Where Is Dispensationalism Going? (Part 2)
Image
Read the series.
Is dispensationalism dead? Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of its demise have actually been greatly exaggerated.
As I write this series of articles, I have just returned from The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry’s international staff conference, which was held in early May at the Sandy Cove Conference Center. The Friends of Israel will turn 85 years old this December, and I can attest that the organization remains thoroughly and carefully committed to traditional dispensational theology. At our core, we stand on the same foundational truths that undergirded men like Lewis Sperry Chafer and Harry Ironside when they formed this ministry beginning in 1938.
As we gathered with our “fellow laborers” (Philem. 24) from points around the globe, the experience was almost surreal. Some of these dear people labor diligently right there in Israel. Other brave men and women have spent much of the past year rescuing Jewish people from the horrors of war-torn Ukraine. As one of my colleagues noted, these international workers have little time or motivation to amend their theology.
One of the reasons, in fact, that I pursued service with The Friends of Israel is that I aspire to remain on the cutting edge of the dispensational premillennial movement as it has been handed down to us today.
In June, Lord willing, I will be attending the national convention of IFCA International—exhibiting there for FOI for the third consecutive year. Several hundred people will gather in Covington, Ky.—almost all of them Christian leaders and their spouses. Nearly every one of them will be dedicated to traditional dispensational theology—and can explain why.
After more than 90 years, the IFCA remains vibrantly committed to its dispensational heritage. Executive director Dr. Richard Bargas has made it abundantly clear that this is a flag worth planting—as he is wont to say—and one which will serve to define his time in office. While certainly not alone in this regard, the IFCA is positioned to lead in demonstrating the significance of traditional dispensational theology in today’s world.
There are other notable events that also raise the dispensational flag high each year, such as the Pre-Trib Study Group Conference, as well as the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics. These groups each continue to produce a wealth of information for scholars and laymen, alike.
As we evaluate the state of dispensationalism in our time, we would have to affirm that there is no single flagship organization that sends out marching orders to the rest of the movement. There’s no brain trust distributing talking points. There’s not one gigantic seminary that unifies the movement. In fact, there seems to be a rather robust discussion ongoing among various dispensational seminaries regarding some of the finer—and sometimes not-so-fine—points of theology.
Perhaps it is time for us to embrace these realities and celebrate them, especially in light of our history. Consider the upside to the fact that there is no particular entity or institution which has the capacity to alter the whole movement. Instead, this movement thrives in many smaller schools, in countless (mostly smaller) churches, promoted by faithful pastors (most of whom will never come close to being famous), exegeted in home study groups and through conferences that attract people to sacrifice their weekends in exchange for in-depth instruction on the Scriptures. In short, the current situation harkens back to dispensationalism’s humble beginnings—born out of intensive Bible study by individuals, in homes, in churches and in conferences.
And, mind you, there are millions of copies of study Bibles, theology books and other volumes from a dispensational perspective—many produced by major publishing companies—that are still in circulation in our society.
And, if you think that everything in the world of Reformed theology has been streamlined for success, think again. Major issues are under discussion in their camps—and some of them are incredibly divisive. Not the least significant of these involve the rise of new covenant theology and progressive covenantalism. There are also ever-changing attempts to explain and describe how the church replaces Israel—a rather fundamental element of any non-dispensational system, in my opinion.
Samuel admonished King Saul with the reality that it was “when [he was] little in [his] own eyes” (1 Sam. 15:17) that he was at the height of his spiritual capability. The same could arguably be said about his successor, King David, as well. Jesus endearingly referred to His followers as a “little flock” in Luke 12:32. “Do not fear,” He said on that basis, “for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
Yes, many of us persist in traveling on “the old paths” (Jer. 6:16) of dispensationalism. Perhaps the movement still has more momentum than we commonly ascribe to it. The real issue is where we should go from here.
And I will discuss that specific subject further in the next installment in this series.
NKJV - Source
Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Paul Scharf 2023 bio
Paul J. Scharf (M.A., M.Div., Faith Baptist Theological Seminary) is a church ministries representative for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, based in Columbus, WI, and serving in the Midwest. For more information on his ministry, visit sermonaudio.com/pscharf or foi.org/scharf, or email pscharf@foi.org.
- 1766 views
Paul J. Scharf wrote: Yes, many of us persist in traveling on “the old paths” (Jer. 6:16) of dispensationalism. Perhaps the movement still has more momentum than we commonly ascribe to it. The real issue is where we should go from here
Paul, those who persist in dispensational theology are not traveling on "the old paths." Chiliasm is an "old path;" dispensationalism is not.
