Why I still believe in Dispensationalism? Not Ashamed to Say Hermeneutics Matters.

Chances are if your local church uses a confession (historical or current) you will have to address the issues they teach.  If you are an ardent follower of the SBC, Gospel Coalition or T4G crowd (especially the founding documents) you can'd avoid this issue.  Nearly every document either favors or exclusively addresses Amillennialism or Covenant Theology.  Issues such as the Church and  Pneumatology cannot go untouched in these issues either.
Apart from these groups, both the Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession are not Dispensational or Premillennial friendly.  So yes they think it matters.

He are some Interpretation basics for reminders (definitely not exhaustive).  All of these to one extent or other must be ignored or selectively applied to produce both Covenant Theology and Amillennialism. 

First, a literal grammatical historical method of scriptural interpretation (including all and not some areas of systematic theology) is most consistently available only within dispensationalism.  Out method of interpretation should include every area of theology.  Ecclesiology (church) is just as important as Eschatology (last things) or Soteriology (salvation).  We don't start with one verse or two and read them into all the Bible.

Second, allowing the local context of any given passage to speak authoritatively and standing on its own (and not subjectively reinterpreted by supposedly "clearer" passages elsewhere) is only possible within dispensationalism.  It is all to common an excuse to interpret multiple passages in light of one (or a couple) that you feel best defends your position.  There are multiple texts addressing the fallacies which are created in this realm.  The most popular fallacy involves word studies (think reading one definition into every place that particular word occurs).  There are good reasons why Bible translators did not translate particular Greek or Hebrew terms the same way every time it occurs.

Third, a premillennial eschatology (which is not exclusive to this system) but is a exegetical and necessary consequence, is the only interpretive system which actually gives weight to (all and not some) of the details of each scripture passage.  This is only possible within dispensationalism.  Premillennialism is the only eschatology that give just weight to all the covenant promises made in the Old Testament.  This includes land promises, the Davidic throne in Jerusalem (not peoples hearts only), and of course the future of the nation Israel.  It is also the only position to best make use of all details in relation to kingdom prophecies (death, pain, suffering, peace, land, longer lifespans, etc...).

Fourth, the entire New Testament can be interpreted in a manner that does not detract, change, or modify in any way the interpretation of the Old Testament.  This includes literal promises made to and not yet fulfilled to the nation of Israel.  This consistent belief in God's promises (including land promises--very relevant today) is only possible in dispensationalism. (See comments in previous point).

Fifth, typology (which is not exclusive to this system) is not contrary to but perfectly complimentary to this system, as long as typology is restrained to the usage and/or implementation of biblical authors (not to the subjective creativity of every reader or a selective governing interpretive grid).  Typology interpreted within the usage of biblical authors is only possible within dispensationalism.  For example, Galatians and Hebrews involve types, with very specific literal Old Testament concepts.  We don't create interpretive grids and reinterpret our Bible based on a New Exodus grid, number patterns, or two-age grids for a couple of examples.  

Articles will be needed to add extra weight and evidence for all the above claims.  Vast numbers of fundamentalist and even evangelical seminaries still teach and advocate dispensationalism.  It is not outdated or archaic.  Look at their doctrinal statements.  Many are still (and for good, sound academic reasons) still dispensational premillennialists.  
I am currently compiling another blog listing of all the seminaries that still teach, believe, and advocate the underlying hermeneutic for dispensationalism and of course premillennialism. 

Feel free to disagree.  Comments as always encouraged.

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Part One          Part Two

If you are new to this short three part series allow me to quickly review.  First, we discussed the historical nature and practice of church membership as observed and taught by the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith.  Second, we discussed the Biblical texts employed to teach the practice of church membership.  In this article I would like to provide some practical suggestions in relation to this important topic.


Suggested Guidance

 I think the route to go if people want to be honest is the legal protection route toward church members. We don't need a roster of names added to a visible church institution (unless it is simply a safeguard for who is allowed to vote).  Even this line of reasoning is not completely consistent if you can join a church at 17 but not vote till 18.  

What we want is a list of names who agree to a common doctrinal position and manner of living.  In essence, they agree to the same church covenant.  They agree to be disciplined by the church for failure to believe and practice these things.  The sad reality is that Christians actually seek legal repercussions for being church disciplined.  A roster of names who are willing to be disciplined helps to provide this legal protection.  It is this same roster in most churches that allows one to vote in local church elections and participate in decision making (at least for those 18 years and older).  On the other hand, it is just as possible for a local church pastor to abuse this church discipline concept toward church members.  

In conclusion, I would argue the church membership position is eisegesis.  I would also suggest that there is no text teaching prescriptively or descriptively (with sound exegesis) any doctrine known as local church membership.  I would further argue that the Bible teaches an individual becomes part of the universal church through faith and repentance in Jesus Christ, of which the only visible manifestation is the local church.  The topic known as church membership falls into the category of application.  This application applies only in a local church and has no authority in or over the members of any other local church.  Hence, you either join one local church or another individual local church (both of which are autonomous).

As to reasons why an individual should join or leave a local church is another question.

Some questions for thought:

Do I have to be a church member to serve? teach? preach? teach Sunday school? provide Music?
Do I have to be a church member to grow? Read my Bible? Pray? Make Disciples?
Do I have to be a church member to submit to other believers? Pastor/Elders? 
Do I have to be a church member to be committed? Regularly attend?
Do I have to attend for a certain length of time before joining?  Attend special classes?

Let's take the reverse to these questions (just to make the point more clear):

There are many church members who don't and never will serve.
There are many church members who don't and never will teach or preach.
There are many church members who will not sing, either corporately or individually.
There are many church members who rarely read their Bible (systematically or sporadically).
There are many church members or who rarely pray or make disciples.
There are many church attenders (non-members) who attend more often or regular than the actual church roster members.

See the difference?  The opposite motive to using these as arguments just doesn't make sense.  This is not a biblical argument.  They may serve as motives someone wants to join a church but this is not the same as a prescriptive command to join a local church.   

Hope this helps some on this issue.  Comments of course as always encouraged.

If you disagree or have constructive push back with this line of reasoning, then provide me a Bible verse anywhere that teaches a different historical and exegetical position.  History provides us two camps: regenerate members (those who have made a profession) and non-regenerate members (those who have not personally made a profession). Its that simple.  Either way, who will you practice church discipline? Allow to the ordinances/sacraments? Voting and elections?  There are bigger issues that church membership does not exactly solve (perhaps they apply only for your own local church covenant and bi-laws). 

If there are any verses written in any text on this issue that could change these conclusions, then I would be glad to know.  There are many current books and journal articles addressing this issue.  I applaud the ones that take church discipline and voting seriously (I personally recommend the ones written by IX Marks ministry, Captiol Hill Baptist Church, Senior Pastor Mark Dever).  If you find a good church that is trying to be biblical both in doctrine and practice then join, especially if you want to vote.