A Study of Dispensationalism
by Arthur Pink

"But there is further reason, and a pressing one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism. This is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation."

Nat Carswell

This letter was part of a discussion of the Federal Marriage Amendment between the author and a friend.

Joseph,

I feel like a man stuck in quick sand. No matter that I want very much to extricate myself, I am being drawn ever deeper into a place where I will no longer be able to breathe and I will, after much agony finally expire (oh the darkness, the darkness)! You are making this entirely too complex (which is what most statists-even, or especially, the well meaning Christian variety) do.

I do not disagree with your desire to see Godly laws within the culture-the civil magistrate is given for this purpose. The problem is that you and Bill, Hillary and W (bet that got a rise) all think that somehow good laws will save us and change our culture (you don’t actually believe this cognitively, but you do on some practical level). When I protest "No! Law never changed anything in wicked men-except to heighten rebellion", you all, in unison, shout "Well, people like you all would have us be libertarians or Auburn fans or worse." You want the state to mandate the terms and conditions under which two people may enter into a uniquely Christian covenant. Yet I'd better not try to register your guns. (Of course you are dealing with someone who gets bent out of shape at weddings when the minister says "now, by the power vested in me by the Commonwealth of Kentucky....I suppose everyone cries at weddings for different reasons).

Good laws will not protect our children from sexual (or other) predators any more than gun registration will keep guns out of the hands of criminals (why is this so difficult).

My complaint is not that you wish to see a Federal Marriage Amendment passed, but that you think that it will somehow change our culture or protect our children. You have already given up on our culture. You as much as say so earlier. You indicate that our country was never intended to be Christian in the first place. Fine. I'll give you that (I disagree but I see no point in debating it in this discussion). So we go ahead and pass secular laws for secular men and we get rebellion to which we answer with more laws. You have no foundation-either philosophical or moral upon which to stand yet you seem to very earnestly desire a godly culture. Joseph, you are a MENTAC (Modern Evangelical New Testament American Christian-like the guy in that great reformed TV show the Simpsons-Ned Flanders). You want a human culture within which the Christian can freely function-this will not be tolerated either by the secularists or your buddies and close allies the Islamists (who, by the way are about as monogamous as your other buddy, Bill Clinton).

God’s people are to desire Christendom. Christendom is not a short term solution-it is built one generation at a time-I commend you on the loveliness of your children and I look forward to meeting their great, great grandchildren. Christendom may operate within an ungodly culture but it will operate without compromise in order that Deuteronomy 4:5-8 might come to pass. America, depending on which poll you read, is peopled by a majority of Christians. There is a huge pile of salt here. The problem is not too little salt but too little savor. I engaged you a couple of weeks ago on the following point and I will end with it:

"Passing laws will not save you, me, our families or our nation." The purpose of law is not ultimately to make folks do right (although the restraint of evil is always in view) but to show God's people how to live-as they live that way, they will be salt and light (law always follows grace, not vice versa). And this is why two things are necessary for our testimony. We must declare in the public square that marriage consists of one man and one woman, and we must do so in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, amen. Anyone (Christian, secularist or Islamist-BTW where do you put the very moral Mormons in this mix) who agrees with the first part, but demurs at the second, is not an ally or co-belligerent. He is part of the problem¹. The sooner you and Marvin Olasky (whom I greatly admire as I also do you) come to grips with this the better. I do not want to hold hands with Abdul, Akbar and John Kerry and sing Kum Bah Yah-I do not think that this is what Jesus had in mind either. If they want to acknowledge one man for one woman, no civil unions, the outlawing of adultery and fornication, sodomy, etc. because The Soverign God of the Universe (aka Yahweh) has so ordained, then fine. They can (and should) compromise (bend the knee to Yahweh) for the furtherance of their views. Why should I compromise God's?

Have a great vacation. The horse has mercifully expired, I shall no longer beat it.

In Christ,

Nat

¹Adapted from “Part of the Problem”, Blog & Mablog (http://www.dougwils.com/), Douglas Wilson; 2 July 2004