Agreeing to Disagree on KJV Only and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Greetings brothers and sisters.  I’ve had several folks comment on Unsealed, YouTube, and Facebook, and email me as well, concerning the question of Bible translation, specifically regarding the KJV-Only Movement.  It’s been on my heart to address this issue, as well as the often closely-tied doctrines of Mid-Acts and Post-Acts Dispensationalism.  We’ve addressed the latter several times (see here and here), but I’ll address it once more and cover some new territory.

First though, I want to address the importance of Christian fellowship in the midst of disagreements surrounding these non-essential issues.  My hand of fellowship is always extended to those who disagree with me, yet are still willing to maintain unity.  I can agree to disagree and this disagreement bothers me very little.  What bothers me much more is when these disagreements and quarrels over non-essentials become dividing lines.  These dividing lines within the body of Christ are not from God, but from Satan.  Christ prayed for unity within the body (Jn. 17:1–26).  Satan seeks to divide and defeat the Church using the most basic trick in the book—turning a kingdom against itself (Mt. 12:22–28).  And Christians fall for it over and over and over again.

If you really believe in the gospel and salvation by faith alone, and if you really believe that the single most important task we have been given is sharing this message with as many as possible before the clock strikes midnight, then it becomes of paramount importance to approach other believers with the benefit of the doubt (1 Cor. 13:7) and in a spirit of humility.  The world will not recognize our identity in Christ by our quarrels and superior intellect, but by our love (Jn. 13:35).  And if we want the world to know Christ, we must love one another.

I’ve observed in many debates between Christians and Christians (and Christians and non-Christians, for that matter) that dividing lines are often propagated by false associations and straw-man arguments.  If you are dividing from or condemning other believers, check yourself to see if you are guilty of applying to them something that they do not actually believe.  These are false accusations.  And false accusations do not come from the mouth of someone who desires unity and the well-being of the other, but from someone who wants you to submit to their own intellect as they seek to win an argument.

A straw-man is a misrepresented proposition applied by an accuser to the other side in such a way that it is easier to defeat than what the other side actually believes.  Let me give you a common example:

1. Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that polytheism is idolatry.

2. Christians believe that there is One God who subsists in three Persons.

3. Many Muslim apologists say Christians’ belief in the Trinity equates to belief in three gods and thus is polytheism.

4. Muslim apologists can then claim that Christianity is false and Christians should reject their belief because it is idolatry.

To summarize: the Christian proposition is that there is One God in three Persons.  The misrepresented proposition is that Christians worship three gods.  It’s easier to defeat the false proposition than what Christians actually believe, because all sides agree that idolatry is wrong.

So in terms of logical fallacy, it is irrelevant to the debate whether Christians are right or wrong in their belief about the Trinity.  To have a logical and fair debate you must acknowledge what the other side actually believes.  Does this make sense?

We see similar such straw-men used by [some] proponents of the KJV-Only and Mid-Acts Dispensation views to attack their opponents.  For example, “we call ourselves right-dividers, therefore the other side doesn’t believe in rightly dividing.”  Or, “those who disagree with KJV-Only do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture [or do not regard the authority of God’s word].”

Straw-man fallacies are akin to putting words in someone’s mouth in such a way that you can then more easily defeat them.  In truth, using straw-men and similar false associations is bearing false witness against your neighbor (i.e., telling a lie).  You’re saying someone believes something that they do not believe, but you’re doing it subtly and with craftiness—twisting words just enough to make others believe your accusation.  Don’t do this.

Because of our corrupted nature (mine included), we so often desire to be right.  Far less often will we humble ourselves to admit we might be wrong.  We often miss the forest for the trees.  For example, all faithful students of God’s word can agree with what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But can we agree with the immediately preceding verse?

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

Many are so focused on 2 Timothy 2:15, which is absolute, God-breathed truth, but are missing the clear exhortation given right before. They are doing the very thing in v. 15 that Paul exhorted not to do in v. 14.  Teaching and expounding is great.  Quarreling and fighting is not so great.  Especially when the fight is dividing Christian from Christian.

I spent the first couple years of my ministry arguing and the fruit that bore was minimal at best.

No house divided against itself will stand.  Are you really passionate about the gospel and loving your brother if you can attack, accuse, and cut yourself off from your brothers who agree with you about salvation and who also share your faith in Christ?  Don’t we have a mission to accomplish?  And how will we accomplish it if our energies are spent quarreling over non-essentials rather than preaching the gospel in fellowship?

