"Dispensational Distortions" lectures by Gentry

[rgrove]

"Dispensational Distortions" Lectures by Ken Gentry

This is an excellent critique in a series of five lectures by Kenneth Gentry on the major problems with Dispensational teaching. There are three MP3 files available for download. The first two contain two lectures each and the final MP3 has one lecture. Each lecture is approximately thirty minutes, give or take a few minutes.

In the first MP3 Dr. Gentry gives a brief overview of the history and content of Dispensationalism. It is very well done. He doesn't take potshots as he goes, but does periodically note that he will come back to this point or that point later. He also makes it clear that these lectures are addressing what has become known as "classical" dispensationalism, not the newer "progressive" dispensationalism.

Dr Gentry then begins going into what he has called Christological distortions in the classical dispensational system. I found them to be very well thought out and clearly presented. The first has to do with the timing of Christ's rule. The second has to do with the nature of Christ's Rule. And the third has to do with Christ's "second" humiliation as after a 1000 year personal rule complete with resurrected saints the entire world revolts against him. Of course I'm biased in that I agreed with him before starting, but I did feel that they flow of the argument was clear and convincing as presented.

In the second MP3 Dr. Gentry goes over distortions of redemptive history in the dispensational schema. He first addresses the dispensational theory that the church age is an unprophesied "parenthesis" or "intercallation" in history. He then addresses the gospel and the certain failure of the gospel via the power of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation to convert the Jews as a whole. He then addresses the issue of a rebuilt temple in the future and it's role in the millennial reign of Christ.

In the last lecture he finishes up with the redemptive distortions and then addresses some of what he terms historical distortions. These would be multiple resurrections taught in premillennialism and dispensationalism in particular, mingling of sinful and glorified people, and the overriding pessimism about the world and the prospects of the gospel inherent in the system.

All in all I highly recommend this lecture series by Dr. Gentry. It would be especially useful for someone just beginning to look at the fundamental differences in how covenental and dispansational theologians address prophecy.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

[Soulfyre]

Why, my dear Ron. I get the impression that you are not a strong proponent of dispensationalism.

Actually, I think that dispensational theologians have offerred us some much needed corrective in the area of grammatico-historical exegesis (even if some what slavish and disjointed). On of my favorite books is the festschrift for S. Lewis Johnson (a man whose command of the Biblical languages was impressive; he was one of Bruce Waltke's early instructors) entitled Continuity and Discontintuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. This book gives perhaps a less polemical critique of dispensational error, while also lending necessary correctives to "covenant theology."

Although I am not perhaps classically Reformed (I am perhaps more sympathetic with Calvin than with the later pronouncements of the Synod at Dordt), I do not believe that the final word in theology had been expressed by Covenant theology (incidentally, I don't believe that theology ended with the final ecumenical councils, such that all subsequent is merely commentary, either). I believe that much of the eschatology in Covenant theology was lifted virtually wholesale from the Roman Catholic roots of the Reformation. Dispensationalism caused us to take a hard look at our respecitve methodologies in the interpretation of apocalyptic scripture, which I believe was greatly needed.

While I hold to what many refer to as Historical Premillennialism, I must admit that it is probable that my understanding still retains significant differences from that of the early church (whose primary effort was spent on hammering out the nature of the Trinity and salvation). In many ways, I find it less necessary to protect an unsuspecting world against dispensationalism the nature of which is far different that even when I was in seminary, than to rely upon the fact that most dispensationalists have an absolute committment to the authority of scripture, so that we truly can say, "Come, let us reason together."

All that being said, I will try to look up this book. Good scholarship (and I assume Dr. Gentry is not merely a polemicist, since you have recommended him) should not go unnoticed.

Thank you, Ron!

God bless and keep you and yours,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

There's no critic worse than a convert to another understanding brother.

