<< back to articles
Dispensationalism’s Most Egregious Error
I wrote a bit about this a while back, but was reminded of the importance of this yesterday. A friend of mine was preaching since our pastor was out of town, and he spoke on Hebrews 10:11-18. He didn't address Dispensationalism, but this immediately came to mind.
One of the tenets of Dispensational eschatology is that the millennial kingdom will include legitimate temple sacrifices. A simple reading of Hebrews 10, or even just a small portion of it, will show us that this cannot be the case! Such a belief minimizes what Christ has done with his once-for-all sacrifice. How can there remain any more need for sacrifices after the perfect lamb has been sacrificed for us?
Hebrews 10:1-4:For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:11-14: And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
A key point that Steve made in his sermon in relation to this is that we cheapen the sacrifice of Christ every time we think that we need to make up for something we've done before God will forgive us. The very point of Christ's sacrifice is that we can do nothing to atone for our sins, and He has done everything to atone for our sins already. There is nothing we can do—no penance, no self-flagellation—that can add anything to Christ's sacrifice. You can download the sermon file from the Desert Springs sermon archive page.
As an interesting footnote, when I looked up “egregious” to make sure I really had the right word, I discovered that it originated as a word meaning exactly the opposite.
Posted by
fitzage on 07/07 at 01:57 PM •
Featured Theology
Comments
I agree. The main problem with dispensationalism is that it stomps all over God’s grace and indeed the whole of His plan for His people. The Church is not a historical side note.
Since you bring up dispensationalism, I’ll mention what we reviewed in family Bible study last night. John 8:31 ff. Simply, Jesus informs “Jews who had believed Him” that Abraham couldn’t be their father because they were seeking to kill Him, something Abraham would’ve had no part of. It was a little tricky at first because why would Jews who believed Him be trying to kill Him? I think Jesus was talking at first to those who believed and others who hated Him overheard, so the conversation shifted to them all.
Anyway, my point is that Jesus clearly stated that the Jews were not children of Abraham through physical inheritance, but that only those who “do the deeds of Abraham” are Abraham’s spiritual children. The deeds of Abraham would be belief in Jesus, as vs 56. alludes to.
What’s also interesting is that Jesus told these people who were so nationalistic as to reject Christ - these people that mistakenly thought God’s promise was to physical descendants of Abraham - that they do have a father, but it’s not Abraham and it’s not God. It’s the devil. Now, He made this accusation because of the murder they intended in their hearts, but it was their loyalty to this false doctrine that was driving their intentions and is what Jesus was ultimately condemning. He called them “liars” for holding to that doctrine (vs 54-56).
Now I’m not implying anything about modern day dispensationalists that make the exact same theological error, but I think it’s important to note that both Jesus and Paul and whoever wrote Hebrews all taught the complete opposite. At what point is it another Gospel if not the point that drew these kind of accusations from Christ Himself? I’m just sayin’…
Posted by
nathan on 07/07 at 03:08 PM
Wait a minute—there’s really nothing wrong with Dispensationalism, is there? I always thought all good Christians were Dispensationalists.
Just kidding.
And I agree. The whole return-to-sacrifices idea was something that struck me as very wrong, very early on in my departure from Dispensationalism—and largely because of Hebrews 10. Good post.
Posted by
Pitchford on 07/08 at 05:23 PM
Greetings,
Thank you for your post concerning dispensationalism. I have long had difficulty with this theological viewpoint. One observation I have is that Scofield dispensationalism may well be the Judaizing that Paul condemns in Galatians. Ultimately, it is a rejection of Christology with a return back to the Temple sacrificial system in a future kingdom. Why? Isn’t the sacrifice of Christ sufficient for all time? This dualistic soteriology is simply not Biblically supportable.
Posted by on 09/10 at 01:35 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
<< back to articles