Stop reading between the lines and just read the lines.  Reading between the lines always leads to false accusations.  This can be satanic in origin.  Are you an accuser of the brethren?  You may be saved, but that’s a strange and saddening place to put yourself—to be living and acting in such a way as Satan is described (“the Accuser”).  Hear what people say and acknowledge what they actually believe.

Finally, we must agree to disagree, even on the essentials.  As it says in the Scriptures, if a house doesn’t offer you peace then just shake the dust from your feet and move on.  Don’t remain in endless quarrel.  But only fellowship with those who agree on the essentials.

If you feel like you cannot fellowship with those who agree with you on the essentials, I would ask that you consider: 1. Do you actually believe the essentials yourself? 2. Do you feel like it is possible to fellowship with others who think differently about non-essentials? and 3. Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong about non-essential issues (I’m not saying abandon your non-essential beliefs, I’m saying don’t hold them as if you’re right and everyone else is wrong, but hold them in humility, holding others up higher than yourself).  Be cautious because there is a fine line: you must hold the essentials without compromising or being moved (as so many are tossed around by every wind and wave of doctrine, moving from one extreme to the next: Eph. 4:14), but the more non-essentials you hold with the attitude of “my way or the highway” the more of a box you’ve potentially placed God in, and by very reason of being closed off to other possibilities, God could be revealing to you many things that would be [literally] impossible for you to see.

I can agree to disagree with those who preach the gospel, but believe in other systematic theologies (Covenantalism, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, Post-Acts Dispensationalism, etc).  However, I can’t have fellowship with those who refuse to put down their swords.  It’s conflict resolution 101: both parties have to 1. approach the other with humility, 2. respect the other before delving into the issue, 3. acknowledge that they could be wrong about something, 4. and, when compromise is not possible, agreeing to disagree without anger, accusation, and, if possible, doing this while maintaining genuine love and fellowship.

---

Issues With the KJV-Only Position

I understand that there are a variety of positions within the KJV-Only movement and there is not a universally agreed upon definition.  I want to respect that.  I even agree with some of their textual arguments related to the text bases used (the LSV happens to use the same).  Many are “KJV Only”-light, which is to say, it’s not a perfect translation, but it’s the best available.  I respect that view far more and this is not a dig against that particular persuasion.  Here I’m simply offering my humble opinion regarding the inadequacy of the view that the King James Version is the only legitimate or divinely-inspired English translation.

1. It wasn’t the first English translation.  In fact, there were several English translations preceding the KJV.  The honor of first complete English translation belongs to Wycliffe’s Bible, which was completed as early as 1382 by John Wycliffe and his associates, over 200 years before the King James.  Furthermore, many of the arguments used to uphold the KJV-Only position involve its Textus Receptus textual basis, but fully six other English translations preceding the KJV also used the Textus Receptus: Tyndale’s New Testament, Myles Coverdale’s Bible, The Matthew Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and The Bishops’ Bible.  As a matter of fact, the latter was the base text for the KJV.

2. It wasn’t the first authorized English translation.  Another argument used by some among KJV-Only proponents is that by virtue of being authorized by the government, the KJV falls under principles outlined in Romans 13.  Besides being at odds from the outset with the basic principle that God’s word supersedes all earthly government and is direct revelation from God Himself, and besides the fact that many of the books of our Bible were originally “illegal” at the time they were written—or, at the very least, heavily frowned upon by the authorities (including the Old Testament prophets and all the New Testament books)—the KJV wasn’t even the first authorized English translation to begin with.  The Great Bible of 1539 was the first, authorized by King Henry VIII of England.  The Bishops’ Bible was the second and as mentioned before was the basis for the KJV.

In summary, the KJV was the seventh English translation (sixth if you do not count Tyndale’s since his translation wasn’t complete) and only the third “authorized version.”

3. It isn’t the most literal English translation.  It is generally, though not exclusively, a word-for-word (formal equivalence) translation (source).  There are several translations that are significantly more literal, further along the spectrum, including, in this order: the ESV, NASB, Green’s Literal (LITV), YLT, and at this point the most literal (excluding an interlinear) would be our own LSV.  The KJV is a very solid translation, but at the same time it contains thousands of instances of verb tenses which were not literally translated, thousands of missing definite articles, and even varies from the Textus Receptus itself by roughly 1–2% (source).  A number of the animal names in the Old Testament are especially suspect as they were never native to the land of Israel, but seem to be species only native to Europe.

