Customer Reviews

Understanding Dispensationalists

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Poythress provides a very thoughtful, honest look at dispensationalism from a reformed perspective. It is a short and easy to read book, and should be required for all dispensationalist (or anyone who has fallen in love the Left Behind series). Before I read this book I read Keith Mathison's book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the Word of God? and couldn't help but think that he used huge over-generalizations and was more content to attack dispensationalist that open a dialog with them. Poythress avoids this trap with a fair interpretation. He points out that dispensationalism has a very high degree of internal coherence. While many reformed theologians point out the problems with dispensationalism, they do so from within the reformed mindset. As Poythress points out, dispensationalism makes complete sense when viewed within a dispensationalist theology. He does, however, point out why the dispensational theology is flawed and, ultimately, incorrect. Finally, he is careful to observe the distinction between classic and progressive dispensationalism. Since there are, as Poythress points out, many areas of agreement between reformed and progressive dispensationalists, he directs most of his critique towards to more radical classic dispensationalism.

If one wants a very scholarly and irenic book on the problems of dispensationalism, then this book is it. Poythress examines the characteristics of dispensationalism, the presuppositions of dispensationalism, the hermeneutics of dispensationalism, the social forces behind dispensationalism, and problems associated with dispensationalism. He also pursuasively argues why dispensationalism is biblically and inherently problematic as he examines the "literalistic/flat" hermeneutical method used by dispensationalists. He also offers alternative ways of reading biblical prophecy that make the biblical message of God's redemptive plan coherent. He also uses passages like 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 (chapter 7) and Hebrews 12:22-24 (chapter 12) as test cases when examining the biblical faithfulness of the dispensational system. His chapters on OT intrepretation (chapter 10) and typology (chapter 11) are very insightful and interesting. These two chapters are a must read if one wants to understand the problems associated with dispensationalism. The only problem I have with Poythress is his insistence that Jesus Christ is the "fulfilled" or "ultimate remnant" Israel (pp. 126-9). Though he makes an interesting case here, I did not find it pursuasive. The Bible makes it clear that the new covenant (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-33) will be brought in by Christ's death. Believers participate in the new covenant through faith in Christ. As a result, they become the true Israel (cf. Galatians 3:9). Another interesting point Poythress brings up is on the matter of conditional/unconditional promises of the Bible. Poythress argues that dispensationalists have always tenaciously held onto the gracious and unconditional nature of God's redemptive purpose, and that this affects their hermeneutics (p. 63). Here, Poythress touches a little bit on the whole "lordship salvation controversy." Poythress is right to maintain that though the salvific promises of God are unconditional, that does not exclude the necessity of obedience and discipleship. God's promises are unconditional in one sense (Christ fulfills all the necessary requirements), but they are also conditional in another sense (these blessings are received by a faith that produces fruits). I would highly recommend this book for those wanting a short, scholarly, and thoughtful critique of dispensationalism. This book does not include the harsh polemics and irresponsible name-calling contained in other works critical of dispensationalism (i.e., Gerstner, Mathison, North, etc.). Poythress acknowledges that dispensationalists are also brothers and sisters in Christ who are striving to understand what the Bible teaches about God's dealings with humankind. This book will enlighten you and make you understand more clearly what dispensationalists believe. Thus, it is not a book you will regret picking up if you're interested in this subject.

There is no doubt that Dispensationalism is fatally flawed, but Poythress manages to avoid any nasty confontational language and attitudes towards those who hold this belief.

Giving credence to his thesis is the fact that he spent time at Dallas Theological Seminary doing research for the book. In fact, he thanks the staff and students for their help! Given the often dogmatic and unloving attitudes that persist on both sides of the interpretive divide, Poythress is very effective and genuine in his style.

Poythress has a number of arguments against Dispensationalism that can't all be summarised here. He does, however, point out that Dispensationalists often paint themselves into corners - they believe the Bible is the literal word of God (which Poythress believes as well), but are unable to cope with basic exegetical problems that contradict their theology. Rather than allow their theology to be changed by the Bible, they interpret the Bible via their theology - thus removing a central part of their belief system that the Bible determines theology.

I challenge any Dispensationalist to read Poythress' work and still remain committed to their theology. But, like Poythress, I do this in the spirit of love, recognizing their faith and love of Christ.

Dr. Poythress has written an excellent book seeking dialogue over confrontation. Such is a rare approach between the two camps covered here! Steering clear of bombastic rhetoric and overdrawn characatures towards dispensationalists, this book actually stands a chance of being read by them and advancing discussion and understanding.

In this short, scholarly work, Poythress argues ably against the traditional Dispensational position, especially in the area of hermeneutics. The work itself is concise, well-written, irenic (which is few and far between when dealing with this subject), and accurate in its portrayal. As a dispensationalist, I found his arguments fair and on target when dealing with the classical position from within my tradition. As Poythress states in his book (especially in his biblical critiques of Disp. in 1 Cor. 15, and Heb. 12), this book is more of a critique of traditional Dispensationalism and will find its arguments better-suited against this classical understanding (Chafer, Brookes, Scofield, etc.).

As a Dispensationalist who's followed more of the Revised/Modified tradition (of Ryrie, Tan, Walvoord, McClain, Pentecost, etc.), most of the arguments had a smaller impact on me, as most from this later movement of Dispensationalism between the 1950s and early 80s would find little trouble responding to Poythress' hermeneutical (which in-turn become applicational) critiques. However, his work was very solid and I certainly do not want to downplay it in my response. Above all, Poythress clearly shows the foundational problems within the classical tradition, specifically, the dualistic issues seen from its earthly/heavenly dichotomy. However, Poythress tends to show his own interpretive issues as he signifies all the Mosaic Covenant (along with much of the other OT covenants) as originating in the 'Heavenly reality', showing a slant towards the metaphysical.

However, with that being said, he carefully observes the modifications of others within Covenant Theology pertaining to the earthly character of God's promises, especially Anthony Hoekema in his, 'The Bible and the Future'. Though Hoekema does not contribute towards the development of earthly promises within an understanding of a Millennial Kingdom, he does contribute to the earthly character of the promise fulfilled in the New Earth in the final renovation (a nuanced Amillennialism). I found Poythress' comments on these modifications very helpful.

Other than the inherent dualism prevalent throughout early Dispensationalism (see also Ronald Henzel's 'Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism'), there is, without a doubt, some problems in the expressions of Dispensationalism (even of the revised sort) on how they express the relationship of the two peoples of God, especially within the Millennial Kingdom period, yet future (to us). I find his critiques well-deserved and needed, though Ryrie, Walvoord, and Pentecost have dealt with many of these problems over the course of their distinguished careers, especially in view of the final state and how both people groups will inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth, co-existing as the Redeemed.

This movement of Dispensationalism has made the 'Two Peoples of God' view much less apparent, though they still hold to it. I think part of this is because they do see a clearer relationship between the two peoples than older Disp. did; this is welcomed. They have also completely set aside the 'Two New Covenants' view from older Disp. (thankfully) and have articulated a view that sees only one New Covenant, yet not inaugurated in any sense until the Millennial Kingdom (Prog. Disp. sees it as already inaugurated). In the end, Dispensationalists still need to work on this articulation, though it is a difficult area in every system's understanding. Yet this concession does not mean that we should abandon the earthly, political/social aspects that we view as so pertinent from the OT Covenants with Israel. This is where Poythress fails to engage thoroughly enough to convince me to leave the Dispensational hermeneutic, though I do commend him on his solid contribution.

Overall, Poythress has written one of the best critiques of Traditional Dispensationalism, and does so with a congenial attitude towards the Dispensational community. Thankfully, Poythress doesn't make the faulty arguments/straw men based on poor scholarship that so many still make today about Dispensationalism, such as two ways of salvation, it doesn't believe in the entire bible for the church, etc.; I commend him for this. Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology have been listening to each other's critiques for the past 60-70 years (though not highly publicized) and each has made revisions to their systems. The inherent problems will always be complex and there will always be a tension in the Promises of God between the earthly/heavenly, material/immaterial, and eternal/historical. These will remain with us till the fullness of His coming. Thankfully, men like Poythress have the ability, and irenic spirit, to lead the church in these dialogues, even if some still disagree or others have yet to reach a conclusion. An excellent read.

