Monday, July 31, 2006

Garrick Critiques Dispensationalism

For years now, Roman Catholics and others have rightly criticized the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" held by many Protestants. Don't get me wrong here. I believe that a true Christian is saved by God's grace and cannot become unsaved. He is a work of God in Christ.

The doctrine itself is what I have always questioned. It is simply inconsistent and incoherent. How can a man have some kind of arminian understanding of man, yet believe in that doctrine? Historically, Arminians have rejected Eternal Security of any kind. Yet why do so many believe in it? At a Founders Conference, Steve Garrick may have provided an answer.

Steve Garrick offers a critique of a hermeneutical system called Dispensationalism. In his critique, he gives a brief history of key figures and how they approach the Scriptures. He evaluates their method and view of Scripture and the Covenants.

He concludes that the church is really incidental to the Kingdom of God. The promises made to National Israel must be fulfilled and the New Covenant must be with them (Jer 31:31). The idea that the church is the New Israel of God and the first stage of the Kingdom of God is overthrown. The New Covenant of Christ with His church is seen in the most un-biblical fashion. How this system has stood for so long is beyond my comprehension.

Anyway, here is the link to listen to his message.


Dave said...

I wish Garrick would have spent more time discussing progressive dispensationalism. By his own admission at the beginning of the lecture there are very few classical dispensationalists today. Nevertheless, he spent the entire lecture disproving classical dispensantionalism. His parenthetical assessment that progressive dispensationalism is the last gasp of a dying theology was simply inadequate.

Howard Fisher said...

Perhaps, it is. But the problem is that Progressive Dispensationalism is only here because of the Classical view. No one would believe it en toto if it were not for the foundation laid by its founders.

As far as I can tell, Progressive Dispyism is all over the board. There are literally too many views to criticize. In general though, I think it is trying to acknowledge that traditional Covenant Theology has it right in many areas, but it just can't bring itself to let go of a National Israel hermeneutic en toto.