How Dispensationalism Misunderstands Law & Gospel

Justin, I say this and I cringe when I say it, but I just feel like it's the best way to describe

dispensationalism in my experience, and even still modern -day dispensationalism, is that the overarching story

is really broken up into two.

We would say the Bible is Christocentric, it's about Jesus, but it feels like,

in the dispensational world, the Old Testament is Israel -centric.

It's about Israel, and then Israel fails, and then it's kind of like Jesus' plan B

in the second part.

And I know that's a really bold statement, but there's a concept that Paul and Peter use often called the mystery of Christ,

that what was hidden in the old is now revealed in the new.

The mystery of the fulfillment of Christ is that Christ came and fulfills all of the covenant, all of the promises

of the Old Testament, have their yes and amen in Christ, and that Israel was always a

vehicle to bring us to the Messiah and the true Israel, which is Jesus and the church.

Jesus as the point of it all, the one plan of God from before the foundations of the world to save a people through the work of God

the Son, that the people would receive by faith.

That overarching point, from our perspective as covenantal theologians, is the thing that

drives all of the Bible, and we're gonna preach every text in light of it, and what does that do?

It makes it very clear, whether we're looking in the Old Testament or the new, that Christ is supreme,

so we're not gonna obscure his supremacy by confusing people potentially with the reinstitution of the temple or the

sacrificial system.

Okay, well, how does that not, was Christ sufficient?

Was what he did enough?

Our dispensational friends will say, absolutely, he was enough.

This is not about diminishing the work of Christ, but we would say, ah, but friend, does it not obscure the

sufficiency of Christ, right?

And it does, and so we unashamedly will say that Christ is always enough.

One of the things that I think dispensationalism misses that I think covenant theology and a law gospel distinction get

correct is that in the Old Testament, there is gospel, and in the New Testament, there is law.

In the Old Testament, under a dispensational framework, it's just law.

There is no gospel.

Then in the new, according to a dispensational framework, there's no law anymore, it's just grace.

That confuses people because in the Old Testament, you have law and gospel, and in the New Testament, you have

law and gospel.

What I think we're able to do is go to any passage of scripture, old or new, as covenantal law gospel guys, and we're able to

look at this and say, okay, well, what is God revealing here?

Is he revealing his standard for righteousness?

Is he revealing what he requires of us?

Is he revealing even his own holy character to us?

Because if those things are going on, those are messages of law.

Law's good, but those are law nonetheless.

Or is God telling us, is he making promises about what he will do?

Is he making promises about how he will save?

Is he reminding us of his steadfast love that transcends and is greater than our sin?

Is he telling us of what the Messiah will accomplish in the place of his people?

Because if he's telling us those things, that's gospel.

Doesn't matter where you read it.

Doesn't matter what page of your Bible you find it on.

Those are words of good news.

And so we wanna keep those things appropriately distinct and clear in our minds, and we're gonna be able to better handle the

scriptures and help people understand them.

Which it's not a mystery, John, as to the fact that like easy believism and legitimate antinomianism, I'm thinking like Zane

Hodges and others, where does that come from?

It comes from a dispensational seminary.

It does come from dispensationalism, which is what lordship is trying to fight.

And the kind of theologians are saying, lordship isn't the solution through uses of the law.

And law and gospel is the antidote.

And covenant of works and grace is the antidote.

Exactly.

That's right.

You know, it's not just the dispensational world where it's a law kind of preaching.

There are many people, evangelicals, who would not understand themselves to be dispensational at all.

They would understand themselves to be new covenant theologians or progressive covenantal theologians.

But here's the issue.

They also collapse the categories of law and gospel, which is really what does the

damage.

Because on the one hand, we'll say that Jesus is the savior and he's sufficient.

He was always the plan.

But then you'll take the words of law and the words of gospel and confuse those categories and collapse them, which is

where all of this erosion of assurance and all of the kind of edgy threatening stuff really does come from.

And so this is not a singling out dispensationalists.

Christ in all of scripture, we think that covenant theology makes that really plain.

The law and gospel distinction, we think covenant theology makes that really plain.

And lastly, the active obedience of Christ and how exactly, not only he died for our sins, but how he is

our righteousness.

He is our merit.

We would understand that covenant theology gets that right as well.

And dispensationalism, at least historically, has not affirmed those things.

My brothers, I don't want you to be covenantal.

I just want you to understand the power of preaching Christ in all of scripture.

Amen, dude. Man alive.