This book was instrumental in my leaving Dispensationalism. It is clearly presented and yet it does so in a very respectful manner. Most books pro or con are not very kind in their presentations. Mr. Poythress gives a reasoned approach concerning the core tenants of Dispensationalism (and there are only two---read his definition to find out: It surprised me too!). He then works through scripture in context to show how the writers of the New Testament do not look at the Old Testament the way in which Dispensationalists say that they do. Other reviews go into more detail on this, but let me say this: If you are in the Dispensational camp and would like to read a reasoned, but very kind review of your theological system, this is the book to read.

I would ask any potential reader to consider whether a covenant theologian is the most reliable source of information if he wants to understand dispensationalism. That would be like trying to understand a conservative political philosophy by reading The Huffington Post! I have nothing against Poythress as a person and I'm not questioning his piety but let's understand his agenda - and there is one. If you want to understand covenant theolpgy read the works of covenant theologians. If you want to understand dispensationalism read "Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie or "Has the Church Replaced Israel" by Michael J. Vlach.

I admire Dr. Poythress and his attempt to present a case for covenant theology and against dispensationalism. He is a brother in Christ and his tender spirit is evident throughout his work. The divide between covenant and dispensational theology is not critical and only God knows for sure who is right!

That said, his argument is weak. For the purposes of this review, I will simply present one of his arguments, his case against Romans 11. His short argument is as follows:

_______________
Why are the two separate terms, "Israel" and "the church," usually used for Jews and the church in the New Testament? Superficially, this might seem to point to the idea of two parallel peoples of God. But one must remember that theology is not to be deduced directly from vocabulary stock (cf. Barr 1961; Silva 1982). In fact, the NT usage is rather complex, since many instances of the use of "Israel" refer to the people of God before the transition which took place at the resurrection of Christ and Pentecost. Some uses are OT quotations. But, beyond this, several terms are needed in a complex situation where some of the Old Testament people of God have been cut off from their fellowship with God (Romans 11). The obvious and convenient decision to use "Israel" and "the Jews" (hoi Ioudaioi) most of the time to designate the Jewish people need not entail any denial of the deeper conceptual and theological unity between Old Testament and New Testament phases of existence of one people of God (cf. 1 Pet 2:9-10).
________________

This is a weak argument that beats around the bush, avoiding the obvious with verbose prose. He resorts to saying its "rather complex" and "complex situation" without systematically presenting why. The fact that Israel refers to the people of God in the OT and during Christ's life is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Israel continues to refer to physical Israel. Dispensationalist and covenantals concur that Christ is the only path to salvation, and the present-day remnant of Israel are Christ-believing Jews, and there is only 1 path to salvation for Jews and Gentiles - trust Christ. This is besides the point! Poythress doesn't present a case against the dispensational framework here.

Finally, by saying that it is an "obvious and convenient" choice to use the word Israel makes it seem almost like the Bible were the product of man, instead of God. I feel uncomfortable with Poythress' language here. No, God is deliberate in His choice of language, convenient or not convenient, and God communicates to us in plain, simple, normal language, not "complex" - I believe Poythress is making a simple conclusion complex in order to attempt to present a straw-man case.

I hope this helps. For anyone who wants to dig deeper, I ask them to simply read through the OT. God plainly promised physical Israel. And then read Romans 9-11, as well as Revelation, where the word church doesn't appear after the 4th chapter where it is raptured. Why would the church appear throughout the NT and then suddenly disappear in the Tribulation?

I have to say, as a Dispensationalist, Poythress' critique of Dispensationalism certainly bears the distinct mark of Christian LOVE. I cannot thank him enough for that, as I've grown SO tired of being labeled everything from "wrong" to a "heretic" to "unsaved" to a "member of a cult." Poythress never goes there. He is as much as gentleman as Ryrie and others are within Dispensationalism.

