What Is Dispensationalism? Can Dispys Come to an Agreement?
Some of you will undoubtedly accuse me of beating a dead horse; but before you do, I want to remind you that many around here are convinced that dispensationalism--classic darb-scof-afer dispensationalism--still lives.
Therefore, literally speaking, I could not be beating a dead horse!
Still, I am puzzled that I have yet to find (NOTE: anecdotal evidence, not scientific evidence) a widely-accepted definition of dispensationalism. Perhaps I am dense (my wife has often thought so) ... or perhaps I was blind (Isaac Newton says so) ... or perhaps I am so blasted stubborn that even if it bit me in the nose, I would refuse to acknowledge it (have you ever seen my nose?).
So ... how would you define dispensationalism?
While you ponder that question ... and while you attempt to define the fluid, splintered movement often known for its inner disagreements rather than its agreed-upon tenets ... here are some helps for you (you are welcome!):
*John (Leaky) MacArthur: "Dispensationalism, by the way, is simply a title for theology that recognizes a literal nation Israel to be restored in the future." (From HERE.) Yet another definition from MacArthur: "That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)." (From HERE.)Now it's your turn. How do you define the movement and theology of which you are a part?!
*Charles (Bishop) Ryrie (from pages 43-47 of Dispensationalism Today, Moody, 1965):*The (I hope they are my) Brethren: "Dispensationalism is a period of stewardship during which man is tested during God’s dealings with him." (From HERE.)
- Grammatico-historical hermeneutics applied to all Scripture
- The Christian church and Israel distinguished from each other
- The glory of God seen as the center of history
*(Look to the [Middle] East, it must be the) End Times Dot Org: "A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations." (Read HERE.) According to this site, the distinctions of dispensationalism are:
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
Labels: Chafer, Darby, dispensationalism, John MacArthur, Scofield
posted by Ken Fields at 12:01 AM
15 Comments:
I would call myself a Dispensationalist. I'm not sure if I fit the Clarence Larkin, Lewis Sperry Chafer, C. I. Scofield mold. I am comfortable with Charles Ryrie's definition in Dispensationalism. I am pre-trib. I've read enough books about progressive dispensationalism to know that that is not my position.
I see Dispensationalism as:
* Holding to a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutical theory.
* And the aforementioned clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
I'm no so "black and white" on the number of dispensations. I explain as follows.
* I see a clear distinction between the church and Israel
* I see a pre-fall period of God dealing with man and a post-fall.
* I see a pre-Israel and a after Israel.
* And looking ahead I see the Millennial reign of Christ and the eternal state. So I see these "dispensations":
* Innocence
* Antediluvian (pre-Flood)
* Patriarchal
* Israel
* The church age (I prefer this to "the age of grace")
* Millennial
* Eternal state
Soteriology:
* I see one way of salvation - faith in Christ (Romans 4)
* I see sovereign electing grace throughout history, EG: "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated" (Romans 9:13); "Forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia" (Acts 16:6).
About the church. I see Ephesians 3:1-6 as a key dispensational passage: "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, "
I still have questions about problem passages but don't have time to research and explain right now.
Jim, but your own proof text for dispensationalism's claim that the church and Israel are separate is one of its downfalls. Ephesian 3:6 says that "the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, OF THE SAME BODY, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel."
Ken,
If you're interested I can send you Mike Stallard's discussion of the essence of dispensationalism. It's the best one I've read.
Recommended book (I just bought 5 of them and gave one to each member of our Pastoral staff):
Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths
To Walueg:
But the point of the Ephesians passage is that this body is something new - previously undisclosed - "which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets".
The church does not abrogate the nation of Israel (or replace it).
Romans 9-11 speaks of a future for Israel (as do all the OT prophecies yet unfulfilled (the literal hermeneutic again).
Will,
I would love to read that, so feel free to send it to me!
This morning, I uncovered a description of dispensationalism by John S. Feinberg which is very troubling to me.
Here are the distinguishing characteristics of dispensationalism according to Feinberg:
(1) belief that the Bible refers to multiple senses of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham”; (2) an approach to hermeneutics that emphasizes that the Old Testament be taken on its own terms and not reinterpreted in light of the New Testament; (3) belief that Old Testament promises to Israel will find at least partial fulfillment with national Israel; (4) belief in a distinctive future for ethnic Israel; (5) belief that the church is a distinctive organism; and (6) a philosophy of history that emphasizes not just soteriological and spiritual issues but social, economic, and political issues as well.
I especially have a problem with numbers 1 and 2. #1 seems to make unfounded grammatical distinctions between similar terms, and #2 seems to deny progressive revelation.
So I guess what dispys are acknowledging is that there is no universally (or even widely) accepted definition or description of their "dispenstionalism"?
I think there is much discussion going on about what are the essentials of dispensationalism. *shrug
That's good from my perspective. I think that means they are trying to be biblical and systematic not stuck to a catechism written several hundred years ago (cheap shot at the Westminster Confession which I highly respect) :)
As far as Feinberg, did you just get a summary of those points or have you read what he was saying in Continuity and Discontinuity? Since I have it in Logos (which I love by the way) here you go:
multiple senses of terms like “jew,” “seed of abraham”
Ryrie claims that a dispensationalist is one who makes a consistent distinction between Israel and the church.43 However, this is not quite the point, for many covenant theologians distinguish Israel from the church. Even continuity systems which most allegorize the OT to read like a Christian book still recognize that references to Israel’s history do relate to national Israel, even if those events foreshadow something about the church. Likewise, when reading NT passages like Romans 11 about the natural olive branches being broken off, they interpret that as a reference to ethnic Jews. It is dubious that any continuity system never distinguishes the two.
But Ryrie did claim the key was consistent distinction. However, this is still not the key, and can even be somewhat misleading. What does “consistent” distinction mean? There is a naive sense of consistency according to which whenever one sees terms like “seed of Abraham” and “chosen race,” he always understands them as a reference to national Israel, regardless of the context. But if that is what consistency means, then even dispensationalists do not make a consistent distinction between Israel and the church! What dispensationalist thinks the references to a “holy nation,” “chosen people,” and “royal priesthood” in 1 Pet 2:9 are not references to the church? What dispensationalist thinks the discourse on the “seed of Abraham” in Romans 4 only refers to ethnic Jews? Another way to understand consistency is that uses of the terms which are clearly national are always interpreted as such, and uses which are spiritual are always interpreted as such. While this is better, it still is not quite the point.
The real point is that dispensationalists recognize multiple senses of terms like “Jew,” “seed of Abraham,” “chosen people,” and they insist that none of those senses is canceled out or becomes unimportant once one turns to the NT.44 Specifically, Scripture uses these terms in at least four distinct senses. The first is a biological, ethnic, national sense. In this sense they refer to biological, genetic Jews, i.e., biological descendants from Abraham. This sense is operative in the NT as well as the OT. For example, without recognizing this sense in Romans 9–11, much of that passage becomes unintelligible.
Second, the terms are sometimes used in a political sense. For example, at one point in the OT “Israel” refers to all twelve tribes, the nation, under the rule of David. Later it refers only to the Northern Kingdom (e.g., Jer 3:11). In the Gospels when Jesus is called “King of the Jews,” that title is used in a political sense. This sense is not identical to the preceding, for through military conquest or conversions to Judaism followed by living in Israel the political nation of Israel could have at times included non-ethnic Jews.
A third sense is a spiritual one. Terms like “seed of Abraham” and “chosen race” also apply to any individual or group, regardless of ethnic background, properly related spiritually to God by faith, i.e., the redeemed.45 The terms in this sense may be used of Gentiles (e.g., some instances of “seed of Abraham” in Romans 4). But the terms in their spiritual sense are even used to distinguish mere biological Jews from Jews who are both biologically and spiritually related to God (e.g., Rom 9:6ff.).46
A final use of the terms may be called typological. For example, in the OT there are times when Israel, while being Israel, may also function as a type of the church. Some NT passages even state that some event involving Israel is a lesson for the church (1 Cor 10:1–6, e.g.).
What is distinctive about dispensational systems in regard to these multiple senses? Many continuity systems either seem unaware of the multiple senses of the terms or only recognize senses other than the spiritual and typological in limited cases like Romans 11 where the passage makes little sense without the ethnic sense. Others do recognize the distinction in senses, but then seem to emphasize only the spiritual or typological uses.47 What is distinctive of dispensational thinking is recognition of all senses of these terms as operative in both Testaments coupled with a demand that no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses. The more one emphasizes the distinctness and importance of the various senses, the more dispensational and discontinuity-oriented his system becomes, for the distinct senses necessitate speaking of Israel ethnically, politically, and spiritually, as well as speaking of the church.
Johnson, S. L., & Feinberg, J. S. (1988). Continuity and discontinuity : Perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments : Essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (71). Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books.
I'll send that paper to you. YOu could even post it on your blog ;)
I have a question. I am a former dispensationalist, I now embrace Reformed covenant theology, but I have many dispy friends that I love and have fellowship with. But my comment is not to debate that here.
What are your thoughts on Cornelius R Stam, JC O'Hair and the Berean Bible Society's version of dispensatinalism? http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/
I used to follow this strain of dispensationalism and found it different from Scofield and Ryrie in that they do not believe the Church was started until Acts 9 and some say Acts 28. They do not practice water baptism and some don't practice the Lord's Supper. They state that water baptism was a Jewish water right and has no place in the Church age.
I want to hear thoughts from traditional dispys on this. Is this what you would call hyper-dispensationalism?
YOur thoughts brother
God bless
Paul
RE: I want to hear thoughts from traditional dispys on this. Is this what you would call hyper-dispensationalism?
That's what I would call it.
I, too, would refer to that as hyper-dispensationalism.
I've also experienced other forms of hyper-dispensationalism, which I confronted in a previous ministry. It led to confusion and discord, and eventually led to the chairman of the deacons resigning and leaving the church.
That brand of hyper-dispensationalism subscribed to the idea that only Romans through Philemon applied to the church age ... therefore, in preaching and teaching, the Gospels and the OT and even James applied those passages to people in the church today. If you did so, you were "mixing" dispensations, and putting people under the Law. After all, they said, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles (and we are not Jews).
I believe the ultimate danger in dispensationalism--as expressed through both of these hyper streams--is to emphasize the discontinuity of Scripture (and the different "peoples" of God in different "ages" ... and different "plans" for different "peoples")... rather than its unity.
That's what I thought. I do remember sitting under teaching that would constantly tell us that the books of the OT and the Gospels were all law and had no place in the church fo rour lives, only to teach us what it meant then.
Thanks
Ken,
I agree seeing too much discontinuity to be a problem. The danger on the other side is to miss aspects of the covenants which should be seen and celebrated and therefore to twist the Word of God in another fashion. As Feinberg says:
In general, the more continuity-oriented one’s system, the more one emphasizes the spiritual aspect of the blessings alone and the greater tendency to see the covenants as conditional. The more discontinuity-oriented one’s system, the greater the emphasis on all elements of covenant blessing and the greater the stress on the unconditional element in them.
Johnson, S. L., & Feinberg, J. S. (1988). Continuity and discontinuity : Perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments : Essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (80). Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books.
I think it would be good to have a discussion about multiple senses of the term “seed of Abraham”.
Another blog post?
I suggest "Seed of Abraham" because there are not that many of them in the NT
FINALLY! I've been wanting to ask this question for some time but refused to because of the polemical exchange of views I predict would follow.
I observe that Ken's repeated questioning for qualifiers of Mike and any other willing to weigh in, repeatedly engender such an exchange with little response than, "It is so...because, it's always been so, if you apply a proper hermeneutic" (which I see here in the discussion over the 'seed of Abraham').
I wonder if Ken is going through a similar struggle I had when I shed dispensationalism.
I have no desire to debate the issue. I leave that to individual conscience/perspective/practice and wish you well. However, if you are struggling with the non- answerables that dispensationalism implicates, I hope that you find comfort in alternate views, just as Biblically/exegetically based as this system.
Peace to all
MHK
ROCK-CHOKE-JAYHAWK...PU!!!
ROCK-CHOKE-JAYHAWK...PU!!!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home