What about Acts 7:38?

I have been skimming Christ's Prophetic Plans, which is a primer on Dispensational Eschatology. I would like to write a review or a response at some point, but I can't let this pass:

Richard Mayhue asserts, "Furthermore, never in the whole New Testament is 'Israel' ever called 'the church'" (page 82).

This is patently false. Stephen refers to Israel as the church in his sermon:

"This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you" (Acts 7:38).

"The congregation" is the Greek word, ekklesia, which is the word for the church. Thus, Stephen calls Israel the church.

So, whenever you find yourself listening to a Dispensationalist wax eloquent about how Israel is never called the church, simply ask, "What about Acts 7:38?"

Animal Sacrifices in the Millennium?

One of the most embarrassing aspects of Dispensationalism is their insistence that there will be a return to animal sacrifices during the Millennium. Most Dispensationalists have no idea that this is part of their system. The Progressive Dispensationalists have mostly abandoned this element. However, the hard-core Dispensationalists still hold to it.

If you recall, Dispensationalists believe that after his second coming, Jesus will reign on the earth for exactly one thousand years. This thousand-year period is often called the Millennium, taken from the Latin phrase "thousand years," found in Revelation 20.

Whereas all Premillennialists believe in a future Millennium on earth, Dispensationalists are unique in that they believe that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, according to the vision given in Ezekiel 40-48. Herein lies the problem.

The vision in Ezekiel 40-48 includes animal sacrifices. Because Dispensationalists are committed to a literal, future fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48, Dispensationalists believe that there will be a return to animal sacrifices during the Millennium.

Some Dispensationalists have tried to skirt the issue by arguing that the animal sacrifices are of a memorial nature. Thus, the animal sacrifices are simply pointing back to the death of Christ, in a similar way that the Lord's Supper points back to Christ.

However, the text of Ezekiel 40-48 belies this claim. These are not mere memorial animal sacrifices. Fourteen times, the text calls for a "sin offering" (Ezekiel 40:39; 42:13; 43:19, 21, 22, 25; 44:27, 29; 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25; 46:20). Leviticus describes the sin offering as "making atonement" (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35, etc.). These are animal sacrifices to atone for sin.

Thus, according to Dispensationalists, during the future Millennium, there will be a temple in Jerusalem with Levitical priests offering animal sacrifices to atone for sin.

Most Christians find such a belief unsustainable in light of the book of Hebrews. God repeatedly stresses that the Old Covenant is finished. It is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). The sacrificial system was "imposed until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10). Christ's sacrifice was the once-for-all-time sacrifice (Hebrews 9:26).

Yet, Dispensationalists persist in their belief of a future Millennium with animal sacrifices. There are some other rather novel attempts to explain future animal sacrifices, but none has gained a wide following, and most find them woefully inadequate.

Rather than engage these point-by-point and getting lost in the details, I believe it is more helpful to look at the big picture. "Future animal sacrifices" is one of those Copernican Revolution issues about which I wrote in the early days of this blog.

Do future animal sacrifices make any sense, given the book of Hebrews and the rest of Scripture? Is this not an obvious fatal flaw in Dispensationalism? Should this not cause one to question the entire system?

I am not saying that Ezekiel 40-48 is an easy text to interpret, yet future animal sacrifices ought to be the last interpretive option. The book of Hebrews alone ought to cause us to take a fresh look at Ezekiel 40-48 and see if God meant something other than future animal sacrifices.

This is not a matter of changing the original meaning of Ezekiel 40-48. I am not going get into the details of the exegesis (perhaps in a future post), but Ezekiel 40-48 can be understood without violating authorial intent and without resorting to future animal sacrifices.

Leaving the NASB Behind

I grew up using the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It was the translation of the Bible that I read in grade school, junior high, high school, college, after college, and in seminary. In 2004, I switched to a different translation, but I still tend to think in the language of the NASB.

The NASB is a fine translation in many respects. It is very literal. While some complain that it is a bit wooden and stodgy, I never felt this way. Whenever I look up a passage in the NASB, I feel that I am returning to an old friend.

One of the reasons that I left the NASB behind is that there is a noticeable Dispensational bias in certain passages. Some of the editorial decisions in the translation of the book of Revelation are particularly alarming, in that they camouflage the actual text from the reader.