I gave this book a four because of that attitude he displays, but in my view, Poythress misses a number of things that are important to my particular understanding of Scripture. For instance, referring to Romans 11, Poythress states, "Romans 11 tells the story [of position in Christ vs. apostasy] very effectively. Some dispensationalists construe the olive tree in Romans 11 as a symbol for being in the place of spiritual opportunity and privilege. It certainly involves that. But it also implies being holy (Rom 11:16). To be part of the olive is thus similar to being part of the "holy nation" of 1 Pet 2:9. It is similar to what Peter means by being "a chosen race, God's own people" (1 Pet 2:9)." His comments here are a bit confusing. On one hand he seems to be saying that the Dispensationalist is incorrect in viewing the Olive Tree as the place of spiritual blessing. Yet, immediately prior to this, he also seems to be saying that what has taken place with the Jew who were cut off from the Olive Tree is that they apostacized, but can be grafted back into the tree. He does not explain what he means by "apostacized." Does he mean losing one's salvation, or does he mean, backsliding far enough so that outwardly, the Christian's life looks nothing like what a Christian life should look like?

The other stickler in just this one spot (at least for me), is his explanation of various sections of Peter's epistles and the use of the terms "Israel" and the "Church" in various places throughout the NT. In the case of Peter's epistles, I'm not convinced that he was writing to Gentiles at all. In fact, if he was writing to Jewish believers (in the majority), then much of his language is completely understandable. If he was instead writing mainly to Gentiles, it seems perplexing since they would not necessarily have understood terms such as "you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" and "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."

This type of terminology equates to Jewish readers, but not necessarily to Gentiles. In fact, with the amount of quoting Peter does from the OT, it seems obvious that he expected his readers to be very familiar with what he was talking about. However, Gentiles would not have been familiar with it at all. Even the part of about "once you were not a people, but now are God's people" is predicated on the fact that though Israel as a nation was God's chosen nation, they rarely acted like it. It is only through Christ that the wall of partition has come down; that which separates man from approaching God boldly.

I am not sure I see the problem that Poythress maintains is there in the Hebrews 12:22-24 passage. If I am not misunderstanding him, Poythress seems to forget that the name of the book is Hebrews. This is an obvious reference to the fact that the writer of Hebrews was writing mainly to Jewish Christians, who would have had a decidedly firm grasp of the OT and the typology found therein.

Poythress seems to be saying that since both Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians have arrived at the true Mt. Zion, this then represents the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant? So then, since Abraham and the Patriarchs have inherited the "heavenly land," the promise made to Abraham by God beginning with Genesis 12:1-3, and repeated in Genesis 13, 15 and 17, has been fulfilled. But what is the reality NOW?

For instance, Paul states in Ephesians that I am presently seated with Christ in the heavenlies (cf. Ephesians 2:6). Is this my reality now? Certainly, in some sense, yet at the same time, I am still fully human and I am still alive on this planet and I still possess the sin nature. While I have the fullness of Christ potentially, in actuality, I am not really there yet; I'm certainly NOT experiencing it in my daily life perfectly by any stretch. So, in reality, it is the promise of being with Christ that I know I will one day experience in actuality. What keeps me from enjoying that fullness now is this "body of death."

It seems that what Poythress is doing then is going to the END of the journey so to speak, and pointing out from Hebrews that we are already THERE (technically), so in that sense everything that was promised to Abraham has been fulfilled. While it is true that WHEN we get there, everything will have been fulfilled, for NOW, while I am HERE, God still has a will and plan for my life that will yet unfold over the remaining time of my earthly life.

Satan is alive and well and creating havoc all over the earth, yet he has been beaten and condemned. How can that be? On one hand, he is allowed to continue to roam, accuse and cause problems within the confines of God's will (as it has always been), yet a day will come when he will be a problem no more. In that day, his power will in actuality, be destroyed. In the meantime however, that has NOT come to pass. It is like a check that has not been cashed yet. It is POTENTIALLY cashed, but not ACTUALLY cashed.

I'm not sure how Hebrews 12:22-24 somehow negates the concept of Christ's physical, future reign over a political Kingdom for 1,000 years. Yes, Christ reigns NOW from His Father's throne, but there is a very good LEGAL reason as to why Christ MUST reign on earth, physically and from David's throne.

