesting point, but again this is a secondary argument. From the tenor of the Gospels, it appears that Christ was declaring the presence of the kingdom and the NT supports that the kingdom has already come. However there is an eschatological element of the kingdom for which we are still waiting. This seems to do more justice to the kingdom than a dispensational offer of the kingdom being rescinded upon the Jew’s rejection.
21. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Corinthians 1:20a).   — I agree with Dan that this is not a definitive argument. It is not abundantly clear that this requires all OT promises to be fulfilled only in Christ.
22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. — Dan points out that it was only a few fruit cakes who believed this. Dispensationalism doesn’t assert this. And again, I say that it is only a few fruit cakes who argue like this, and no one bases their rejection of dispensationalism on this point.
23. “Hey, I’m a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!”   — Now I haven’t heard anyone jump up and say this argument that Dan gives. Yet Dan is not understanding something here. With redemptive historical hermeneutics (the hermeneutic of CT), you look at the text in light of its immediate context (historical and literal/grammatical) and then you look at it in its redemptive historical context. There are multiple levels of evaluation and interpretation involved. The dissension comes over how to apply literal hermeneutics. This argument from CT-ers really wouldn’t solve anything, and it isn’t a basis for their position, either.
24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God.   — This is a major argument against dispensationalism. Dan’s comparing it to men and women being different but equal in Christ, or comparing it to the relaion of the Persons of the  Godhead within the Trinity, just doesn’t cut it. The New Testament makes it clear that the church is the Israel of God today. And while Dan distances himself from some of his dispensational forebears, this remains the single most important point of difference between CT and Dispensationalism. Dan giving this argument as a “stupid” one is problematic. While I understand that dispensationalists disagree with me on this point, I am not going to call their beliefs stupid. CT-ers believe there is one people of God and Dispensationalists disagree. Both sides think they are right and the other wrong. Neither argument needs to be cast as “stupid”.
25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible.   — Dan helps us know what he is talking about here when he claims that some CT-ers believe texts must be “worthy” of God by referencing Christ. This understanding is totally wrong and stupid. Dan agrees that Christ is all over the Bible, and so do I. Nowhere does Scripture state Jesus has to be in every verse. This is not to say, however, that Dispensationalism does not fail to see Christ properly in Scripture. I do think it fails. But this belief is rooted in my acceptance of CT and is not an argument for my acceptance of CT.

At this point, I should stress that Dan is claiming to deal with only the “stupid” arguments. But the introduction he gives to his post makes it seem like this is the common argumentation that he sees for CT. He paints CT-ers as ones who can only come up with the arguments above in arguing for his position. He may not have intended it to come across this way, but it does nonetheless. This is why I have taken pains to point out that virutally every argument above is not a serious argument. It is not what would lead someone out of dispensationalism.

Dan’s whole post is rather belittling of those who support CT. And I think the utter ridiculousness of some of the arguments he cites represent his creating a strawman of CT. He makes them look really bad in their argumentation.

He is also constantly throwing out the term “perspicuity”. He is implying that if you don’t agree to dispensationalism, you think Scripture is not understandable. It is quite funny, to be honest with you. Dispensationalism has quite a few points which require a bit of mind bending to understand and see, but it is the system which allows Scritpure to speak for itself? Dan sees around 7 dispensations in Scripture. I am not sure how he views them, but classic dispensationalism sets up each dispensation as a new test which man fails again and again. And in dividing the dispensations and defining the “rules” for each test, as well as the “punishment” for failure, dispensationalism goes way beyond the bounds of the text. The text doesn’t state that this group failed X test and received Y punishment for it. But these assumptions are read into the text to support the system.

Dan admits honestly  in the comments that he is not an expert in prophecy and then  states, “[prophecy] is a very difficult field…”. Does Dan not see the contradiction between these statements and his assumptions about perspicuity? Why do we need prophecy experts if Scritpure is so abundantly clear that we all should become dispensationalists by default?

One last point before briefly presenting what I believe are the major arguments against dispensationalism. Dan in the comments made this statement:

To my dispensationalist readers: if you see younger, underexperienced, overconfident writers complaining that these are “straw men,” do two things:

1. Chuckle knowingly.

2. Note it for the future. Guaranteed you’ll have opportunity to say, “Ah, I see. That’s Phillips’ #17,” or, “So, in other words, Phillips’ #8.”

It’ll be sweet.

I thought we were not to rely on teachers, Dan. Aren’t we supposed to just go with the Bible? So underexperienced, younger guys can’t do that? I mean, isn’t dispensationalism the system everyone would come to on their own, if they had been converted to Christ, handed a Bible, and shipped to the moon away from all teachers? It appears that Dan is cutting off at the pass any criticism by younger guys that he has misrepresented them. It doesn’t seem very charitable or reasonable to me, but then, I am a younger, underexperienced guy.

Now to my reasons.

• The physical promise of the land  includes the church. 1) The promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (promised land) was expanded to a promise that they would inherit the “earth” (Matt. 5:5)  or the “world” (Rom. 4:13). 2) The promise of the land (“that Abraham would be heir of the world” Rom. 4:13) is specifically said to apply to all the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:16). [“The promise” in vs. 16  is the same  as the land promise in vs.  13.]  
• The church is the seed of Abraham. The New Testament clearly declares that  Gentile believers are the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:11-12), and that they are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29b).
• The church and Israel are now God’s “one new man”. Eph. 2 takes great lengths to declare that God has abolished the partition dividing national Israel and the Gentiles, and that he has included the Gentiles together as “no longer strangers and aliens, but…fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (v. 19). Indeed God has made true Israel and the church together “one new man in place of the two” (v. 15).
• The church is described in the exact same terms as Israel was. Ex. 19:5-6a says, “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” And, Hosea 2:23b says, “And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people‘; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.'” Then, 1 Pet. 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” And finally Rev. 1:6a says, “And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father….”
• The Dispensational structure seems very artificial to me. The underlying idea that God is repeatedly testing mankind to prove that he is sinful is nowhere stated in Scripture. [Dispensationalism sets up a series of dispensations where man fails a new test and receives judgment. If you are not familiar with this idea check out this article [pdf] which provides a helpful summary on pg. 16.] Key  concepts of this system are read into the text. For instance God nowhere states that the Israelites’ bondage in Egypt was judgment for their failures or sins. In fact Gen. 15:13-16 expressly tells us why they were to be afflicted  in Egypt, so that 1) God could bring judment on Egypt and 2) so that the iniquity of the  Amorites could become complete.
• The New Testament provides us with a pattern for how to interpret the Old Testament. We are not left to determine “golden rule”s by ourselves. If we study the way the NT authors and preachers used the OT, we find a hermeneutical model that we can employ safely and profitably. [Cf. Rom. 15:4; Luke 24:27, 44; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; Hebrews 10:1; Acts 2:16; Acts 15:14-18 (quoting Amos 9:11-12); etc.]

These are my basic arguments. They contradict the basic premises of dispensationalism as I understand them. For some excellent articles on this issue (Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology) check out those written by Nathan Pitchford here (particluarly his “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” . He is also a convert from dispensationalism and so he understands the system better than those who have never been dispensational.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7