4. The committee that formed the KJV did not think their translation was perfect.  In fact, I’m not aware of even one quotation from any of the translators (Richard Bancroft included) who posited any of the following beliefs: 1. that the KJV is inerrant, 2. that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation, or 3. that the KJV would never be superseded.  In fact, the translators themselves were much more humble.

5. The KJV-Only position is a modern invention.  The King James Only position was first articulated in 1930 by Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.  Far from being a defense of the ancient paths and a line in the sand against modern corruptions, the KJV-Only Movement is itself a modern invention.

6. The 1611 KJV has been revised numerous times, including in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769.  The majority of KJV-Onlyists are not even using the original version.  If you hold firmly to the KJV-Only position and you feel like arguments against your position are an assault on your faith itself, is your faith in Christ or in the KJV?  Again, English wasn’t even a language when the Bible was originally written.

7. By definition, no translation can be perfect.  Virtually every language has certain words with semantic range and certain idioms that have literally no counterpart in another language.  Faithful translation is an attempt to accurately and honestly present the best possible translation in the target language.  It is an attempt toward perfection, but it isn’t perfection itself.

8. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  The inerrant, infallible, God-breathed words of Scripture were written by the hands of the prophets, apostles, and their direct associates, not by English Bible translators.  There is a strong sense in which the KJV-Only position actually attacks this fundamental truth.  Since the KJV doesn’t consistently translate the biblical manuscripts, but KJV-Only proponents posit that it is a perfect translation, then this is an attack, though perhaps not intended as such, on the infallibility of the original Scriptures themselves.

9. God’s word will always be with us, but not as some KJV-Onlyists suggest.  Some KJV-Only proponents are quick to cite verses such as 1 Peter 1:25, Psalm 119:89, and Isaiah 40:8, which indicate the perpetuity of God’s word, as evidence for the testimony of the KJV.  In other words, the Bible says God’s word stands forever, so we must have God’s word in full with us today via the KJV.  This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.  To distill this down, the argument is essentially “because God’s word stands forever the KJV must be the only inspired English translation.”  The argument’s premise assumes this conclusion without actually proving the conclusion.

This argument in support of the KJV is further disproved by the arguments above (specifically #1–4, 6, 8).  Even assuming the English language must have a full translation of God’s word, it can’t be established that the KJV is that translation.  It wasn’t the first English translation, it wasn’t the first authorized translation, and it’s not the most literal English translation.

Furthermore, there are three more points that strongly argue against the KJV-Only use of these such verses:

First, there are roughly 7,000 languages in the world.  Only about 1,500 have a New Testament.  Only about 700 have a complete Bible (source).  Now it’s true that the languages that do have a complete Bible account for a large majority of the world population, but there are still thousands of languages without a Bible translation, with hundreds of millions of people without access to a written translation of God’s word.  This in and of itself disproves this particular KJV-Only argument.

Second, while KJV-Onlyists seem to highly value context and rightly dividing, they don’t seem to give the same level of care to these verses.  The context of none of these verses is about Bible translation, nor do they explicitly define how God’s word will be preserved.  The context of 1 Peter 1:25 more narrowly refers to the word of good news that Paul preached (a.k.a., the gospel).  More generally speaking, the Bible refers both to the capital ‘W’ Word (Christ Himself: Jn. 1:1) and to the lowercase ‘w’ word of God, which is the words He has spoken audibly to mankind, and sometimes into the hearts and minds of mankind.  Indeed, God the Word, the Logos, will stand forever because He is very God of very God.  And God’s words will stand forever because He spoke those words, remembers those words, and will preserve those words in one way or another.  However, the argument that God has preserved 100% of His words in the English language via the KJV is false on its face.

