Is dispensationalism dead? Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of its demise have actually been greatly exaggerated.

As I write this series of articles, I have just returned from The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry’s international staff conference, which was held in early May at the Sandy Cove Conference Center. The Friends of Israel will turn 85 years old this December, and I can attest that the organization remains thoroughly and carefully committed to traditional dispensational theology. At our core, we stand on the same foundational truths that undergirded men like Lewis Sperry Chafer and Harry Ironside when they formed this ministry beginning in 1938.

As we gathered with our “fellow laborers” (Philem. 24) from points around the globe, the experience was almost surreal. Some of these dear people labor diligently right there in Israel. Other brave men and women have spent much of the past year rescuing Jewish people from the horrors of war-torn Ukraine. As one of my colleagues noted, these international workers have little time or motivation to amend their theology.

One of the reasons, in fact, that I pursued service with The Friends of Israel is that I aspire to remain on the cutting edge of the dispensational premillennial movement as it has been handed down to us today.

In June, Lord willing, I will be attending the national convention of IFCA International—exhibiting there for FOI for the third consecutive year. Several hundred people will gather in Covington, Ky.—almost all of them Christian leaders and their spouses. Nearly every one of them will be dedicated to traditional dispensational theology—and can explain why.

After more than 90 years, the IFCA remains vibrantly committed to its dispensational heritage. Executive director Dr. Richard Bargas has made it abundantly clear that this is a flag worth planting—as he is wont to say—and one which will serve to define his time in office. While certainly not alone in this regard, the IFCA is positioned to lead in demonstrating the significance of traditional dispensational theology in today’s world.

There are other notable events that also raise the dispensational flag high each year, such as the Pre-Trib Study Group Conference, as well as the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics. These groups each continue to produce a wealth of information for scholars and laymen alike.

As we evaluate the state of dispensationalism in our time, we would have to affirm that there is no single flagship organization that sends out marching orders to the rest of the movement. There’s no brain trust distributing talking points. There’s not one gigantic seminary that unifies the movement. In fact, there seems to be a rather robust discussion ongoing among various dispensational seminaries regarding some of the finer—and sometimes not so fine—points of theology.

Perhaps it is time for us to embrace these realities and celebrate them, especially in light of our history. Consider the upside to the fact that there is no particular entity or institution which has the capacity to alter the whole movement. Instead, this movement thrives in many smaller schools, in countless (mostly smaller) churches, promoted by faithful pastors (most of whom will never come close to being famous), exegeted in home study groups, and through conferences that attract people to sacrifice their weekends in exchange for in-depth instruction on the Scriptures. In short, the current situation harkens back to dispensationalism’s humble beginnings—born out of intensive Bible study by individuals, in homes, in churches, and in conferences.

And, mind you, there are millions of copies of study Bibles, theology books, and other volumes from a dispensational perspective—many produced by major publishing companies—that are still in circulation in our society.

And, if you think that everything in the world of Reformed theology has been streamlined for success, think again. Major issues are under discussion in their camps—and some of them are incredibly divisive. Not the least significant of these involves the rise of new covenant theology and progressive covenantalism. There are also ever-changing attempts to explain and describe how the church replaces Israel—a rather fundamental element of any non-dispensational system, in my opinion.

Samuel admonished King Saul with the reality that it was “when (he was) little in (his) own eyes” (1 Sam. 15:17) that he was at the height of his spiritual capability. The same could arguably be said about his successor, King David, as well. Jesus endearingly referred to His followers as a “little flock” in Luke 12:32. “Do not fear,” He said on that basis, “for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

Yes, many of us persist in traveling on “the old paths” (Jer. 6:16) of dispensationalism. Perhaps the movement still has more momentum than we commonly ascribe to it. The real issue is where we should go from here.

And I will discuss that specific subject further in the next installment of this series.

***

Paul J. Scharf (M.A., M.Div., Faith Baptist Theological Seminary) is a church ministries representative for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, based in Columbus, WI, and serving in the Midwest. For more information on his ministry, visit sermonaudio.com/pscharf or foi.org/scharf, or email pscharf@foi.org.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.

Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Genesis 1:1-3, John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16-18

Summary: The first theory of creation apart from Scripture teaches that God used evolution as part of the creative process. Is this a viable explanation for our origins? What do science and the Bible have to say about this idea?

Our look at the first of the four alternative theories to the biblical account of creation begins with what I would refer to as a philosophical mix of oil and water. On the surface, this theory might sound feasible for those who worship at the altar of reason and compromise, but it falls short in both the scientific realm and the certainty of Scripture.

