95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

Years ago, when I first started speaking at our church (before we started our YouTube ministry), I did a series refuting the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism. This had been put together by Calvinists, and I thought, “Oh, this will be fun! I’ll learn how to make solid Biblical arguments defending mid-Acts dispensationalism!”

I had to stop.

Little did I realize that these guys could do nothing more than reword the same complaint 95 times. They couldn’t actually produce any doctrinal complaints backed-up by Scriptures to argue against even Acts 2 dispensationalism. Oh no. The only thing these guys could do, hilariously, was to complain about literal hermeneutics 95 times.

After having so thoroughly refuted their weak arguments about a dozen times, I stopped.

But I walked away with three quotes I treasure about literal hermeneutics.

Would you like to read them?

This first quote comes from Charles Ryrie’s book on Dispensationalism and chapter 5, which is called “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism.” Ryrie is Acts 2. One must be a good Berean and rightly divide Ryrie and appreciate what he extracts from the epistles of Paul.

But I love this quote.

He writes, “If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. If language is the creation of God for the purpose of conveying His message, then a theist must view that language as sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which God originated it… If one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost. What check would there be on the variety of interpretations that man’s imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard, which the literal principle provides? To try to see meaning other than the normal one would result in as many interpretations as there are people interpreting. Literalism is a logical rationale.”

Amen.

This next quote comes from Dwight Pentecost and his book, Things to Come. The first section has 3 chapters defending a literal interpretation of Scriptures. It’s fantastic! In the first chapter, he quotes a guy named Bernard Ramm.

Ramm said, “(a) That the literal meaning of sentences is the normal approach in all languages… (b) That all secondary meanings of documents, parables, types, allegories, and symbols, depend for their very existence on the previous literal meaning of the terms… (c) That the greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when interpreted literally. (d) That the literalistic approach does not blindly rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, and types; but if the nature of the sentence so demands, it readily yields to the second sense. (e) That this method is the only sane and safe check on the imaginations of man. (f) That this method is the only one consonant with the nature of inspiration. The plenary inspiration of the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guided men into truth and away from error. In this process the Spirit of God used language, and the units of language (as meaning, not as sound) are words and thoughts. The thought is the thread that strings the words together. Therefore, our very exegesis must commence with a study of words and grammar, the two fundamentals of all meaningful speech.”

Here’s another portion:

“C. The advantages of the literal method. There are certain advantages to this method in preference to the allegorical method. Ramm summarizes some of these by saying: (a) It grounds interpretation in fact. It seeks to establish itself in objective data—grammar, logic, etymology, history, geography, archaeology, theology… (b) It exercises a control over interpretation that experimentation does for the scientific method…justification is the control on interpretations. All that do not measure up to the canons of the literal-cultural-critical method are to be rejected or placed under suspect. In addition to this the method offers the only reliable check on the constant threat to place double-sense interpretation upon the Scripture… (c) It has had the greatest success in opening up the Word of God. Exegesis did not start in earnest till the church was a millennium and a half old. With the literalism of Luther and Calvin the light of Scripture literally flamed up…This method is the honored method of the highest scholastic tradition in conservative Protestantism. It is the method of Bruce, Lightfoot, Zahn, A. T. Robertson, Ellicott, Machen, Cremer, Terry, Farrar, Lange, Green, Oehler, Schaff, Sampey, Wilson, Moule, Perowne, Henderson Broadus, Stuart—to name but a few typical exegetes. In addition to the above advantages it may be added that (d) it gives us a basic authority by which interpretations may be tested. The allegorical method, which depends on the rationalistic approach of the interpreter, or conformity to a predetermined theological system, leaves one without a basic authoritative test In the literal method Scripture may be compared with Scripture, which, as the inspired Word of God, is authoritative and the standard by which all truth is to be tested. Related to this we may observe that (e) it delivers us from both reason and mysticism as the requisites to interpretation. One does not have to depend upon intellectual training or abilities, nor upon the development of mystical perception, but rather upon the understanding of what is written in its generally accepted sense. Only on such a basis can the average individual understand or interpret the Scriptures for himself.”

And finally, C.R. Stam in his book, Things That Differ, offered three simple arguments against this abandonment of literal hermeneutics:

“1. It leaves us at the mercy of theologians. If the Scriptures do not mean what they obviously, naturally seem to mean, just what else do they mean, and who has the authority to decide? Then perhaps salvation, after all, is not by grace. Perhaps it is by works. Perhaps these Scriptures too really mean something else – and who has the authority to interpret them for us? If the “spiritualization” of the Scriptures is valid, then we are indeed left at the mercy of theologians, and future theologians may wrest from us what today’s theologians have agreed to allow us. Nor will it do any good to turn to the Scriptures to see what God says, for God does not always mean what He says, and only trained theologians can correctly interpret His Word for us! This is the position of the Church of Rome, which arrogates to herself final authority in spiritual matters, but this leads to a vicious cycle indeed, for where would Rome get her authority from?!

“2. It affects the veracity of God. It is a thrust at His very honor. If the obvious, natural meaning of the “Old Testament” promises is not to be depended upon, how can we depend upon any promise of God? Then, when He says that “Christ died for our sins,” He may also mean something else. This is unthinkable of God, for it is only just that the promise should have a fair understanding of the promise, for promised something, he will have a right to claim exactly what he has been promised. A little child is supposed to have said: “If God didn’t mean what He said, why didn’t He say what He meant?”

“3. It endorses apostasy.Indeed, it is the mother of apostasy. When Luke 1:32,33 is “spiritualized” the Modernist agrees wholeheartedly. He agrees that the throne of David and the house of Israel in this passage must be viewed in a “spiritual sense” – and so must the next few verses! Thus Christ was not really born of a virgin. This picture is merely drawn to impress us with the purity of His person, etc.!”

And then Stam writes, “Those who have resorted to the “spiritualization” of the prophetic Scriptures because they cannot account for the seeming cessation in their fulfillment, will find the solution to their problem in the recognition of the mystery. Recognize the mystery and there will be no need to alter prophecy.”