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.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 364 views
Paul, I appreciate this fine summary of traditional dispensationalism. I agree with you that the name is unfortunate. In a day when the aura of words is crucial, we seem to be losing the battle in that regard. We need to repackage ourselves. I personally prefer the idea of “Faithfulness to Jacob” or “Faithfulness Theology.” That’s what it is about.
"The Midrash Detective"
Thanks Ed (and the answer is yes on your query) :-)
P.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Since it implies different methods of salvation.
In my thinking it is better to recognize a Covenant of Works which the first Adam failed and the Last Adam fulfilled (see Ro.5).
The Covenant of Grace is God, in love, choosing to redeem some, at least in my mind.
I can still believe in a Pre-Millennial 2nd Advent and not conflate the Church with the promises yet to be fulfilled to Israel without subscribing to Dispy.
I can also interpret the bible in a straight forward manner without Dispy. Just because some Cov. theologians get allegorical in their reading and interpreting doesn’t negate the concept of the Covenant of Works or Grace.
Mt.12.29 and Mk.3.27 describes the ‘The Big Picture’ and The Covenant of Grace (at least in my mind).
Paul, this is your thread and I will let you have 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
Alex,
It’s difficult to say much to this. The phrase “to my mind” can mean many things. This article by my friend Tony Garland may set you right on your opening statement: Does Dispensationalism Teach Two Ways of Salvation?
God bless,
Paul H.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul,
All I mean to say “in my mind” is that I am not at this time being dogmatic about it and am open to different ideas if you can prove me wrong. These are recent convictions from readings of how I understand ‘The Big Picture’. To me that is what we are talking about when speaking about Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology- how to approach God’s disclosure in the Bible and redemption as a whole, the big picture if you will.
I’ll take a look at Tony Garland’s article, thanks for the link.
Of course there are epoch and ages but it does one no good to look at separate trees (epochs) without regarding the forest (the whole of redemption).
I modified this post, I hope it turns out ok.
Alex
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Alex,
I certainly don’t mind anyone standing back a bit from these theological ‘systems’ and, with Bible in hand, asking whether what he finds in one is really present in the other. If that is your position I applaud it. I do not care to defend Dispensationalism unless it is unfairly represented. Where it’s formulations look shaky I think everyone, whether friend or foe, ought to be open to correction.
I don’t know if you will like the approach I set out in the next piece, but you will see that I am trying to represent the Bible’s teaching (falteringly though it may be) rather than raise the standard of Dispensationalism!
God bless,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Since it implies different methods of salvation.
In 1965 (almost fifty years ago), Ryrie answered the charge of multiple ways of salvation by saying, “The positive teaching of dispensational writers is that salvation is always through God’s grace” (Ryrie 1965, 113). In the same work, he says, “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Ryrie 1965, 123, emphasis his)
[Larry]Since it implies different methods of salvation.
In 1965 (almost fifty years ago), Ryrie answered the charge of multiple ways of salvation by saying, “The positive teaching of dispensational writers is that salvation is always through God’s grace” (Ryrie 1965, 113). In the same work, he says, “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Ryrie 1965, 123, emphasis his)
Larry,
If Charles Ryrie means that saving faith is given in grace, I agree. Where I differ with him via your quote (I don’t know how accurate your use of his writings), is on the “content” of faith. Yes, there is a progression of understanding and specific detail but the content has not changed: a sin offering of the firstborn of the flock or herd (see Cain and Able). The first prophecy was given at the judgment after The Fall in a parable: The Lord (Seed of the woman) would die (a serpent’s bite), who would eventually crush the serpent’s head. Don’t get hung up on the order of occurrence of Gen. 3.15.
Larry, on a different matter than this thread, I have failed to counter your assertions on the “evil” of the effects of alcohol, forgive me. I will yet deal with you and Mr. Harding in a different thread whether the “cheeseburger” one or another. I think both of you are misguided.
I will come back to this thread probably Mon./Tues. as my weekend is full.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Where I differ with him via your quote (I don’t know how accurate your use of his writings), is on the “content” of faith.
As an aside, before calling dispensationalism worthless, it might be valuable to read some dispensationalists and see what they say. It might not convince you, but it would at least be informative. Ryrie’s work now was republished as Dispensationalism and was published in 1995 (I think). There are many other good resources available as well. Michael Vlach has a couple of good books, as well as some others.
To the issue of content, no one doubts that the content of saving faith today is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as a substitute for sinners. Can you, by using the Bible, show that the content of OT saving faith was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as a substitute for them?
[Larry]Can you, by using the Bible, show that the content of OT saving faith was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as a substitute for them?
Larry,
Think before you post, you are speaking past me and not really considering what I write.
Christ is the One who judged the Serpent in Gen.3.15 and said he would come by a virgin birth, die and resurrect for fallen humanity thus having the keys of death (to unlock eternal life for believers). All this at the foundations of the world in Gen.3.15. Able later brings a firstborn sacrifice as a sin offering.
How does Ryrie handle Gen.3.15?
Larry I was a dispensationalist before you were born. For the last 20 years, not so much.
About the utility of D., I was being generous with “worthless”. If Meredith G. Kline were still alive, he might call it sinister or even dastardly.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]Since it implies different methods of salvation.
In my thinking it is better to recognize a Covenant of Works which the first Adam failed and the Last Adam fulfilled (see Ro.5).
The Covenant of Grace is God, in love, choosing to redeem some, at least in my mind.
I can still believe in a Pre-Millennial 2nd Advent and not conflate the Church with the promises yet to be fulfilled to Israel without subscribing to Dispy.
I can also interpret the bible in a straight forward manner without Dispy. Just because some Cov. theologians get allegorical in their reading and interpreting doesn’t negate the concept of the Covenant of Works or Grace.
Mt.12.29 and Mk.3.27 describes the ‘The Big Picture’ and The Covenant of Grace (at least in my mind).
Paul, this is your thread and I will let you have the last word.
The implication of different methods of salvation had to do with a poor word order in the 1st edition of the Scofield reference Bible. Scofield didn’t speak for all dispensationalists. I am not actually certain who wrote that line if it even was Scofield. By the 2nd edition, the line was gone. So how long with covenantists perpetuate this error I wonder?
As to the covenant of works/grace/redemption, maybe you can point me to that one verse that mentions any of those covenants. Since you are quick to ignorantly call something worthless, you must be very well versed in the scriptural support for what you see as the true position. I ask for a single passage that supports these unnamed covenants that are supposed to be the grid over scripture for understanding. Please don’t appeal to the white portions of the Bible.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
It appears to me that Dispys. are looking for some magical “content” that they can corral the formula.
All through the Bible it states that God does the saving period. The “content” has an important place, but it is God who does all the saving.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Alex, you say,
About the utility of D., I was being generous with “worthless”. If Meredith G. Kline were still alive, he might call it sinister or even dastardly.
I am not interested in a fire-fight. I honestly want to know why you think Dispensationalism is ‘worthless.’
God bless,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]Alex, you say,
Quote:
About the utility of D., I was being generous with “worthless”. If Meredith G. Kline were still alive, he might call it sinister or even dastardly.I am not interested in a fire-fight. I honestly want to know why you think Dispensationalism is ‘worthless.’
God bless,
Paul
I see continuity through the past ages not a slice and dice packaging of them. Pemillennialism was a doctrine in the early church but Dispy. has only been around 150 years or so. How was the Church of Jesus able to do without Dispy?
As we go and disciple folks, I just don’t see much use for dividing the Bible up so harshly. Everyone sees the ages but most see a continuity which supersedes it.
Most folks too see that all (especially salvation of humanity since God is the One saving) is for God’s glory: sola gloria. This is not distinctive to Dispy. Progressive revelation also is wrongly cornered as something unique to D.
Dancing on the head of a pin by angels is maybe not exactly in the league, but maybe close.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]It appears to me that Dispys. are looking for some magical “content” that they can corral the formula.
All through the Bible it states that God does the saving period. The “content” has an important place, but it is God who does all the saving.
what does this have to do with anything I said?
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Discussion