The first alternative theory to biblical creation is a hodge-podge of contradictions known as “theistic evolution,” which teaches that God initiated the original creation process, then used the “life-and-death” struggle of natural selection’s proverbial “survival of the fittest” to complete the job. The term “theistic evolution” is nothing more than an oxymoron, attempting to combine the power of God (Theos) and the faulty theory of evolution that emphasizes gradualism and materialistic naturalism.

You cannot have the absolute perfection of God and the idea of chaotic randomness at the same time. One of these ideas has got to go, and the tragedy is that we would rather take God out of the picture and replace it with a question on how nothing came from something. We do this at our eternal peril.

What are the scientific problems with theistic evolution?

Plenty. Theistic evolution avoids the position of the naturalist mindset that nothing is the ultimate source for everything. It embraces and promotes the belief that molecules eventually “evolved” into people through a mindless process that involved chance, matter, time, and mutation. The theistic evolutionist believes that God started the process and then left it alone.

This is nothing more than warmed-over “deism” and is a blatant attack on the creative and sustaining power of the Sovereign LORD God and His rule over the universe, keeping everything together at His command and Who will remake the present sinful world into Eden reborn in His good time (Genesis 1:1, 2:3; Exodus 20:11; Job 26:7,13; Psalm 33:6, 102:25, 104:5; Isaiah 40:12, 28, 45:12, 48:13; Acts 4:24, 17:24; Hebrews 1:10, 11:3; 2 Peter 3:1-13; Revelation 21:1-7).

I cannot fathom the idea of such an impersonal deity than one fabricated by those who want to combine the spiritual equivalent of fire and gasoline and then hope that nothing happens.

Evolution, whether believed to be a gradual process (the position taken by Richard Dawkins) or rapid series of development (championed by the late Stephen Jay Gould), is atheistic at its core. Both proposed variations of evolutionary theory were conceived as a justification for the rejection of supernatural revelation and the idea of being accountable to a Supreme Creator. If the process of evolution fails to accurately work anywhere except in the theories of men, then it does not matter who or what initiated the process. Nothing from nothing still leaves nothing.

The Scriptural problems with theistic evolution are just as profound. The Bible states that sin and death entered the world not by random means but through Adam at the beginning of human history (Genesis 1-3). Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 all testify that death came as the result of one man’s sin. That man is identified as Adam, the first man. According to the Bible, before Adam’s sin, death did not exist. Genesis 1:31 says that when God completed His act of creation, He declared it to be “very good.” Theistic evolution teaches that the struggle of the survival of the fittest was a necessary component of man’s evolutionary progression and that, as such, death occurred millions and billions of times before man ever arrived on the scene.

If the life-and-death fight for survival as proposed by evolution was present on this world before man had ever “evolved,” then death did not come as the result of Adam’s sin. If the Bible’s account of creation is incorrect concerning how and when sin and death entered the world, why should anyone believe what it says about how sin and death can be remedied by the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

The Lord Jesus taught that man was present at the beginning of creation. In Mark 10:6, He said, “At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” If theistic evolution is true, then man arrived on the scene after some period of millions of years engaged in progressive life-and-death struggles. John 1:1-4 clearly states that Jesus is God and the Creator of everything that exists, including us. Because Jesus did not accommodate His language in speaking of creation, then neither should we! A perfect God would NOT create imperfectly.

Here is a question that we need to consider if we want to ponder the idea that theistic evolution might be a reasonable alternative to what we read in the Bible: Why would a God who is perfect and who does everything perfectly use millions of years of evolutionary death, disease, and destruction as the means by which to accomplish His work?

Christians who tend to promote the idea of theistic evolution reject the plain literal meaning of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. If the book of Genesis is to be interpreted as an allegory or myth, then how are the other books of the Bible to be understood? If Genesis does NOT mean what it says, how do we explain the fact that Jesus quoted from Genesis repeatedly, presuming both its authenticity and reliability? Was Jesus using allegory or myth when He predicted His own death and resurrection? If the theistic evolutionist chooses to reject Genesis 1-11 as allegory or myth, what can be said to someone else who chooses to reject John 1-11 or Romans 1-11 in the same way?

To reject the plain explanation of our origins as recorded in Genesis is to go down a slippery slope of doubt, skepticism, and rank infidelity. Let us be satisfied with what God has shown us in His Word.

The next alternative theory apart from biblical creation we’ll look at is called the “Gap Theory.” This one has been around for two hundred years or so and, on the surface, might seem feasible, but just like theistic evolution, it too ignores the plain truth of Scripture.

donaldwhitchard@outlook.com

www.realitycityreverend.com

www.youtube.com/@realitycityreview