You may be used to me doing interviews with fellow believers I learned about in a Facebook Group I'm in, that group being Female Christian Rock & Metal. Well, you'll start seeing a few interviews from authors in a different Facebook Group I'm in, namely Calvinist Dispensationalists Unite! Today, I have the honor of interviewing author Carol Berubee.
Before I start with the interview, though, allow me to add something. Yes, I love interviewing novelists and musicians and artists. However, the interviews I enjoy the most deal with theology, as today's and those I did with Mere Liberty's Kerrie Baldwin and Common Thread's Mark Mirza.
So are you ready for today's interview?
JR: Welcome to my blog, Carol. May I start by asking how you came to Christ and how you got started writing?
CB: Thanks for inviting me, Jeff. Well, my background is not Christian. I grew up in a home that was Deist, at best. There were some occult influences, as well. I had no idea who Jesus was. I heard “Jesus Christ” as a curse word, but had no clue that this was a person. Even in my twenties, I
wasn’t too sure what Christmas was; I didn’t really understand the birth of Christ. I was even more confused about “Easter.” I just had no understanding of it at all.
I was raised in a “moralist” home; we understood that lying, stealing, cheating, and swearing were all wrong, not to even mention murder (including abortion), or adultery, or other sexual sins. We knew that all of those things were forbidden. My parents, at the same time, instilled in us the importance of helping others, of “loving your neighbor.”
But moralism without God leads to grand valleys of failure. With so many rules to obey, it’s easy to cross the line. Then, there comes a time when everything just seems to snowball; or, in my case, there’s one dramatic sin that ensnares you and even though you don’t (at least, on the surface) think that anything is sinful, you just know that your life isn’t right. I was happy until I wasn’t; and then, I’d tell myself that my life was okay and I had every right to be happy. That kind of thinking only takes you so far.
One night, when I was 31 and was, literally, in the middle of my sin, I just had a moment where I realized that God was there. Without going into details, I was convicted of my sin and the next morning I began to look for Christian books and messages. From there, I finally found a local church, though I would leave there after four years because I came to realize that it wasn’t really Biblical. It did, however, afford me the opportunity to teach women’s Bible studies.
Over the years, I had fielded many questions from fellow Christians about various topics, especially law and grace, and eschatology, so that I began to write a book “in my head.” Eventually, a friend shared something that had occurred in his Bible study group that had to do with how we know we are saved. I was surprised that in my friend’s group, no one had referenced anything from the Pauline corpus. It was evident that “works” had come to the fore and references were drawn from the Gospel accounts and from James’ epistle.
My response to my friend was based on my years of Biblical study that had led me to believe that Paul is our Apostle, that Jesus had come under the Law to minister to Israel, and that James was an Apostle to the Jews, specifically; therefore, we should look to Paul, first and foremost. But how would I explain that in just a few sentences? I had to write a book that would explain to my friend, and others, what the Bible tells us about Paul’s ministry as distinct from Jesus’ pre-Cross ministry to Israel, and even the ministry of The Twelve among the Jews.
CB: I’ll begin with your second question, if I may. I knew the first book I wrote would be the beginning of a series, so after making the case for Pauline Dispensationalism, the next book would be a primer on Pauline doctrine. If Paul is our Apostle, what does the Ascended Christ have to tell us through His chosen vessel? What is Paul’s Gospel and what is the “mystery” of which he speaks?
To your first question, after writing those two books, I set that series aside for the time being so that I could write my most recent book, what I call a “Bible study devotional” for women. It’s a response to some women who have great influence in Christian circles but who don’t necessarily have a Biblical worldview, or don’t believe the Bible is sufficient, or don’t understand walking in grace rather than law-works.
I had also heard women complaining that most devotionals for women are too “fluffy;” they wanted more meat. So, this little devotional is packed with Scripture and challenges ladies to leave aside the pretty pictures to focus on the meat of the Word, which is enough. The theme is “law and grace” and “walking in the Spirit.”