Daniel Hummell’s new book “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism” is excellent. By “fall,” he refers to precisely what Bro. Scharf mentions here—the movement has lost steam. Hummell’s book is a good, fair historical treatment of the system. He takes pains to note that his dad is a dispensationalist pastor and read the manuscript before publication.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I appreciate Bro. Scharf’s passion for dispensationalism. I myself recently had the privilege of having Dr. Mike Stallard teach a DMin class on preaching prophecy. Yet, I can’t share Bro. Scharf’s optimism for the movement’s future.
Dispensationalism is increasingly the province of an aging constituency with little theological impetus.
- It’s proponents largely do not produce literature defending the system as a system—Chafer is still alone on that lonely road.
- It’s meager scholarly venue (the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics) specifically exists to advocate for “traditional” dispensationalism, which means its constituency is quite limited. Mike Vlach is the only dispensationalist I’m aware of who consistently produces material about the system, and he is a progressive dispensationalist—would he be welcome at the Council?
- Friends of Israel increasingly occupies a niche that continues to trend older.
- Dispensationalism’s constituency is an increasingly creaky network of smaller bible colleges and churches that rely on works by Ryrie, Pentecost, and McClain as their north stars. The latest of these published their substantive works in this lane about 60 years ago—Ryrie updated his Dispensationalism Today in the mid-90s, but this doesn’t count.
- Dispensationalism has failed to produce substantive biblical commentaries which show their hermeneutics emerge organically from the text. Thomas wrote his book on Revelation nearly 30 years ago—where are the NT commentaries? This is a hint that the movement has stalled on a scholarly basis. Regular Baptist Press is trying to remedy this, and I look forward to the forthcoming commentaries from their series.
All told, the movement’s future is not rosy. It is quite bleak. The young lions of Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost, and McClain are now dead. Their students are near retirement, retired, or deceased. Few have stepped forward to fill the gap.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
A long detailed explanation is impossible in this format, so I will simply say that doing exegesis for expositional preaching over the years forced me to grapple with problems for which Dispensationalism did not offer satisfactory answers. I have no opinion regarding whether the system is healthy or dying. My only concern is whether or not it best explains Scripture. If it does, I will gladly continue to embrace it, as I did for many years. If it does not, I must reluctantly discard it in favor of explanations that are more consistent with Scripture. Sola scriptura.
G. N. Barkman
I wonder what people would have said about Calvinism in the dark years before the PCA and such broke off from the PCUSA, and before Calvinism became very popular, especially among young believers.
I regret, by the way, the fact that I'm not quite educated enough to comment much here. (or maybe some of y'all might be glad?smile) I do know that I tend to see "Israel" as "Israel", partially because I don't see the need to do a lot of work to do a lot of work to try and connect those passages to the church. I guess that's a start.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Paul, I so appreciate your two articles (thus far). I especially appreciate your acceptance of the fact that many of us “tweak” our dispensationalism in differing directions, but are committed to the normal (more literal) interpretation of Scripture, rather than a “drop-in” coded replacement of “the church” for “Israel.”
Looking forward to others in this series.
"The Midrash Detective"
Dispensationalism has failed to produce substantive biblical commentaries which show their hermeneutics emerge organically from the text.
Hermeneutics don’t emerge organically from the text. Hermeneutics is prior to the text. It is foundational to all communication. Hermeneutics determines what we do with the text. All people who read texts (including these texts on SI) have hermeneutics. No commentary shows a hermeneutic emerging from a text. Commentaries only reveal the hermeneutic brought to the text.
I agree that dispensationalists don’t have a lot of biblical commentaries. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, not the least of which is that most dispensationalists are not equipped to write commentaries. But that does bring about any necessary conclusion on the ideas of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism could be right even if no commentaries were written from its perspective. And it could be wrong if every commentary were written from its perspective.
Larry has identified the central issue as I see it. If we bring a humanly constructed hermeneutic to the text, it will yield a humanly pre-determined result. But hermeneutical principles are not divinely inspired, they are presupposed. If our hermeneutics are not divinely given, our interpretations based upon them may be flawed. As I studied the NT, I gradually realized that NT writers often failed to use the literal hermeneutic required by Dispensationalism.
If inspired writers are not bound by this hermeneutic, why should we? Previously, some have answered this question on SI by saying, "NT authors could use a different hermeneutic because they were inspired but we can't because we are not." Doesn't that sound like an artifice to prop up a system? Why not rather say, "Since inspired NT writers did not consistently follow a literal hermeneutic, shouldn't we endeavor to learn from their example?"
Even when we are unable to figure out their exact hermeneutical principles, shouldn't we accept their inspired interpretations as normative, and acknowledge that passages that are not interpreted in the NT may well follow the same pattern? That makes more sense to me than insisting upon "literal whenever possible" when NT writers clearly ignored that dictum.
G. N. Barkman
As long as the OT is read literally ...
- The idea of an earthly reign on Messiah will be believed (Call it a "millennium" (I do b/c of Revelation 20!) or not!))
- While some say dispensationalism is recent b/c of Darby, the concept of an earthly reign of Christ was believed by many of the church fathers. Michael Vlach does a good job documenting this (he's not alone obviously!) in "He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God"
- The reformers were blind to a future literal Israel b/c they had other things "on their plate"
- Millennialism is NOT dead or dying. And neither is Pre-Millennialism
- As to the rapture question - ever Bible believer believes in the rapture (although some don't use that term)
- I personally don't think the timing of the rapture is a primary doctrine (although I am pre-trib and can defend it
- The problem I have is - defining a dispensation.
First: Dispensationalists are Premillennial but not all Premills are dispensationalists.
Second: Belief in the imminent return of Christ does not mean that one believes in a Pre-Trib rapture. It may simply mean that one believes that the Second Coming and what's called the rapture are the same event.
Third: We have a generation that has grown used to expositional preaching. When someone tries to explain dispensational eschatology to them by jumping from one Bible book to another (Revelation to Daniel to Ezekiel to the Pauline Epistles to the Gospels....you get the picture) their eyes glaze over as they try to connect the dots.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
We have a generation that has grown used to expositional preaching. When someone tries to explain dispensational eschatology to them by jumping from one Bible book to another (Revelation to Daniel to Ezekiel to the Pauline Epistles to the Gospels….you get the picture) their eyes glaze over as they try to connect the dots.
There have always been dispensationalists expositors. And there are Reformed expositors who jump from one Bible book to another to connect dots as well. That is what the whole “Jesus on every page” movement is about. And there have been some really strange dot to dots. The continuity/discontinuity discussion is about connecting dots, no matter which side you fall on.
Expositional preaching is hardly a problem for dispensationalism. There have been bad dispensational preachers and bad Reformed preachers. And there have been good on both sides.
But to the point, if two or more passages talk about the same thing, there is nothing at all wrong with pointing that out. And if people’s eyes glaze over, that’s not necessarily the fault of the preaching, is it?
I should have said, " a generation that is used to preaching and teaching that is primarily from a single text and not used to preaching and teaching that jumps from one text to another." Secondly, they have a hard time imaging that pre-printing press preachers, in explaining pre-trib pre-mil eschatology would have been jumping from text to text to do so.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
As Paul Scharf knows, I have been a vocal critic of Dispensationalist's torpor when it comes to 1. developing it as a system, 2. analyzing its usefulness as a worldview, 3. understanding its hermeneutics and methodology generally, 4. borrowing from other more complete systems, 5. problem with the centrality of Christ, 6. lack of scholarly commentaries and reference works, and last but not least, 7. the faux-pas of defining oneself by dispensations. (Oh look, 7!).
It is because I wrote a dissertation on 'Method & Function in Dispensational Theology' in 2006 that I realized the enormity of the problem. That is what led me to the work on what eventually became 'Biblical Covenantalism.'
Dispensationalism, for all its merits, has some fundamental problems which undermine the enterprise, and its adherents refuse to examine them critically. What really matters is NOT the defense of Dispensationalism but our exegetical and theological proximity to the teaching of Holy Writ.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I should have said, ” a generation that is used to preaching and teaching that is primarily from a single text and not used to preaching and teaching that jumps from one text to another.” Secondly, they have a hard time imaging that pre-printing press preachers, in explaining pre-trib pre-mil eschatology would have been jumping from text to text to do so.
Even this slight change doesn’t change the basic problem, IMO. First, I don’t think this generation is used to preaching from a single text anymore than any other. Second, the current crop of Reformed preachers are frequently “jumping from one text to another” at times. That is not unique to dispensationalism. Third, pre-trib, pre-mill eschatology doesn’t require jumping from text to text, but where two texts (or more) talk about the same thing, should we not correlate them?
As an example, the OT Scriptures seems clearly to indicate an earthly kingdom. If one confines a sermon to that, it is virtually impossible to get to Amillennialism. It is only by jumping from book to book that one can get there. So that is not the sole property of dispensationalism.
If someone is not a dispensationalist yet, that’s fine. But I would urge us not to mispresent the issues.
What really matters is NOT the defense of Dispensationalism but our exegetical and theological proximity to the teaching of Holy Writ.
I agree with this, and this is why I am a dispensationalist. In my estimation, it makes the most exegetical and theological sense of the Scripture. I have read some of your writings over the years here (though not your full dissertation) but they haven’t persuaded me. I suppose at this point my response is simply to say that I imagine we all agree that exegetical and theological proximity to Scripture is of the utmost importance (though I think some undermine that in various). I would simply suggest that this is not a dividing line between the groups. I am not even sure your seven things are the problems that you think they are, but nonetheless, focusing on the authority of Scripture is key for all of us.
Discussion