Third, the Bible explicitly prophesies of a time when the word of God will not be found:

“Behold, days are coming,” || A declaration of Lord YHWH, || “And I have sent a famine into the land, || Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, || But of hearing the words of YHWH.  And they have wandered from sea to sea, || And from north even to east, || They go to and fro to seek the word of YHWH, || And they do not find [it].” (Amos 8:11–12, LSV)

10. It seems to me that this movement has too dark a view of what God is doing in the world.  My final point is admittedly subjective, but hear me out.  Yes, there is deception.  Yes, wolves have infiltrated the flock.  But the Holy Spirit still dwells within Christ’s Church and we still have the victory through Christ Jesus our LORD.  Just because something was translated in the 20th or 21st century doesn’t make it wrong, just as ecumenicalism isn’t by definition a bad thing (Jn. 17:1–26), but becomes bad when corrupted into universalism or when presenting a false gospel.  The Church has always faced apostasy.  In each generation there was a massive doctrinal threat to the Church (e.g., Arianism, Pelagianism, sacramentalism, indulgences, etc), and though there are numerous false teachings today, how can we forget that there was a time when the gospel was barely preached at all (roughly 8th through 15th centuries)?  God is still working and the gates of hell will not prevail.

For further reading on the subject of KJV-Onlyism, I would recommend these articles:

The King James Only Controversy

7 Things You May Not Know About The King James Bible

The Haters: The KJV Only Movement

---

Issues With Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Before I unpack this I want to first preface my points with a couple of qualifiers: first, ultradispensationalism and hyperdispensationalism technically refer to two different schools of thought.  Ultradispensationalism is also called Post-Acts Dispensationalism and refers to the theory that the Church began with Paul after Acts 28.  Hyperdispensationalism is more properly the Mid-Acts view and suggests that the Church began with Paul in Acts 13 (usually highlighted by v. 46).  Both views reject the historic view held by Christianity since the earliest centuries that the Church began on Pentecost in the year Christ died when the first believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1–2).  Second, many of the points below can be applied to both hyperdispensationalism and ultradispensationalism equally although I’m writing them with a greater focus on the Mid-Acts view.

Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil.  It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad.  So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.

— Harry A. Ironside

1. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is a modern invention.  In all fairness, if the belief is correct then my point doesn’t hold, because it would have been invented by God Himself and first presented in Acts 13, but no one exposited this view until the early 1900s (similar to the KJV-Only view).  J.C. O’Hair who died in 1958 was the first proponent.  Ultradispensationalism is a similarly recent invention, first posited by E.W. Bullinger in the late 1800s.

2. “We turn to the Gentiles” in Acts 13:46 as a dispensational shift marker is based on an argument from silence, not a clear definition.  Paul and Barnabas say that they now turn to the Gentiles, not that God Himself had only now turned to the Gentiles.  God had already commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles long before (Mt. 28:16–20; Mk. 16:14–16; Lk. 24:45–49).

3. Paul was not the first to explicitly define the gospel nor was he the first commissioned to preach the gospel.  In primordial form it was first presented by God Himself to Eve in Genesis 3:15–16 (see here and here).  In very unambiguous terms it was presented in Isaiah 52–53.  The Prophet Isaiah foretells each of the key details of the gospel: that the Messiah would die as an atoning sacrifice for sin, be buried, and then rise again.  Isaiah even prophesies that the Gentiles would look to Him (Isa. 52:15a) and that this understanding would be concealed from them until they hear the message (Isa. 52:15b).  Jesus Himself defines the good news in the Gospels, including very succinctly in Luke 24:46–48, where He commissions the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations.  Other instances include Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:33–34, and Luke 9:22.  The gospel is also explicitly defined in Acts 2:22–38 and Acts 10:39–43 (Peter being the one delivering the message in both instances!).  Philip also preaches the gospel to a Gentile in Acts 8:26–40.  Although the resurrection event itself is not mentioned in Acts 8 it is implied in v. 35.

The Mid-Acts view is reading into the text (eisegesis) when it proclaims the gospel to belong to Paul exclusively and not the other apostles because of the use of the phrase “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:8).  This is a gross and unfortunate error made by those claiming to tremble at every word.  Nowhere does Paul state the gospel is only his.  To the contrary, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul specifically mentions other apostles by name, so it also supports that the other disciples preached the same gospel.  Remember, this passage of Scripture is the clearest description of the gospel given (1 Cor. 15:1–4), yet, in this same passage, Paul offers no distinction between his gospel message and that preached by the other apostles:

...afterward He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  And last of all—as to the untimely birth—He also appeared to me, for I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Assembly of God, and by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace that [is] toward me did not come in vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God that [is] with me; whether, then, I or they, so we preach, and so you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:7–11, LSV)

