Where Is Dispensationalism Going? (Part 1)
Image
Read the series.
Dispensationalism is definitely in decline. I have written two major articles1 probing the causes of that issue and—though I take no delight in that conclusion—it is certainly one that deserves our attention.
The history of dispensationalism’s downturn is well known. But, for those who may not be aware, let me rehearse a few general facts. There was a time, before the so-called Reformed Resurgence,2 when dispensationalism carried the day in evangelicalism on the popular level and, to a large extent, on the academic level.
When I interviewed Dr. Thomas Ice for the first time, back in 1997, he summed it up like this: “We were so big we couldn’t get any bigger.”3
Consider the fact that many of the largest and most prestigious evangelical seminaries in the country were thoroughly committed to dispensationalism—and their professors were producing books through mainstream evangelical publishers that taught and explained dispensational theology. Not only that, but these schools also provided many of the faculty members for other schools and they, in turn, trained thousands more students in the tenets of dispensational theology—using their old professors’ textbooks.
Our minds, of course, immediately run to Dallas Theological Seminary. Names like Chafer, Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, Toussaint, Lightner and Zuck form a dispensational ring of honor in our memories.
But Dallas was not the only significant dispensational seminary. My mentor, Dr. John Whitcomb, taught for nearly four decades at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, IN. It was not at all unusual for men to earn their master’s degree at one of these institutions, then do their doctoral studies at the other. In fact, Dr. Whitcomb loved sharing a humorous little verse that was appreciated in Winona Lake—even if not so much in North Texas or Greater Los Angeles. It went like this: “And now abide these three—Dallas, Talbot and Grace. But the greatest of these is Grace.”
Dispensational teaching also filled the airwaves since the early days of Christian broadcasting through programs such as Back to the Bible, Radio Bible Class, Thru the Bible, and a host of others—including those presented by the pioneers of the sermon-based teaching format, featuring the voices of Bruce Dunn, John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll and more.
Then, lying on the coffee tables of Christian homes, there was even more dispensational Bible teaching in the form of popular Christian magazines. They included The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry’s own Israel My Glory—which turned 80 years old this past year—along with others like Confident Living, Gospel Herald and The Sunday School Times and Moody Monthly. Christians of every kind of denomination and church background were also getting a regular intake of dispensationalism—whether they realized it or not—as they ingested Our Daily Bread.
So, what happened? There are myriad answers to that question. Many of the popular-level outreaches that I’ve listed above continued on, but their influence was muted to some extent by the growing Reformed outlets which would eventually flip the script and bring amillennialism, postmillennialism, preterism, and covenant theology, in general, into a place of unforeseen prominence—even in formerly dispensational circles.
Another major issue, which was developing during the time that I was in Bible college, was the launch of progressive dispensationalism. This new teaching almost immediately spread like wildfire through academic institutions previously known for their commitment to dispensational theology.
Amidst the newfound allure of Reformed theology, the dispensational fire inside many of my generation and those younger began to go out. Some were taught poorly, or never grounded at all, in dispensational thinking. I’m convinced that many threw the baby right out with the bathwater, attaching dispensationalism in their own minds to issues like legalism or even allegorical interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures—oddly enough, things diametrically opposed to dispensational orthodoxy.
Then, some of those who’ve remained in our camp have gone to seed, especially regarding prophetic truth, and moved into dispensational sensationalism—a term I’ve recently come across. Denying Scriptural sufficiency, their focus has shifted to UFOs and other oddities, real or imagined.
So, we know the how and the why of dispensationalism’s decline—and I’ve also written at length on why I believe this is so damaging and dangerous for the church at large.4
Yet, dispensationalism is far from dead and gone. So, the pressing need now is for us to focus on what we as dispensationalists can, should and must do as we move ahead.
And I’ll turn toward those matters in the next installment.
Notes
1 See Paul Scharf, “Facing Replacement Theology,” Israel My Glory (January/February 2023) https://israelmyglory.org/article/facing-replacement-theology/, Internet, accessed 11 May 2023; and Paul J. Scharf, “Young, Restless, Fundamentalist: Is There Still a Future for Israel?” Baptist Bulletin Vol. 85, No. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2019): 17-20.
2 The phrase is part of the title of a book by Brad Vermurlen, Reformed Resurgence: The New Calvinist Movement and the Battle Over American Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).
