A.W. Pink

Dr. Couch, what do you think of A.W. Pink? I understand he was a dispensationalist early on but became a full-blown covenant guy later. ANSWER:  Pink went early to Moody Bible Institute but thought he knew so much that he left after one semester. He was a know-it-all who rubbed people the wrong way. He could never get a lasting pastorate and ended up rejected by almost everyone. I read his biography and find that he just thought too much of himself. At the last of his life he became very isolated. He did some good spiritual work in a little paper he published but it was unfortunate that no one could tell him anything. In some ways I feel sorry for him. God used him but he cut his own ties with people he could have greatly inspired.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (9/10)

Egypt and Assyria Blessed by Israel

Dr. Couch, it looks as if Egypt and Assyria are blessed by Israel in the kingdom. Is this correct? ANSWER:  Yes, indeed! Isaiah 19:16-25 tells us that Israel will become a terror to Egypt, and that would only be in the messianic Kingdom. The Egyptians will shrink like women (v. 16), because of the purpose of the Lord against them. Five Egyptian cities will be speaking Hebrew (the Canaan language) and will swear allegiance "to the Lord of Hosts" (v. 17). The Egyptians will build an altar to the Lord in Egypt "and a pillar to the Lord near its border" (v. 19).    The Lord will make Himself known to the Egyptians and they will even make sacrifice and worship God, "and will make a vow to the Lord and perform it" (v. 21). The Lord will heal the Egyptians and He will respond to them and will heal them (v. 22). And, "In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria" (v. 23). Finally, the Lord will say: "Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands and Israel My inheritance" (v. 25).    This has never happened before so we are waiting for it to take place, and that would only be during the time of the Kingdom reign of Christ! The Lord will also judge the people of present day Jordan but then, He will bless them and they will know Him—again, at the time of the Kingdom. Only dispensationalists can spot the timing of this event, and that would be the one thousand year reign of the Messiah! We sometimes forget that many peoples of earth will come to the Lord at that time. The Kingdom will be a great moment of conversion for many Gentile nations. It will be a blessed time in world history.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Mar., 10)

God's Master Plan

Dr. Couch, the covenant theologians say that God's master plan is about salvation almost exclusively. Whereas dispensationalists see many issues in the Scriptures are honored with glory, not simply salvation. Is this right? ANSWER:  It is true that God's work in salvation, and in the Church, does indeed bring Him glory. But all of history has many conclusions that give Him honor, along with the issue of salvation. Dispensationalists can point to many, many things whereby God will be glorified, even more than the issue of salvation.    Charles Ryrie points out in his book Dispensationalism, that the founder of covenant theology, Cocceius, "makes the three covenants of this system, the basis, and background, and substance of all God's dealings with man for his redemption." In other words, redemption, and salvation, is the main, if not the exclusive, work of God in history. While salvation is certainly important, God's plan has more to it whereby He receives glory! Below is a list:    The Law given by Moses "came with glory" (2 Cor. 3:7).    Moses' face shown with glory when he descended from the mountain (2 Cor. 3:7b).    The gospel itself gives the light of "the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4).    The grace of the gospel causes the "giving of thanks to abound to God's glory (v. 15).     Paul's tribulations bring to the believer glory (Eph. 3:13).     Because of the Church, Christ receives glory (v. 21).     The Father receives glory (Phil. 4:20).     We all with appear with Christ in glory (Col. 1:27; 3:4).     Moses received glory (Heb. 3:3).     Christ will receive glory in His future appearing (1 Pet. 1:7).     In the tribulation period, the angelic beings will receive glory (Rev. 4:9).     God as Creator will receive glory (v. 11).     Because of His messianic, Kingly position, with power and riches, Christ will receive glory (Rev. 5:12, 13; 7:12; 11:13; 14:7).     The rulers entering the new earth will bring in their glory (Rev. 21:24).     The word of God is glorious (Acts 13:48).     After Babylon the Harlot is destroyed God receives glory (Rev. 18:1).     Because of God's power and wrath in the tribulation, the heavenly temple is filled  with smoke "from the glory of God" (15:5-8).    God's plan of history brings Him glory, even above the issue of human salvation!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Oct., 09)