Many create dichotomies where none exist.  This is a sort of logical fallacy in how one processes logical deduction.  It also causes a problem where one says they are interpreting the Bible literally, while in reality they are “reading between the lines.”  Suggesting that because Paul calls the gospel his somehow it can’t also belong to the other apostles is a false dichotomy because the Bible doesn’t say it isn’t also the other apostles (in fact, just the opposite as shown in many of the points above).  There is no Scripture that denies our mutual ownership of the good news.  It belongs to all of us who receive it and we are the messengers who continue to carry it along.  The gospel is Paul’s gospel, but it is also my gospel, and your gospel, and Peter’s gospel, and belongs to all who believe (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 1:12–17; Eph. 1:3–14).  There is also no Scripture that says there is a distinction between the message to the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision.  That’s another false dichotomy.  The message is the same because the means of salvation is the same.  Paul primarily preached to the nations (though not exclusively; see Acts 15, 22) and the apostles, at least initially, primarily preached to the Jews, though in keeping with Christ’s command, they would ultimately preach to the ends of the earth.

4. Mid-Acts “Rightly Dividing” reads the law into places where it doesn’t exist in order to create arbitrary transitions.  The most pivotal mistake is made in Acts 2 where RD’ers regard baptism and repentance (Acts 2:38) as a message clearly distinguished from the gospel.  However, it is widely understood that repentance is a mistaken translation of the Greek metanoia (and verbal root metanoeó).  Repentance is a concept derived from the Latin word from which we get penitence.  It has the connotation of acting out, turning from sin, atoning for oneself with alms, etc.  Biblical repentance (metanoia) simply means to change your mind about something.  In other words, to be persuaded about something or to convert from one position to another.  When Peter tells those gathered from many nations in Acts 2 to repent, he’s exhorting them to be persuaded about the gospel message he just presented to them (Acts 2:22–38) and to believe in Jesus.  In the context of the gospel, to repent = to believe the good news and to believe the good news = to repent.

Regarding baptism, this key detail is missed 99 times out of 100, but John the Baptist had prophesied that his water baptism would be superseded by Christ’s spiritual baptism and this prophecy is recorded in every single Gospel (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:24–27).  Water isn’t mentioned one time in Acts 2:38 or in the surrounding context.  To drive the point home that the baptism being experienced on the day of Pentecost was in the Holy Spirit and not in water, John’s prophecy is established as the foundation of Acts 1–2 (see Acts 1:5).  You can read more about this here.

5. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism makes arbitrary distinctions within the Ekklesia.  One of the most glaring issues with hyperdispensationalism is the explicit references to the Church (ekklesia) throughout the New Testament—not only in the non-Pauline epistles, but also in prophetic form in the Gospels by Christ Himself.  In order to uphold the view that the predominantly Gentile Church is a mystery found only in the Pauline epistles and post-Acts 13, these other references have to be argued away as referring to “some other group of Christians” or “some other assembly of believers” distinct from the body of Christ.  Besides the arbitrary distinction itself, there are several other major problems with this:

First, as mentioned above, the gospel message had already been defined in the Gospels and prophesied of in the Old Testament (#2–3).

Second, in Acts 15, which comes after chapter 13, in which the apostles agree with Paul and Barnabas in their defense of the gospel of faith alone, we learn that Peter and James recognize the predominantly-Gentile Church and the message of faith alone from the Old Testament prophets (Acts 15:14–18; cf. Rom. 10:6–20).  We also see a massive confirmation that Peter had already been preaching the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 15:6–11; cf. Acts 10:1–48) just as Christ had commissioned him to (Mt. 28:16–20; Mk. 16:14–16; Lk. 24:45–49).

Third, the Ekklesia is mentioned again in the first several chapters of the last book of the Bible (Rev. 1–3).  These were Christian communities in Asia Minor (not in Israel!).  It is Jesus Himself, the Head of the body, who commissions John to write letters to these seven churches.  And there is no doubt about the underlying message of the gospel (Rev. 1:4–5; see also here and here).

Revelation is not addressed to Israel and opens with Christ’s atonement for sins.  Is saying otherwise being true to the plain words of Scripture?

