Pauline Dispensationalism

Welcome to the new Dispensationalism. Okay, it's not technically new, but it's pretty young. Original Dispensationalism was contrasted with Reformed Covenant Theology. In Covenant Theology, biblical history is viewed in terms of covenants between God and Man. These covenants were not abdicated. One simply modified the other. Dispensationalism preferred to view biblical history in terms of "dispensations" -- periods of stewardships given by God to Man. Typical dispensations would be Innocence (Adam at the start), Conscience (Mankind after the Fall), Civil Government (Mankind after the Flood), the Law (from Moses on), the Church (or Grace), the Millenial Kingdom ... you get the idea. This mild form of Dispensationalism was used by folks like Irenaeus in the 2nd century and Augustine to describe biblical time periods. Building on Dispensationalism, we got what I'll call hyper-Dispensationalism. In this view (which essentially takes the standard Dispensationalist views to the next logical step), these dispensations are all distinct. They supersede each other. This concept started in the first half of the 19th century and encouraged a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Constructed by the likes of John Darby, D.L. Moody, and C.I. Scofield, this view started to take precedence in the Church in America. Taking this to the next logical step, we find "ultra-Dispensationalism" coming into vogue. This one is actually around today. This is the "new Dispensationalism" that I'm talking about.

Often referred to as "Pauline Dispensationalism", this view argues that there are two gospels. The gospel that Jesus taught was the first. The gospel that Paul taught was the second. And these are not the same. The first gospel was aimed at Jews and was a "salvation by works" gospel. (That's why Jesus preached so much about "repent" and doing good works, you see.) Paul, on the other hand, refers to his gospel as "my gospel" (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). You see? It's different. The "evil" of the earlier gospel occurs when we try to apply what Jesus taught to the Church today. You see, that wasn't for the Church today. That was for Israel. In fact, the Gospels, Peter's works, John's works, Hebrews, Jude ... these were all for Israel. That's why, for instance, Paul writes about "we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28) and James writes about "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Different gospels to different people, you see? Clears it all up, right? I mean, didn't Paul say, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15)? You need to make the proper division between the gospel to the Jews and the gospel to the Gentiles, you see.

The first thing tossed out on its ear as an evil residual from the judaizers is the Law. Everyone knows that the Law is no longer applicable. Get rid of that. I mean, it's this stupid "Law" thing that is causing all this confusion about "a man lying with a man" being sinful and all, right? No, no, that's Israel. We no longer need to consider the Law. Look, didn't Paul say, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Gal 5:18)? Or, look here, how about when Paul wrote, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom 10:4). If Christ ends the Law, why even consider it anymore? Come on! Get with it, you ... you judaizers. (One item I read referred to the problem of Judaism's "galatianizing influence".)

There is a problem here, folks. It's not what the Bible says. For instance, when Paul says "we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law", he goes on to say, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom 3:31). Problem! And what about that "end of the law" claim from Romans 10? Well, let's look at that. It turns out that this is a problem of prooftexting -- proving a point by yanking a verse out of context. In the first few verses of Romans 10, Paul commends the Jews for their zeal for righteousness, but points out that they didn't understand the righteousness of God. You see, the way God's righteousness is achieved is through Christ. As it turns out, that was the goal of the Law. (Note that in the verse where the term "end" is used, the word is intended like when we say that "there are means and there are ends". It is a reference to a goal, not a termination.) What Romans 10:4 is saying is not that Christ terminated the Law, but that the purpose of the Law was to point out that human righteousness was impossible and Christ was necessary to obtain God's righteousness. So this whole division here is denied by Paul.

The Law still has an important purpose today. Sure, I'll agree that there are ceremonial laws in the Old Testament that may not be applicable and there are certainly sacrificial laws in the Old Testament that are still fully in force ... in that they are fully fulfilled by Christ. But the Law itself tells what God wants, from separation to morality to worship. It points us to Christ and tells people who have been given a new nature how they are to please God. It strips us of any self-confidence and drives us to our knees ... the proper place for believers. Beware of this new theology. It sounds cool. No rules. Once you're in, you're in, so don't worry about a thing. Live it up! And if those evil "judaizers" come a'knockin', just kick their heretical tails out the door. It sounds like fun ... except for the simple fact that it runs directly opposite to biblical theology including Pauline theology (like, for instance, where he says that the Gentiles were grafted into the same tree that was Israel, not replacing or separated). Don't go there, folks. It's not a safe place to be. (Remember, it was Paul who wrote "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12), not exactly a "Live it up!" command.) Like modern-day "scholars" who have only recently discovered that, well, none of the Bible is real, modern-day "theologians" who only recently discover that the Church has been wrong for 2000 years are a dangerous bunch.