Thanks to Albert for leading me to a thorough refutation of dispensational premillennialism (DP): “The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism” written by Dr. Robert L. Reymond for NiceneCouncil.com in their Website AgainstDispensationalism.com. DP is a system that popularized the Secret Rapture, Left Behind, millennium, Israel the chosen people even in the New Testament, etc.

Here’s an outline of this modern-day 95 Theses:

  • 1-8: Dispensationalism is contrary to the apostolic faith and ancient creeds.
  • 9-20: Dispensationalism is contrary to the unity of God’s redemptive plan in history.
  • 21-36: Dispensationalism’s false “literalism” is contrary to “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).
  • 37-41: Dispensationalism says New Testament writers lie about Old Testament prophecies.
  • 42-51: Dispensationalism wrongly divides the people of God by putting a “wall of hostility” between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:11-18).
  • 52-83: Dispensationalism has spawned weird and insane eschatological views, such as date-setting, double Second Comings, rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, restoring animal sacrifices, Christ reigning for 1,000 years over a mixture of glorified saints and unresurrected sinners, unconditional support for the “chosen nation” Israel, etc.
  • 84-88: Dispensationalism encourages Christians to be pessimistic and to disengage from the culture.
  • 89-95: Dispensationalism encourages antinomianism.

To those of you who are married to this thoroughly unbiblical system: consider reading these theses while you search the Scriptures, not the newspapers’ sensationalism or the foolishness of “The Rapture Index.” Let us “search the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things are so,” like the Bereans did 2,000 years ago.

____________________

Against Dispensationalism: a Response to John MacArthur (who of “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be Premillennialist” fame) by G.J. Harloff of NiceneCouncil.com.

Dr. John MacArthur is a well known and respected Bible teacher of today. His ministry has impacted many people and even the lives of those of us in this ministry. However there is a major disagreement with Dr. MacArthur when it comes to issues of the Church and Israel. Dr. Gary Harloff takes a small booklet to respond to Dr. MacArthur’s questions concerning biblical proof the the Old Testament Israel is the Church and that the New Testament Church is Israel.

My Favorite Eschatology Books
Beale, G. K. 1-2 Thessalonians. IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: IVPress, 2003.
_________. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Demar, Gary. Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church. Atlanta: American Vision, 1999.
Johnson, Dennis E. Triumph of the Lamb. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001.
Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Koester, Craig R. Revelation and the End of All Things. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Mathison, Keith. From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009.
Poythress, Vern S. The Returning King. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000. (This book is published online by permission of publisher.)
Riddlebarger, Kim. The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist. Grand Rapids: Baker, June 2006.
Venema, Cornelis. The Promise of the Future. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000.

95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (Updated)
Tagged on:                                                                                                             

6 thoughts on “95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (Updated)

  • June 10, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    Permalink

    “…search the Scriptures, not the newspapers’ sensationalism or the foolishness of ‘The Rapture Index.'”

    As I read your last statement, your mention of the “newspaper” caught my attention that i thought i would share a new acronym i made, which might of already been in the minds of many others who are against the dispensational view.

    T.N.T. = Teaching Newspaper Theology

    This acronym hopefully explains why some of the many churches are making things seem as if they are falling apart at this time but despite how others convince you of society, God will always win out in the end.
     

    • June 10, 2011 at 9:06 pm
      Permalink

      “God will always win out in the end.” That’s exactly the main theme of Biblical prophecy.

  • September 10, 2009 at 2:14 pm
    Permalink

    guys, you have right to make thesis like this against dispensationalism. But i have to remind you, as you thus make study of it, why not try to challenge your own biases. We do all have our own beliefs,ryt?but don’t feed it when studying other beliefs, instead study dispensationalism with wide eyes opened. then if you think you are right and dispensationalism is wrong,so be it…as this author said be bereans!

    • September 10, 2009 at 6:56 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Agaton. You should know that almost all of us who have the non-dispensationalist view came from dispensationalism. I, for one, was an avaricious, “wide-opened” dispensationalist. And as such, I have considered all the arguments for and against dispensationalism.

      And you should also know that the professors at the most dispensational seminary in the world, Dallas Theological Seminary, have already rejected the brand of dispensationalism (Scofieldism) that is widely and popularly taught today in favor of so-called “progressive dispensationalism.”

      Note that all of us ex-dispensationalists realized that all of what we thought were Biblical were just teachings of Darby from 1830s handed down from teacher to teacher down to our generation, not from a sound exegesis of the Bible. Before Darby, dispensationalism was unknown in the church. Dispensationalists do not realize that their view was never the view of the church for the first 1800 years of church history!

  • August 15, 2008 at 10:44 pm
    Permalink

    Huh? I don’t find anything confusing in thesis 62…

  • August 11, 2008 at 9:19 pm
    Permalink

    I have plowed through two-thirds of the 95 Theses, and I’m not sure I will finish the rest. It is pretty heavy reading. Also, although I am not a dispensationalist and have not been during my life, I must confess I find a few things I read hard to accept.

    To begin with, Reymond acknowledges in his opening paragraph that many dispensationalists are fellow Christians. But then he goes to what I consider extremes to find little things wrong with their doctrine. Some time ago I began to wish that people whose objective in life was to “contend for the faith,” would spend more time doing just that instead of what it seems to me often to “contend against the faithful.” I know that I have been that kind of person sometimes in my life, and I have been sorry for those occasions. We can always find something wrong with what someone else says or does, but sometimes it is a matter of semantics rather than of substantive differences.

    For instance, in thesis #8, Reymond faults dispensationalists “regarding the ecumenical Church creeds.” I’m not sure what he is driving at, but it is difficult for me to believe that “God gave the Bible to the Church, not to individuals,” despite the two scripture quotations he gives, which to me are not relevant. After all, one of the great causes of the Reformation was that the Church claimed possession of the Bible, so much so that individuals should not even read the Bible, let alone try to interpret what it meant.

    Then in thesis #11, there is the huge argument over how many covenants and/or dispensations there were. But some Reformers thought there were two: the covenant in the Garden sometimes called “innocence,” and the other called “grace;” while one of the Hodges thought there were four dispensations. I would rather say, “Take your choice of numbers; just don’t claim you alone are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.”

    I’ll take just one more example: in thesis 62, Reymond objects (or seems to object) in dispensationalists’ claim that there are two resurrections. I must admit, however, that Reymond’s argument here is so confusing to me that I am not really sure whether he believes there is but one resurrection, or whether the dispensationalist view of the resurrections is timed wrong. Whatever that may be, I see in I Cor. 15:22 and following, as well as in Rev. 20-22 that there is not one, there not two, but actually there are three resurrections. The first is Christ Himself, the second is of believers (both Jews and Gentiles), and the third is of unbelievers. But I certainly am reluctant to expend energy on fighting on the number; after all, someone may say that Lazarus was the fourth, and it all depends on how you are going to define “resurrection.” So I quit arguing.

Comments are closed.