Rightly Dividing

There is a segment of Christianity that terms itself as a particular type. They might call themselves "Pauline Dispensationalists" or they might call themselves "Mid-Acts Dispensationalists or the like. They particularly like the moniker "the Grace Movement," as if they have a corner on the market. Not to be confused with your run-of-the-mill Dispensationalists, these are a specific version that teaches that no one prior to Paul got the gospel right. Read that again. No one. Not the Old Testament (obviously), not Peter, not James, not John, not Jesus. They all had "pre-mid-Acts" gospels that just weren't right. If Jesus had preached His gospel in Paul's day, Paul would have called Him anathema -- cursed because He taught "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9).

A major portion of their position begins exactly on this verse:

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)

Of course, they don't use that version. They use the King James version, where we are to be "rightly dividing the word of truth." "Your problem," they will tell all of the rest of Christendom, "is that you don't rightly divide the word of truth." So we mix up Israel and the Church, pre-Pauline salvation and post, all of Scripture with Paul's writings. "You need to divide them," they assure us.

I've written on this more than once. You can look at those for arguments, both biblical and logical. Here's what astounds me. It's so new.

Dispensationalism at its roots is a means of breaking biblical history up in eras, so to speak. This isn't odd or exclusive. Some use "dispensations;" others prefer "covenants." Similar ideas. "During this time period God was dealing with humans this way and in that time period He did it that way." So we have the way God dealt with sinless Man in the garden and then Man without Law then Man with Law and so on. That's all fine as long as we're just talking time periods and not a different message or a different God. This version of time distinctions we call "Dispensationalism" came up in the mid-1800's with John Darby. It was incorporated into Scofield's Bible. Included in this approach was a brand new eschatology that included a "pre-Trib rapture." (Before Darby the standard view is now called "historic premillenialism" which argued for a post-Trib rapture.) So, new on the scene, this Dispensationalism gained traction thanks to the likes of Scofield and others.

Pauline Dispensationalism didn't come until much later. It is almost exclusively an American innovation brought about largely by E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) who influenced folks like Cornelius Stam (1908-2003) to this further "dividing". Classical Dispensationalism didn't stray too much from historic orthodoxy (and I'm not sure there is any such classification of folks that doesn't stray in one place or another from historic orthodoxy), but this new version really put the brakes on the Bible. Now, to be fair, they did not argue that the Bible is wrong or should be tossed out. What they did (and still do) argue was that all of Scripture outside of Paul's writings is currently not applicable. Paul alone has the gospel to teach. Everyone else is no longer correct. They are perfectly happy to hold all of Scripture except for Paul in one hand and Paul's writings in the other and say, "Yes, they contradict each other, but it's all true and it's all God's Word." They emphasis "inerrancy" and "infallibility" while arguing that all Christians prior to John Darby got saved-by-grace-apart-from-works wrong. They make no effort to harmonize God's Word but point to Paul and say, "Saved by grace apart from works" but "Jesus taught works-based salvation" and that's okay with them. They argue "No one prior to Christ was saved by works" and then argue that "Salvation prior to Paul was always on the basis of works." They don't have to make sense of Paul's "saved by grace apart from works" versus James's "faith without works is dead" because they simply say, "James is wrong" ... and still hold that Scripture is inerrant and infallible.

One of the things that, in my mind, makes this position so questionable (besides all the biblical and logical arguments) is the fact that every single Pauline Dispensationalist I've talked to is really angry about this. Look, I believe in Divine Election. I will point it out in Scripture. I will tell you why I believe it. But if you don't agree, that's fine. I won't accuse you of holding to "another gospel" and declare you "anathema" and unsaved. They will. Disagree, even nuanced, with what they hold and you are an infidel, a heretic, in need of salvation. Methinks they doth protest too much.

I guess I have too much faith. Too simple faith? I think that when Christ saves He actually changes people (e.g., 2 Cor 5:17). I believe that we are saved for good works (Eph 2:10). I believe that all Scripture is breathed by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17). I believe that when Jesus promised to send His Spirit to lead us into all truth (John 16:13), He did. So if someone shows up tomorrow and says, "I get it, finally! No one else has, but I got it!", I'm going to be skeptical. Very skeptical. And this brand new theology that blithely holds Scripture in two hands contradicting itself is wrongly dividing the word of truth, handling it wrongly. Be aware of it. It's out there. And it's insidious. (Who doesn't want to hear, "Hey, it doesn't matter what you do ... ever"? License to sin is a popular incentive.) Don't fall for it.