CB: Well, first, Acts 2 Dispensationalism is the default dispensational stance; that is, most dispensationalists hold that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, began in Acts 2. Some dispensationalists are Mid-Acts or later; that is, they believe the Church began at Paul’s conversion in Acts 9, or when believers were first called “Christians” in Acts 13, or even as late as Acts 28 when Paul supposedly goes to the Jews for the last time and concentrates the rest of his ministry to Gentiles only. I’m Acts 2, but I differ from most Acts 2 dispensationalists in that I acknowledge and embrace the unique ministry and message of Paul, and recognize the differences between Paul’s Gospel and ministry over against those of the pre-Cross
Christ and even the post-Cross Twelve; thus, I’m Pauline.
As if that’s not confusing enough to some Christians, we have the added confusion of the label, “Pauline Dispensationalism,” which is used today by Mid-Acts believers. However, it was once used by Acts 2 believers who were distinctly Pauline but because we are all but extinct, there aren’t enough of us to hold on to that moniker and so we’ve lost it to the Mid-Acts folks; hence, my label of “Acts 2 Pauline Dispensational.”
So, the theological differences between your run-of-the-mill (Acts 2) dispensationalist and a Pauline dispensationalist can be quite significant. For example, while the typical Christian, even the typical modern dispensationalist, would hang on every word of the Sermon on the Mount, the Pauline believer recognizes the context of the Sermon as Yeshua Messiah teaching pre-Cross Jews. Christ had been born under the Law to minister to Israel under the Law (Galatians 4:4, Romans 15:8). There is no mention of the Cross, the shed blood, the indwelling Spirit, or the Body of Christ in the Sermon; therefore, we study the Sermon (it IS the Word of God!), but we keep it in its proper context (Israel under Mosaic Law). For example, in the Sermon, Christ says that if we do not forgive, then God won’t forgive us (Matthew 6:15), but Paul says that we forgive because we have already been forgiven by God (Ephesians 4:32). I go through several such examples in my first book. There are also these types of differences between the ministry of The Twelve and that of Paul, and these are explained in the book.
Theologically, the most significant differences have to do with law and grace, the mystery, and the Body of Christ. Even The Twelve continued to practice Mosaic Law after the Cross (Acts 10-11). And then, more than twenty years post-Cross, Peter, James, and John agreed to continue to go to Jews only, while Paul and Barnabas continued to go to the Gentiles (Galatians 2). The Twelve and James had just come to understand, at that time, that the Gentiles were not required to proselytize to Judaism in order to become Christians. This is important because Paul had been teaching grace among the Gentiles from the beginning and, in keeping with that doctrine, he never compelled the Gentiles to look to Israel’s Law for either justification or sanctification. And yet, today, most Christians will say that, at the very least, we are under the Ten Commandments for sanctification, so that we need to “check ourselves” against the Commandments as our daily rule of life.
In relation to “the mystery,” the Bible tells us that The Twelve were preaching what had been plainly revealed in the Old Testament, that the Messiah would come, would save His people, and restore the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 3:19-26; cf. Luke 1:67-70; cf. also Acts 1:3 with Acts 1:6). Paul, however, says that his Gospel message had been a mystery, not revealed in the OT, but revealed to him after his conversion (Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 2:7-8, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:24-29). While Paul certainly believed that Christ would someday return to rule and reign on this earth in fulfillment of OT prophecy, yet his ministry was focused on the mystery of the Body of Christ, an organism already seated in the heavenly places.
CB: I agree that dispensationalism is, or should be, associated with end-times and cessationism. As well, it is true that dispensationalism must include the doctrine that Israel and the Church are two separate entities, and, in fact, the logical application of that doctrine will affect how we view sanctification. For instance, if the Law was given only to Israel (Exodus 20:2; Psalm 147:19-20; Romans 2:14, 3:19), then we must not put the Church under Israel’s Law, a Law which ended at the Cross. This is basic dispensationalism. So, let me say this: I believe a dispensationalism that only includes the Israel-Church distinction is a “mere dispensationalism” that cannot and will not endure in history. I believe dispensationalism is far more than the recognition of the Israel-Church distinction, and far more than the acknowledgement of an earthly future for national Israel. Today, we have Progressive Dispensationalism, which still features an Israel-Church distinction and an earthly future for national Israel, but which has ceded much to Covenant Theology – the Church under Israel’s Law, Christ currently reigning from David’s Throne in Heaven, etc. In time, this mere dispensationalism, as distinct from Traditional and Pauline Dispensationalism, will be swallowed up by Covenant Theology.
Traditional Dispensationalism, and certainly Pauline Dispensationalism, emphasizes the law-grace distinction, and the in Adam-in Christ distinction, just as much as a pre-Tribulation/pre-Millennial eschatology, and cessationism.
I would go even further and say that dispensationalism should be viewed as a boon to those who hold to the Doctrines of Grace (a Calvinistic anthropology and soteriology). John MacArthur has preached that all Calvinists should be dispensationalists, and I agree, but I would say that, in addition, all dispensationalists should be Calvinists. What I mean is that Traditional and, to some extent, Pauline dispensationalism recognizes the unfolding of several successive dispensations throughout history and, in each environment with its own set of unique variables determined by God, man has failed the test. Each dispensation has made it clear to man that he is totally depraved, no matter the circumstances, no matter how much light he has been given. God must act in efficacious grace if man is to be saved.
So, I see dispensationalism as far more than an Israel-Church distinction. I would also emphasize this current dispensation, the dispensation of the mystery, as distinctly Pauline so that, therefore, we find our rule of life in Paul’s epistles. In this way, Pauline Dispensationalism addresses sanctification, as you noted. How does the Church live under grace? The Mosaic Law was given only to Israel, not the Gentiles, not the Church. This is a very important truth that can only be discovered and mined in a strong dispensational system. The Church is not an extension of Judaism. The Church is a new organism distinct from Israel and Israel’s Law; therefore, in this dispensation, Paul does not point us to the Law but instead tells us that it is grace that teaches us godliness and righteousness (Titus 2:11-12).
JR: I’ll admit, the above questions were a little weighty. Maybe this one is a little lighter. Who do you consider worthy following as they follow Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1)? Any authors (fiction as well as non-fiction), musicians/hymn writers, radio/TV pastors, etc. have encouraged your faith?
CB: This is actually a tougher question for me! When I was first saved, I had no idea what to do next because I had never gone to church or read any Christian books (including the Bible), so I found myself watching TBN on television. I was off to a bad start, to say the least! I had a steady diet of TBN for two years and then started going to a Pentecostal church. But God was faithful. He led me out of the Word of Faith false doctrine and out of the Pentecostal church I had attended for four years.
That experience led me to really study the Bible and ask God for discernment. I rarely endorse any ministry or teacher or song writer because most folks who are well known have questionable theology or motives, or both. So, I would say that I appreciate John MacArthur, although I pray that he would be more Pauline, more dispensational. I cringe every time he puts the Church under the Ten Commandments, but I do find that I am in agreement with him most of the time.
Mainly, I only read books from old dead guys. Reading “Romans Verse-by-Verse” by William R. Newell was like finding “home.” His theology resonated with me and I finally understood Christianity. I can say the same for Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Grace: The Glorious Theme.” Between Newell and Chafer my life was completely changed. H.A. Ironside is fun to read, if not always theologically accurate. I have a lot of books from the 1800s that are rich and edifying, as well.
JR: Thank you for your time, Carol. How can we learn more about your writing and ministry? And what projects do you have coming out? Anything unexpected, such as a science fiction novel?
CB: It was my pleasure, Jeff. Thanks for having me. I don’t have a lot of social media, but I do have a website at carolberubee.com as well as my FaceBook page @carolberubeeauthor. My books are available at all online booksellers and can be ordered at most brick-and-mortar bookshops. I’m currently writing a book on life after death. It will include a few charts, for which we dispensationalists are known (and often mocked), but it just wouldn’t be as good without them. Someday, Lord willing, I’ll get back to fiction writing. I used to write short stories in high school and my early college days, but then God saved me and took my life in a different direction. Who knows? I just pray that whatever I do it would be for the glory of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment