Question
Would you comment on the “historical” argument against dispensationalism, in particular the Acts 9 position?
Response
This is a common argument, but typical as well. And by “typical”, I mean that resorting to it is a typical thing for someone to do when he is trying to defend himself against the fact that his position is not consistent with what the Bible says, (especially about what it says the Gospel accounts and the opening chapters of the book of Acts are all about, and what it says about the apostle Paul’s distinctive apostleship and message). Appealing to the history of one’s position compared to the lack of history of another’s, and giving it weight as one builds his case against another’s position, is a typical tactic employed by someone not operating upon complete honesty of heart when it comes to the handling of God’s word. This may sound like a harsh, if not unjust, thing to say, but I know of which I speak. For I used to employ it myself, being at one time part of a large and history rich denominational system in which it was greatly stressed. So I am quite familiar with the tactic, and know for myself that I was not operating upon complete honesty of heart when I employed it. Moreover, it is a tactic that is employed by the proponents of any number of theological systems and positions, for having a ‘history’ is commonly viewed as something that gives credence and validation to a particular position. Hence, Roman Catholicism employs it; as do the various forms of Covenant theology; as does just about every denomination under the umbrella of ‘mainstream Christianity’; as does the charismatic movement; etc., etc. In fact, sometimes debates between various denominations seem to come down to whose history and lineage is considered the longest and the best attested. So it is not uncommon to encounter the “historical” argument. Many will not only employ it, but many will also resort to it and stand behind it, instead of being completely honest when it comes to their position being challenged and when it comes to handling God’s word in view of the challenge.
When it comes to one’s theological understanding and/or position being challenged, the ‘noble-ness’ spoken about, for example, in Acts 17:11 is what a person should possess and operate upon. And that “noble” mind and attitude that God commends is one that not only says “only the Scriptures”, but it is one that operates upon it in heart and in truth. Unfortunately, there are many who are not as “noble” as they should be. “Only the Scriptures” is in reality a mere saying to them, or a less than truthful and meaningful motto. They do not truly act like those of Berea in their own heart and in truth. Instead of letting the Bible be the absolute, final authority and judge on the matter, (and therefore instead of solely appealing to it and honestly taking up the challenge of examining their position only in the light of God’s word and seeing thereby whether their position is Scripturally sound and consistent), they actually seek to evade and to avoid having to do so by making appeal to something other than the only thing God wants them to appeal to. And, though more likely than not, they would cry foul at being accused of not being “noble”, and they would fervently deny not operating upon complete honesty of heart, the verse and the context of Acts 17 says otherwise and indicts them as such. And once again, for a long time, I was one who was less than “noble” in my handling of the Scriptures and in my response to challenges to the position I took and held. Hence, I know what one does when one is less than “noble”. I also know how easily one can deceive himself into thinking that he is being honest and “noble”, when in truth he is not.
Now I say this to you to underscore that what you have said in your email is not only correct, but it is the issue. And you do not need to apologize for it, back down from it, or shift away from it in any manner or form, or to any degree, because you encounter an opponent who will not consent to it. As you said, “the Bible supersedes history”. And it does. It supersedes anything when it comes to settling the truth of what it itself says either in the whole of its testimony or in some particular part of it. And God has designed it to stand alone as such and to be looked upon as such by ones who handle it, just as Acts 17:11 for example testifies. The Bible is its own self-contained, self-proving, self-justifying, self-verifying, and self-exonerating entity. Being the true and living words of the true and living God that it is, it is all of this and more. As such it needs nothing, nor depends upon anything, outside of itself for the effectual working of what God has designed for it to do. To think otherwise, and/or to appeal to anything otherwise, is characteristic of a mind that is less than “noble” in God’s sight. To think and/or act otherwise may be ‘noble’ in the eyes of others or one’s peers, (like those of one’s denominational brethren or those of one’s scholarly circles), but it is not so in God’s eyes.
So when it comes to dealing with ones who will not accept or operate upon the fact that “the Bible supersedes history”; and that it is your only authority, both absolute and final; and that it is the only judge to whose voice you will listen, give heed, and be persuaded by; do not feel intimidated by them, or feel less than scholarly compared to them. Nor think that you must ‘play their game and by their rules’ in order to deal with them. For you do not need to do so. What you understand about the only, absolute and final authority of God’s word, and the stand you take in accordance with it, is the very stand God wants us to take, and expects us to take. e living words of the living God on the pages of His “word of truth” are the only ‘court of appeal’ to which God wants us to resort and in which He expects us to operate.
So in the context in which we are speaking, when I deal with people, (whether with the unjustified or the justified), I personally reject any appeals they may make to any competing authorities and/or witnesses. And I do so even when some such authority or witness might actually be favorable to my position. In accordance with this, (and in accordance with the fact that the only thing that I want to be persuasive to them is what God Himself says), I beseech them to respond and operate as per the Bereans of Acts 17; i.e. I beseech them to appeal only to the Scriptures, and to engage in nothing less than an honest, open-minded examination of the Scriptures to see whether they could possibly be wrong in their understanding.
This, then, is the kind of response, argument, or answer, that I give to anyone who wants to appeal to something outside of God’s word to either bolster or validate their position, or disprove mine. I take them, for example, to Acts 17:11 and tell them that on the basis of what it says I must dismiss their outside appeal and discount it. For in view of what God says is “more noble”, I know that He expects me to prove and/or validate my own understanding and position on the basis of nothing else than an honest handling of His word and what it says, and therefore I beseech them to do likewise.
Now having said all of this, this does not mean that the “historical” argument against dispensationalism in general, and our Acts 9 understanding and position in particular, is true. Because it is not. Church history is at best a spotty and sketchy thing. That is to say, just because something does not find itself being recorded on the pages of the work of some writer of church history does not mean that it either did not exist, or is not true, etc. No church history, or church historian, knows everything that has occurred, or has been believed and stood for by every saint or group of saints throughout this dispensation. Church histories are by nature greatly limited by the knowledge of the writer. Some record things that are only according to the bias of their purpose, while others record other things according to the same individual bias. And this is only natural. Moreover, a cursory reading of church histories written by various authors not only shows this, but also shows how much one writer can leave out compared to another, or what one writer can focus upon that another does not even mention; along with how differently one author can interpret the reason for some event or occurrence from that of another, etc. And of course, a person reading a church history is also naturally going to have an allegiance to, and give great weight to, a church history written by one who holds the same denominational ties as he does. All of this, and more, only goes to show the inherent weaknesses and dangers that there are in appealing to ‘church history’ as an authority.
Though this is so, as I said there are church histories written by ones who make mention of, and write about, saints who down through this present dispensation of God’s grace have recognized Paul’s distinctive apostleship and message; have “rightly divided the word of truth” accordingly; and have not only taken a stand for it but have suffered for it. For example, centuries before Darby a number of the saints of northern Italy were persecuted by Rome as heretics and adversaries of God because they not only did not submit to the Pope as the vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, but because they acknowledged Paul’s apostleship to them and devoted themselves to the study of his epistles. They would not have gone by the designation ‘dispensationalist,’ because this is an English word. But what they believed about God’s word and how they handled it was not only true to what ‘dispensationalism’ is, but it was dispensationalism that recognized Paul’s distinctive apostleship and message.
Once again, even though the “historical” argument can be shown to be untrue, I operate as I have said above and do not even bother with disproving it. For making sure that someone submits to God’s word as their only, final and absolute authority, not only makes it so that they cannot resort to and/or operate on the often biased and spotty testimony of church history/historians, but it also makes it so that they cannot operate on, or call upon, any other competing authority. God’s word then becomes their only authority, whether they like it or not, which forces them to be subject unto its power, with no place to hide from its effectual working. And this not only is the way that it should be, but it is the way that it must be, if a person is going to benefit from the effectual working of God’s word and come to the knowledge of the truth. I hope this is of some help.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
20030921 A48 DG B