THE NEW JESUITS

he final authority of the Dispensationalist is Dispensationalism. While the mighty spiritual giants of bygone generations - the massive marble megaliths of Puritanism and the gargantuan granite Goliaths of early Fundamentalism - John Bunyan, Benjamin Keach, Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Samuel Rutherford, Richard Sibbes, John Owen, John Clarke, Obediah Holmes, Isaac Watts, Charles Spurgeon, Horatius Bonar, George Mueller, J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield, Sam Jones, A. W. Pink, Philip Mauro, and multitudes more of the same spiritual caliber have enlisted on the side of Covenant Theology, the twentieth century witnessed the rise of a gaggle of impotent spiritual Lilliputians led by the notorious scoundrel and "scallywag", C. I Scofield and the bitter adversary of aggressive mass-evangelism, Lewis Sperry Chafer, who, with a contemptuous sneer, kicked aside the wisdom of these mighty men of old to crown Dispensationalism with the pontifical tiara of sovereignty and infallibility, demanding that every born-again child of God now kiss the toe of John

Nelson Darby! Never since the last dungeons of Roman Catholic Inquisition closed forever has the authority of God's Word been so usurped as it has since the rise of these new Jesuits.

I. DISPENSATIONALISM IS AN ATTACK UPON SCRIPTURE.

We repeat without apology that Dispensationalism is nothing less than a usurpation of authority over the supremacy of Scripture as the final rule for every believer's faith and practice. It is certainly and emphatically not a defense of literalism. It is merely the same old hiss of the serpent whispering, "Yea, hath God said?" It is the same old ruse of Pharisaism and Papal prelacy that appropriates to itself the sole right to interpret Scripture at the expense of Biblical authority, Biblical literalism, the priesthood of the believer and the illumination of the Holy Ghost. Let us begin with Dispensationalism's much vaunted claim to exclusive literalism in matters of Biblical interpretation. Is literalism truly the issue at stake? Is Dispensationalism itself truly literal in its interpretation of Scripture as it constantly asserts itself to be?

A. DISPENSATIONALISM SUBSTITUTES AN ALLEGORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE FOR LITERALISM.

1. DISPENSATIONALISM ALLEGORIZES THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA TO MAKE THEM "CHURCH AGES".

Let us turn to the first three chapters of Revelation. Here we find the Scriptural account of seven literal, historical local churches that existed in Asia during the time of the Apostle John. The reading of these chapters is simple and direct enough. Our Saviour had a message for each one of these literal, historical, geographical local churches and recorded them in Scripture for churches in every place and generation afterwards to profit from and apply.

But in the hands of the Dispensationalist exegete, these churches become something else entirely! Without a word of support from Scripture, suddenly these literal, historical, geographical local churches are transformed into time periods, so-called "Church Ages"! Wonder of wonders! What witchcraft is this? Not a syllable of Scripture, not one jot or tittle of God's Word implies anything along the lines of "Church Ages", yet there they are, all mapped out for us to see on the Dispensational charts - the

"Ephesian Church Age", the "Smyrna Church Age", the "Pergamos Church Age", the "Thyatira Church Age", the "Sardis Church Age", the "Philadelphia Church Age" and the notorious "Laodicean Church Age"! What literalism is this?

The answer is that it is no literalism at all. It is allegorism, plain and simple. The same old allegorism that the Roman Catholic Church used so long to bewitch and confuse and control simple-minded people who were told that they could not understand the Word of God for themselves.

