Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
The Circular Reasoning Involved in Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism and Covenant theology as pertains to the Jesus-Paul conflict rests upon circular reasoning. It reconciles the two by making an assumption that Paul is inspired and correct. Yet, that is precisely the challenge involved that they are hoping to resolve. The illogic involved is not evident to its proponents apparently because they never have done a logic diagram of their argument.
First, let's review some basic logic about what a conflict between Jesus and Paul should mean. This will help unlock rather easily the illogic of how dispensationalism and covenant theology reconcile Jesus and Paul.
Everyone knows if Jesus is inspired and Paul is inspired that they cannot contradict. If they do, either Jesus is not inspired or Paul is not inspired. Between the two, only Jesus proved to be a prophet (and more than a prophet). Paul was just a person with a vision of Jesus. So if we were forced to concede Jesus and Paul contradict, then Paul would be found uninspired.
Dispensationalism agrees that Jesus and Paul contradict but points out their audiences may have materially varied. Dispensationalism seizes on this point to resolve the apparent dilemma of a contradiction. Dispensational theology says Jesus was not talking to those under a covenant of grace when He taught justification by repentance from sin. Jesus aimed at Jews His Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee and His heaven-maimed-or-hell-whole lesson in (Mark 9:4248). Thus, Jesus was supposedly talking to Jews under their old and now expired covenant relationship which did depend on repentance. However, this notion that Jesus brought a new covenant-of-grace which excludes repentance from sin for salvation comes exclusively from Paul.
Thus, the solution proposed to reconcile the conflict between Jesus and Paul is to assume the validity of Paul's teaching of the covenant of grace. Paul's doctrines (a) exclude repentance from sin as necessary for salvation and (b) exclude Jews as the principal partner. Yet, the validity of Paul as an inspired teacher to teach these two ideas is the very question at issue. To derive the dispensational solution that Jesus was talking to those under the covenant of Law and not grace, one has to assume Paul's validity. This assumption is the same thing as your conclusion. Paul alone teaches a break between the seed of Israel and God in forming a New Covenant people. (See (Gal. 4:22) ff.) The Dispensational theory at issue overcomes the question of Paul's inspiration by assuming Paul is inspired despite the contradictions. The conclusion of Paul's inspiration is hidden in the discussion as a premise. Hence, dispensationalism as a tool to reconcile Jesus and Paul is based on circular logic.
22.See Gal. ch. 4, the Jews now correspond to Ishmael and are cursed to follow the Law in the desert; we are children of grace, freed from bondage to the Law, etc.
You can diagram the fallacy rather easily:
-
Premise #1: If Jesus and Paul would truly contradict then Paul is uninspired.
-
Premise #2: Jesus and Paul addressed different audiences.
-
Premise #3: Jesus and Paul have direct contradictions in talking to different audiences.
-
Premise #4: Paul is inspired in expounding on a new covenant of grace to one audience.
-
Premise #5: Jesus was inspired in expounding to a different audience who are under the covenant of Law but not under Paul's covenant of grace.
-
Conclusion: Therefore both Jesus and Paul are inspired.
It is premise number 4 that contains the bootstrappedconclusion. When one of your premises contains your conclusion, we call the conclusion a bootstrap fallacy. Thus, but for that assumption in premise number 4, you would have Jesus expounding principles of the kingdom applicable to a New Covenant member at odds with Paul. Premise number 4 marginalizes that truth, puts it in doubt, and bootstraps the conclusion. If you fallaciously contain your conclusion in a premise, you cannot help but reach the conclusion you desire. To repeat, this is known as the bootstrap fallacy.