The FIDE-O dogmaticians are at it again.
This time you won’t believe
what they said about Israel!
Listen here
Tweet
Dispensationalism *IS* Replacement Theology
Posted in: Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Preterism
About the Author
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Jason,
This was a very interesting broadcast.
I’m wondering how you came to the conclusion that John Hagee is “the leading dispensationalist today” as you stated in the session? Could you define what you mean by “leading” and what part of dispensationalism do you think he (Hagee) represents (e.g., classic, revised, or progressive)? Since Hagee believes in the discreditied “two new covenants” position it seems disingenuous for you to suggest that he is “the leading dispensationalist today”. I agree he’s an easy target but “leading”?
You began your show with a plea for brothers of differing positions on these matters to seek common ground but it is hard to take such claims seriously if your interactions are with those of the fringe of a movement (if they’re really in the movement at all).
Also, did I hear you say that a pre-mill view is the remote foundation of the health and wealth teaching? Come on Jason, I think you guys can do better than this.
Seeking conversation but not caricature,
PSL
Paul,
Thanks for listening to our broadcast. And thanks for the questions on these last two posts. We have had a lot of fun with Gene and Unchained Radio. Gene is one of the greatest guys you could ever meet — sharp, sound, and witty. I am just humbled that he invites me to be on a program that has hosted much wiser men than me.
Concerning Hagee I say that he is “leading” because he is. I know that he is not “leading” in the academic circles or journals, but he is “leading” in the pews. You may be shocked at how many Dispensational Baptist listen more to Hagee’s sermons on prophecy than anyone else. And he is dispensational, and he is “health and wealth.” Let me quote him:
Genesis 12:3 “And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” Point: God has promised to bless the man or nation that blesses the Chosen People. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the nations that have blessed the Jewish people have had the blessing of God; the nations that have cursed the Jewish people have experienced the curse of God.
Christians owe a debt of eternal gratitude to the Jewish people for their contributions that gave birth to the Christian faith.
The support of Israel is a biblically based mandate for every Christian.
The Jewish people do not need Christianity to explain their existence or their origin. But Christians cannot explain their existence without Judaism. It was the Jewish people who gave us the written Scripture.
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee.” (Psalm 122:6) the scriptural principle of prosperity is tied to blessing Israel and the city of Jerusalem.
The Royal Land Grant that was given to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob with an everlasting and unconditional covenant.
He will remove his Church from the seven years of tribulation that will follow the Rapture.
To see the extent of his influence just read this http://www.jhm.org/pastor.asp
If you know some dispensationalist that is having more of an influence on laymen in America, please let me know who he is because I would gladly target him too.
And if you are wondering if we are criticizing classic dispys more than futuristic premillers (or R. Thomas premillers) then you are right. I don’t desire to argue with my Calvinists brothers as much as I wish to defend the gospel against the errors of Arminian Dispensationalists.
Paul,
Also, thanks for recognizing my statements about the relationship of Dipensationalism and the Health-and-Wealth Movement. You asked: …did I hear you say that a pre-mill view is the remote foundation of the health and wealth teaching? No. Thanks for asking for that clarification, because NO I did not say that the pre-mill view is the foundation of the H&W teachings. I just pointed out that the two teachings grew together because the futuristic teachings of Dispensationalism feeds the materialism of the Health and Wealth theology.
Nevertheless I hope you see the connections you make are fairly novel. I guess this all begs the question if Hagee is actually “representing” any form of dispensatioanlism whether it be classic, revised or progressive. I think he’s in his own world preaching his own gospel. Simply because someone has elements that may look like another system does not mean we should resort to guilt by association. Don’t put Hagee on dispys and I promise I want put false prophets like Gary North or Harold Camping on you. Deal?
Oh, I would never put Hagee on you. Again, we are on the same “team” — my beef is with those who have, by their teachings, attacked the 5 solas. Calvinist Dispensationalist are not my target. If you take on the Gary Norths, I will be saying “Amen”! And trust me, I may eventually get around to taking on that stuff if I felt it was hurting the church in a significant way. But I do think that the Hagee-Dispys of America are harming the true Gospel.
I sat once and listened to Hagee as he paced back and forth in front of this gigantic Larkin like panorama of the “7 Dispensations.” At the time he was in the dispensation of Moses. He argued hard and heavy for the authority of the ten commandments and God’s moral law in today’s churches. If I hadn’t known better, he sound like a Reformed Baptist.
It just goes to show you how theologically vapid this guy is. But Paul is right, it is rather novel to claim he is a “leading” dispensationalists. He is “leading” in the same way Michael Moore is a leading Democrat.
Fred
Then Harold Camping is a leading amil.
Cool
Hagee-Dispys is a good way to put it.
I dare you to poll 1000 Protestant churches in the South and ask the members if they have ever heard of John Hagee or Harold Camping and you will discover who is leading.
Why the South?
Bible belt! Lots of influence.
Wouldn’t be hard to poll that many churches…just find two or three major intersections and…well…uh…you know!
Yeah, not trying to be tricky here. Poll Utah if you like, or Oregon, or Maine, or California. I was just suggesting a place with the most churches.
Yes, well, at any rate, if Hagee is a leading dispensationalist, though I’ve never read nor listened to him longer than three minutes in three decades of taking all of the Bible seriously (i.e. being a dispensationalist)…
… then Camping is a leading amil.
You named the dance, bro. Now… dance.
Jason, My first comment in this post might not have been clear but I think you have to make a case that Hagee is even a dispy to begin with. However you would find that his brand of theology cannot be attached to any of the various branches whether ultra, classic, revised, or progressive. This seems to be a problem if you claim him as “leading” anything.
Even if you’re talking of dispensationalism (in whatever form) on a popular level he’s still not the most influential. That would be LaHaye, don’t you think? In fact I just saw that Nightline ABC will run a special next week about LaHaye being the most influential voice among American evangelicals.
Also you said poll some churches. Well that has been done year in and year out and tops on the list is still Billy Graham, T. D. Jakes, and Rick Warren. Depending on which poll I’ve read one of these names usually appear at the top.
The problem arises from the connections you made in your radio address trying to connect Hagee (including his health and wealth ideas) as leading the dispy movement in America. I think such arguments make for sensational radio but it seems clear that you overstated your case factually. I’m still scratching my head as to how this argument helps the conversation you said dispys and cov theologs should have.
I think you stumbled on this one. You say that you have no quarrel with your Calvinistic Dispy friends, but it seems to me that they are the only ones so far that you have provoked with this clever little GBA trick.
John Hagee has often, and with some justice, been accused of being a dual covenant minister ( that is one who believes and teaches that Jews do not need to come to Christ, they have their own relationship with God through the old covenant.). The Dual covenant brand of dispensationalism has never been a main, let alone leading, part of dispensationalism,( much like anti-semeticism isn’t a part of main stream Amillenialism).
In terms of influence, John Hagee’s has never been that great outside of charismatic circles.
Although I am not a dispensationalist, I am disturbed by your choice of an example of leading dispensational teaching.
You would lend more credibility to your position by taking on , and criticising the dispensational teaching of John MaCarthur or David Jerimiah, Hal Lindsey( is he still breathing) or Mr. Ice.
Nice try though!GBA.
Hello Guys!
Just want to let you know that I’m enjoying your theological dialogues. Pretty sure, no one who will read your academic discussion that will not benefit from it.
I’m looking forward to joining you.
Keep it up!
Brian Golez Najapfour
I commend my Calvinistic Dispy friends and defend the Gospel against the H&W Dispys like Hagee… but the Calvinist Dispys get all defensive and nit pick my comments as I speak out against heretical teachings that are confusing thousands of American Christians. But hey, I refuse to criticize men like John MacArthur (dispy or not) because his theological teachings are by far the most helpful in America today. In my opinion he is the Spurgeon of our era and may even be considered one of the greatest voices in defense of biblical truth along with men like Augustine, Calvin, Gill, Owen, Edwards, etc. And some of you will get mad that I believe that about MacArthur, but thats just too bad.
But I know that my Dispy friends are sensitive about men like LaHaye and Lindsey and the like. When I was a Dispy, I was too. But again, their errors are not that harmful to the fundamentals of the faith like Hagee and others. Sure, they write they have formulated their theology is “fictional” form but so what. If we expected perfection and total agreement among all our theological colleagues, we would be like that cooky Baptist group that pickets the funerals of our soldiers. No, my beef is with those whose theology chips away at the foundation of our faith. My targets are men like Hagee, philosophies of ministry like Purpose Driven, movements like EC, and theology like Arminianism. Some one may think that that is just being sensational, but that is because they are missing the point because they are being over-sensitive about protecting their own system of theology rather that joining the fight against heresy. So, no, I don’t have to compare the influence Hagee to Warren. To do such is to chase rabbits. My desire is to refute the bad theology. And if I think Warren has went too far even though he and I are in the same denomination, I will still speak out against him. And I would expect some of you Dispys to listen to what I am saying when I compare the teaching of a Dispy like Hagee to the compounding confusions of so many American Christians. Rather than try to say he is not a Dispy why not explain why his dispensationalism and yours are different. Rather than try to deny his influence, why not speak out about why he has so much influence, what is its consequences, and what needs to be done to wheen American Christians off of him.