What the writer of Hebrews is pointing out is the ultimate fulfillment which WILL become our ACTUAL experience with the start of the Eternal Order. Poythress seems to agree when he states, "Dispensationalists nevertheless have an important point to make. This fulfillment in Heb 12:22 is "a" fulfillment, but not the greatest, broadest, most climactic realization of the promises to Abraham. That is still future. We err if we minimize this."

Regarding the alleged problem with 1 Corinthians 15:50-53, I don't see the problem at all. First of all, Paul uses the definite article "the" in reference to this Trumpet, and I see Poythress' point here about it being the VERY LAST EVER trump. While both midtribulationists and posttribulationists believe this is related to the seventh trumpet of Revelation, it cannot be. The people in the Corinthian church would have had NO knowledge of the book of Revelation since it had NOT been written yet!

But sadly even Poythress misses the Jewishness of the situation here and I think it is extremely obvious what Paul is referring to. But since most Gentiles think in Gentile terms, it is very easy to miss as Poythress seems to have done.

Paul MUST be referring to the Feast of Trumpets in this passage. It is very likely that because of his previous teaching for the Corinthians, he may well have spoken of it before.

According to Fruchtenbaum, "During the ceremony there are a series of short trumpet sounds concluding with one long trumpet blast which is called the tekiah gedolah, the great trumpet blast. This is what Paul means by the last trump. As such, it says nothing concerning the timing of the Rapture; only that the Rapture, whenever it comes, will fulfill the Feast of Trumpets. This trumpet is the same as the trump of God found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. In that passage, at the sound of the trumpet the dead are raised as incorruptible and we, the living, will be changed." (Footsteps of the Messiah, page 148)

So this "last trump" is the last trump of the Feast of Trumpets, not the last EVER trump. This is at least PART of the problem with many interpretations today. The Jewishness has been obliterated from the Bible, by us Gentiles, who see everything through Gentile eyes. Yet, the Bible was written BY Jews and essentially FOR Jews, at least to start with (and ultimately of course, by God). IF we would put the Jewish context BACK into the Bible, that the Roman Catholic Church and others have removed, most of the meaning would become obvious. Thank goodness for people like Arnold Fruchtenbaum!

Overall, as I said at the beginning, Poythress' critique of Dispensationalism is honest, worthwhile and extremely charitable. He has put a tremendous amount of work in his book and that is obvious. This is the type of person I could sit down with, enjoy a dinner and dialogue. I'm sure I could learn a great deal from him regarding Covenant Theology was well.

The trouble though is that his own interpretation of Scripture is questionable at various points and he assumes the position of the Dispensationalist at times without meaning to do so. These aside, this is one book that I am very glad to have in my library!

For a dispensationalist, reading this well-intentioned book is a bit like hearing someone describe a significant event in your life, in your presence, although the speaker wasn't remotely involved in your life at the time of the event. They don't really get the story right...and you'd really rather tell your own story.
I see the wisdom in a prior reviewer's comment that it does seem a bit inappropriate to go to a covenant theologian to form an understanding of dispensational theology. OF COURSE, the exegetical conclusions of dispensationalism will seem inadequate, and that its proponents are hiding from "intellectual challenges and from insight into one's assumptions and limitations"! (p77 second ed. The dispensational believer might well say the same about his/her amillennial fellow believer. I'm dispensationalist, but spend as much time reading covenant theologians and preachers as any to mine the wealth of their understanding of many aspects of the faith. So far, they simply haven't provided me with a compelling argument for their eschatology, and I suspect the same could be said by a covenant/amil student who reads the works of dispensationalist writers. All in all, this is a good book for both covenant and dispensational believers who are interested in reading what covenant theologians think dispensationalists believe, and what, in their opinion, are the impassable contradictions of the dispensational system of exegesis. But honestly, a solid dispy theologian could put the problems with dispensational exegesis that Poythress "exposes" into the third deck on a windy day, or would at least admit that his theology, as ALL theologies, contains numerous antimonies that simply must be lived with.