311 Evaluating Dispensationalism 1 (John Truitt)

Have you ever been on a long drive in the summer when you wore sunglasses for hours and hours?  It’s getting dark and then suddenly you realize you’re still wearing sunglasses.  You take them off and the whole world brightens and  you realize it’s not nearly as dark as you thought?  This is the nature of looking through a lens–it colors your perception of reality.  Today, we are beginning a two part series to talk about lenses through which we read scripture.  What’s your hermeneutic or interpretation strategy?

Today we’ll focus on the view known as dispensationalism, championed by Dallas Theological Seminary, the Way International, many Baptists, Charismatics, and non-denominational churches as well as theologians like Charles Ryrie, C. I. Scofield, and E. W. Bullinger.  We’ll get into what this system entails in just a moment, but let me first introduce my guest.

John Truitt grew up in California and Texas converting to Christianity as a Methodist at 14. After a few years of not attending church, at 21 he converted to biblical unitarianism in the shadow of the Way International through an ex-Way group and learned to read the bible in line with classic dispensationalism.  Later on he joined Spirit and Truth Fellowship and even served on the board for a number of years.  After this, Truitt co-founded Allegiance to the King, a web-based ministry with over 150 video teachings, regular virtual church video-conferencing meetings, and an annual young adult event in Kentucky.  Truitt is also the founder and owner of Kalleo Technologies, a managed IT service provider company, based out of Paducah, Kentucky.

Today he’s going to talk to us about dispensationalism.  Whether that’s where you’re coming from or not, this interview should broaden your understanding of the topic.

—— Books ——

—— Links ——

10 thoughts on “311 Evaluating Dispensationalism 1 (John Truitt)

  • Thanks, Sean and John,
    for this conversation, which for me, was mostly a walk down memory lane, and my gradual awareness of my own bit by bit struggles with cognitive dissonance for decades. Similar to what John mentioned, I did not realize that I had been stuck in an outdated version of dispensationalism (already abandoned by many progressive scholars) until much later.
    Though it can be painful to undergo major paradigm shifts, it can be so beautifully rewarding for one to wrestle with certain subtle, preconceived “lens filters” and to then see biblical covenants in the light of Jesus’ Kingdom message – with a clearer hope and a focused view of what obedience to Jesus’ lordship really means.

  • One thing that attracts me to dispensationalism is that it is the only thing that I have encountered that gives a convincing explanation for why there has been be an at-least-almost-2,000-year gap between the first sixty-nine sevens of Daniel’s prophecy, which all occurred without interruption, and the seventieth seven. I have asked people hostile to dispensationalism to explain this, several times, and I have not received any explanation.

  • As usual, this was am interesting podcast, and I’d like to thank John Truitt for his presentation. But I would also like to say the following. Mr Truitt gives as one of his reasons for leaving dispensationalism, his great discomfort at the idea of Jesus being wrong in the dispensationalist framework. I can understand his discomfort at this, but the ineluctable fact is that Jesus was mistaken about the timing of the kingdom. He clearly believed, and obviously stated that it was imminent. He repeatedly said that it had “arrived” or “approached” (Eggiken.) And he said to his twelve disciples: “In truth I tell you, you will not have gone round the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” (Mat 10:23.)

    He also said to the Twelve: “In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom.” (Mat 16:28.) This obviously does not refer to the Transfiguration as some people claim, because the preceding verse says: “For the Son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his deeds.” (verse 27.) This did not happen at the Transfiguration; and besides, you do not tell a group of twelve young men that some of them will not die before an event occurs, when the event is to occur in the next six or eight days. None of them died before the Transfiguration.

    Jesus also said to his disciples, talking of the end-times events: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Mat 24:34.) Some people give various far-fetched explanations for these three “imminent” sayings of the lord in Matthew, with a different explanation for each one; but the fact of the matter is that Jesus is saying the same thing each time, and there is but one explanation for them all; namely that he believed that his return to establish the kingdom was imminent.

    You thought my comment about miraculous healings was a bit short, so this one is a little longer.

    • Hi David, We didn’t get into how I would explain those things now in the podcast so let me address one on them here. The Matt 16 context tells you what Jesus is talking about. Back up a few verses and you will find that Jesus is telling them that they must lose their lives in order to save them. Dying to self is the death that Jesus is speaking about in the context. So now reread the statement in verse 28 with that kind of death in mind and suddenly it makes sense. He’s telling them that some of them would not die to self before the judgment comes when they truly would die indeed.

      Also, I left the hyper Dispensationalism that I was originally indoctrinated into. I no longer want to be pegged into a particular theological framework but I would say that I most closely align with progressive Dispensationalism. I remain a pre-millennialist for example.

      Thank you for listening and I’m glad it blessed you.

      Regards

      John Truitt

      • John,

        I have never heard nor seen anyone give that interpretation of Matthew 16:28, i.e., “some of them would not die to self before the judgment comes when they truly would die indeed.”

        So what do you mean by “die to self”?

        How does this answer Jesus’ prophetic word that they would literally “see the KOG coming with power”?

        Are you saying they did not see anything at that time?

        I think Sean’s view is the one that still makes the more sense, i.e., Jesus was simply foretelling the KOG “vision” (orama, Mat 17.9) event that immediately follows on the mountain.

        Thanks for your time.

  • Hi John,

    I’m sorry I took so long to respond. I didn’t actually see your message until well after you posted it, and then I tarried a little longer.

    Your explanation for Matthew 16:27-28 is interesting, and I suppose it could be a possible explanation if this imminent saying were in isolation. It’s probably even more plausible in Luke. But I must be honest; I don’t find it entirely convincing; and less so in the context of all the other imminent sayings. I think that trying to find all kinds of discrete explanations for all the imminent sayings is less fruitful than recognizing that there is but one explanation for them all (whether or not, we can find what it is.)

    I was interested to learn that you self-identify as a progressive dispensationalist. I got the impression from the podcasts that you had rejected dispensationalism altogether, in favour of covenantalism. I’ll have to listen again to remind myself of the nuances between the different forms of dispensationalism. I’m glad you’re still a premillennialist.

    You’re welcome. I meant to thank you and Sean, also for the second podcast which I also found very interesting; but I got a bit side-tracked by the controversy.

    Best wishes,

    David.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *