Many of our transdenominational theological debates, I am convinced, have less to do with defending our faith and far more to do with gorillas thumping their chests, peacocks strutting, and bodybuilders striking a pose to look better than others.

Here is a typical scenario in which I find myself with some regularity: a person writes something which I consider to be unloving, graceless, unedifying, or some other offense that I – being the final judge and arbiter of all such things – deem worthy of a reply. I respond by addressing the spirit, not the letter, of the post or comment, and am then charged with ducking an argument or being afraid to engage in “honest and loving disagreement.” Here’s why I don’t take the bait and why I think we would all be better off to resist that temptation, too.

First, I just don’t have the time, and I don’t think I’m unique in this regard. I certainly enjoy theology – but not for the purpose of debating others of different convictions. I enjoy theology because it enables me to know God better: it gives me a glimpse not just into His attributes, but His character, His being. When I study theology, even as when I read and meditate upon Scripture, I feel closer to Him, as though I am seeing His heart a bit more clearly. For me, that is the highest good of theology.

Second, I avoid theological debates because I rarely know whether or not my opponent or adversary has done her homework. It is likely true that I’ve read more Reformed authors than dispensational ones, especially when it comes to commentaries. I have used more than a few of Calvin’s commentaries, as well as those by Moo, Cranfield, Fee, Bruce, Morris, Lane, and others. I’ve studied Chafer’s systematic theology, it’s true, as well as Ryrie’s extended treatise on doctine, but I’ve also read Calvin’s Institutes and systematic theologies by Lewis and Demarest (former profs), Carl Henry, Erickson, Warfield, Hodge, Murray, and others both in and out of the Reformed camp. I went to two seminaries that were more Reformed than dispensational: one, in fact, was quite antagonistic toward the latter.

I understand fairly well why Reformed people believe what they do, how they understand the Scriptures, and the hermeneutic they have employed to come to their conclusions. I deeply respect them and their tradition. If they want to learn, I would be happy to explain what I believe; I have learned much from Reformed writers and teachers who took the time to answer my questions. In return, I’m not going to waste their time by trying to change their minds about their carefully studied opinons. Personally, I am thankful for the many contributions from non-dispensationalists and respect the scholarship of the true Reformed theologians and exegetes.

I also am reluctant to argue my theology when I have reason to believe that my “opponent” doesn’t have the basic tools to do theology. I realize that this sounds quite elitist and arrogant, but I don’t mean for it to be. When a computer programmer wants to tell me why my theology is incorrect, however, I find myself wondering about his qualifications. I also wonder how he might respond if I began to tell him why his code was all wrong even though I know comparatively little about programming. It is wonderful for all Christians to read and study theology, but for those who do it parttime and/or lack exegetical skills it is somewhat presumptuous to assail biblical scholars with statements dismissing decades of study. Not that I’m a biblical scholar, but I’m not the one specifically being attacked. I’m just one of their groupies, I guess.

Again, if this were an individual who simply sought to understand the dispensational position more accurately or in more depth – even if they weren’t interested in changing their position – that would be a different matter. I’d be happy to point that individual in the direction of numerous books that can explain it far better than I might. But to engage someone whose mind is made up and seeks only to derisively rail against me – well, see my first point: I don’t have the time or energy.

Further, I avoid such debates because the internet is not the local church. If this individual were in the church of which I am a member and were saying such things in such a manner, that would be another matter. But this is the internet and that individual is someone else’s sheep – or shepherd, as the case might be. It’s not my place to try to proselytize or condemn them, even as it is not their place to do the same with me.

Finally, I stay away from these fights because they are distractions and nuisances. These are not the battles we should be fighting: other believers who adhere to different nonessential doctrines are not the enemy. The time we spend fighting one another would be more wisely spent battling against truly dangerous doctrines and beliefs that are infiltrating our local churches. Or we could focus our energies on confronting our culture and endeavoring to demonstrate the viability – and necessity – of our common faith. Or even – perish the thought! – evangelize people instead of arguing with the redeemed.

(As an excursus, I have had a personal realization: it was long my impression that, of all the denominations and traditions in Christendom, the Reformed position was the one characterized by the best scholarship among the average believer. I no longer believe that, due in no small part to the poor or absent scholarship of many Reformed believers who ignorantly attack and misrepresent other positions. This is leads me to believe that what has appeared to be depth of learning is but heavy indoctrination in a particular belief system. Not surprisingly, those Reformed believers who are diligent about their studies are rarely the ones doing the attacking or misrepresenting. In-depth study of theology produces humility and a stunning awareness of how little one truly knows.)

As I was thinking about all of this, I came across a book review by Roy Zuck in Bibliotheca Sacra of The World Is Not My Home: The Origins and Development of Dispensationalism by Michael Williams. I found the review to address some of the same concerns I have had. Zuck wrote,

“As is well known, covenant theologians and dispensational theologians differ in their views on eschatology and related matters. Scholarly discussions of those differences can be beneficial in helping each side understand the other. But it is unfortunate if propenents of one view misrepresent the opposing view. Regrettably Williams, a covenant theologian, in analyzing the dispensationalism of C.I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, repeatedly distorts their teachings. Williams’ scathing attacks against classic dispensationalism do not advance the cause of scholarly research…

“How can scholarly discussion be advanced when Williams twice calls dispensationalism ‘naive’ (pp. 178, 211) and says that the soteriology of Scofield and Chafer is ‘the product of fuzzy-headedness’ (p. 210)? It is unfortunate that so many unwarranted conclusions about dispensational theology have been drawn, and it is disturbing that misrepresentations abound in this book. Readers are encouraged to read Scofield’s and Chafer’s works and evaluate for themselves whether their views are faithful to God’s word.”

There is a final – and most important – point I will make on this matter, but it will be reserved for a later post since this one has already gone on much longer than I intended. For now, suffice it to say that some respect, humility, and love would be a welcome addition to such exchanges in the future. We need to build one another up, not tear down.


2 Cor 1:13