Actually, it's a lecture series on MP3 (but I posted the review here anyhow if you don't mind). Gentry has his polemic moments, but he was very close to Greg Bahnsen (his teacher at Reformed Theological Seminary and longtime friend) who went out of his way to offer criticism in a manner befitting a follower of Christ like few others I've seen. This had it's impact on Gentry. But he is still very critical of the system (I've never seen him use ad hominem) and it's primarily, if you listen closely, related to the pessimism about the future, teaching God's kingdom will continue to fail in this age, and the pietistic retreat from society that many classical dispensationalists propose. "Don't polish brass on a sinking ship" is the montra of many unfortunately. I was this way when I was a dispensationalist. I didn't see any reason for voting even and didn't. My wife would periodically vote for me, but I didn't bother. I understood what the dispensational teachers were saying and took their advice to heart and was very "pietist" you might say. When Gentry was a dispensationalist in the 70's (he was saved in a dispensational church, went to a dispensational Bible college, and went to Grace Theological Seminary his first two years of seminary which was dispensational) he decided not to purchase life insurance because he was so sure he wouldn't be around to use it. He was intent on following the all-too-frequent dispensational advice to live like there won't be a tomorrow. So when you hear strong reactions from him to dispensational teachings, if you keep this in mind it's much more understandable.

As for "covenent theology", I'm a Baptist and they all like to call us dispensationalists, or at least closet dispensationalists. This is because Baptists recognize fundamental discontinuity between the administration of the old and new covenants that covenant theologians minimize wherever possible. All theology is intimitely related and being a paedobaptist or credobaptist will have an effect in other areas. This means I examine what paedobaptist covenant theologians say very closely in this regard...

As for Calvin, I'm not sure what you feel is different between him and what Dort declared. I suspect it's regarding the atonement? If so, I recommend you read Dort (particularly the "Second Main Point of Doctrine") as it's more open than later expressions of the doctrines of grace. Another area that confuses people about Calvin is his understanding of the salvation of the whole world. Since people today have this overriding pessimism about the success of God's kingdom due to the effect of premillennial (and particularly dispensational) and amillennial teaching they don't see that Calvin didn't share this pessimism. Here is a passage from Greg Bahnsen's essay "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism" that demonstrates what I mean:

"For Calvin, the kingdom of Christ was viewed as established at the first advent and continuing in force until the second advent. During this interadventual period, the church is destined to experience widespread success; throughout history it will bring all nations under the sovereign sway of Christ. To this interadventual period Calvin referred many of the glorious prophecies about the Messiah’s kingdom found in the Old Testament. “The saints began to reign under heaven when Christ ushered in his kingdom by the promulgation of his Gospel.”[39] Commenting upon the Isaiah 65:17 prophecy of God’s creating new heavens and a new earth, Calvin said: “By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; . . . but the greatest of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming . . .. Thus the world is (so to speak) renewed by Christ . . . and even now we are in the progress and accomplishment of it . . .. The Prophet has in his eye the whole reign of Christ, down to its final close, which is also called ‘the day of renovation and restoration.’ (Acts iii.21)” “The glory of God shines . . . never more brightly than in the cross, in which . . . the whole world was renewed and all things restored to order.”[40] About Isaiah 2:2-4, Calvin had the following to say: “ . . . while the fullness of days began at the coming of Christ, it flows on in uninterrupted progress until he appears the second time for our salvation.” During this time “the church, which had formerly been, as it were, shut up in a corner, would now be collected from every quarter . . .. The Prophet here shows that the boundaries of his kingdom will be enlarged that he may rule over various nations . . .. Christ is not sent to the Jews only, that he may reign over them, but that he may hold sway over the whole world.” The triumphant progress of the church, reigning under Christ, will be remarkable down through history; the soteric restoration of the world will be increasingly evident as all nations come under the rule of the Savior. Such was Calvin’s hope, his biblical philosophy of history.

The scepter of Christ’s kingdom by which He rules is “his Word alone,” and Satan with his power fails to the extent that christ’s kingdom is upbuilt through the power of preaching.[41] Calvin boldly proclaimed that “the labour of Christ, and of the whole Church, will be glorious, not only before God, but likewise before men . . .. Hence it follows, that we ought to have good hopes of success.”[42] “We must not doubt that our Lord will come at last to break through all the undertakings of men and make a passage for his word. Let us hope boldly, then, more than we can understand; he will still surpass our opinion and our hope.[43]"

He held to a very similar optimism that Augustine and to a larger extent Athenasius held to. It wasn't quite the extent of the postmillennial hope that became normative very soon after his pasing, but all of the elements were there and his interpretation of the atonement passages should be looked at from this world embracing perspective. That is where his understanding of the universality of the atonement is derived and that is a key point that most people miss. Again, all theology is interrelated. We can't look at one area and ignore what someone believes in others if we are to truly understand what they are saying. A little more than $.02 perhaps..

Yours In Christ,
Ron

[Soulfyre]

An excellent (and detailed) response as usual, Ron!

In Christ,

Matthew (soulfyre)