A Third Problem Interpretationally with Hyper-Dispensationalism
Sermon on the Mount
Hyper-dispensationalism brings extremes in discontinuity between the Old and the New Testament. Two dangers of the extreme discontinuity are, one, two salvation plans, a different one for the Old Testament than the one in the New Testament, and, two, antinomianism, a version of cheap grace or license. A third obvious problem — one I didn’t call a danger, but it could be — is messing up the interpretation of the New Testament.
Within this third problem are those who see the ethical demands of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) not as instructions for the current Church age, but as the legal code for the future literal kingdom of Israel on earth. Proponents argue that the “Body of Christ” is under grace, whereas the Sermon on the Mount includes “legalistic” requirements, such as the necessity of forgiving others to be forgiven by God. Again, C. I. Scofield pushed this idea, an example with the following quote from his notes:
The Sermon on the Mount is the law of the Kingdom. . . . It has no more application to the Christian than the law of Moses has. We are not under law, but under grace.
Old Testament Until Paul’s Writings
Some hyper-dispensationalists also claim that the “Old Testament era” or the “Jewish Age” did not end at the Cross or Pentecost (Acts 2), but continued until Paul received his specific revelation of the “Mystery.” They argue that the early chapters of Acts are merely an extension of the Old Testament “Kingdom” offer. They believe Peter and the Twelve were preaching “The Gospel of the Kingdom” to Jews only, while Paul later preached “The Gospel of the Grace of God” to the Body of Christ. Charles F. Baker writes in A Dispensational Theology:
The Church which is His Body did not begin at Pentecost, but later. . . . Peter and the eleven were still under the old economy, offering the Kingdom to Israel.
Water Baptism Old Testament?
These hyper-dispensationalists will interpret water baptism as an Old Testament ceremonial washing, so that true New Testament baptism is in fact Spirit baptism only and not water baptism. Baker again writes:
John’s baptism was for the ‘remission of sins’ to a nation that had broken the Covenant. It was a ritual cleansing, much like the washings of the priests in the Old Testament, to prepare a ‘kingdom of priests’ for their Messiah.
Among those who agree with Baker and others about Spirit baptism, Cornelius R. Stam writes in Things That Differ:
If there is only ‘one baptism’ today (Eph. 4:5), and if that one baptism is the Spirit’s work of joining us to Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), then water baptism can no longer be a requirement or even a ceremony for the Church. To practice water baptism today is to practice a ‘second’ baptism, which contradicts the unity of the Spirit.
Even a Different Gospel
Some of these hyper-dispensationalists have said that like Moses preached a different gospel than Paul, Peter also preached a different gospel than Paul: Peter a gospel of circumcision and Paul one of uncircumcision. J. C. O’ Hair in The Bible Study for Bereans writes:
Peter preached the gospel of the circumcision to the Jews (Galatians 2:7). This gospel included the ritual of baptism for the remission of sins. Paul was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, where ritual has no place.
Mark G. Trotter and His The Keys of Bible Study
Another example of hyper-dispensationalism teaching is the influential Mark G. Trotter in his The Keys of Bible Study. Trotter teaches that the four Gospels are primarily a record of Jesus’ ministry to the nation of Israel under the Law. He places the Sermon on the Mount in the context of the literal, earthly Millennial Kingdom rather than the current Church Age. He argues that because the Sermon on the Mount contains “legal” requirements for righteousness, it cannot be the primary instruction for the Body of Christ, which is saved by grace without works.
Kingdom of Heaven Versus Kingdom of God?
In the tradition of C.I. Scofield and popularized by teachers like Mark G. Trotter in The Keys of Bible Study, a sharp distinction is made between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. Though these are synonymous, hyper-dispensationalists view them as two distinct (though overlapping) spheres of authority. For Trotter, the “Kingdom of Heaven” is specifically the Messianic, Davidic, and earthly kingdom promised to Israel. It is “of heaven” because its origin and authority are celestial, but its location is the earth.
On the other hand, the “Kingdom of God” is viewed by Trotter especially and then other hyper-dispensationalists as a much broader, universal sphere that encompasses all created beings (angels and men) who are in willing subjection to God. It’s scope is universal and eternal, which includes the Church, the angels, and the Old Testament saints. In nature, it is primarily spiritual and invisible in the current age.
Another Gospel Distinction
Trotter and others argue that while you must be “born again” to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3), the Kingdom of Heaven can be entered by anyone living on earth during the Millennium, regardless of their spiritual state though they must obey the Law of the King. Trotter’s and other’s distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, they say, is the “key” they use to explain why Jesus’ parables in Matthew, like the wheat and the tares, include both saved and unsaved people.
What hyper-dispensationalists say is their “Tares” logic declares that because the Kingdom of Heaven is a physical, earthly realm, it can contain “professors” who are not truly saved (the tares). Then their “Body” logic says that the Kingdom of God, and specifically the Body of Christ, only contains those who have been placed there by the Spirit. Trotter argues that if you confuse these two, you will mistakenly try to apply the “Kingdom of Heaven” rules, like the Sermon on the Mount, to the “Kingdom of God,” the Church, leading to legalism.
Scofield and Trotter do not agree in their systems of interpretation. Scofield far more reflects historical premillennialism and a grammatical-historical interpretation with a few crucial extremes in discontinuity. Trotter actually takes Scofield to an extreme. Trotter comes at the end of a line of a few published teachers that didn’t arise until the late 19th century: J. C. O’Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, Charles F. Baker, and E. W. Bullinger. Proponents and others call it “Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.” It is brand new as an interpretational system and theology.
Changes in Understanding Sanctification with Chafer
In order to emphasize the distinction between works and grace in sanctification, bad error and sometimes just severe confusion came through the writings of Chafer and others. With dispensationalism distinguishing the New Testament age from the Old Testament one, this led to divide “spirit-led” living from “rule-based” living, which appealed to those seeking a more emotional or immediate connection to the divine. This teaching suggests that holiness is not achieved through “trying” (effort) but through “trusting” (surrender). This “let go and let God” approach became the hallmark of 20th-century revivalism.
Chafer fit 1 Corinthians 3 into the discontinuity of his dispensationalism, which led to a rigid categorization of believers into three groups: the natural (unconverted), the carnal (converted but living under the power of the flesh), and the spiritual (converted and filled with the Spirit). This created a two-tier Christian experience. It suggested that a believer could be “in Christ” but completely lack the “Spirit-filled” life until a subsequent crisis or act of surrender occurred. This distinction is the engine of revivalism.
If a large portion of the church is classified as “carnal,” the goal of the revivalist is to move them into the “spiritual” category through a definitive, post-conversion experience. Dispensationalists like Chafer taught that the “baptism” of the Spirit happens once at conversion, but the “filling” of the Spirit is a repeatable, experiential event. Chafer taught that while all believers have the Spirit, not all are filled with the Spirit. This provided a theological slot for the second blessing. It framed the Christian life not as a gradual growth in grace, but as a series of crises where one “surrenders” or “yields” to the Spirit to move from a state of defeat to a state of victory.
Dovetailing with Charismaticism
Charismatics as dispensationalists accentuate discontinuity of Chafer and others with an entire new era of the Holy Spirit distinct from the rest of the history of the church since Christ. This to them is a new era of spirituality, a period of an outpouring of the Spirit, what they call a fulfillment of the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23-27. The structural logic of Chafer’s “Second Act” theology provided the blueprint for the Charismatic revolution. Proponents argued that we had entered a “Latter Rain” period — a final mini-dispensation before the return of Christ where the supernatural power of the early church was being restored.
Variations of Chafer’s second blessing with spiritual haves and have-nots exist across denominational and theological lines now. It opened the door for either full continuationism of the sign gifts or a softer version of outward authentication of spiritual power. Sanctification as a part of Christian living became more dependent on produced outward experiences in line with the revivalism of Chafer’s and Finney’s era of the middle of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. This led to evangelical, Baptist, fundamentalist, and other iterations like the Jesus Movement and the rise of the Calvary Chapel.
Forms of hyper-dispensationalism brought with them various perversions of true spirituality and worship. They changed the true biblical understanding to one easily manufactured and marketed to unsuspecting consumers. Scriptural Christianity morphed and changed into something different, more sentimental and much easier to manipulate, replacing a historical Jesus with one more compliant and complicit with the spirit of the age. The elevation of emotion and human experience allows for easier ecumenical false unity and lack of doctrinal precision.