Compare the following translations of Revelation 21:16-17.

"And the city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal. And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements" (Revelation 21:16-17, NASB).

^"The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal. He also measured its wall, 144 cubits by human measurement, which is also an angel’s measurement" (Revelation 21:16-17, ESV).

You will notice that the numbers differ between the NASB and the ESV. The NASB has "1500 miles" and "72 yards," whereas the ESV uses "12,000 stadia" and "144 cubits." Of course, the original Greek text speaks of stadia and cubits, not miles and yards.

The NASB has made an editorial decision to convert stadia into miles and cubits into yards. This was likely done to help the reader understand the dimensions, as we are more familiar with miles and yards.

However, notice what is sacrificed. In an effort to understand the dimensions, we lose contact with the actual numbers that God placed in the text. "12,000" and "144" are significant numbers in the Bible and in the book of Revelation.

The number "12,000" appears once in Numbers 31:5 and twelve times in Revelation 7:5-8. Additionally the number "12" is significant, appearing over one hundred and fifty times in the Bible. It is the number of the tribes of Israel and the number of the apostles.

The number "144" would immediately call to mind Revelation 7:4 and 14:1-3, which speaks of the 144,000 martyrs. Also, 144 is the product of twelve times twelve, which is again another allusion to the Biblically significant number "12."

Christians debate the exact significance and interpretation of these numbers, and my intention in this post is not to argue for any specific meaning to the numbers. Unfortunately, the NASB robs the reader from making any connections between the numbers of Revelation 21:16-17 and the rest of the Scriptures.

So, why does the NASB convert the numbers in Revelation 21:16-17 into modern equivalents, while consigning the original text to a margin note? The NASB translators made an editorial decision that the reader is better off with the modern equivalents than with the original text.

In doing so, they have camouflaged the original numbers from the average reader. The average reader is robbed of making any connections between the numbers of Revelation 21:16-17 and the rest of Scripture. Only a Dispensationalist would be comfortable with such a situation.

Ultimately, this corresponds with what many have observed is a Dispensational bias of the NASB translators. You can Google "NASB Dispensational Bias" for more examples. This is one of the reasons why I no longer use the NASB for reading or study.

Jesus, Israel, and the Church

I'm teaching through a new series at church. Some of this material is from this blog. Here's a copy of the notes:

We are starting a new series called “Jesus, Israel, and the Church.” This is going to be an exploration of the relationship between Jesus and the Old Testament. Some of the major themes we will consider are the nation of Israel, the land of Israel, the temple of Israel, the law of Israel, and the future of Israel.

I hope to show that Jesus is at the center of each of these topics. Specifically, I want to demonstrate that the OT is not about ethnic Jews and their nation. The OT is about Jesus.

This truth should effect the way we read the Old Testament. This also should impact how we look at the current political situation of the Middle East, particularly with regard to the nation of Israel. Most importantly, this should stir your heart to greater admiration, appreciation, and allegiance to our King, the Lord Jesus Christ.

CT vs. DT
This study will also help us to understand one of the core issues that divides much of Christendom. This issue has plagued the church since day one, but it has erupted into a full-scale division in the last two centuries, particularly in America.

In contemporary theology, there are two basic theological positions: Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT) or Dispensationalism.

Both of these terms are of recent origin. Covenant Theology was largely formulated during the seventeenth century by Johannes Cocceius. Dispensationalism was first articulated in the early nineteenth century by John Nelson Darby.

These terms are frequently misconstrued and notoriously misunderstood. They are far more often harmful than helpful. While both are accurate in some generically descriptive sense, neither term gets to the precise heart of the matter, as we shall see.

Nevertheless, we do need to understand what these terms mean.

Covenant Theology
Covenant theologians look at the Bible from the perspective of covenants. They usually see two main covenants:

1) The Covenant of Works – God made a covenant with Adam, requiring perfect obedience upon pain of death.

2) The Covenant of Grace – When Adam failed to perfectly obey God, Adam was condemned to die. However, God made another covenant with Adam, whereby God graciously saved Adam from his disobedience. The rest of the Bible is the outplaying of this salvation, or this Covenant of Grace.

Is this an accurate picture of the Bible? Yes, there is nothing wrong with this scenario as stated.