There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile post-Pentecost because the atonement already happened.  In Christ’s body the dividing line was eradicated.  The dividing line was removed at the Cross.  Scripture is quite clear about this (Eph. 2:14–15), so there can be no soteriological distinction between Jews and Gentiles / circumcised and uncircumcised post-Crucifixion.

6. Though Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, He ministered to Gentiles anyway.  The first assumption that is made in Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that undergirds the others is that the ministry of Jesus and His twelve apostles was exclusive to the Jews.  It is true that Jesus “was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt. 15:24), however, it is false to suggest that He did not minister to Gentiles.  His mission was focused, but Gentiles were impacted.  As a matter of fact, in the very passage in which “right-dividers” place so much emphasis, Jesus does not use His Israel-only mandate as an excuse not to heal a Gentile woman’s daughter.  He tells His apostles that He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel and then heals the Gentile girl anyway (Mt. 15:28).  Similarly, Jesus answers another Gentile’s request when He heals a centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5–13).  Hyperdispensationalism attempts to place God in a box that He doesn’t place Himself in.  Jesus and the apostles’ initial mandate was to Israel and the gospel was presented to the Jews first, but in the end, as mentioned earlier, Jesus commissions His apostles to share the good news with literally every nation under Heaven.  And to top it off, the claim Jesus perpetually concealed His identity as Messiah from Gentiles doesn’t hold water either.  He proclaimed who He was to the Gentile Pilate (Jn. 18:37; cf. Mt. 27:54).

7. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism misunderstands the way in which the Church and the rapture were “mysteries.”  Were they mysteries because nothing was said about them in the Old Testament or because they were concealed within the Old Testament until Christ came and subsequently sent His Spirit to reveal everything?  The New Testament writers routinely reference the Old Testament in passages about the Church, the rapture, and eschatology generally.  Even more—the Old Testament plainly reveals the gospel and Christ (e.g., Isa. 52–53; cf. Lk. 24:13–35; Acts 8:26–40) and even the Church (e.g., Deut. 32:21; Isa. 49:6; cf. Rom. 10:17–20) to those who have spiritual eyes to see.  A mystery is something that is unknown to one or more parties, concealed, or hidden—not something that doesn’t exist at all.  Hyperdispensationalism treats the mysteries of the Church and the rapture as if not even one word within the Old Testament pertained to either, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.  The New Testament authors frequently cite key Old Testament passages in discussing not only the doctrine of faith alone as it pertains to the gospel (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Isa. 52–53; cf. Ps. 3:8; 32:1–2; 35:3; 43:11), but also the Church (Deut. 32:21; Isa. 49:6) and the rapture (Isa. 26:17–21; 66:7–9; Zeph. 1:14–2:3; 1 Cor. 15:54–55).

It’s true that the Church was a mystery hidden in ages past (Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26; cf. 1 Cor. 2:7), but it was a mystery hidden within the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 32:21, 43; Isa. 2:2–4; 11:10; 49:6; 52:15; Dan. 7:13; Acts 15:14).  Again, hyperdispensationalism attempts to rigidly place God in a box that Scripture itself doesn’t place Him in.  The mystery was fully revealed in the days of Paul, but it was a mystery already present in the ancient Jewish writings that can be seen with the insight given by the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, those New Testament passages calling the Church a mystery, also discuss the gospel itself in the same context.  The gospel was also a mystery that hadn’t yet been fully revealed, but the Old Testament had very clear references to it (e.g., Isa. 53).

8. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism misunderstands soteriology in previous and future dispensations.  This is perhaps my gravest concern with their doctrine.  Hyperdispensationalism loudly (and rightly) proclaims salvation through faith alone because of our inability to do anything good in our flesh, yet, ironically, it turns and presents a false gospel in other dispensations.  It is one of the most dangerous flaws in the system.  God’s plan to redeem the world through Christ via the gospel was being enacted from the very beginning when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden.  Jeff wrote an excellent article highlighting the gospel in Genesis 3–4 here and I wrote all about the history-spanning plan of redemption here.

Works were never the basis for salvation in a previous dispensation nor will they be the basis in the future.  This is a major point I want to raise.  You can argue both ways until you are blue in the face, but sola fide is a central theme found in Genesis all the way through Revelation.  From Abraham whose faith was counted as righteousness, to David who broke the Law and did not pay its due penalty (death)—the multiple death-deserving lawbreaker whom God established an everlasting covenant with!  From righteous Abel who brought an acceptable blood sacrifice, to the high priest Joshua whom God clothed in His own righteousness in Zechariah 3; and from the prostitute Rahab and the Gentile Namaan to the Prophet Habakkuk whose declaration “the just shall live by his faith” formed the very basis of Paul’s explanation of salvation through faith alone in Romans.

