REPLIES to DAVE REESE’S HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISM

(Introduction by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman)

The following is an article written by Herb Evans to a Christian brother who is dabbling in what we call "hyper-dispensationalism." We are omitting the brother's name because the heat of the controversy and the personal items don't matter anyway. As we have said many times, the Bulletin will not become a gossip bulletin for attacking the PERSONALITIES of the brethren. We are concerned only with what the brethren are saying ABOUT the Bible and what they are teaching FROM the Bible. We print this so the reader may have some idea of what is involved in the teachings of Baker, Stam, O'Hare, Bullinger, Greaterex, Watkins, and others who “wrongly divided the word of truth in order to get rid of water baptism. Since ALL the Apostles (and Christ Himself) and all of the converts of the Apostles (Acts 1-18) were baptized in water, including Timothy, Titus, Sosthenes, and the so-called "new eight apostles," we retain water baptism as a legitimate practice for converts to Jesus Christ. "ONE BAPTISM" (Eph. 4) was recognized to be "ONE" by the Christians who demonstrated it by WATER BAPTISM (Cf. Acts 18:1-6 with 1 Cor. 1 and 1 Cor. 12). --Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believers’ Bulletin, October 1981, p. 2, 3

Dear Brother Reese,

I have your letter dated July 22, postmarked August 4, and received August 7. I understand that this letter is in response to my article, "Making the Word of God of None Effect."I hope, if we are going to exchange letters that we could be brief and also dispense with the smoke.

What the situation amounts to be is that we both believe the Bible (King James Version), every Word, is the inspired word of God (Although you tried a cheap shot to make it appear as if I changed a preposition-more about that later).However, we do have different interpretations of what the word teaches. I do not say, as you accuse me, "you claim I don't believe the Bible." No, I claim that you make much of the word of God of none effect (note my title). I used the term "invalidation," not unbelief.

In response to my plain and clear dispensational passage (Lake. 16:16), you ask, ". . . are you claiming that the content of the message of the kingdom of God preached in Matthew through Acts 7 is the same as that in 1 Thessalonians 2:12 and Colossians 4:11?" I don't have to claim that. Details of the kingdom of God did not have the same content throughout the four Gospels However, the early content consisted of: salvation and remission of sins (Lake. 1:77); repentance (Mark 1 15); the Gospel of the Son of God (Mark 1:1, 15); the Light (John 1:7): the Lamb of God (John 1:29); the Son of God (John 1:32,34); grace by Jesus Christ (John 1:15-17); everlasting life by believing on the Sun (John 3:27,36); Christ (John 1:15-17); everlasting life by believing on the Son (John 3:27, 36);

The standard method of you ultradisps and also the interdenominationalists is to find passages in the Epistles that seem to differ with passages in the four Gospels in order to prove certain doctrine is not for us. Dispensationalists also do this, but they are not so arbitrary. They do not discard whole Books but instead rightly divide within the bound of the Scriptures. An example of this is where you pit Matthew 6:19 against 2 Corinthians 12:14 (many a preacher is going to be upset to find out he shouldn't preach on Matt. 6:19).

Of course, there is always James 5:3; oh but that's tribulation Scripture . . . isn't it? Are you laying up treasure for yourself on earth? How's it coming? Of course, Paul is talking about parents laying up for children in 2 Corinthians 12:4. Different, huh? Paul also told us in the Pauline Epistles that a man denies the faith and is worse than an infidel if he doesn't provide for his house.

When you folks are not pitting one Scripture against another, you capitalize on what the disciples didn't know or understand. Your favorite trick is to run to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to provide a quick definition of the Gospel and then run to the four Gospels to prove that the disciples either didn't receive knowledge of or didn't understand when they were told about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and so, they must have a different Gospel. Not so fast! The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are the BASIS of the Gospel. The Gospel is eternal life and remission of sins. If you are going to use 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 as a strict definition of the word Gospel, then what about verse 5, "AND he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve." If you are going to insist on the completeness of the details of the content; then you must include the seeing of Christ by Cephas and the twelve. Another problem that you have is that you admit the Gospel existed before the Book of Acts. The death, burial, and resurrection occurred before the Acts. Before Acts 7!

You pit Scripture against Scripture to prove your own preconceived notions concerning grace; Matthew 23:1-3 against Matthew 28:19, 20. You forget that God rent the temple's veil. You neglect my article, "the commandments contained in ordinances was permitted, for a while, alongside the preaching of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29); however, it was abolished at the time of the cross . . . the old economy was finished at the cross (Eph. 2:15, 16)." It is here that you take your cheap shot in trying to make out like I am changing the word "by" to "at." The word and phrase, in my article, are not in quotes. If you would read the prior phrase "at the time of the cross," you would see that I was commenting not quoting. The “by the cross” must have a “when.” Nevertheless, I believe the “by” should remain (for the record). If you really want to get nitpicky, I mistakenly quoted "that" for "which" in John 1:29. You're slipping; you missed that one. If you think you can dismiss my arguments against "ultradispensationalism" by making a Bible Corrector out of me, you’re mistaken. You have to face the issue at hand on this one. Now, back to Matthew 28:19-20; you've got a problem. Are we to believe that the apostles between Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts7 were to do the scribes’ and pharisees’ bidding (Matthew 23:1-3)? Looks like you have the same problem I do, eh?

You chide me for not discussing this with you alone on the basis of Matthew 18:15-18 instead of what I did do. First of all, Matthew 18:15-18 is church (local) behavior. You do not belong to my church, nor I yours; and Trinity Baptist Church has no authority over either of us; and your church and my church are 1500 miles apart; and I was not about to cause trouble for (name deleted); and I'd rather discuss these things on paper-that things might be better established, O.K.?

As for my one mention of "Bullingerism," it is the accepted name for years regarding ultradispensationalism; I qualified your brand by saying that it was "revived Bullingerism with a new slant." I acknowledged that you "still believe in the local church, baptism, and the Lord's Supper." So,how did I slander you (without mentioning your name)? Yes, I have read some of Bullinger. In fact, I have his book on Bible numerology. Coincidence, huh?

You don't start the church, when I start it? The fact is, I'm not sure, when you do start the church? Acts? Do you know when I start the Church? Really? Is your doctrine a new one? Is it new light? Is it systematized anywhere in any Christian book. What is the earliest book or article that you can produce that takes the position that Hebrews through Revelation is "tribulation" faith and practice and not Romans through Philemon—faith and practice? If you answer nothing else, answer this paragraph . . . please.You say in your article, "Problems the Tongues Movement Will Never Face"-

Water Baptism

"Mark 16:16 says, 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . "'

"If your preacher or friend says we should speak in tongues because Mark 16:17 says so, he should also teach wafer baptism in ADDITION to belief for salvation."

Evans:Water baptism was never a requirement for salvation. I intend to prove this in a future article.I have no personal axe to grind with you. That meeting was the first time that I met or talked with you. What articles of yours I read—I liked. I have no personal ambition in getting on my white horse as you put it. Quite the contrary, many papers will no doubt cease to carry my articles because of their love and respect for you; but I've been down that road before; however, I'm my own man. Those who know me well understand that even friendships will not deter me from standing for the word and the doctrines of the word. Your problem is that you think that your stand on the King James Bible gives you a blank check to anything else you believe. I think it very unfair of you to ride your ultradispensational on the back of a King James meeting. This doctrine is not mentioned In the King James Fellowship bylaws. In fact under "Purpose"- article 6 says, "to oppose various cults and ecumenical movements through strong Bible doctrine." I am doing just that. I subscribe to the fellowship's statement of faith. If you answer, please be brief. Let's not shotgun the issue to obscure it. Hi Ho Silver . . . away!

P.S. It is noteworthy that you made no comment on my article concerning Jude through Revelation???? [refutation of these Books being only for the trib saints]

– by Herb Evans, Bible Believer’s Bulletin - October 1981, pp. 2, 3

REESE’S PIECES

In a newsletter from Victory Baptist Church in Millbrook, Alabama, published by Dave Reese, there was an article, objecting to some statements that Herb Evans had made in an article about the Blood of Jesus Christ. We print here Mr. Evans reply to that newsletter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin, October 1971, p. 7 --Peter S, Ruckman

Dear Dr. Ruckman,

“Enclosed you will find one of “REESE’S PIECES" (Vol. 1, No. 12), however, there is no sweet gooey stuff inside. It does, as usual, have some nuts, but what would the squirrels do without nuts?

Reese’s first problem is that he is still upset over his ultra dispensational exposure. His second problem is that he can’t make up his mind whether to be a Baptist or a Berean, although he is taking some pains to distance himself from the Berean theory of Baptism. We have always given him credit for that. His third problem is that he didn’t like the article of mine, which you ran in February 1987, "Real Sinners . . . Any Dispensation." His fourth problem is that he can t read and can t state someone s position truthfully. He has sifted the article for blemishes and is demanding an explanation from the Bible Believers’ Bulletin and myself. Personally, I don’t think the Bible Believer s Bulletin nor myself need answer him for anything. I will, however, for the record, try to clarify my position to you, although you probably see through the thing without my explanation.

Dave Reese characterizes my position as "SOMEHOW" doctrine because of my statement. Now, if I thought that I knew it all and was a "BLOWHARD," that might upset me. However, I must confess to "somehow" doctrines. I know the Lord somehow knows the end from the beginning, but I don’t know how. I believe in the incarnation, but don’t know how. I believe in a triune God, but don’t know how. So, let it be a "somehow" doctrine.

I was quoted correctly by Reese but maliciously editorialized. Yes, I did and still say, "He declared not that His blood ‘would be’ shed for many, but that His blood ‘IS’ shed for many for the remission of sins.’” Did I change Matthew 26:28 or does it really say "IS" and not "shall be?”"For this is the blood of the new testament, which IS shed for many. . ."

It was said that my position is that Christ’s blood "WAS SHED" for the remission of sins BEFORE He went to the cross. THIS IS NOT MY POSITION. THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID! The remainder of my quotation is also correct, but the obvious is ignored. "This blood, somehow then presently EFFICACIOUS, was then the blood of the New Testament." To break it down simply, Herb Evans position is that as far as God is concerned:

1. The Lamb IS"SLAINfrom the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).

2. God s "works were FINISHEDfrom the foundation of the world" (Heb. 4:3).

3. Jesus said his blood "IS" shed (Matt. 26:28).

Reese’s fifth problem is that he does not explain the scripture, he only attacks my explanation of it. He charges confusion about the wine and the bread, insinuating Roman Catholicism, without elaborating. Who is really confused? Jesus showed the apostles that the wine was indeed symbolic of his blood (emphatically our position), but His statement "which IS shed" refers to His blood NOT the wine! The wine neither "was" shed, "is" shed, or "shall be" shed (or even spilt)! I trust that I have stated my position for the record. The position that was fabricated for me was a false one!

--Respectfully, Herbert F. Evans