I'll admit that I am not up to date with a lot of what is going on in the Protestant world since starting on my journey to Orthodoxy some 14 years ago. It leaves me to wonder what old heresy they'll rehash and try to pass off as new knowledge. And that leads us to this image that I found on Facebook...
My first thought is that it was a rehashing of the Paulician heresy, but it seems to be based more in Dispensationalism than Paulicianism.
I asked the Original Poster of the image to the group where this even came from, and well, I wasn't too surprised to learn that such is being taught in certain Southern Baptist seminaries these days.
The main issue that I have with Dispensationalism is that it appeared only in the 19th century, and it did not come from the Church.
"Dispensationalism is a popular and widespread way of reading the Bible. It originated in the nineteenth century in the teaching of John Nelson Darby and was popularized in the United States through the Bible Conference movement. Its growth was spurred on even more through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in 1909. Scofield’s Bible contributed to the spread of dispensationalism because it included study notes written from a distinctively dispensationalist perspective. The founding of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer provided an academic institution for the training of pastors and missionaries in the dispensationalist tradition. Some of the most notable dispensationalist authors of the twentieth century, including John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost, taught at Dallas Seminary.
Dispensationalist theology is perhaps best known for its distinctive eschatological doctrines, particularly the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. According to this doctrine, this present church age will be followed by a seven-year period of tribulation. Before the tribulation begins (thus “pre-tribulation”), the church will be caught up to heaven where believers will be with Christ until the second coming, which occurs at the end of the tribulation. At that time, they will return with Christ, who will then inaugurate His millennial kingdom (dispensationalists are thus also premillennialists)." Ligonier.org
I've written before about Why I Don't Believe in the Rapture, so please excuse me if I don't go through all of that again and just leave the above quote about Dispensationalism.
I had to do a little bit of searching, because again, this isn't something that I was familiar with in the Protestant circles I ran in back in the day. I have a little more evidence that shows this leans more to Dispensationalism that Paulicianism.
First, from the Wikipedia article about Paulicianism's Christology,
Paulicians may have held several unorthodox beliefs about Jesus, including nontrinitarianism (the belief that Jesus was not coeternal, coequal and indivisibly united in one being with God the Father and the Holy Spirit) and docetism (the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion). Nontrinitarian beliefs were held by Arian Christians and many early Christian sects such as the Adoptionists. The identification with nontrinitarianism sometimes led the Paulicians to be labeled as Arians by critics[31] and Adoptionists by scholars.[3][9] Source
What I have seen is that what is related to the picture above is that these particular Protestants are still Trinitarian, they're theology is just weird.
Second, from the Wikipedia article about Paulicianism's views of Scripture,
The Paulicians were said to have used a different canon of sacred texts from the orthodox Christian bible. Byzantine scholars claimed that the sect accepted the four Gospels (especially of Luke);[4] fourteen Epistles of Paul; the three Epistles of John; the epistles of James and Jude; and an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they professed to have. On the Byzantine account, the Paulicians rejected the First Epistle of Peter and the whole Tanakh,[4] also known as the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament.Source
These Protestants seem to hold to the typical Evangelical canon of the Bible, whereas the Paulicians rejected some of the New Testament and all of the Old Testament. But, even though these Protestants (I don't know what to call them because they seem to encompass various denominations) accept the Evangelical canon, they don't seem to think that the whole Bible applies right now to all of us, because it is not the proper "dispensation" for those books.
οἰκονομία is the word that this graphic has translated as "dispensation". The KJV uses "stewardship" in some spots, and "dispensation" in others. Strong's Concordance says it is "stewardship, managment". Any of my fellow Orthodox readers who are familiar with Greek might notice that we would call this "economia". Economia in the Orthodox Church covers a wide range of things.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, in Eastern and Latin Catholic churches,[1] and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those communions, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οἰκονομία, oikonomia) has several meanings.[2] The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or "disposition" or "management" of a thing, or more literally "housekeeping", usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand. In short, economia is a discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. This is in contrast to legalism, or akribia (Greek: ακριβεια), which is strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church. SourceIt seems clear that what these Protestants are doing is saying, "See, here in my bible is the word 'dispensation' so that proves what I'm saying! There are different dispensational periods in the church!"
But what is clear is that Protestants have once again forgotten that the Bible was not written in English.
These arguments always fall apart once someone looks at what the Bible actually says, and then looks to the history of what the Church has taught through the ages. A good rule of thumb is that if it just appeared fairly recently then it probably is not a teaching that is biblically based.
If we look at the doctrine of baptism, since Faith + Works isn't needed during this dispensation then we should see a clear teaching that baptism is not needed in the writings of St. Paul.
Yet, if we look at the Epistle to the Galatians 3:26-27,
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
St. Cyprian of Carthage, writing about AD 258, says this,
One who, having laid bare his sins, has been sanctified by baptism and spiritually transformed into a new man has been made ready to receive the Holy Spirit. The apostle says that all you who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. (Source)
And,
For as the Apostle Paul says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ". Name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.". Moreover, what is the meaning of that which Stephen would assert, that the presence and holiness of Christ is with those who are baptized among heretics? For if the apostle does not speak falsely when he says, "As many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Source)
St. John Chrysostom, writing in the 5th Century AD says,
Why does he not say, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have been born of God? for this was what directly went to prove that they were sons—because he states it in a much more awful point of view; If Christ be the Son of God, and you have put on Him, thou who hast the Son within you, and art fashioned after His pattern, hast been brought into one kindred and nature with Him. (Source)
And,
Since he has said something great and remarkable, he also explains how one is made a son. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Why didn’t he say, “All you who were baptized into Christ have been born of God,” since that is the inference from showing that they were sons? Because what he says is more aweinspiring. For if Christ is the Son of God and you put him on, having the Son inside yourself and being made like him, you have been made one in kind and form. (Source)
I added two Church Fathers from different centuries to show an ongoing consensus. They don't just parrot what St. Paul says, they expound upon it. In order for us to be sons of God we have to put on Christ. To put on Christ we must be baptized.
In chapter 19 of Acts, St. Paul baptizes a few men,
1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
I point this out for two reasons,
Hyperdispensationalists are not monolithic nor homogenous. There are two main positions: Acts 9 and Acts 13. Both see the dispensation of Grace, which is the church age, as beginning with the Apostle Paul. (Wikipedia - Hyperdispensationalists)
And,
Hyperdispensationalists reject water baptism[5][6] (along with charismatic gifts, prophets, and apostles), which divides them from mainstream dispensationalists, who are often Baptists, like W. A. Criswell,[7] or in earlier times Presbyterians[8][9] like James H. Brookes. Instead, they believe in baptism made without hands and without water, by the Spirit, which occurs when one believes in Christ as their Savior whereby one is identified with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.[10] While hyperdispensationalists reject water baptism like ultradispensationalists, they still practice the Lord's Supper as a memorial and not as an ordinance, whereas ultradispensationalists reject both the Lord's Supper and water baptism.(ibid)
We see that these "Mid-Acts" Dispensationalists hold to either two views, that the Church Age started with St. Paul in either Acts 9 (when St. Paul converted) or Acts 13 (St. Paul's first missionary journey). Acts 19 happens after both of those chapters, and it shows St. Paul baptizing these men, with his hands, even. We see throughout the Bible that the Holy Spirit comes to a person when they have had hands laid on them - not by just believing. We see this, especially in Acts 8:14-19.
This is important, because we see this happen in Acts 8 - before either Acts 9 or Acts 13 - and then it happens again in Acts 19, this shows a continuity. We also see this happening in the Old Testament; Deuteronomy 34:9
And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.And we see this not only in the Old Testament, but in other writings of St. Paul in 1 Timothy 4:14,
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.And in 2 Timothy 1:6,
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.This shows that the practice is one that has been passed down and continues on into the "Gentile only church".
This also shows us that at the very least, a baptism is needed for salvation, which would be a work. Even just having belief is a work, because you have to do something for salvation, and that is having faith. Having faith is in and of itself a work, which is why faith without works, as St. James tells us in his epistle, is dead.
It is also rather telling that the only place the phrase "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible is left out of this supposed dispensation. The Epistle of St. James 2:24 is the only place that phrase is mentioned, and even then it depends on your translation. From the KJV,
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
St. James is telling us that men are justified by works and NOT by faith alone. This one verse absolutely destroys Sola Fide, so it makes sense why Martin Luther wanted to do away with this epistle and why these hyperdispensationalists are also trying to do away with St. James.
St. Bede says this about this verse,
The works mentioned here are works of faith. No one can have perfect works unless he has faith, but many have perfect faith without works, since they do not always have time to do them. (Source)And St. Theophylact of Ohrid says,
The works of which James speaks are not those of the law but those of righteousness and the other virtues.(Source)
So we see that these are not works of the law, but works of faith. A work of faith would be getting baptized and having the laying on of hands fill you with the Holy Spirit. A work of the law would be not wearing mixed material clothing.
But the largest argument against the hyperdispensationalist is that some of St. Paul's epitsles were among the first books of the New Testament to be written (the Epistle of St. James seems to have been the first). The three synoptic Gospels weren't written until about a decade or two after St. Paul wrote his first epistle if one takes the conservative view. The Gospel of St. John was not written until either AD 64 or AD 96 (I believe it was AD 96, myself).
Why is that important? Well, why would Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be writing to Israel so well into the "Church Age"? If St. Paul was writing to us and for us, and either his conversion started the Church Age or his first missionary journey, then why would the Gospels - all written after such - not also be for the Church Age? Why would these authors of the four Gospels be writing to Israel in the Church Age?
Not only that, but the historical record also does not support this "St. Paul is our Apostle" stuff. We have the didache, which dates from the first century AD and references the Gospel of Matthew. This is a cetechism. Let me say that again, the Didache is a catechism. This means that we have the earliest catechism of the Church that has strong parallels to the Gospel of St. Matthew. That alone puts a lie to the Gospels being written for Israel and not for us Gentiles.
So, hyperdispensationalism - which is closer to Paulinicism that I first thought - fails on the grounds that it is not supported by their own preferred scriptures. It is not supported by the Bible at all. And it is not supported by the historical record.
Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment