Loveland Protestant Reformed Church

709 East 57th Street; Loveland, CO 80538
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m. June through August)
Vol. 7, No. 23 Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks Phone: (970) 667-9481

Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org

Contents:
Dispensationalism (I)
Predestination: the Heart of the Gospel
How Old Is the Earth?
Book: "Christ's Spiritual Kingdom"

Dispensationalism (I)

Dispensationalism, also known as Darbyism (after John Darby, the founder both of Dispensationalism and of the Brethren movement), Brethrenism, and Scofieldism, is the most serious of all errors regarding the millennium. In fact, it is not just a certain teaching about the millennium and the future, but a whole erroneous theological system.

The name comes from the fact that Dispensationalism divides history into different "dispensations" in each of which God has a different covenant relation with men, each of which ends with man's failure to meet God's requirements. We are now, according to classic Dispensationalism, in the "church age" or dispensation of grace, with only one more dispensation to come, that of the kingdom.

Rather than give a lengthy and detailed description of Dispensationalism, however, we suggest that those of our readers who are unacquainted with its teachings or want a lengthier critique than is offered in these articles, write us for the booklet, Dispensationalism. We have limited quantities of this booklet.

Some of Dispensationalism's errors we have already dealt with, i.e.:

(1) its teaching regarding a secret, pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture (see earlier issue).

(2) its teaching regarding multiple comings of Christ (earlier issue). Some of its teachings we will, God willing, deal with in future articles, i.e.:

1. its belief in multiple resurrections and judgements.

2. its literalist interpretation of Scripture, especially Revelation 20.

The other principal errors of Dispensationalism are:

(1) its method of interpreting Scripture, the end result of which is that the whole OT and some of the NT are applied to the Jews, and have no application to NT Christians except perhaps as an object of curiosity. The Scofield Bible teaches, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount is not Christian but Jewish. This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that all Scripture is profitable (and applicable) to NT Christians (Jn. 10:35; II Tim. 3:16, 17). It is in this connection especially that Dispensationalism has been accused of "wrongly dividing the Word of truth" (cf. II Tim. 2:15), though it claims the opposite.

(2) its strict literalism, which, as one writer points out, is really the literalism of the Pharisees, who could not and would not see that Christ is a spiritual King and so crucified Him. This strict (though inconsistently applied) literalism, and opposition to "spiritualizing" is also contrary to the teaching of Scripture (I Cor. 2:13-15; also the many passages in which Scripture itself "spiritualizes" the things of the OT, notably I Pet. 2:5-9 and the whole book of Hebrews). We hope, God willing, to deal in more detail with this matter of "literalism" in a future article, but would point out, that which Scripture must be interpreted carefully and soberly, there are things which cannot be taken literally, e.g., the white stone of Revelation 2:17.

We will continue to point out these errors in the next issue.

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Predestination the Heart of the Gospel

I have received a response to an article I wrote earlier which is best answered in another article. The question concerning what I wrote is an interesting and important one, and it is good to make the answer available to all our readers.

I will quote the question in full. The writer first quotes from my article:

"If one is to be free from the blood of all men (as Paul tells the Ephesian elders), one must preach the whole counsel of God. And that counsel of God includes sovereign election and reprobation. That is the heart of the gospel." I must admit that this is a rather interesting comment: it seems to be an over-statement of sorts. I understand the comment above to mean that the heart of the Gospel is "election and reprobation." I know the PR's love the doctrine of double predestination; I do as well, but is it the "heart of the gospel" message? As a matter of fact, I confess that I could be wrong, although a double predestination/supralapsarian position is not even an expressed part of the Three Forms of Unity. It would seem to me that the penal substitutionary atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of the elect is the heart of the Gospel. The latter is the heart of the Three Forms of Unity as well as of Scripture. Maybe I am missing the point. I am looking forward to your comments.

The same reader wrote another question. It is as follows:

Can you explain this phrase in the light of Scripture: "the warnings of the gospel are also never to anyone but the rebellious and hard of heart." (This quote is taken from the same article as the first one.) In this statement do you mean by "rebellious and hard of heart" only the reprobate? Are the elect excluded from taking heed to any of the warnings in Scripture? Please do explain.

I shall respond to the last quote first of all. No, I do not mean that the warnings of the gospel are only addressed to the "rebellious and hard of heart" reprobate. That would, of course, be impossible since the gospel, also with its warnings, comes to all who hear. Nor is it the purpose of God in the gospel. His people are also rebellious and hard of heart. In fact, his people must even be warned not to harden their hearts (Heb. 3:7, 8, quoting Ps. 96:7).

It is even true that God's people are not only rebellious and hard of heart prior to their regeneration, but often they are this way after their regeneration as well. They have only a small beginning of the new obedience. Their old man of sin manifests itself sometimes in rebellion and hardness of heart. God uses the warnings of the gospel to bring repentance and sorrow for sin to His people.

To turn now to the second question.

First of all, it is necessary to point out that, while it is true (as the questioner states) that the Three Forms of Unity are infralapsarian, it is not true that the Three Forms of Unity do not teach a double predestination. I refer the reader to the Canons, first head of doctrine, Arts. 6, 10, 15, 16, 18; the negative part of the first head, Art. 8; The Confession of Faith, Art. 16 (free copies are available).

Secondly, when I stated that double predestination is the heart of the gospel, I did not, I think, "over-state" the matter; but I did "under-state" it; that is, I did not make myself sufficiently clear on the point at issue.

Let me put on record my position. I would appreciate hearing from the questioner - or any other questioner, if my answer is unsatisfactory.

My lack of clarity was assuming something, which was not explicitly stated. This unspoken assumption left the reader with the impression that it is possible to make a disjunction between double predestination and Christ's atoning sacrifice. This I deny. Let me explain.

It is impossible, according to Scripture and our Reformed confessions, to speak of the elect without speaking at the same time of Christ. And the converse is also true. It is impossible to speak of Christ, without speaking of election.

Let me be as clear as possible. There is no elect church without Christ. But there is no Christ without an elect church. If you say, "Christ," in the nature of the case, you say also, "elect." If you say, "elect," you are also saying, "Christ." Together they form one body.

This is evident from all the Scriptural and confessional statements which speak of election "in Christ." Hence, to say that election is the heart of the gospel, is the same as saying Christ is the heart of the gospel. God reveals in the gospel His eternal purpose to save His elect people in Christ through the blood of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

But what about reprobation? One cannot speak of election without reprobation. It is the dark side of the coin of predestination. It is a part of the one decree of God. Double predestination does not mean two decrees. Listen to the Canons: "That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God's eternal decree (note the singular)…. According to which decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect…, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness…."

Election and reprobation are one decree because reprobation must serve election - even as chaff serves the wheat and the scaffolding of a building serves the building. It is impossible to preach Christ crucified without preaching double predestination. Prof. Herman Hanko

How Old Is the Earth?

One of our readers asks a question about the age of the earth: "I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the age of the earth. Scientists believe it is millions of years old, but the Bible says God made it in six days. If we count up the generations mentioned in the Bible, we can conclude that Adam was created about six thousand years ago. This fits in nicely with the theological belief that the earth is now "six days" old (a day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day), and we are ready to enter into the seventh (Satan will be bound for a thousand years). The parable of the good Samaritan also fits in nicely with this theology. Both of these views make a lot of sense on their own, but they don't fit together. They seem to be mutually exclusive. Any comments?"

As usual, we do indeed have some comments, first on the age of the earth, and then (in the next article) on the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 in relation to the beginning of a new millennium. Both matters are of importance.

While we do not think that one can actually date the creation as accurately as Bishop Ussher did, we do believe that the age of the earth can be reckoned with some accuracy from Scripture. We agree, therefore, that it is about 6000 years old, and consider the notion that the earth is millions or billions of years old a denial of Scripture.

We must begin from a belief in the inspiration, infallibility and authority of Scripture as the Word of God. On this basis there can be no doubt that the generations and genealogies, given by Scripture, show that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago (this is, we believe, one of the purposes of these genealogies).

Bishop Ussher is often ridiculed for his suggestion that the earth was created in 4004 B.C., but it must be remembered: (1) that he only suggested the date as a possibility, and (2) that he proceeded from the conviction that Scripture's testimony is true and accurate. On that same basis, every Bible-believing Christian must reject the foolish theories of evolutionism and hold to Creationism and a belief in a young earth.

There may be some difference. Perhaps, for example, the OT genealogies are not complete (compare Gen. 11:36 with Luke 3:35, 36; and note the genealogy in Matt. 1 is not complete). Nevertheless, even if there are gaps in the genealogies, earth cannot be much older than 6,000 years, and certainly no older than the 10,000 years suggested by some Christian scholars. There is no room in Scripture for the billions of years, however.

There is much at stake in this debate about the age of the earth and about creation versus evolution. The inspiration and authority of Scripture are at stake, first of all. And, contrary to many, Christ's truthfulness is at stake, as well as our belief in His saving work.

Christ believed the historicity and truthfulness of the account of creation and the fall. He believed in a real Adam and Eve, a real paradise with its two special trees, a real speaking serpent, and accepted the genealogies of the OT (Matt. 19:4-6; Lk. 3:23-38; Jn. 8:44; Rev. 2:7). Was He mistaken?

So, too, by His own testimony He came to save us from Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit in the garden at the instigation of Satan (Jn. 8:44). Belief in an old earth and in evolutionary development must deny a real Adam and a real fall through the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This calls into question the very purpose of Christ's coming into the world. We must believe (Heb. 11:3) a young earth. Rev. R. Hanko

"Christ's Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism"

by Prof. David J. Engelsma

Here's a real deal!! This new book has just been published by Hope Protestant Reformed Church of Redlands, CA. The 158-page paper-cover book sets forth succinctly the testimony of Scripture on this important doctrine--in contrast too to pre- and post-millennialism. The book costs only $6.00 plus $3.00 shipping anywhere in the U.S.A. To get this low price, simply write a note stating, "Please send me the book," and include your name and address. Send check (payable to: The Reformed Witness) to:

The Reformed Witness

c/o Hope Protestant Reformed Church
1307 E. Brockton Avenue
Redlands, CA 92374

Last modified: 1-Feb-2002