"Mystery" by Amillennialists

Dr. Couch, I really appreciate your work in the biblical languages. Few Bible teachers online today, are doing language studies. Thank you for your insights. Also, on the word "mystery." Many Amillennialists seem to be confused on the word. Did some of the old Amil writers and theologians get it straight? ANSWER:  Yes, they did. In my Hermeneutic textbook I have a whole chapter on the dispensations of Charles Hodge. He lists the dispensations almost in the same fashion as dispensationalists do today except he leaves out the dispensation of the Kingdom reign of Christ. Paul's point in Ephesians 3 is that the church was not revealed by any means or in any form in the OT. In his commentary on Ephesians, Hodge says what present-day dispensationalists do about the word "mystery." Present-day allegorists would be shocked to know what he writes.    He says on Ephesians 3: "The thing made known by Paul was a 'mystery'; i.e. a secret, something undiscoverable by human reason, the knowledge of which could only be attained by revelation. … The mystery of which he here speaks is that of which the preceding chapters (in Ephesians) treat, viz. the union of the Gentiles with the Jews. … The mystery made known to the apostles and prophets of the new dispensation (the church dispensation), that the Gentiles are, in point of right and fact, fellow-heirs of the same body, and partakers of this promise. … It seems never to have entered into any human mind until the day of Pentecost, that the theocracy itself was to be abolished, and a new form of 'religion' was to be introduced, designed and adapted equally for all mankind, under which the distinction between Jew and Gentile was to be done away with. … Neither is the Gentile in the church by courtesy of the Jews, nor the Jew by courtesy of the Gentiles. They are one body."    With these thoughts Hodge says what dispensationalists do today!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

How Can Amils Ignore Jeremiah 33?

Dr. Couch, though I am a dispensationalist I attend a yearly amillennial conference at which the teachers discuss all kinds of subjects. I was asked, "Are the amils you know anti-Semitic?" My answer is, Yes! And that is, by their silence. They have nothing to say about Israel or the return of the Jews to the land. By their comments, or lack there of, you would not know that there is a restored Jewish nation in the Middle East. How can they ignore such great passages as Jeremiah 33?

ANSWER: My only answer is what you have already hinted at. Deep in the soul of many amillennialists there are shades of anti-Semitism. They do not like the Jews, and, they want to make the church the cat's meow! They do not see another program of God, beyond the church age, as so clearly set forth in the Word of God. They allegorize or spiritualize the great prophetic passages of the Bible. They take Christ's first coming as literal but they take His second coming in an allegorical sense. Some, such as R. C. Sproul, are partial preterists. They believe Christ returned spiritually in 70 AD but they also hold to some kind of literal return for judgment later. They refuse to accept the plain teaching about an apostasy of the church, a rapture of the church, a seven year tribulation period, and the earthly millennial reign of Christ.

Jeremiah 33 makes it absolutely clear that God's promises of a literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant is to take place. God will restore the fortunes of both Jewish nations, Israel and Judah. "I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and I will rebuild them as they were at the first" (v. 7). How could any promise be more clear, literal, and obvious, by using a normal hermeneutic? One has to have a preconception to deny what this verse is saying. Ellicott foolishly says this return has to do with the restoration of the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, but this cannot be.

God makes it certain that this return happens "In those days …," a future time when He places the Messiah, the Branch of David on the throne in Jerusalem. "In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth" (v. 15). And, "In those days Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the Lord is our righteousness" (v. 16).

The Lord's covenant with day and night, "their appointed time," confirms the literalness of these promises. Since there will be a literal day and night, there will be a literal fulfillment of the covenant with David concerning the literal reign of his Son on the Davidic throne. "Then My covenant may also be broken (if one can get rid of day and night) with David My servant that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers" (v. 21).
Verse 24 is extremely important to this discussion. It reads: "Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, 'The two families (Israel and Judah) which the Lord chose, He has rejected them'? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight."

Unger points out that "this people" are the Jews who deny the literal fulfillment of God restoring both families (Israel and Judah) to the status of one new nation in the Kingdom! This is what the amil doubters do today! This is a strong statement but I believe that in the area of eschatology the amils are spiritually blinded so that they deny the Lord's actual return and His literal reign on earth! Unger says:

On verses 23-24. The Lord dramatically asked the prophet if he had not observed what this people (with a ring of disapproval) had said. They also (like many Christians today) denied a future for Israel. The two families (Israel and Judah), which the Lord hath chosen (v. 26; Isa. 7:17; 11:13; Ezek. 37:22), he hath … cast them off. The Lord branded that as despising Israel as his people (Neh. 4:2-4; Esther 3:6-8; Psalms 44:13-14; 83:4; Ezek. 36:2), actually a subtle form of anti-Semitism and a denial of the Kingdom to be established over Israel (Acts 1:6).
On verse 25. His covenant with Israel is as permanent as the fixed patterns of the heaven and earth that He has established (Psalm 74:16-17).
On verse 26. He has not rejected the descendants of Jacob and David, His servant. He will take from David's posterity rulers over the descendants of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3), in relation to Israel by establishing the nation in the Davidic-Messianic Kingdom (cf. Rev. 20:4-6).

