What is a "Dispensationalist" Theology?

Image

A Dispensationalist is a Christian who sees in Scripture certain clear divisions in the progress of revelation in which God governs history. At its best this is done on the basis of the covenants revealed in the Bible. A “dispensation” (Greek, oikonomia) is an administration or economy, wherein, within a certain period of time (known to God, but afterwards revealed to man), God pursues His plan through the lives of men. The term oikonomia is made up of two other words: oikos, meaning house, and nemo, meaning to administer, manage, or dispense. Literally, an oikonomia is a house-management or household administration. In its theological usage it is well suited to describe what we might call a divine economy. This is much the way the word is used in Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25-26, and 1 Timothy 1:4. These passages also show that Paul held to the reality of certain dispensations in the broad sense given above.

Not unsurprisingly therefore, even Covenant theologians often speak of dispensations. For example, both Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof employ the term much like Dispensationalists do. Willem VanGemeren speaks of “epochs.” The number of these administrations is open to debate. Though commonly held, the seven dispensations articulated by C. I. Scofield are not the requisite number in order to be admitted into the ranks of Dispensationalist thinkers. The present writer, for instance, questions the theological value of some of these “economies” except perhaps as markers helping one trace the flow of God’s acts in biblical history.

Plain-Sense Interpretation

A characteristic of Dispensational theology is the consistent use of what is called the “grammatico-historical” method of interpretation. Here ‘consistent’ applies in principle, although not always in practice. Whether dealing with biblical narrative, or poetry, or prophetic literature, the Dispensationalist applies the same hermeneutics to each genre. This certainly does not mean that the genre is ignored; clearly, for example, so-called apocalyptic literature is not the same as historical writing or wisdom literature. But Dispensational scholars do not believe that one needs to change hermeneutical horses midstream when one passes, say, from Matthew 23, (Gospel narrative), to Matthew 24-25, (which many scholars would describe as apocalyptic or at least prophetic). They believe that exploring the grammatical sense of a passage within its context, and throwing whatever historical light they can upon a text, will yield the intended meaning. To drift away from this is to get caught up in the currents of the academic fads of the day; whatever is or is not in vogue should not dictate biblical interpretation.

The supposition of the Dispensationalist includes a belief in the full inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, together with a belief that the propositional nature of Scripture. Propositionalism is best adapted when a statement indicates a “literal” or plain sense. Thus, Dispensationalists are adherents of propositional revelation—a position that is being affirmed less and less within the conservative community, as scholars make biblical interpretation more the province of the specialist than the “common man.”

The Importance of the Covenants of Scripture

Essential to the theology of all classic Dispensationalists are the Covenants of Scripture. These are the explicit and clearly recognizable covenants defined in the pages of the Bible. They include the Noahic Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant; the Land Covenant; the Mosaic Covenant (which has been terminated); the Priestly Covenant; the Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant. The principal biblical covenant for most Dispensationalists is the Abrahamic, out of which come those which follow. Because most of these are unilateral in nature (i.e. they were promises made solely by God and given to men) they cannot be rescinded or altered, since God can always be counted on to do just what He promises. Still, they may, like treaties generally, be supplemented by additional though never contradictory statements. An example of this would be the additional clarifications of the Abrahamic Covenant that one notices when reading Genesis 15 through Genesis 22.

The consistent application of the grammatico-historical method to these biblical contracts made by God with men leads to certain specific and undeniable expectations. Among these expectations is the one which, perhaps more than any other, distinguishes Dispensationalism from its main evangelical alternative, Covenant Theology. This distinguishing feature is the belief that there remains a set of incontrovertible promises given to the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (“the Fathers,” Rom. 11:26-29).

These promises, confirmed as they were by irrevocable Divine Covenant (see especially Gen. 15 and Jer. 33:15-26), must be brought to a literal fulfillment; a fulfillment which includes a physical land, and a king on a literal throne in earthly Jerusalem. As far as Israel’s inheritance of these promises is concerned, any future restoration of Israel to their land will not be apart from the new birth (Ezek. 36:21-28; Rom. 11:5, 25-29). But the Divine favor for this “remnant” of ethnic Israel is based on God’s gracious unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mediated through Christ via the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34).

The Name “Dispensationalism”

It is because of the significance of these biblical Covenants that “Dispensationalism” is a rather unfortunate name. If it were not for the fact that it might cause some confusion with what is called “Covenant Theology” Dispensationalism would be more accurately identified as “Biblical Covenantalism.” Indeed, pursuing that idea and its ramifications has been a preoccupation of the present writer for several years.

This covenantal aspect of Dispensational theology can lend to it a powerful eschatological and teleological force, but this has not always been placed under the correct theological or hermeneutical controls. One example of this is the popular success of writers like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, authors who concentrate only on a populist approach to eschatology and who do not do justice to the whole discipline which is (or at least could be) Dispensational systematic theology.

Sad to relate, but much of Dispensationalism over the past fifty years has been held captive to this type of non-technical eschatological treatment. This has meant that serious development of Dispensational theology at the levels of exegesis, theological method, and philosophical explication has suffered greatly. Perhaps the most detrimental outcome of all this in terms of the thinking of many Dispensationalists has been the lack of exploration of the worldview implications of a full-orbed Dispensational systematic theology. This will be treated in another post.

Discussion

I see a lot of you reading your own assumptions into the text. You stated what you believed a covenant was and I corrected you. You state:

It is better in my view to come to the scriptures humbly and without unwarranted constructs of how God deals in covenants. You seem to need concrete propositions for a covenant and I don’t (at this stage).

This statement is packed with assumptions on what coming to the Scriptures “humbly” and “without unwarranted constructs” is. I gave warrant Alex. I’m afraid it was your constructs (of a covenant before Noah, or your definition of a covenant) which were unwarranted. I derive my propositions from the text. God takes clear covenant oaths in Gen. 9 (Noahic), Gen. 15 (Abrahamic), David (Psa. 89), etc. No such thing occurs in Gen. 1-3. You are correct that you don’t need concrete propositions. You simply imply what you think needs to be there without solid exegetical basis for it.

You say,

God promised eternal life to mortal humans before the ages began (Ti. 1.2). Where is the explication of this? In my mind it is implicit in the tree of life. I would contend some things are not concretely stated propositionally and yet true and very significant. After all, God doesn’t owe us a thing in His disclosure. The call for the necessity of “definitive and specific” or rejection seems too philosophically Greek to me. I have seem too much bibliolitry (worship of naked explication) to insist on clear propositions when dealing with biblical covenants.

But again this is full of lacunae to be filled by your own predispositions. Your juxtaposing “eternal life” with mortality and connecting the former with the tree of life hides just such an inference. The tree of life would have permitted them to “live forever” by eating from it, but it had nothing to do with salvation, as per the so-called covenant of grace, and as is necessary to make sense of Titus 1:2. The tree of life would have extended life (probably by repeated eating from its fruit), but salvation is more than prolonged existence, as you know.

Next, you need to show what kind of things aren’t stated propositionally but are significant and where. You then say “God doesn’t owe us a thing is His disclosure.” Well, He does if He expects us to understand Him. He does unless He wants us to swan off in our own ingenuity. An important point of mine is that revelation which is obscure does not reveal! If God is not “definitive and specific” (which He is in His covenants, which is my whole point), then what is He? Ill-defined and non-specific? But that just allows us to provide the definition and specificity WE prefer! The covenants rule this sort of thing out. Bringing in the Greeks diverts the issue. The issue is what does Scripture say?

Quote:

I have seem too much bibliolitry (worship of naked explication) to insist on clear propositions when dealing with biblical covenants.

Note how you define “bibliolatry’. For you it is not worship of the Bible but “worship of naked explanation’ (whatever that is). Then you use this definition to excuse yourself from the clear propositions in the biblical covenants. If you wish to do that you will have to uncover a biblical rationale for it, not a personal hang-up.

I’m not sure of the argument you are trying to make with Abel etc., but the text does not provide us with explicit explanations to it. But the biblical covenants do, and they are right there on the surface of the covenant terms! Perhaps your problem is you don’t like what they say or you think they have been reinterpreted by the NT? Yes, “reinterpretation” is the right word if you believe the NT transforms the original wording and gives it interpretations not clear in the original wording to in the OT. My article shows that.

Your reasoning revolves a lot around your own ideas that you come across (not deliberately I’m sure) as something of a subjectivist in interpretation. You need to prove your contentions; yes, propositionally, not just with “for me.”

God bless,

Paul H.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

I appreciate the interaction of your thoughts Paul.

You still want to chop up revelation by your viewing disparate covenants it seems to me. I see more of a connection of the redemptive history back to the Judgment in Eden (Ge.3.15).

