Tim Challies “pleads Canadian” on Dispensationalism

My wife and I have an ongoing joke.

When we were first dating, we enjoyed talking about the subtle differences between our two cultures.  She’s American and I’m Canadian, and though people think that Canada is the politer, colder version of the United States, there are a few more differences than manners and climate.  We would always be talking and then one of us would suddenly drop a word that the other didn’t recognize.  One time, it took a trip to to an Office supply store to explain to her exactly what a Duo Tang was.


There was a second, related joke.  Since we were living in the US at the time we were dating and I was the foreigner, I would sometimes pretend to not know what she was talking about and I’d “plead Canadian.”  In other words, I’d feign ignorance and enjoy my girlfriend’s (now wife) shock and awe that I’d never heard of sour cream and onion chips (or whatever it was that we were discussing).  What can I say?  I’m a bit of a stinker.  So why do I bring this up?

I say this because I recently read Tim Challies article on Why I’m Not A Dispensationalist.  In case you haven’t heard of Tim Challies, he’s the most famous Christian blogger around (despite the claims of Frank Viola…and JD Hall).  Beyond blogging, he’s also a Canadian, a pastor, an accomplished author has even made it onto the Babylon Bee.  He’s written several books and even runs his own publishing company!

In other words, he’s a far bigger fish than I am.  I’ve got a blog and I sometimes write for another blog and I’ve also got…this cup:

Study Mug

So, when I read his article on Dispensationalism, I was surprised.

Tim, like me, is Canadian.  We both grew up in Canadian churches, and Canadian churches aren’t exactly known for being articulate, or committed, on their views of theological systems (namely Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology).  I have rarely met a Canadian pastor who has the necessary hermeneutical, exegetical and theological training to adequately sort through matters of theological systems.  I have also rarely had a conversation with a Canadian pastor where talk of theological systems came up and they didn’t mention the Left Behind books.  That being said, Tim Challies is no typical Canadian pastor.

So when I read his article, I was somewhat surprised that he “pleaded Canadian.”

But doesn’t that suggest that he’s falsely claiming to be ignorant of something?


Allow me to explain.

In the article he said “In this area I have not carried out the same level of study as, for example, the doctrines of salvation or scripture” and then spent a whole paragraph talking about eschatology.  That gave me a hint for what was coming.


Tim then wrote:

Dispensationalism is a kind of framework for history that is organized around seven dispensations—seven orders or administrations. Particular to this framework is the eschatological position known as “premillennial dispensationalism” which holds that Christ will return prior to a literal one-thousand-year reign on earth. When I say I am not dispensational, this is primarily what I mean—I do not hold to premillennial dispensationalism.

Then, he quoted Greg Allison (from the Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms) saying that Dispensatinal Premillennialism believes in a pretribulational rapture (I wrote a short overview of the relevant terminology which may help) and also a thousand year reign of Christ while Satan is bound.

Moving on from there he explained how he was raised in the Dutch Reformed tradition and therefore was raised as an Amillennialist, as taught (or allowed for) in various Catechisms.  He commented, again quoting Allison, that Satan is currently bound, allowing the gospel to go everywhere, and this binding will stop when Satan is loosed, defeated, the dead are raised and judged and finally Christ ushers in the eternal state.

Tim then wrote how he first discovered the concept of the rapture in the music of Petra (yes, the Christian Rock band) and then met someone while he was in grade 12 that believed and explained the idea to him.

Following that, he wrote,

So why am I not dispensational? I’d like to say that I have studied the issue very closely, that I have read stacks of books on eschatology, and that I can thoroughly defend my position against every alternative. But that’s not the case. It’s more that my reading of the Bible, my years of listening to sermons, and my study of Christian theology has not been able to shake or displace the amillennialism of my youth. To the contrary, it has only strengthened it.

He closed off with a positive recommendation of his pastors’ recent sermon series through Revelation, chalked up Dispensationalism as an equivalent error to Paedobaptism because they both “wrongly allow the Old Testament to have priority over the New Testament,” and then affirmed his love for John MacArthur.

So, what do I have to say about that all?


What else do I have to say?

Well, Tim rejects Dispensational Premillennialism, which is a subset of eschatology.  That doesn’t mean that he rejects Dispensationalism at all; not all dispensationalists are dispensational premillennialists.  For example, there are self-labeling dispensationalists who have differing views about certain aspects of the millennium and self-labeling dispensationalists also have differing views about the nature and timing of the rapture (not all are pretribulational).  I think he knows this to, since he defined Dispensationalism by writing:

“Dispensationalism is a kind of framework for history that is organized around seven dispensations—seven orders or administrations.”

That definition has nothing to do with eschatology.

So what was going on?

I think Tim was just feigning ignorance, or “pleading Canadian.”


He’s one of the most well-read guys around; he reviews books like a madman.  He has no shortage of connections in Evangelicalism, and definitely no shortage of exposure of people and ideas.  He said he hadn’t read “stacks” of books on eschatology, but he’s certainly read one.  It appeared to me that he was doing pre-emptive damage control since he knows John MacArthur and recognizes that his article will receive multiple responses.

Simply put, he cannot be that ignorant about Dispensationalism.  He has read something about it, certainly.  He has talked with people who have attempted to explain it to him, most definitely (i.e. MacArthur, or Phil Johnson, or someone).

He also cannot think that dismissing a compatible eschatological subset is equivalent to dismissing a theological system as a whole.

It’s not, and a competent and well-read thinker (like Tim Challies) would know that  Dispensationalism is far more than its various compatible eschatological subsets.

I mean, in all of 60 seconds I found John Macarthur directly addressing the definition of Dispensationalism, and MacArthur is one of the most widely known dispensationalists around (Tim mentioned him by name for a reason):

Now Tim has to have spent more than 60 seconds learning about Dispensationalism before rejecting it wholesale, especially when it’s something affirmed by people he knows and loves.  As an intelligent adult, he has to know that whatever components of Dispensationalism he encountered in a Petra song and twelfth grade isn’t representative of exegetically-derived, biblically-robust Dispensationalism.

Sure, there are plenty of people who would look at the phrase “biblically robust” and laugh, dismissing that as simple nonsense out of an ignorant prejudice.  I’d hope that someone as widely read and experienced in the best that evangelicalism has to offer, someone like Tim Challies, wouldn’t do so.  In fact, I find that rather hard to believe.

Hence, my only real option is that Tim “plead Canadian.” I imagine that he was anticipating what sort of fight he’d be drawn into if went into details or attempted to engage in an exegetical critique, so he just set us up to be disappointed and bunted.

I may certainly be wrong, but I hope not.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “trying to assume the best” Unger


P.S. – This blog is still on hiatus, contrary to all appearances (namely two posts in one day).






13 thoughts on “Tim Challies “pleads Canadian” on Dispensationalism

  1. This isn’t the primary thrust of this article, but you triggered a mini-rant. My primary grumble with premillennialism of all flavors is the word for thousand used in Revelation 20. It’s Strongs #5507 (if I recall correctly) and could be more accurately translated thousand(s). That and the plethora of end-time books and predictions are starting to wear thin for my generation. I suppose that’s why we are told to watch and be ready. Jesus may return in our lifetime, or we might meet our demise at a concrete truck or banana peel. The injunction is to watch. (/rant)

    Thanks for the great article and may God bless you as you look for work.

    • Well, that’s your main problem?

      If that’s the case, then rest easy. The Greek in Rev. 20:3-7 is consistently τά χίλια. In case you’re wondering, that’s plural. So the question then remains: what is the exegetical significance of the plural? It doesn’t necessarily mean “thousands”…

      I also don’t make any predictions. Nobody I respect or have anything to do with makes predictions. Part of the reason for that is that the rapture is constantly imminent and occurs with no preceding signs. AFTER the rapture, there are a plethora of signs, but no Christian living today need worry about those (for obvious reasons).

      We should watch and be ready, but we won’t see it coming.

      Nobody on Earth will.

      I reject crackpots like Jack Van Impe, Jim Bakker, John Hagee, etc. as legitimate representatives of Christianity, let alone Dispensationalism.

      I’m sure that Covenant Theologians would also welcome the fact that I recognize Harold Camping as nowhere close to being an accurate representative of their eschatology too.

      • Thanks for the reply. We agree in the imminence of the rapture or Christ’s return. Other end-time predictions become irrelevant when faced with the responsibilities Christ has given us.

  2. My opinion, as coming from an interested layman in the cheap seats in the nosebleed section doesn’t amount to very much, but it’s obvious to me and anyone who reads the Bible is that God has dealt with humanity on changing terms since creation. (This is not to say that the method of salvation has changed; it’s always been by grace through faith.) It seemed to me that Dispensationalism was a good way of describing the process, e.g., Adam and Eve’s test of innocence, from Adam to Moses the standard of conscience, the giving of the Law, etc. (That’s what I got from my Scofield Reference Bible in the early days of my spiritual journey, anyway.) The whole argument between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism appears to me to be something like mountains and mole hills.

    • Yeah, that’s fair. Both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology agree that salvation involves a “plan” of God that’s older than the creation, and both agree that there have been multiple stages in that plan, or at least some sort of changes along the way.

      Not changes to the plan itself, but rather changes in how man and God interacted. For example, God’s interaction with man is unarguably different before and after the fall, before and after the flood, before and after the law, before and after the cross, before and after the resurrection, etc. Each of those marks some sort of change, albeit of differing significance.

      The real differing point comes on whether or not one believes that God has a separate and distinct interaction with Israel and the Gentiles. That plan can overlap, and even be synonymous at times, but it’s pretty hard to miss that in the OT, God didn’t treat Egypt identically to Israel. It’s also hard to miss that in the New Testament (as well as the after the closing of the apostolic era until now), God started doing something with the Gentiles that he had previously NOT been doing.

      The question is what that difference is, and how far-reaching it goes (i.e. continuing unaltered from now into the eternal state).

      • My comment has been edited differently than normal. The admin thought maybe a different tactic might be worth trying, so he’s editing this comment and changing it extensively. Don’t worry: I still LOVE them pickles, but due to my constantly foul-mouthed commentary and inability to say anything coherent, I have been unwelcome on this site for some time.

        Why do I keep trying to comment then?

        Well, I’m like the crowd of men of Sodom who, after being blinded by the two angels, didn’t give up. They didn’t even seem to notice. Instead of recognizing that God had just struck them blind, being filled with fear and doing something rational (like putting the breaks on their efforts), they grew angry and whipped themselves into a tizzy trying to finish the sinful plan that they came to play out. Genesis 19:11 says that “they wore themselves out groping for the door.”

        The reason for this is because of the effect that sin has on a person’s ability to think rationally. When a person is given over by God to the sinful desires that they openly pursue, their cognitive faculty breaks down and they start doing irrational things (like talking about feces in every single comment on a blog over a period of years). Even though their comments get deleted or edited every single time, they keep trying because they’re irrational; their brains have lost the ability to think coherently about certain things (usually related to the sin that they love). It’s quite sad actually. Romans 1:21-22 is a well-known passage that talks about this phenomenon.

        I hope that I can come to my senses and stop acting crazy.

        I’d appreciate all your prayers for that.

  3. BTW, has Challies done that thing he does (along with a number of TGC writers), of pretending that you’re so far down there that he can’t even hear that you said anything, ‘way up from where he is, so he needn’t respond?

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s