Dispensational Theology
Dispensational theologians look at the Bible from the perspective of dispensations. They usually see seven main dispensations:

1) Innocence – Creation to the fall

2) Conscience – Adam to Noah

3) Government – Noah to Abraham

4) Patriarchy – Abraham to Moses

5) Law – Moses to Jesus

6) Grace – between the 1st and 2nd comings of Christ

7) Kingdom – after the 2nd coming of Christ

Is this an accurate picture of the Bible? We might quibble over some of the titles, but God does deal differently with man during each of these seven eras or dispensations.

Where’s the Beef?
As these two theological positions are stated, there doesn’t appear to be any conflict. In fact, Dispensationalists believe in covenants and Covenant Theologians speak of different dispensations. So, why are these two groups at each others’ throats?

While on the surface these appear to be simply two different ways of looking at the Bible, there are underlying presuppositions which make these two groups diametrically opposed to each other.

What is subtly implied by Covenant Theology is that the bulk of the Bible, from Genesis 4 through Revelation, is one unit. Specifically there is a unity between the OT and the NT. While there are certainly differences, God deals dealing with mankind under the same Covenant of Grace, hence, the name “Covenant Theology.”

Dispensationalists argue that the covenant is the wrong way of looking at the Bible. God deals with people differently in different eras, and we need to emphasize these differences, particularly the differences between the OT and the NT. While there are certainly similarities, God deals with mankind differently in each dispensation, hence the name “Dispensationalism.”

The Crux
Thus, the debate between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology is not really about covenants vs. dispensations. These monikers are a manifestly unhelpful way to frame the disagreement, which has only led to confusion and division.

The crux of the matter is the relationship between the OT and the NT:

· Covenant Theologians see a basic unity between the OT and the NT. The key word here is continuity. The NT continues what the OT began.

· Dispensational Theologians see a basic distinction between the OT and the NT. The key word here is discontinuity. The NT begins a new project that is not a continuation of the OT.

The crux of the matter is continuity vs. discontinuity. For this reason, I am going to refer to Covenant Theology as Continuity Theology (CT in both cases). I am going to refer to Dispensational Theology as Discontinuity Theology (DT in both cases).

No one argues for strict continuity or strict discontinuity. That is, everyone believes in some continuity (e.g., we believe in one God) and some discontinuity (e.g., we no longer offer animal sacrifices). The difficulty is determining how much stays the same (continuity) and how much is different (discontinuity).

One Verse?
Deciding between continuity and discontinuity is not an easy matter. DT’s argue for discontinuity from passages like this:

John 1:17 (NKJV) For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

CT’s argue for continuity from passages like this:

Hebr 13:8 (NKJV) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Neither of these passages necessary rules out either continuity or discontinuity. In fact, CT vs. DT is not a “one-verse issue.” Some theological issues can be solved by appealing to a single passage, but not this one. Continuity vs. discontinuity is an enormous issue that covers the entire Bible.

Presuppositions
What’s even more difficult is that this is a presupposition that we bring to the Scriptures. That is, when we are interpreting the Bible, we unconsciously assume either continuity or discontinuity. Naturally, this assumption colors the way we interpret Scripture.

For example, when it comes to the relationship between Israel and the Church, the Bible neither explicitly affirms or denies that the church is Israel. We don’t find any verses that say either “the church is Israel” or “the church is not Israel.” This issue is usually decided by our presuppositions.

DT says, “The Bible never states that the church is Israel; therefore they are different entities with different purposes and different destinies.”

When the DT encounters Scriptures that seem to favor continuity, he falls back upon the lack of a plain statement from Scriptures, urging that without a clear statement, he must presume discontinuity.

CT says, “The Bible never states that the church is not Israel, therefore they are the same entity with the same purpose and the same destiny.”

When the CT encounters Scriptures that seem to favor discontinuity, he also falls back upon the lack of a plain statement from Scriptures, urging that without a clear statement, he must presume continuity.

The question we must ask is: which presupposition is most consistent with the Scriptures? Discerning presuppositions is not an easy task. Changing a presupposition usually involves a massive paradigm shift.

A Copernican Revolution
For example, consider what it must have been like for Copernicus to change from a geo-centric view of our solar system to a helio-centric view.

Before Copernicus, geo-centrism was the dominant perspective. It seemed to make sense. However, as Copernicus did his calculations, something didn’t add up. He saw the same sun, planets, and stars as the previous astronomers, but he discovered that if the earth was truly the center of our solar system, then the planets should behave differently than they do. The conclusion is that there must be a different center. Copernicus suspected that the sun was the center of our solar system, and his calculations confirmed this. Today, Copernicus is credited with changing astronomy from geo-centrism to helio-centrism, and we call this the Copernican revolution.

This was not a whimsical decision of little importance. This was a carefully researched decision with epic consequences. It was a revolution. Changing presuppositions always results in massive change, a revolution.

My Copernican Revolution
I had my own Copernican revolution in my theological journey. When I was first exposed to discontinuity, I would go back to the Scriptures to see if these things were so. A lot of things made sense.

However, as I got deeper into DT, I began to notice a verse here and there that did not seem to fit in the DT scheme. This troubled me, so I asked my pastor, but he did not have a satisfactory answer. I thought that seminary would explain things better.

Unfortunately, when I got to seminary, the problems compounded. I was finding entire passages that seemed to conflict with DT. It seemed like everywhere I turned, there was a problem passage. I began to suspect that the problem was not with the Scriptures but with DT itself. I was reading the same Bible as the DT, but the Scriptures behaved in patterns that defied DT.

Finally, I had this radical thought: what if I presumed continuity? I tried this out and found it to be a much more satisfactory explanation of the Scriptures. The old problem passages now made perfect sense. At every turn, I found that continuity fit much more solidly with the Scriptures.

Thus, my move to CT did not involve a rejection of the Bible, but embracing an alternative explanation for the Bible. Much like Copernicus, I was using the same data as my DT friends, but the data forced me to come to a different conclusion.

Conclusion
During this study of “Jesus and Israel,” we will be presuming continuity while at the same time, we will be demonstrating that continuity is what the Scriptures themselves demand.

This is not radical continuity. There have been some changes, but we should presume continuity unless we have an explicit warrant for discontinuity. This will be tricky, and it may not all come to you at once. Presuppositions take time to detect and change.

Does Inspiration Destroy Hermeneutics?

The NT writers' use of the OT can be a complicated issue. I don’t pretend to have it all figured out. However, the Dispensational approach to this is quite extraordinary.

Matt Waymeyer has written an essay called “Don’t Try this at Home: Today’s Interpreter and the ‘Apostles’ Hermeneutic.” The title gives away his conclusion, namely, that we should not even attempt to find interpretive principles in how the NT writers used the OT. I’m amazed at how brazenly this is stated.

Waymeyer gives three reasons for rejecting the NT writers’ hermeneutic. Each of these is problematic, but the third reason is the most objectionable:

“The difference between human interpretation and divine inspiration separates the modern-day exegete from the NT writer in such a way that the former is not able to employ the methods of the latter.”

Waymeyer is assigning the NT writers’ hermeneutic to inspiration and not to correct exegesis. That is, the NT writers were not interpreting the OT, they were redefining it through inspiration. Since we aren’t inspired, we cannot copy their methods.

Here’s Waymeyer again: “In other words, when the apostle Paul quoted or alluded to the OT in his epistles, he wasn’t applying God-given hermeneutical principles to various passages in the Old Testament.”

This magical view of inspiration forces Dispensationalists into a false dilemma: either the NT writers were inspired or they were good exegetes.

Isn’t it possible that the NT writers were inspired and good exegetes. Or, to be more precise, the NT writers were inspired by God to get the OT right.

The Trouble with "Literalism"

One of the chief reasons that many are drawn to Dispensationalism is because of their commitment to the Scriptures. Dispensationalists claim that their system can be deduced from the plain interpretation of Scripture.

Specifically, Dispensationalists contend that a “literal” hermeneutic is required to properly understand the Scriptures. The application of “literalism” is a notorious problem, and it has been rightly criticized as “so-called literalism,” “wooden literalism,” and “inconsistent literalism.” However, there is a far more serious crisis with regard to the foundation of Dispensational “literalism.”