Unfortunately, people gravitate to the amil position that virtually repudiates Israel and her return to the land. Anti-Semitism is a spirit of denial that is fed by a satanic philosophy. Peter notes that mockers say "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation" (2 Pet. 3:4). He adds, "It escapes their notion that by the Word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water … and the present heavens and earth by His Word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (vv. 5-7).

The people of earth detest the idea of Christ's return with the resulting final judgment that will destroy the world! But it is going to happen!

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Why Opposing Speakers at Bible Conferences?

Dr. Couch, why is Southern Evangelical Seminary featuring Hank Hanegraaff and touting him as they do? They are inviting him to speak (probably on Mormonism) at their next Apologetic Conference. Dr. Norman Geisler is a Dispensationalist and Hank so opposes it. I don’t understand. What do you say?

Answer: The argument of the school is probably that Hanegraaff is coming to speak on an area that would not conflict with what the school teaches. But I have a problem with that. I have always held fairly consistently that I want only those who are correct on their overall view of the Bible to speak for me. There are a few times that this did happen but not often.

Hanegraaff is a flaming allegorist and a preterist, though he seems to deny this. He is not a biblicist! And because he is so opposed to dispensationalism, the clear doctrine of the rapture, and other eschatological issues, I could not have him come and address even Mormonism. I have learned through the years that if one is off on certain important parts of Scripture, he will have a failure or deficiency in another part of the Word of God!

(1) Discernment, (2) Consistency, and (3) strong biblical Exegesis must be maintained by seminaries and churches. There can be no doctrinal bending of the truth. The apostle Paul told the Ephesian elders (in the Greek text) that he “did not himself keep away from distinctly teaching” to them the entire will (purpose, boulan) of God (Acts 20:27). Note that the word “will” is in the singular. He did not fail to give them the whole, the entirety, of all of the Word of God! He then reminded the elders that their job was “to be on guard” not only for themselves but for the whole flock of God entrusted to them (v. 28).

Thus, there was to be no slippage, on compromise, no this or that in teaching the complete Bible.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Is Baptism Replacing Circumcision?

Dr. Couch, how does dispensationalism differ with the Reformed folks on infant baptism? And is baptism replacing circumcision? 

 

    ANSWER: The heart of dispensationalism is to take the Bible at face value, in its normal grammatical-historical sense. Dispensationalism believes in all the rules for solid hermeneutics but the Reformed people do not. They allegorize second coming prophetic passages, for the most part. Dispensationalists are consistent with the issues of "Progressive revelation, normal interpretation, and studying the Word of God by "context, context, context"! Depensationalism is not a system, it is "a way of life" in that you just take the Bible in its normal sense. Israel means Israel and not the church. Rapture means a "going up," not Christ "coming down" to reign. If you know up from down you are a dispensationalist. The church goes up in the rapture; Christ comes down to rule o­n the Davidic throne over Israel. Read what was told to Mary in Luke 1:30-33. Christ will be reigning over the house of David. The house of David is not the church! Anyone who thinks the house of David is the church is not reading their Bible. When the OT says God brings back the Jews to Jerusalem, this is not the gathering of the church! IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS! Now to your questions: 

    Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, though it was also later after the time of Abraham included as part of the Law system. It was not a sign of salvation, as baptism is. Baptism does not replace circumcision because that would cut out 50% of the population being baptized, women! 

    As for infant baptism passages, you cannot find any! Read Acts 2:38-39 carefully. (This is what dispensationalists do!) The passage urges the Jews to do something actual and literal. "Repent (individually) each o­ne of you for the forgiveness of your sins." This is a conscious act. This "promise" of forgiveness "is for you and your children." The promise includes the action of the o­ne receiving forgiveness—repenting. You cannot foist that blessing of forgiveness over o­nto your children, your infants, unless they can consciously "repent." And they cannot! 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of Cornelius and his household. Peter said when in that house "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). The Spirit fell o­n "all those who were listening to the message," not o­n the little infants who could not process that message. (1) those who believed, (2) received the Spirit, and (3) were baptized. 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of the jailer at Philippi. He asked Paul, "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). THERE IT IS! INFANT BAPTISM within the household! Keep reading. Paul and Silas preached the word of the Lord "to him together with all who were in his household." The word "was preached and heard" by the household. This would not be small infants who could not process the message! Note verse 34: "they" in the house rejoiced greatly, "having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek is saying "the whole household" believed along with the jailer. 

    Infant baptism will not fly! Unfortunately, the Reformed, following Luther and Calvin, just carried infant over from Catholicism, though in some ways, not with the same heavy punch as is in Romanism. It is unfortunate too, that they do not admit this. While I am most grateful of what these men did for us, I do not follow them blindly, as many Reformed people do. It is almost as if, "Since Calvin said it, it must be true." 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch