You will miss a lot of “irony” in this post if you did not read the preceding one. I was saying that I read Michael J. Vlach’s Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. And I said I enjoyed it. But now I want to express one of my “pet peeves” (which may be a bit too strong; a minor irritation might be better). I still prefer not to be known as a “Dispensationalist,” identified by a name, and being so concerned with defending a system of theology.
In the book, Vlach has a chapter on “Continuity/Discontinuity.” It is an important discussion for “dispensationalism.” The issue is that some things in dispensationalism are continuous from OT to NT while other things change, do not continue from the OT to the NT. This is very true. I believe Vlach is right on. But if I want to talk with someone about “continuity/discontinuity” I have introduced a filter for truth that is not known by that name in the Bible. And I am much more concerned about people studying the Bible than in learning a system of theology. I want to open Scripture up and show them and explain passages rather than to construct a system that I place on the Bible to help other understand it. I believe that anyone who studies the Bible will not be able to deny or ignore the various things Vlach mentions.
Here is perhaps a better illustration. Vlach has a section on Jesus as “True Israel.” That is a true doctrine, that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s desires for Israel. But rather than statement of a doctrine, I would much rather take someone to Matthew 2, where Jesus fulfills a prophecy made to Israel, that God brought His Son out of Egypt.
Perhaps you consider this picky, but let me share an experience I had several years ago. I preached a series of sermons called “God’s Plan for the Ages.” I determined that I was not going to use the terms “dispensation” or “dispensationalist.” So, I called it God’s “plan” (irony from previous post). I sought to make the point that God’s has had different rules and laws in effect in different ages of history and future history. And to make the point that the plan of salvation (faith in Christ) was always the one and only way to be saved.
About half way through, there was a visiting pastor from Minnesota who heard the sermon, and he came up afterwards and congratulated by for preaching such a powerful sermon on “dispensationalism.” “You don’t hear much of this any more,” he said as he patted me on the back. Toward the end of the series, one of our church members came up to me and told me he was not particularly interested in my warmed-over “dispensationalism.” He was quite resistant to the whole thing, having been immersed (or sprinkled) with a lot of Reformed and Covenant Theology. I tried to have a conversation with him but it turned out to be one of those conversations where I never was able to complete a sentence.
In my view this happens a lot. Rather than significant discussions about the words of the Bible we are more interested in putting people in a box. “Calvinist or Arminian.” “Pentecostal or Baptist.” Dispensationalist or Covenant Theologian.” “Emergent Church or New Testament Church.” I would much rather open the Bible with those who I think might have a problem with the truth than to dig into my Systematic Theology.
No comments:
Post a Comment