The problem is that the Dispensational hermeneutic is not based upon the exegesis of Scripture. “Literalism” is a presupposition, a philosophical pre-commitment. In fact, Dispensationalists routinely teach that one should not look to the Bible to obtain sound interpretive principles.

Matt Waymeyer recently wrote an article called “Don’t Try this at Home: Today’s Interpreter and the ‘Apostles’ Hermeneutic.’” While the NT use of the OT can be a thorny issue, and Waymeyer does raise some valid concerns, his conclusion is that we should not even attempt to find interpretive principles in how the NT writers used the OT. Hence, the warning in the title is “Don’t try this at Home.” Other Dispensationalists have argued the same thing.

This is shocking. Dispensationalists routinely argue that Scripture ought to be our standard for everything, except for interpretive principles. The Dispensational hermeneutic is not derived from Scripture itself.

“Literalism” is a philosophical presupposition. Thus, the ultimate foundation of Dispensationalism is not the Scriptures themselves, but philosophy. This philosophical principle of “literalism” is then used to interpret the Scriptures, which produces many of the distinctively Dispensational doctrines (e.g., a future Jewish millennium). These doctrines appear to be Scriptural, but they are arrived at using interpretive principles that are foreign to Scripture.

While the application of “literalism” is a notorious problem, the foundation of “literalism” is even more deeply flawed.

Continuity vs. Discontinuity

With regard to the OT and the NT, no one argues for strict continuity or strict discontinuity. That is, everyone believes in some continuity (e.g., we believe in one God) and some discontinuity (e.g., we no longer offer animal sacrifices). The crux of the problem is determining how much stays the same (continuity) and how much is different (discontinuity).

Dispensationalists interpret the Scriptures through the grid of presumed discontinuity. This is their main hermeneutical presupposition. The NT is radically different from the OT. Unless something is explicitly repeated in the NT, then it must not be valid for today. Such an assumption results in conclusions that affect virtually every area of theology.

One of the most painful memories for Dispensationalists is this unfortunate statement in the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible:

"As a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as the fruit of salvation."

This statement has been rightly rejected by later Dispensationalists, but one has to ask, how could Scofield have even thought that?

The blame should be placed on the hermeneutical grid of presumed discontinuity. Early Dispensationalists were committed to radical discontinuity. They saw discontinuity everywhere. The task of the interpreter was to learn how to "rightly divide the word of God," that is, to separate old from new.

As Dispensationalism developed, there has been a conscious move away from radical discontinuity. Only a Classical Dispensationalist could have argued for radical discontinuity in soteriology. Revised Dispensationalism rejected all such notions.

Yet, Revised Dispensationalists continued to hold to radical discontinuity in other areas, such as different eternal destinies for Israel and for the Church (Israel on earth and the church in heaven). Progressive Dispensationalists have rejected some of these most notorious peculiarities, but they are still operating under the assumption of presumed discontinuity.

As long is there is presumed discontinuity, there will be Dispensationalism. It is likely that there will be another stage of development after Progressive Dispensationalism, which will be another movement towards continuity while stubbornly attempting to hold to presumed discontinuity.

At some point, Dispensationalists should question their commitment to presumed discontinuity. Try the alternative and see if it doesn’t fit the Scriptures better.

A Copernican Revolution (Part Two)

As one moves from Dispensationalism to a Reformed understanding of the Scriptures, one must undergo a paradigm shift. I have compared this to the Copernican revolution, going from a geo-centric view of the universe to a helio-centric view.

Both systems have the same data; they both claim to be basing their theology on the exegesis of the Scriptures. However, there are underlying presuppositions that govern the conclusions that one comes to.

One of the key presuppositions on both sides is that of continuity or discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Dispensationalists presume discontinuity; whereas Reformed Theologians presume continuity.

For example, when it comes to the relationship between Israel and the Church, Dispensationalists presume discontinuity. The argument goes like this: “The Bible never says that the church is Israel; therefore they are different entities with different purposes and different destinies.”

The Reformed Theologian says, “The Bible never says that the church is not Israel, therefore they are the same.”

The Bible neither explicitly affirms or denies that the church is Israel. The difference is that each side assumes contrary positions.

When the Dispensationalist encounters Scriptures that seem to favor continuity, he falls back upon the lack of a plain statement from Scriptures. Therefore, we should presume discontinuity.