But I hear some Dispensationalist object: "It says that we are to hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, and not merely that particular local church." Indeed it does. But that says absolutely nothing about time periods, so-called "Church Ages". Rather it speaks to churches in every generation to warn them that these same failures may be repeated in any generation by any church at any time. In other words, they are most certainly not specific "Church Ages", but examples applicable in every place and every generation until Christ returns. But some determined, diehard Dispensationalist objects again: "Why look around you man! You can see that the church today is lukewarm! That is proof positive that these are Church Ages." To this we answer that your blindness exceeds your zeal as far as the day outshines the night. Take a missions trip, dear sir, or madam, as the case may be. Go to Africa, to Asia, to the suffering churches of the Middle East. Go look upon your suffering brethren and sisters who have left all and lost all to follow Christ, who are persecuted beyond measure in ways that your American mind cannot even begin to comprehend. Go, dear sir, or madam, and taste but a little of the cup of their suffering. And will you then have the audacity to come to us and speak of their lukewarm condition? Oh, you blind, wicked Dispensationalist! Oh, full of all subtlety, and all mischief, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

No dear sir or madam. We are not living in the "Laodicean Church Age". There is no such "Church Age". Your opulent, comfortable American church may be as Laodicean as the day is long, but that has no bearing on the rest of the world. And you have no right to superimpose the conditions of your lukewarm local church upon everyone else or, far worse, to use your own guilt as a springboard to allegorize the Word of God. No. The seven churches of Asia are literal, historical, geographical local churches that remind us of Biblical principles that apply to every place and every generation. They are not allegorical, as you Dispensationalists would have us to believe.

2. DISPENSATIONALISM ALLEGORIZES THE APOSTLE JOHN IN REVELATION 4 TO MAKE HIM THE CHURCH AT THE RAPTURE.

But the allegorism of the Dispensationalists does not end there. It goes on. The Dispensationalist then, with even less of a foundation, has the brazen audacity to tell us that when John is called to "Come up hither" in Revelation 4: 1, it is not only John, but the entire Church of the Living God being called! Wonder of wonder! How do they get these things from God's Word? In vain does the eye search the page for one jot or one tittle to indicate that when the Holy Ghost inspired the word "John", what he really meant was "the entire Church of the Living God from the day of Pentecost onward"! What miracles of abbreviation we have here! Bless my soul, how shall we understand our Bibles when the word "church" actually means a time period and when the proper noun John actually means all Christians everywhere since the days of the Apostles! Oh for the days when a local church was really and actually a local church and John was really and actually John and not someone else altogether! May God preserve us from this particular brand of "literalism"!

No, my friend. The Bible is not confusing. It is clear, plain and simple to understand. The seven churches of Asia of seven literal, historical, geographical local assemblies and John is literally John and not Peter or Paul or James or Jude or you or me or anyone else. Only the Dispensationalists and the Catholics have allegorical meanings for these things that replace the plain, literal interpretation.

3. DISPENSATIONALISM ALLEGORIZES THE HARLOT IDENTIFIED IN REVELATION 17:18 IN LITERAL LANGUAGE AS A "CITY" TO MAKE IT INSTEAD A "ONE-WORLD CHURCH".

Nor does the Dispensationalism's allegorical method end there. It also seizes upon Revelation 17 and redefines what the Scripture has clearly asserted in plain, literal language. It makes the Harlot described there a "one-world church", rather than a literal, historical, geographical city, the city of Rome. The Holy Spirit could not have utilized plainer, more unambiguous language. In Revelation 17: 18, he plainly tells us exactly who the woman described in the preceding verses is. Our King James Bible says clearly "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." Now a city is not a church and a church is not a city. These are two different things. Yet even with that in mind, we might not object if the passage went only so far as to define the woman as a city. We might say that perhaps the "one-world church" is spoken of as a city in the same respect that we find the true Church associated with the Heavenly Jerusalem or Mount Zion. But it does not stop there. It is too

specific to be a symbolic language. It tells us very specifically exactly which city the chapter refers to. It says

"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."

Now, we notice that the Holy Spirit, speaking to and through the Apostle John has used a verb that in the English language translates as a present tense, state-of-being verb. In other words, he spoke to John of a literal city, already in power during John's lifetime which exercised authority and dominion over a massive Empire. Now dear friend, this can be no other city than the city of Rome. Yet in the hands of the Dispensationalist exegete, a literal, historical, geographical city suddenly becomes a "one-world church"! Wonder of wonders! What literalism is this? Again we assert that it is no literalism at all. It is allegorism, plain and simple. The falsely-vaunted defenders and champions of literalism are caught red-handed in the very wresting of Scriptures that they have so long accused Covenant Theologians of!

