Bro. Mike Wiltcher, aka "Parsons" on some online forums, has written an opening response to my 2023 UGST Symposium Paper "Departure from Dispensationalism." Bro. Wiltcher holds a dispensational, pre-tribulation view of eschatology. He and I have had some discussions before, years ago, on the old AMF Forums on the subject of Two Olivet Discourses (Bro. Wiltcher believes that Matt 24 & Mark 13 are a separate Olivet Discourse from Luke 21). Recently, one of Bro. Wiltcher's "End Time Prophecies" post has drawn us together again in that he opened his post with "As I pondered Preterism ..." and then copy and pasted an article from Thomas Ice (of Dallas Theological Seminary) on the dispensationalist view of Daniel's Seventy Weeks. I pointed out that associating non-dispensationalism with Preterism is a type of broad-brush fallacy tactic often used to identify anything other than dispensational, pre-tribulationism as "Preterist" - similar to how liberal politicians throw the word "homophobe" around like a buzz word.
Anyway, Bro. Wiltcher has decided to take a look at my 2023 UGST Symposium Paper, which I am honored and flattered by. Below in black text type are Bro. Wiltcher's comments copy and pasted from his FB post. My responses are in red text type. This looks like it is going to be a short series of responses. I will try to do a follow up to each of his posts, but I am not sure how closely I will be able to keep up as I am trying to finish the last chapter of my PhD dissertation this semester, but we will see how it goes.
“It appears that our friend Jason L. Weatherly's first objection is that he feels that dispensationalism is almost synonymous with those that feel that the gifts and workings of the Holy Spirit ended in the first century.”
Apparently, Bro. Wiltcher does not know or understand the full context of this Symposium Paper. The article he cites is actually a paper I presented at the 2023 UGST Symposium. The paper is an abbreviated/edited copy of my PhD dissertation in progress on the study of charismata (spiritual gifts) and the eschaton—more specifically, how eschatological views affect a person’s understanding the gifts of the Spirit, particularly in relationship to cessationism. So, YES, my work, in this chapter of my dissertation particularly, deals with dispensationalism and cessationism. I am posting a link to the actual presentation where I mentioned that “Pentecostal Dispensationalism” seems an oxymoron to Dispensationalists outside of Pentecostalism, because to main line (Dallas Theological Seminary, Grace Theological Seminary, etc.) Dispensationalists, you cannot be a Dispensationalist and Pentecostal. To be an actual Dispensationalists, dispensationalism and cessationism go hand-in-hand.
It is interesting to note that Elder Jason states that "modern dispensationalists have labeled Pentecostalism as an embarrassment to the Christian community."
That is correct, and what response did Bro. Wiltcher have? Nothing. Clarence Larkin likened modern tongue-speaking with the “spirit of frogs” (Rev 16:13) and “demonic possession,” while Dwight Pentecost stated, “The great majority of the Christian church is embarrassed by the phenomena [speaking in tongues] practiced by certain groups.”
First, Elder Jason states, "Assemblies of God fully adopted dispensational premillennialism as their statement of faith, which then set the standard for other Pentecostal organizations." But then desperately tries to tie dispensationalism with cessationism.
How could a Pentecostal group such as the Assembly of God set the STANDARD for other PENTECOSTAL GROUPS IN eschatology by making DISPENSATIONALISM among its statement of faith and yet--be engaged in cessationaism??
Bro. Wiltcher, that is the conundrum! I am not sure if you have actually read the entire paper yet. If not, you need to before you make any further comments, because if you had read the remainder of my paper, you would have seen the statement which references Kenneth Archer’s Pentecostal Hermeneutics: “Archer dictates that as modern Pentecostals sought acceptance among fundamentalists, they more readily acknowledged traditional dispensational hermeneutics sans cessationism. Such a blending of dispensationalism with Pentecostal pneumatology created hermeneutical complications since ‘Pentecostals who used dispensationalism violated its hermeneutical rules.’”48
And Elder Jason states that "this problematic relationship has led to a call for a Pentecostal departure from dispensationalism"
Did the Assembly of God depart from dispensationalism?
Has the United Pentecostal Church
denounced dispensatinalism as it has preterism?
Has any of the Pentecostal groups that embraced as a STANDARD the Assembly of God's view of eschatology come out with a denouncing of dispensationalism??
Again, I am not sure if you have read the entire paper yet because I cite Daniel Isgrigg and Robert Menzies (of the Assemblies of God), Chris Thomas and Kenneth Archer (of the Church of God Cleveland) AND Daniel Segraves and David Bernard (of the UPCI)—all of which who have spoken against classic dispensationalism. Also, I might point out that other well-known Pentecostal authors, such as Craig Keener, have also written and spoken against dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a dying ember in Pentecostalism, because it has NEVER been uniformly held among Pentecostals!
Furthermore, contrary to popular supposition, the UPCI is not officially dispensational or pre-tribulationism. Nothing in the UPCI Articles of Faith specifies dispensationalism or pre-tribulationism—those words never appear in the Articles of Faith. Now, someone with those views may think that is what the articles on “The Restitution of All Things” and the “Translation of Believers” means, but that is because they are reading those paragraphs through the lens of dispensational, pre-tribulationism, when in fact the very words of those paragraphs also apply to a non-dispensational view and any timing of the rapture. You do not have to affirm dispensationalism nor pre-tribulationism in order to be licensed with the UPCI, and I promise you that the non-dispensational, post-tribulation view is much more widely held than is publicized.
From my observations and studies, I have found that Dispensationalism is commonly found in nondenominational Bible churches, Baptists, Pentecostal, and Charismatic groups. Conversely, Protestant denominations that embrace covenant theology as a whole tend to reject dispensationalism.
Please underline the two words PENTECOSTAL and CHARISMATIC groups.
Charismatic groups, as you know, like Pentecostal, believe in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and in the operation of the gifts of the Spirit.
Bro. Wiltcher, as my paper (and upcoming PhD dissertation) points out, Pentecostalism was never originally dispensational. It was only after Pentecostal organizations (post-WW2) sought legitimacy among the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals that they began to embrace dispensationalism, which was problematic at the beginning. “Charismatics,” historically, stayed within their original Protestant-Reformed churches (for example the Presbyterian Prophets movement), which you have admitted typically embrace covenant theology.
And while Elder Jason mentions the influence of the Scofield Bible, he fails to mention the Dake Annotated Bible (Finis Dake, 1961, 1963) included all the insights of the Scofield Reference Bible and more but still affirmed Pentecostal experience and the spiritual gifts.
“Fails to mention” is an overstatement as Dake’s Bible specifically has no relevance to my research. Plus, Dake’s has never had the influence that Scofield’s had. This is just a Red Herring statement on your part.
The second matter Elder Jason overlooks is that in the 1800s and early 1900s the religious world was STILL recovering biblical truths that were lost during the reign of Catholicism after the second century. We all see through a glass darkly as the Apsotle Paul stated. We know in part and we understand in part.... None of us know all there is to know about God and His Kingdom. And certainly this was true in the 19th and 20th Century.
I guess Bro. Wiltcher is alluding here to the “revelation” of dispensationalism that came about in the mid to late 1800s? Dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture doctrines, in the bigger history of Christianity, are relatively new doctrines. I am guessing that Bro. Wiltcher will say that these doctrines are not “new” they were just “hid.” A lot of this will be determined by what view of church history he has. I would encourage him to look at ancient Pentecostal-type groups of believers prior to John Darby, Margaret MacDonald, and C. I. Sofield and see what views they held dispensationalism and the rapture.
May I point out that there are matters that Elder Jason embraces that I do not feel are biblically correct. Post-tribulation rapture, for example. But does this mean that I should reject those matters in which I see that he IS correct?
We also certainly disagree on your Two Olivet Discourse view as well, which is the product of your dispensational, pre-tribulation eschatology. It is kind of view that you are forced into.
Should we reject dispensationalism ONLY because there were those who did not understand all there was to know about the Bible???
Such rationale is not logical.
Well of course it is not, and I never said or implied that we “ONLY” depart from dispensationalism for one reason. I honestly do not think that you have read the entire paper. I think that you are just commenting as you go along, which is not a good practice of a review, because if you had/have read the entire paper, then you would know that a departure from dispensationalism has a lot to do with a Pentecostal hermeneutic of Joel’s “Last Days.” It will be interesting to see where you put the fulfillment of Joel 2—the church or the millennium—because this is another conundrum of Pentecostal dispensationalists. I look forward to reading your further comments.
Here is a link to my actual UGST
Symposium Presentation with PowerPoint slides.