When the Reformed Theologian encounters Scriptures that seem to favor discontinuity, he falls back upon the lack of a plain statement from Scriptures. Therefore, we should presume continuity.

The question we must ask is: which presupposition is most consistent with the Scriptures.?

I started out by presuming discontinuity. As I studied the Scriptures, I kept running up against verses that seemed to teach continuity (e.g., Genesis 12, 15, 17; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2-3; Hebrews 8-10). At first, I was able to explain these away, but I would only encounter more continuity verses. It seemed that continuity was jumping out at me from every page of Scripture.

Finally, I had this radical thought: what if I presumed continuity? I tried this out and found it to be a much more satisfactory explanation of the Scriptures. At every turn, I found that continuity fit much more solidly with the Scriptures. I felt like Copernicus when he found that presuming helio-centrism matched the evidence much more closely than geo-centrism.

A Copernican Revolution (Part One)

Leaving Dispensationalism behind was a long process for me. It was not something that happened overnight, nor was it just a matter of tweaking a few theological points. Moving from Dispensationalism to Reformed Theology involved an entire paradigm shift. I have often compared this shift to what it must have been like for Copernicus to change from a geo-centric view of our solar system to a helio-centric view.

Before Copernicus, geo-centrism was the dominant perspective. It seemed to make sense. However, as Copernicus did his calculations, something didn’t add up. He saw the same sun, planets, and stars as the previous astronomers, but he discovered that if the earth was truly the center of our solar system, then the planets should behave differently than they do. The conclusion is that there must be a different center. Copernicus suspected that the sun was the center of our solar system, and his calculations confirmed this. Today, Copernicus is credited with changing astronomy from geo-centrism to helio-centrism, and we call this the Copernican revolution.

I had my own Copernican revolution in my theological journey. When I was first exposed to Dispensational ideas, I would go back to the Scriptures to see if these things were so. A lot of things made sense.

However, as I got deeper into Dispensationalism, I began to notice a verse here and there that did not seem to fit in the Dispensational scheme. This troubled me, so I asked my pastor, but he did not have a satisfactory answer. I thought that seminary would explain things better.

Unfortunately, when I got to seminary, the problems compounded. I was finding entire passages that seemed to conflict with Dispensationalism, both OT and NT. It seemed like everywhere I turned, there was a problem passage. I began to suspect that the problem was not with the Scriptures but with Dispensationalism itself. I was reading the same Bible as the Dispensationalists, but the Scriptures behaved in patterns that defied Dispensationalism.

I thought, what if there is another theological system that made better sense out of the Scriptures? As I investigated Reformed Theology, I found that it comported much better with the Bible. The old problem passages now made perfect sense. Thus, my move to Reformed Theology did not involve a rejection of the Bible, but embracing an alternative explanation for the Bible. Much like Copernicus, I was using the same data as my Dispensational friends, but the data forced me to come to a different conclusion. I'll cover some specific examples next.

Spellbound by the Reformers?

When I ran in Dispensational circles, I was frequently told that those who left Dispensationalism for Reformed Theology did so because they were spellbound by the Reformers. Perhaps you’ve heard something like this:

“People become Reformed because they love Calvin and the Puritans. They have so much respect for these men that they swallow their theology whole. Reformed Theology is uncritically accepted.”

For me, this was certainly not the case. I became Reformed because of the Scriptures. My journey was a thoroughly exegetical one. While in seminary, I read through the entire Bible multiple times. I read selected chapters hundreds of times. I memorized dozens of relevant passages. I studied the Greek and the Hebrew in countless texts. In short, I became Reformed because I was convinced that this is what the Bible taught.

Of course, I came to appreciate the Reformers and the Puritans. I read a few contemporary Reformed books (R.C. Sproul, namely), but I never took anyone’s word for it. I always went back to the Scriptures to check and see if these things were so. This is what dispensationalists had taught me to do.

Furthermore, I have many friends and acquaintances who moved from Dispensationalism to Reformed Theology. None of them embraced Reformed Theology because of being spellbound by the Reformers and Puritans.

I’m not sure how this myth got started, but I suspect that it is often recycled because Dispensationalists cannot fathom that the Bible might teach something different. There must be some other explanation. So, who’s the one that is spellbound?