Also, the Mosaic Covenant had the Law of the sacrifice and Temple not only the commandments (do this and live). They could never do the commandments perfectly, therefore, a sacrifice was needed. God chose some Israelites (not all) in the OT the same as throughout the Bible in all ages. It makes sense to me that a Covenant of Grace exists. Gal.4.4-5 tells us that Christ was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law. This makes sense with a Covenant of Works which Christ fulfilled and Adam did not as Paul tells us that Christ was the Last Adam. Where is this explicated in the OT? We have to wait for the NT to discover what was going on, so to say, in the OT.

All in all, I am finding these concepts make much sense and I am certainly not alone or idiosyncratic in my views. I think more Christians hold to Works and Grace as Covenants than to seeing different content of redemption through the ages.

Additionally, God speaks in parables both in the NT as well as the OT and chooses to keep some things secret. He chooses to save some though by His grace and not by keeping a covenant contra what it seems you are trying to say with the covenants.

Again, it is not my own subjectivity in seeing redemption as similar throughout revelation. While not CT, I think they have it right, or better that the discontinuity of DT or your scheme.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Alex,

DT’s and myself believe salvation is “by grace through faith” in all ages after the fall.

The Law was given at Sinai (cf. Jn. 1:17; Heb.9:19-23). It was not given in Eden. There one reads of a single prohibition. Reading the Law into Eden is clearly discontinuous with the text. The discontinuities of CT (which you tend to) are hermeneutical ones. God says things in equivocating terms. This leads to a problem in the character of the picture of God in CT. The unity of the Bible in CT is a metaphorical unity, not one which can be predicated of the words of Scripture themselves.

Our duty is not to believe something because it seems better to us. That is acting like Eve. What I am trying to do is ground belief in explicit terminology. I do not divide up biblical history any more than the likes of Berkhof and others. I’m not sure which discontinuities of mine you are talking about.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Paul Henebury]

Alex,

DT’s and myself believe salvation is “by grace through faith” in all ages after the fall.

The Law was given at Sinai (cf. Jn. 1:17; Heb.9:19-23). It was not given in Eden. There one reads of a single prohibition. Reading the Law into Eden is clearly discontinuous with the text. The discontinuities of CT (which you tend to) are hermeneutical ones. God says things in equivocating terms. This leads to a problem in the character of the picture of God in CT. The unity of the Bible in CT is a metaphorical unity, not one which can be predicated of the words of Scripture themselves.

Our duty is not to believe something because it seems better to us. That is acting like Eve. What I am trying to do is ground belief in explicit terminology. I do not divide up biblical history any more than the likes of Berkhof and others. I’m not sure which discontinuities of mine you are talking about.

DT theology is man-centric whereas CT recognizes that God is the sole agent in redemption. Look at your statement: “grace through faith” of course in some sense I believe it too but not your way. You have it that God gives people formulas and the ball is in their court. You have it that God only made salvation possible but didn’t act in anyone’s salvation it sounds to me. DT has big people and a small god, whereas CT has a true and lofty concept of God.

DT is a subtle attempt to control what should be regarded in the bible as redemptive. It may not be direct control, but it is control none-the-less. You say it is only your defined explicit formulas you have derived. You are limiting revelation to explicitness and have no warrant to do so. You are putting an interpretive gird upon scripture of your own making.

God did give a law in one command in Eden and Adam failed. The Last Adam kept every Mosaic command perfectly and then provided Himself a sacrifice of atonement. Adam was a type: this is explicit. Adam broke a covenant: this is explicit also. What is not explicit is your saying that God is limited in His dealings with humans to only His explicit covenants that you can find. You should not limit divine revelation or how God relates to His creation. Yes, explicit truth is wonderful, but don’t discount the implications of scripture.

When I say “seems better to me”, I mean it is more plausible. CT is more plausible to me than DT. Anyway, I am done, your thread, so you can speak the last word.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

DT theology is man-centric whereas CT recognizes that God is the sole agent in redemption. Look at your statement: “grace through faith” of course in some sense I believe it too but not your way. You have it that God gives people formulas and the ball is in their court. You have it that God only made salvation possible but didn’t act in anyone’s salvation it sounds to me. DT has big people and a small god, whereas CT has a true and lofty concept of God.

Where did you come up with this? I know a number of dispensationalists that are Calvinist in their soteriology, even five-point Calvinists who would have no idea that they are man-centric, or that God doesn’t act in anyone’s salvation.

You and your opinions are welcome to each other!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.