Focus, people.
PS – I am amazed at how some of you do not realize how many dispys believe in a “dual covenant theology” and sycretism. Even such is sometimes heard from men like B. Graham. And yes, their dispensationalism led them to these conclusions. And yes, that is extreme — but that is exactly why I am targeting it on Fide-O. So just because you are dispy don’t cry “foul.” Join the fight. Clean up your ranks… speak out against the errors… and we may even work together one day to make sure less and less of our reformed covenant brothers become paedobaptist. (I am tired of losing our Calvinist brothers to the Presbys!) So there are errors on both sides (CT and Dispy). We can’t mention them all in one post, but stick around we will get to each one as we have time.
Jason -
Time and again I’ve heard you respond to critics of your approach with sentiments like “hey, if you come around Fide-0 with your wrong information, don’t be surprised if the dogs bite!”
Again, a word of caution my friend, you can’t now turn around and label another dog’s bite as “nit-picking”. You emphatically proclaimed Hagee the “leader” of the dispensationalist movement. You’ve been corrected as to both his theological identity and his bed-fellows, neither of which support your claim. Can’t you simply adjust your claim a bit and consider yourself “helped” in your perspective?
What is Fide-O but a forum for sharpening one another…
C’mon…focus brother.
One other thought…
I agree with you that we must stand together to protect the gospel, but a tendency toward overstatement (a fault we all battle – but one that is becoming more frequent here) is not helpful.
Email me sometime…I’d like to talk further and clarify if needed.
Thanks friend -
So, here’s the chronology:
Jason does a GBA
Jason’s roundly corrected
Jason says he was right to do the GBA, and tells everyone else to “focus”
So the next “focused” post will be how CT’s bait-n-switch decoder-ring hermeneutic necessarily produces Harold Camping and his errors? Is that right?
Should be interesting.
I’m still trying to figure out why you all got so upset with Jason calling Hagee (this is the actual quote from the show around minute 19 and 41)”what really is humorous is whenever you watch the leading dispensationlist of today, your John Hagee’s for example, who will say that the land is Israel today and all the world is going to come against them, the bible says, the bible says, all the world is going to come against this land and he says, we have to stand for Israel we have to protect we can’t let the world attack Israel. On one hand your saying you believe the bible on the other hand your saying let’s form an army to fight agaisnt what the bible says. The inconsistencies…..
I have traveled to literaly thousands of churches, and when it comes to eschatology the average church member is listening to John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, and Jack Van Impe. Why, because everytime they flip past TBN that is who is on and they are watching. While I don’t think for a second John Hagee is in the same dispy camp as most of you reading this, I would like for someone to point out to me why you say he is not a dispensationalist at all. I am wondering some of you are equating being correct with being leading. Hagee may not have defined dispensationlism in the seminary classroom, the academic lecture circuit, or theological books, but for millions of TBN watchers he is having a tremendous influence on thier theology. That is what makes him leading. Maybe not THE leading, but pretty far up the food chain none the less.
Incidentally, if anyone is looking to read something that defines the essentials of dispensationalism, I would highly recommend John Feinberg’s chapter “Systems of Discontinuity” in the book “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perpsectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” (also edited by Feinberg). The book was out of print for a long time, but I believe it’s back in. Well worth the time.
I merely pointed out one inconsistency from your radio address, there were many more. You guys also made the fallacious claim that dispensationalists say “it’s all about the land.” In fact you guys had a good laugh together over this straw-man claim. However there is no dispensationalist that would interpret the Abrahamic covenant in such narrow terms. Dispensationalist of all stripes would say that this initiatory covenant has three elements of land, seed, and blessing. I guess this fact did not make for the sensational radio program you were hoping for. In fact, you made and continue to make historical fallacies of Gerstner-like proportions (see his “Primer on Dispensationalism”).
For a guy who has only recently come to embrace covenant theology you seem to have become entrenched rather quickly. With your continued misrepresentations and failure to admit the same I wonder if you really understood dispensationalism to begin with. Have you ever been to some of the cutting edge forums in the world of dispensational thought today? For example, every year ETS holds a dispensational study group that you might find enlightening (they also publish many books as a result). Though I would not agree with all their conclusions you would find that they don’t necessarily fit your caricatures here.
Lastly I thank you for this opportunity to interact on your blog but I would make the challenge once again that you steer the conversation toward the Scripture. It might even prove helpful to the larger body of Christ to see this forum used as a discussion of the sacred text. To be honest very little in the way of exegetical discourse has taken place here (yes I have read Duncan’s article and the rest but theologizing and exegesis are not the same). Blessings to you.
P.S. I would also enjoy hearing more about your view that the church was found everywhere in the OT, furthermore what if anything is unique about Acts 2 from your new-found covenantal perspective? Thanks again, I look forward to your response.
Scott Said,
“I have traveled to literaly thousands of churches.” That is remarkable. I figured that at the least if you traveled to 2000 churches at 1 per week (i.e. assuming you are there for Sunday services) that would take a little over 38 years. What do you do for a living? Do you spend time in your home church?
Jerry, Dan, Paul, and all you silent bystanders,
I am glad you guys are giving each other virtual high-fives, but the fact remains that what I said in the interview is true. Your reactions, though typical of Calvinist Dispys who are sensitive about their bedfellows, are surprising to me. I wonder if some of you even listened to the interview. Paul has I think and basically misrepresented what I said, which he also did in my last post in a desperate attempt to discredit my argument. I used the term “nit picking” mercifully out of respect for Paul, but my good friend Jerry seems to want to use that against me. Jerry, really, did you even listen to the interview. Your comments seem to build off of Lamey’s mischaracterizations. In reality that portion of the interview was not as much about Hagee as it was about the efforts of certain types of pastors (Hagee was an example) to financially support the nation of Israel in the name of Premillennial theology. I didn’t say that Hagee was THE leading Dispy today, but that he was a leading Dispy among those who are hyper-pro-Israeli-government. Really, my interview was an opportunity for Calvinist Dispys like you to say, “Exactly, guys like Hagee are heretical and have misused and abused Dispensationalism.” I then pointed out the materialism of Health&Wealth heresies that are even heard in classic Southern Gospel music lyrics. Yes, I made a connection that such heresies have plagued millenarians. Where are the “Amens” from the Calvinist Dispys? To say that I am overstating my argument is just ridiculous. Maybe some of you Californians would not be aware of what I am talking about, but Lamey is in Alabama. He should know that I am telling the truth. If not, at least he can’t say he wasn’t told. Anyway, I feel better just believing that you, Jerry, haven’t listened to the interview and were trusting Lamey to be telling the whole truth. If you have listened to it prior to your comments, then I just will have to disagree with you.
You guys can continue to try to “bite” at me as you say. But I will not direct any negative comments towards you guys like you have to me, because I know that you aren’t guilty of such misuse of Dispensationalism. My comments are accurately targeted at false teachers who harm the Gospel. I even pointed out in the interview how that MacArthur was not teaching such errors as the one’s we were discussing although he is a dispensationalist. You guys wish to make this a fight between brothers but I will continue to refuse. And I appreciate Scott would told me a few minutes ago what you guys had said today in your comments. I hadn’t had time to read the comments today until now. Honestly, I am a little disappointed in some of you to miss the point and come off looking like you will defend Dispensationalism at any cost.
Lamey keeps asking why we don’t bring up Scripture. But again, Lamey, that is truly a hollow charge… in fact it is one that backfires on you. It reveals your desperation. There were many Scriptures discussed in the interview. But you tried to argue whether Hagee is an influential Dispy or not. Why did you not challenge on of the Scriptural arguments? And I have written posts discussing certain texts, but you don’t ever comment on those. You just keep saying you want to discuss Scripture and throw out a verse now and then. But because of my respect for you, brother, I invite you, if you don’t like the passages I am discussing, to email me an exposition of one of your verses of concern or post your exposition on your blog and I would be glad to discuss it with you. But just throwing out random passages in the comments section turns our blog into a forum that I simply don’t have time to keep up with. I am sure you understand and respect that.
Now, I have continued to treat my Calvinist Dispy colleagues with respect. I have targeted heretical teachers within both camps. But statements like Dan’s expose a different attitude among Calvinist Dispys towards CT colleagues. I am glad such men as MacArthur, Dever, Piper, Sproul, and Mohler don’t have such attitudes. I am glad that some of us can fight the heretical fringe of both of our theological camps and recognize the true enemies of the Gospel. John MacArthur is a great example of man who in his two “Gospel According to…” books was careful to attack the fallacies within the Dispensational ranks. I guess if he were to write that book today, some of you would jump up and down and say, “That’s not fair! We all aren’t like Scofield and Ryrie!” Of course you aren’t, but he wasn’t talking about guys like you, then or now. And in my interview, I wasn’t talking about Lamey or Dan. But then again, maybe Dan doesn’t have a wrong attitude, but actually thinks that I am losing this debate. Yeah, that’s probably more the reality. And I sure Dan thinks the Camping argument is what won the debate for the Dispys. Well, that just goes to prove how some just start talking past each other especially when they feel threatened. Dan, friend, I have no idea why you feel there is a need to bring up “decoder rings” and attempts to spin your perceptions of how the Disps have defended Dispensationalism by denying that Hagee is one. You may think you won a perceived debate. But I hate to tell you that there are many of us Baptist Calvinists who thoroughly disagree with you. Seriously, brother, I am disappointed that you go this far in defending Dispensationalism when I imagine that if you actually listened to what I said about Hagee-like-Dispys you would absolutely agree.
I remember the story of a preacher I heard about once who had a woman mad at him after his sermon. The preacher told her, “I was aiming at the Devil in that sermon. If you felt threatened you must have been standing too close to him.”
So I wonder why you guys feel so threatened when I point out hyper-pro-Israeli-government- Dispensationalists???
Listen, I respect the Dispensational training some of you have received under the Dr. Thomases of TMS. And you believe that you have hermeneutical superiority over Covenant Theologians. But maybe one day you will realize that not every Calvinist agrees that your hermeneutic is superior. (It’s OK. God still loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. And we like you too. We are glad to work along side all of our Calvinists brothers.) But acting like CT is just completely wrong and that we must not understand Dispensationalism as much as you are we would be a Dispy is just lame.
So I will continue to press on in my discussions about heretical issues among Dispys, CTers, and Arminians. I will continue to defend the 5 Solas. I stand by all my statements. And I hope that soon you too will not be so concerned about defending Dispensationalism as much as defending the Gospel. And I bet some professor or pastor somewhere told you that already.
PS. Thanks Matt for your book recommendation. I look forward to fellowshipping with you one day soon.
PSS. Calvdispy, itinerant evangelists actually are in more than one church per week. Both Scott and I were itinerant evangelists for years. I was one for 10 years and learned that the leading theologians are not the ones writing in the journals or teaching in the seminary classes, but they are the ones that church members are listening to through TV, magazines, books, and radio. When you are talking about influential leaders in church growth you are talking about the Warrens of the world. When you are talking about influential leaders of prophecy teaching you are talking about the Hagees of the world. And I say that as a man who traveled those 10 years and saw it first hand. And I will continue to speak out against leaders such as that, and hope that my Calvinists brothers join me, CTers and Dispys. Besides, all I have done is join such men as MacArthur the Dispensationalist and Dever the CTer, etc. – as we join our efforts in defending the Gospel by exposing the heretics and teaching the truth to those who will also be faithful in this spiritual battle.
Jason,
May the Lord truly bless your ministry as you strive to preach His Word! Have a blessed Lord’s Day. I’ll bother you no more.
Blessings,
PSL
Ha, thanks Paul. Truly it was no bother. I just can’t wait for us to get to the real topic at hand. Maybe I will write a post on it next week. Tomorrow I will continue my exposition of John 10. What a powerful use of symbolism was used by Jesus to prove the difference between Him and the religious leadership of Israel. May His sheep hear His voice tomorrow.
nice game
Jason,
The fact that the focus has been on your comment about Hagee and not the systematic scriptual argument that was set forth tells me that somebody is grasping.
Hey guys I have qa question for you. Do you agree with the way in which we interpreted the scriptures? If not then please tell us which ones we got wrong.
I just put Hagges picture on this post so you all would listen to it. Now that you have what do you think?
Gene
Jason,
I would certainly agree with you guys pointing out the errors of false teachers such John Haggee( although if he is as influential as you claim that certainly says more than you probably intended about the theologically decrepit state of many of our baptist churches)but please, you entitle this Post : ” Dispensationalism is Replacement Theology ” and then continue to feign suprise that the dispensationlists resent the Guilt By Association.
Whatever your intent your prsentation was so loud that even a number of us who aren’t dispensationalists took offense.
I’ll say this for you, you are never boring. God bless!, and Lets’ all remember to pray for the coalition and Nato troops!
CalvDispy, I may have exaggerated some. I did some math myself, and called my mom to verify. Over the course of 15 years in itinerate evangelism, I have been in close to 1500 to 1800 different churches. So maybe not actually thousands, but pretty close.
Now I am in my home church every Sunday, and wouldn’t give it up to travel again for anything. One of the things I am most thankful for is knowing that theses Pastors who are commenting are doing everything in their power to keep men like Hagee from influencing thier own congregations. That is why I have such respect for men like Jerry and Paul. I just wish more pastors would guard their flocks.
Traveling to all those churches probably gave me a low view of the average church member. I was always amazed how easily influenced most people are by TV preachers, and it is not just charismatics watching TBN. However, in the last 5 or 6 years I have seen a real move toward a sound biblical theology and the desire by pastors to teach that to their congregation. I must say I believe the next 20 years will be something to watch.
Scott,
I assumed you were probably exaggerating. But of course, being a dispensationalist, I take the word ‘literally’ literally. I do appreciate the clarification however, it gives me greater respect for your ability to assess the health of the church. I agree with you, that too many people in our churches are influenced by the wackos and yet the obvious wackos are not alone. Too much junk has flooded the more respectable churches as well.
A good assessment and antedote to some of these problems has been covered by David Wells’ books. I have read the first two of Wells’ 4 vol. treatment of the capitulation of the Evangelical church and am reading the third, Losing Our Virtue, right now. I am getting ready to read Above All Earthly Pow’rs next on Frank Turk’s recommendation.
I continue to enjoy the blog.
The fact that the focus has been on your comment about Hagee and not the systematic scriptual argument that was set forth tells me that somebody is grasping.
(Fred) What systematic scriptural argument? All I saw was a hamfisted attempt to paint dispensationalist as being as sort of kooky. When they complained you guys are being dishonest with evaluating dispensationalism, every one is told to “focus” and now they are “grasping.” Did any of the words that Jerry Wragg and others sink in at the least?
I am not entirely friendly to dispensational theology in general, but guys, you are headed down Dave Hunt straw-man territory with this one.
Fred
Fred, how much of the interview did you listen to? Or are your evaluations of who is truly focused based on the complaint of others who haven’t listened to the interview either?
Yes, Jason, I did. It is one thing to discuss the fulfillment of the physical land promises as it pertains to Israel, the Church and Christ’s return. Perhaps you can post a blog specifically dealing with that topic.
It is quite another to compare those who understand the scriptures teaching the fulfillment of those land promises with the likes of John Hagee as if the two are one and the same. It is the erection of a strawman and setting it afire. In a way, it is a rather lazy approach to attack dispensationalism, because folks like Hagee are easy targets; but it is a dishonest approach and in my mind, beneath your alls efforts here at this otherwise stellar blog.
A much better approach is to go to the S. Lewis Johnson website, for example, and down load his massive collection of sermons and lectures critiquing Amillennialism, CT and defending dispensationalism. There are at least 5 or 6 messages on the Future of Ethnic Israel. Let him be the foil for your all’s discussions on Thursdays, not goofballs like Hagee.
Fred
When we have criticized other “goofballs” everybody cheered. When we criticize a dispy “goofball” it hits too close to home for some. Hmmm. No, I will not apologize for criticizing the theology of Hagee because it has infected many Protestant churches. And you may think it is an easy target, but that is because you minister in a church that has solid sound theology. I have preached in hundreds of churches that don’t have such theological foundation. And Hagee-Dispy-theology is warping the minds of well-intentioned Christians who feel that there is a biblical mandate for us to financially support the nation of Israel.
Or maybe you never criticize TBN for their false teachings because they are just kooky and “easy targets”? Of course you do, and I say Amen. So again the issue is not that I criticized Hagee; the issue is that my problem with him is that his dispensationalism formulated his errors. Now maybe your dispensationalism didn’t — and that is good. But his did, and I will speak out against it. It is just like those who try to claim that Covenant Theology mandates that we baptize babies. That is not true and I will speak out against it. Or if someone says that their Calvinism leads them to stop evangelizing — I will speak out against such Calvinists. Would you say that criticizing a hyper-Calvinist is a “lazy” approach to refuting such errors. No, of course you would not. But mention the errors held by many Dispys TODAY and everybody gets uncomfortable.
This is interesting so I just got signed up for this discussion. First and foremost,I am not a dispensationalist. I am totally against caricatures or sloppy theological and thoughtless statements.
1. Why is the title of your post “Dispensationalism IS Replacement Theology?”
2. Gene answer a lady on the radio about Piper and Gene mentioned that MacArthur is one of the best preachers today. But he also mentioned that MacArthur is a dispensationalist which is un-biblical and that no where in Scripture teaches it. Gene was not saying that Hagee-type-dispensation but MacArthur-type.
3. Since Rushdoony is a theonomist and is viewed as an aberrant form of CT, would it be wrong or right to say that CT in general is unbiblical?
4. Also, would be wrong or right to laugh at CT in general? What would you say if one of us post on “Covenant Theology IS Theonomy?” or better “Covenant Theology IS Heretical!” and we start off our post by writing, “Can’t have Covenant Theology Monday or Sprinkling Covenant Tuesday.”
5. Btw, MacArthur did not attack dispensationalism by calling Ryrie and Hodges about their dispensationalism but on their view of salvation.
6. Also, men like Dever, Mohler, MacArthur and Sproul do not use caricatures or laughing at one another’s position.
7. Why did you guys start out the program by mocking dispensationalism? (i.e hard to have Dispensational Friday, etc).
8. Do guys have a formal Greek or Hebrew training?
9. Do you guys have a know the distinction between Replacement Theology and Dispensationalism?
10. Other times when we cheered on it is because you did not mispresented their views!
11. Since Hagee’s outgrowth of his Replacement Theology stems from his Christianity, why not bash Christianity too?
12. I don’t know but has Hagee ever call himself a dispensationalist? Would you be able to think through the difference if a Catholic were to call himself a Christian? You would not critisize Christianity right?
Come on guys, you must bash the particular form of doctrine! Not the doctrine in general! Theonomy is the problem and not CT therefore no-one should mispresent CT by saying, “CT IS Theonomy.”
I think its your sloopy thinking that caused this interesting discussion and not necessarily of what these people are complaining.
Another nit-picker
Brian
Would you say that criticizing a hyper-Calvinist is a “lazy” approach to refuting such errors.
(fred) It is lazy, Jason, when you have someone like Dave Hunt characterizing garden variety, historical Calvinism with hyper-Calvinistic theology. We all roll our eyes when Ergun Caner talks about the hyper-Calvinists. He is being lazy, because he is interacting with an abberant theology and calling it something other than what it truly is.
No, of course you would not. But mention the errors held by many Dispys TODAY and everybody gets uncomfortable.
(fred) Of course I disagree with Hagee’s views of Israel. They should be refuted. In fact, John MacArthur recently gave an address to our Church rebuking the idea that we support the State of Israel just because they are God’s chosen people.
However, what you guys were attempting to do is link Hagee to Dispensational theology in general and declare that Hagee is off his rocker because of the Dispensationalism. Just like Brian stated up above, there are abberant forms of Christianity and CT. Am I to reject Christianity because Joseph Smith is a crackpot or reject CT because of loopy theonomic ideas? Of course not.
I am not “uncomfortable” because you guys have exposed some dark secret about dispensationalists. Like I wrote before, I am not in agreement with dispensationalism and I recognize the warts on the theology. My concern is that if your interaction with dispensationalism as a system of theology is only going to be poking fun at cartoonish images that happen to be dispensational, there is not going to be much of an honest discussion.
That in my mind is lazy and sloppy and beneath you all whom I love in the Lord.
Fred
Fred, my friend and soon guest at a Fide-O Hog Roast, I understand your concern, but I respectfully disagree. I disagree with Hagee’s Foreign Policies as do you. I admit that they are based on his Dispensationalism; but you don’t want to admit that and deal with his faulty hermeneutic. I know why. I am pointing out harmful teachings among dispensationalists, and Dispys are asking me to stop. You say I am lazy and sloppy. Well, I guess that is suppose to be an effective way to get me to stop. But I will not. I will in due time prove that at the heart of this argument is the vital issue of sola fide.