B. DISPENSATIONALISM ROBS THE CHURCH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING THAT IT IS "ONLY FOR NATIONAL ISRAEL".

But we cannot consider this subject without also remarking upon Dispensationalism's audacious crime of depriving the Church of the Living God of the Old Testament Scriptures. Now, the majority of Dispensationalists are reluctant to admit the logical implications of their doctrine, but they really ought to have the courage of their convictions and come out and tell their constituents exactly what Dispensationalism means with regard to the Old Testament. In plain, simple terms, if Dispensationalism is true, then the Church has no right to claim any Old Testament promises, because they are written "for national Israel" and "not for the Church". Come, my Dispensationalist friend, why so abashed? Why so mealy-mouthed now? Why the doublespeak all of the sudden? Is the Old Testament "only for national Israel" or not? Why don't you come out with it and tell that grieving widow that she has no right to take solace in Psalm 23? Come, dear brother, rebuke that erring Christian who has transgressed by finding encouragement in Isaiah 40: 31. Come, friend, here is a misguided young novice who foolishly thinks that Jeremiah 33: 3 is an encouragement to his prayer life, and needs your insightful reproof. And here is another, a dreamyeyed college-aged girl seeking God's will for a husband who has inscribed Psalm 37: 4 on the flyleaf of her Bible. You must certainly tear that out at once! And look, here is an ignorant young pietist training for the ministry who thinks that God will bless him and give him good success if he obeys the principles

of Psalm 1: 1 - 2 and Joshua 1: 6 - 8. Come dear brother, expound the truth to these dear saints! Show them the error of their ways! What's this? Reluctant are we? A little timid about it? Come friend, there's no time for that. You must tell them that they are all guilty of covetousness and theft because they have appropriated what belongs exclusively to national Israel, according to your theology.

I for one want no part of that. It is the Dispensationalist who is the thief and the robber. He has robbed the Church of the Living God of numerous wonderful promises, passages and principles inspired by the Holy Ghost for the benefit and support of God's people. Well has A. W. Pink decared "Dispensationalism is a device of the enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to 'make the Bible a new book' by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation."

C. DISPENSATIONALISM DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS PLAIN STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE IN ORDER TO ADVOCATE ITS UNBIBLICAL BREAKDOWN OF HISTORY INTO ERRONEOUS TIME CATEGORIES FALSELY IDENTIFIED AS "DISPENSATIONS".

Dispensationalism is most famous for its categorization of human history according to so-called "Dispensations". Most of us have seen the charts showing us that here these people were under the "Dispensation of Conscience" and these were under the "Dispensation of Promise" and these were under the "Dispensation of Law" and we are under the "Dispensation of Grace" and so on. If you have never seen one, a simple Internet search for "Dispensational charts" should bring up the subject in question.

There's only one problem. Nowhere does the Scripture say that this is this "Dispensation" and that is that "Dispensation", etc. You have to superimpose that on the Bible to get that. You have to add that to the Bible. In reality, the so-called "Dispensations" are most certainly not limited by the Word of God to this certain timeframe or that certain timeframe. Instead, we find them operating at the same time, on equal footing with one another.

And how do you explain the arbitrary nature of your breakdown? Where is the Scripture that states that the immediate post-Edenic period is the "Age of Conscience"? The obvious category - if it were actually Biblical to so categorize Scripture - would be the "Dispensation of Promise", because God had just given the promise of a conquering Seed in Genesis 3. But then again, maybe this current Dispensation is the true "Dispensation of Promise", because we are awaiting the promise of Christ's return. Or maybe we have all overlooked the real "Dispensation of Promise" as the intermediate period between the crucifixion of Christ and the day of Pentecost, because the disciples were waiting for the promise of the Holy Ghost. Oh, you blind Dispensationalist! You refuse to see that these principles cannot be categorized as time periods at all, but are constants existing and operating simultaneously throughout the Word of God and the course of human history! This is true of the Conscience. This is true of Human Government. This is true of Law. This is true of Grace. The only real categories of that nature are those of Innocence and of Christ's Kingdom. For proof of this, we need only to look at the continuous use of present-tense verbs used throughout the New Testament in reference to the Law. We do not find the New Testament writers treating God's Law as a thing of the past, but rather as a present reality. James actually speaks of it as a future reality as well when he speaks of New Testament Christians as those who "shall be judged by the law of liberty" (James 2: 12). In the same book, he promises a blessing on those Christians who continue in "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1: 25), and praises those who "fulfil the royal law" (James 2: 8). He is of course in perfect harmony with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7: 12) and the Apostle Paul (Romans 13: 8 - 10). Of course the Apostle Paul commands us to "fulfil the law of Christ" by bearing one another's burdens (Galatians 6: 2) and informs us that "with his mind" he served the law of God (Romans 7: 25). In I Corinthians 9: 21, he assures us that he is "not without law to God, but under the law to Christ". But perhaps no statement of the Apostle Paul in Scripture about the Law is more emphatic than that found in Romans3: 31, where he answers his own rhetorical question: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

Now the expression "God forbid" is a highly emphatic Greek idiom used to vehemently deny or oppose a certain idea. And it is just the exact idiom that the Holy Spirit chose to inspire the Apostle Paul to write in opposition to the view that the Law has been made void.

But what about Hebrews 8: 13? Doesn't it suggest that the Law has been made void? In answer to that we assure the reader that God's Word does not contradict itself. In fact, it states the very opposite of that, namely that the Law remains in effect. By saying that the Old Covenant is "ready to vanish away", it implies of necessity that it has not vanished away yet. To this we add the words of our Saviour in Luke 16: 17, where he assures us that:

" it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Again, we quote his words in Luke 21: 33, which say

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

And again, Psalm 119: 89 states

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

And Psalm 12: 6 - 7 assures us that God preserves his Word - including the Law - forever. God's Law is not made void. It has not vanished away. It has not failed. It has not passed away. It remains in effect today, condemning the lost world of their sin, "that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God" (Romans 3: 19), yet acting as a schoolmaster to bring men and women - Jew and Gentile alike - to Christ (Galatians 3: 24).

II. DISPENSATIONALISM IS AN ATTACK UPON SALVATION.

A. DISPENSATIONALISM IMPLIES THAT OTHER WAYS OF SALVATION HAVE EXISTED OR WILL EXIST IN OTHER "DISPENSATIONS".
The assault of Dispensationalism upon the doctrine of justification by grace through faith is so notorious, as to scarcely require our attention here. It is well-known. A few passing comments will therefore suffice. Dispensationalism states that in other "Dispensations" God "tested" man according to different requirements. And while most Dispensationalists reject Peter Ruckman's view of multiple ways of salvation, the implications of asserting an "Age of Conscience", "Age of Human Government", "Age of Promise", "Age of Law" etc, are unmistakable. By reducing Grace to one among several limited time periods, it is at least suggested, if not overtly asserted, that it is not on any different standing than these

other principles and that it may also pass away when its day is done. Which is to say that in the future other ways of salvation will come into existence, just as they have - by implication - in the past. Thus while Ruckman's theology is abominable to say the least, we commend him on one miniscule point that he is more consistent and honest with his doctrine and more in keeping with historical Classic Dispensationalism than his Modern Revised counterparts of the Charles Ryrie variety.

B. DISPENSATIONALISM IMPLIES THAT ALL ARE CURRENTLY UNDER GRACE AND WILL NOT BE JUDGED FOR THEIR SINS.
A more subtle attack upon the Saviour is made when Dispensationalists assert that sinners who die in the "Age of Grace" will not be judged for their sins because they are under grace in the "Age of Grace". I have heard this statement fairly recently made by an influential independent, Fundamental Baptist laboring here in Indiana. This man is not a Ruckmanite. He is not considered to be a radical. He is viewed as a "balanced" and grounded leader. But this is his doctrine. He asserts that the lost who die in the "Age of Grace" will be judged for their works, not their sins. We answer this man by referring him to Galatians 5: 19 - 21, where Scripture defines the works of the flesh: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

We note in passing that these works are sins, transgressions of God's Law. We refer our brother also to Proverbs 21: 4, which states that "An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin."

C. DISPENSATIONALISM UNDERMINES SOTERIOLOGY BY UNDERMINING THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF SIN.

But more subtle still than that is the complete undermining of the Scriptural definition of sin. The Scriptural definition of sin is found in I John 3: 4, where it is defined as "the transgression of the law". That is how the New Testament defines sin. It does not define it as "missing the mark" or in any other way. Sin is plainly defined as "the transgression of the law". But if the Law has no jurisdiction in this "Dispensation", or if the Law is "only for national Israel", how

can we transgress it? I cannot transgress the laws of Tanzania because I am not under the laws of Tanzania. The laws of Tanzania have no jurisdiction whatsoever over me. Even so, if the Law of God has no jurisdiction in the "Age of Grace" or if it is "only for national Israel", then it cannot be transgressed, certainly not by us Gentiles. In other words, if Dispensationalism is held to a Biblical definition of sin, then none of us are even capable of sin! Sin does not exist in this "Dispensation" or for the Gentiles! This of course contradicts Romans 3: 19 which states that the Law stops "every mouth" and condemns the "whole world" as "guilty before God".

DISPENSATIONALISM IS AN ATTACK UPON SOULWINNING.

Lastly, we point out that Dispensationalism cultivates an attitude of defeatism and unbelief by teaching that the "Church Age" "ends in failure", contrary to the clear promise of Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. Throughout the New Testament, the promises of God to believers are "yea and Amen" (I Corinthians 1: 20). The believer is assured that "we are more than conquerors through him that loved us" in Romans 8: 37. He is promised that God "always giveth us the victory" in I Corinthians 15: 57, and that God "always causeth us to triumph" in II Corinthians 2: 14. In I John 5: 4, he is guaranteed that the true believer overcomes the world. But none of this matters to the Dispensationalist because his final authority is not the Word of God, but Dispensationalism. The determining principles of the Dispensationalist are the definitions devised by his respective "Church Fathers", John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Now these men have assured him that the "Church Age" ends in failure, and so it must be true, regardless of what God's Word say about victory for the Church and the Christian or coming again with rejoicing bringing his sheaves with him. No, his true authorities have uttered their ex cathedra, and therefore failure he must have. Victory is not on the menu for the Dispensationalist, because he has effectively clipped all the promises of Scripture for victory out of his Bible. The Dispensationalist cannot preach a positive message of "Get out there and conquer for Christ". It can only ever be the veiled defeatism of "Don't quit, don't give up, just hold the fort until Jesus comes." Is it any wonder then, that the positive optimism and beaming confidence of early Fundamentalism and the mighty mass crusades that saw multiplied thousands upon thousands harvested for the glory of God have given way to a gloomy, limping pessimism on the one hand and a desperate and compromising pragmatism on the other, neither of which have succeeded in reclaiming the champion status one enjoyed by our Fundamentalist and Puritan progenitors? Dear friend, Dispensationalism is not your ally. It is of no help to you at all, nor does it help anyone else. It denies the plain statements of Scripture, breeds confusion, error, heresy, discord, strife, defeatism and unbelief and exalts the authority of men - often very persuasive, and seemingly conservative men above the authority of God's Word. It is simply a fresh revision of the ancient Romish idolatry that brought all of Europe under bondage to a deceptive priest class that stole God's Word from the common man and twisted it for its own purposes. Let me encourage you to earnestly search the Scriptures to see

whether such things as Dispensationalism claims be so. And, dear friend, if they are not, please take your stand on the Word of God, and divorce yourself completely from this erroneous tradition of men.