Why was the Law given and why the focus on works in the Old Testament and the gospels?  Here is the answer:

And we have known that as many things as the Law says, to those in the Law it speaks, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may come under judgment to God; for this reason by works of law will no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin.  And now apart from law the righteousness of God has been revealed, testified to by the Law and the Prophets, and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and on all those believing—for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth [as] a propitiatory covering, through faith in His blood, for the showing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the former sins in the forbearance of God... (Rom. 3:19–25, LSV)

• The Law only speaks to those under it.  It is holy and good and true, but we are not under it (Rom. 3:31; 6:14).
• It makes the whole world accountable to God, because its stringent requirements are such that not even one person will be declared righteous by obeying it.
• The Law makes us conscious of our sin.

To say that works are the basis of salvation in a previous dispensation or in a future dispensation is in effect to state that only Church Age Christians will be saved, because the Bible is repeatedly and emphatically clear that no one has or ever will be justified by works.  All are fallen.  None are good.  No one does right.  No one seeks God.

To say that those in the Old Testament (or those in the Tribulation or in the Millennial Kingdom) will be saved by works is to say that their situation is entirely, completely, unalterably hopeless.  It’s shutting the door of salvation in their face.  No!  Salvation has only ever been on the basis of grace via the atoning sacrifice of God’s Son.  See the gospel in Genesis 3–4 and Isaiah 53 in particular.

The gospel was declared to Adam and Eve beforehand in Genesis 3:15–16.  A blood sacrifice—the first death in creation—provided a sufficient covering for our first parents (Gen. 3:21).  This was the declaration of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world:

And all who are dwelling on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Scroll of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world... (Rev. 13:8, LSV)

Why does Christ appear as a Lamb-as-if-slain in Revelation?  Because He was foreshadowed by the lamb slain in Genesis.  And in Genesis Adam and Eve lost their access to the Tree of Life, but in Revelation 22 we regain it.  And right in the middle of this Genesis to Revelation story is the incarnate Christ on the Cross, who bore all of our sins in His body on the tree (1 Pt. 2:24; there’s a little Peter for you).

I’m saved because Christ died and rose again.

You’re saved because Christ died and rose again.

And Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Rahab and Namaan; King Darius and King Nebuchadnezzar; all of these, if any, will be saved only because Christ died and rose again.

Again, why was the Law given?

All of us, like sheep, have wandered, || Man has turned to his own way, || And YHWH has laid on Him the punishment of us all. (Isa. 53:6, LSV)

After the Fall in the Garden, no one would seek God.  No one would listen.  Everyone turned to his own way, and in the end, our ways can only ever lead to death.  So the Law was given to condemn us.  Yes, you heard that correctly.  It finally made us realize that we are each accountable to God for our thoughts and behaviors and if we approach Him with labor He will accept nothing less than perfection.  It finally made us see that we need Him and this life and what our eyes see are not all there is.  We must turn back, repent (“metanoia”; which means “to change your mind, convert”), and place our faith in Him.  And only then can imperfect creatures such as we are become acceptable to a perfect God.

So regarding the Law: believe it, obey it, teach it.  It’s true.  But do not, under any circumstances, look to it as the path to salvation.  That’s not what it is and that’s not why it was given—neither in this dispensation nor in the one to come.  The Tribulation Saints are commanded to worship God and give Him glory, to refuse the mark of the beast, and to refuse to worship the beast, but though these things are necessary for them, it isn’t these things in and of themselves which save them.  It’s still the blood of Christ (e.g., Rev. 7:14).  Only Christ’s blood atones for sin (Heb. 9:22; 10:4).

For further reading on this subject:

Rightly Dividing Wrongly

Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth

What Is Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

KJV-Onlyists Refute Hyper-dispensationalism Themselves!

The Bible Believer’s Guide to Dispensationalism

What Is Ultra-dispensationalism?

Finally, here is an entire video series that soundly refutes hyperdispensationalism:

---

Final Thoughts

In closing, I want to come full circle.  I’ve laid out some pointed arguments, but I have tried to be careful not to personally accuse.  It is incredibly important that we not become accusers of one another and that means we have to stop judging the intent of others’ hearts and listen to what they say.  You can’t label yourself a “right divider” and by virtue of your own label, claim everyone else is opposed to “right dividing.”  That’s a prime logical fallacy.  These type of labels mean nothing.  What matters is the truth itself.  The real question is what systematic understanding of Scripture actually rightly divides the word of truth?  Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?  Post-Acts Dispensationalism?  Covenantalism?  Traditional Dispensationalism?  From my study of Scripture and through my fellowship with many other brothers and sisters in Christ I have come to believe that original/classic/traditional/orthodox—whatever you want to call it—dispensationalism is the happy medium between the extremes that most accurately reflects a literal and plain reading of Scripture.  But guess what?  I’m not going to condemn and ridicule you if you disagree.  As I’ve continuously said, fellowship around the gospel is far more important than unending quarrels over the non-essentials.  Unbelievers look at these sorts of quarrels within the Church and mock at us, for the world will know we are Christians—not by our superior knowledge, perfect understanding, or ability to debate—but by our love for one another (Jn. 13:35).  If we can’t agree to disagree in love and in the bond of unity, then, per the very words of Jesus, the world will not know we are Christians.  They’ll just see us as prideful members of any other cult or sect out there who think they have the special (hint: Gnostic) knowledge that gives one the special track to God.  The only special knowledge needed for anyone to have full and complete access to all of the spiritual blessings in God is through faith in Christ Himself by means of believing the good news.

I know that there are many who hold to the KJV-Only and/or hyperdispensationalist views, and as long as they acknowledge and preach the gospel, I want to maintain unity with them, but they must agree to disagree.  On entrenched issues like these few minds will be changed one way or the other.  As members of Christ’s body, can we be ok with that?  Can we shake the dust off our feet and move on?

All of us, myself included, need to be leery when non-essential issues (like Mid-Acts Dispensationalism or premillennialism) are presented as if they are the be-all-end-all of fellowship.  When they are presented this way they actually can become a stumbling block to the salvation of many.

Lastly, just as faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin (repentance, when accurately understood, simply means to change your mind or to convert), so too, having faith in Christ and believing the gospel are also two sides of the same coin.  There are many instances in the New Testament where salvation is presented simply as having faith in Christ without explicitly defining what the gospel is (e.g., numerous times in the Gospel of John and Acts 16:31).  Other times the gospel is more clearly defined as the message of saving faith (Rom. 10:8–17; 1 Cor. 15:1–4; 1 Thess. 4:13–14).

So is believing in Christ enough (Jn. 3:18; 6:40) or must one believe the gospel defined in 1 Corinthians 15?  These are not mutually exclusive.  To trust in Christ is to believe the gospel and to believe the gospel is to trust in Christ.  Throughout history there have been thousands of men named Jesus, Jesús, Yesu, Yeshua, Yehoshua, Joshua, and so forth.  But only one Jesus died for your sins and rose again.  If you believe in that Jesus then you believe the gospel and if you believe the gospel then you believe in that Jesus.  I’ve explained before that many believe in someone named Jesus, but it isn’t the Christ of the Bible and so their faith is not a saving faith (see here).

In light of this, let’s be cautious not to fall into the trap of intellectual legalism (Gnosticism).  It’s much easier to identify behavioral legalism because its proponents more explicitly say that works are necessary for salvation, which is a false gospel.  Yet intellectual legalism is just as real as behavioral legalism (Pharisaism).  Consider where your faith lies.  Is it in Christ Himself?  Do you trust in Him and rest in Him?  Or are you resting and trusting only in your ability to recite 1 Corinthians 15?  Does your assurance come from faith in a person or faith in the knowledge you possess?  Jesus, the One who died for your sins and rose again, is a real Person, a real being.  He demands your faith.  The vast majority of Christians throughout history could not recite 1 Corinthians 15 from memory, but they believed Jesus died for them and rose again.  And they called upon Jesus to save them.

I know these sorts of debates can raise the ire of many, but my intention is not to attack anyone, only to illuminate the Scriptures as best as I know how and to offer grace toward those who disagree.  May we all serve Christ in these few fleeting moments we have left.

~MARANATHA~

Newer Post Older Post