3 Personal conversation, Feb. 21, 1997.
4 See Paul Scharf, “The Danger of Replacing Israel” (three-part blog series), The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Part 1—Sept. 24, 2021, https://foi.org/2021/09/24/the-danger-of-replacing-israel-part-1, Internet, accessed 11 May 2023.
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 Wisconsin and serving in the Midwest. For more information on his ministry, visit sermonaudio.com/pscharf or foi.org/scharf, or email [email protected].
Reformed theology is the "flavor of the day", the "cool" belief to have. Although including some good points, Reformed interpretation of prophecy is its Achilles Heal.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
For what I’ve seen over the last couple of decades, it looks like Dispensationalism has already dispersed into new syntheses. That is, the best ideas and emphases from Dispensationalism have found homes in approaches that are arguably not Dispensationalism anymore. A result might be that the worst features of Dispensationalism are all that remains distinctive. I’m not sure about that.
But there was a period, in US history especially, when theology got overrun by an engineering mindset in which intricacy itself seemed to become highly valued, and eschatological systematization got overvalued.
It wouldn’t be accurate to say theology became too intellectual, but it might be fair to say it became too analytical—too interested in puzzle solving.
So it looks to me.
In seminary, the work of progressive dispensationalists (and the like) was pretty frowned upon by some; somewhat welcomed by others. I found them to have a lot of good things to say, though their critics seemed to have a few solid points as well.
But a lot of people raised Dispensationalist eventually found it to be inadequate in some ways. My personal “deconstruction” has been in the direction of believing and feeling deeply that we’re not supposed to figure out all the answers, and aren’t really equipped to do so. Let more mysteries be mysterious.
Where I am now is that most of Ryrie’s sine qua non is still among my convictions, only with less certainty and value attached to them, and more desire to see connections, where possible, with non-dispensationalist views.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think pop dispensationalism has done great damage to the movement. I also believe that because dispensationalism as its often presented majors on ecclesiology and eschatology (something Henebury has often noted), it has a limited amount to say.
What more is there to say that hasn’t yet been said?
Progressive dispensationalism is clearly seen as the more respectable option (as far as that goes), but even then very few scholars are publishing anything in that lane. Mike Vlach continues to publish, but with obscure presses that attract little notice except to the dispensationalist insiders. Bock said what he had to say long ago.
I believe there is little left to say. This is one reason why it’s less popular.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
In my 40 years or so of being in dispensational circles, there's been a lot of change. So I'll take a shot at some "broad brush" comments. Some of them are from being the "establishment" belief (for better or worse), and such a desire from so many to rebel against what is "establishment" viewpoints. It's ironic that you would mention MacArthur, as his "Gospel According to Jesus" is often seen as a broadside against dispensational views.
Another factor was the rise of Christian counseling, led almost exclusively by covenant theologians and authors. Dispensationalism was seen to be "non-practical" and left out more fanciful and "gospel-centered" interpretations of the Old Testament. Many rejected the idea of being "New Testament Christians", especially centered on Pauline epistles, which were seen as too "legalistic" or "behavioristic".
What there has not been a focus on is prophecy. Reformed beliefs don't have a better answer for these concerns. For example, if you have ever seen a preterist chart of history that tries to line up with Revelation, you know this is true. But dispensationalists are often guilty of trying to line up current events with future prophecy. Christ may come soon. He may not. We have no idea. Let's trust that the Lord can line up events with His word.
The kind of dispensationalism needed:
- A Paul Henebury dispensationalism
- A Michael Vlach dispensationalism
Big idea:
- Focus on the millennium (be a chiliast) ... see "He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God"
- The earthly reign of Christ idea is rooted in the OT - especially the Davidic Covenant
- Dispy critics go back to Darby - "Darby started it!" (is their starting point) See "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism" - Amazon quote: "Hummel locates dispensationalism’s origin in the writings of the nineteenth-century Protestant John Nelson Darby, who established many of the hallmarks of the movement, such as premillennialism and belief in the rapture. "
- The biggest issue is NOT the timing of the rapture. See "The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational (Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. Eschatology) " (all these guys are chiliasts!)
- Amillennialism has issues: Is Satan bound now or not? If he is bound now - what's this release from hell thing in Rev 20? "After that he must be released for a little while."
- Postmillennialism has issues
- Is Jesus reigning now (Amillennialism)? Well why's the world in such a mess? Why are we to pray "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."?
Another dispy issue: "Oh you can't believe in particular redemption AND be a dispensationalist!"
Answer: Yes you can!
TylerR wrote: I think pop dispensationalism has done great damage to the movement.
IMHO, the Left Behind series probably doomed dispensationalism from being seriously considered in conservative evangelical seminaries. That and the oft-cited soteriological blunders found in the Scofield Reference Bible provided all the ammunition needed for the young, restless crowd of the early 2000s to dismiss dispensationalism out of hand and to fully embrace either amil or historic premil.
When I went to seminary at BBS Clarks Summit, we were required to take a class called premil dispensationalism. I was unimpressed with the arguments made in class in support of dispensationalism, and little time was spent interacting with and responding to the claims of other systems. In other words, it was a waste of time.
One thing dispensationalists can do is to produce exegetical commentaries (or at least ones on the level of the EBC and NAC series). They have not done this well.
- Regular Baptist Press is ready to bring out two NT commentary volumes on specific books (one is Romans, not sure about the other) in the next 12 months. This is good.
- Peter Steveson (of BJU) has done a few OT commentaries. I have found his Daniel volume to be very good.
- A disappointing series of dispensationalist commentaries from AMG came about around 15 years ago, but I think the series was very weak and not worth buying.
- Mike Stallard is at work on an exegetical commentary on Revelation at the moment, which is great.
- Robert Thomas on Revelation is always helpful
- We have a few substantive commentaries from Moody on the gospels (e.g. Ed Glassock, etc.).
- Both Walvoord, Leon Wood, and Gleason Archer (see Daniel in the old EBC) wrote a long time ago.
Dispensationalists need to produce good, substantive commentaries to demonstrate for a new generation that their system can emerge organically from the text. I have high hopes for what Regular Baptist Press has planned, and will surely buy Stallard’s commentary when it sees the light of day. But, as one seminary provost explained to me, nobody is interested in publishing dispensationalists—nobody. Not sure what that means for the potential reach of any newer commentaries, but they’re still needed.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
T Howard wrote: IMHO, the Left Behind series probably doomed dispensationalism from being seriously considered in conservative evangelical seminaries.
Why would that be, though? Just because that series was popular? I read (and enjoyed, sue me) the Left Behind series when it came out. At no time did that series convince me to think that it was serious theology rather than popular religious fiction based on a couple men’s interpretation of theology. And I’m a layman. I can hardly believe any serious student of theology would dismiss a particular eschatological view simply because that view was portrayed (in fictional, not always accurate fashion) in a popular series.
Dave Barnhart
TylerR wrote: Mike Stallard is at work on an exegetical commentary on Revelation at the moment, which is great.
Stallard was the dean of my seminary when I was attending. I have his commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Not that helpful. He is the one who taught the seminary's premil dispensationalism class. Again, not that helpful. I hope his Revelation commentary is better.
dcbii wrote: Why would that be, though? Just because that series was popular? I read (and enjoyed, sue me) the Left Behind series when it came out. At no time did that series convince me to think that it was serious theology rather than popular religious fiction based on a couple men’s interpretation of theology.
One word: sensationalism. And, it was embraced by many dispensationalists as a fair representation of dispensational eschatology. Tim LaHaye was a founding member of the Pre-Trib Research Center after all.
EDIT: I would also add another dispensational turn off has been the number of prophetic conferences / books that purported to know the timing of the rapture and the identity of the antichrist, not to mention all the scare-tactics around the coming one-world government, mark of beast, etc. I remember watching guys like Jack Van Impe on TV and in articles repeatedly telling everyone the end was near before Y2K and the news events were confirming Bible prophecy, etc.
T Howard wrote: One word: sensationalism. And, it was embraced by many dispensationalists as a fair representation of dispensational eschatology. Tim LaHaye was a founding member of the Pre-Trib Research Center
I knew Tim LaHaye was a pre-trib guy. After I read the series, I read his commentary on Revelation to get a better idea of what his beliefs on the topic were. Although I didn’t agree with everything in that commentary, from what I remember it was at least a reasonably serious treatment of his version of eschatology.
T Howard wrote: I would also add another dispensational turn off has been the number of prophetic conferences / books that purported to know the timing of the rapture and the identity of the antichrist, not to mention all the scare-tactics around the coming one-world government, mark of beast, etc.
I agree with you there. While Left Behind was obviously fiction, all these conferences, etc., that have since turned out to be way overblown and obviously not true (e.g we’ve had > 20 years since Y2K) have not helped the cause of dispensationalism at all. Still, I treat that as similar to those who ran with fundamentalism and took it where it was not meant to go. The fact that some proponents of an idea turn out to be wackos does not necessarily impugn the idea as originally conceived.
Dave Barnhart
TylerR wrote: Dispensationalists need to produce good, substantive commentaries to demonstrate for a new generation that their system can emerge organically from the text.
I agree with Tyler on this point. There is a significant difference in the dispensationalism you're taught at seminary (assuming your seminary advocates dispensationalism) versus what you're exposed to at the popular level and at most dispensational churches. Ryrie's Dispensationalism was the first book I read that dealt with the actual theological system and defended the three foundational pillars of dispensationalism. It was a serious biblical and theological defense of dispensationalism. There are only a few good exegetical commentaries written from a dispensational perspective.
The best you get at most dispensational churches is an end-times chart with the seven dispensations and a free copy of Left Behind 25th Anniversary Edition. If your experience is like mine, most church people who hold to dispensational eschatology don't know it's called dispensationalism. And, many of them mix it with various conspiracy theories, newspaper interpreted prophecies, etc.
So, if you're a young person who wants to get serious about your theological studies, I can see the pull toward covenant theology. It's not sensationalistic. It has not been hijacked by charlatans and conspiracy theorists. It is more tenured. And, it has the respect of most in conservative evangelical seminaries.
dcbii wrote: I can hardly believe any serious student of theology would dismiss a particular eschatological view simply because that view was portrayed (in fictional, not always accurate fashion) in a popular series.
Don't underestimate the temptation to determine one's theology based on how he'll be perceived by others. George Ladd comes to mind.
Alcohol prohibitionists are often amazed that anyone could believe the Bible does not forbid the moderate use of alcohol. Commands to abstain are all they can see.
Dispensationalists are often amazed that anyone could believe the Bible might not teach Dispensationalism. That's all they can see.
In both cases, prior assumptions and presuppositions color what people "see." It is difficult to get a prohibitionist to accept a different way of looking at the Bible, and dittos for a Dispensationalist. Some, in both camps, eventually recognize problems with their position, but many never do.
The decline in Dispensationalism might be traced to a study of Scripture rather than other influences such as the rise of Calvinism. (A reliable boogey man within Fundamentalism.) Could it be possible that both the rise of Calvinism and the decline of Dispensationalism flow from a thoughtful study of Scripture? (And now I run for cover!)
G. N. Barkman
"are dispensationalists the only theologians who see God’s glory as the ultimate purpose for creation? Covenant theologians enjoy a rich heritage of celebrating the glory of God."
https://www.clarkssummitu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3_Brown_FINAL_…
PAGE # 4
Wow! Thanks for reading and for the responses!
I can't possibly respond to everything that has been said in these comments, but let me add this: Having "progressed" in my lifetime from confessional Lutheranism to dispensationalism, you can forgive me for not viewing the movement of the church at large from dispensationalism back to amillennialism, etc., as "progress."
There is a long history between Calvinism, specifically, and dispensationalism. I do not see these two issues as necessarily being diametrically opposed—unless one is arriving at certain Calvinistic conclusions through Reformed theology, perhaps without even realizing it.
I will take all your thoughts into consideration as I continue this series.
Thanks again—God Bless!
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I might suggest that at least part of the reason is the rise of theology and the decline of exegesis. With the relatively recent increase of the idea of biblical theology, actual exegesis has taken aback seat. So what a passage teaches is immediately subjected to what is considered the storyline of the bible. A passage is no longer able to be understood on its own first. The genius of dispensationalism is the actual exegesis of passages in my opinion. Well of course there is a hermeneutical spiral, exegesis should dictate theology at the root rather than theology dictating exegesis. Many dispensational positions are rejected, not because of the exegesis of the text, but because they do not fit in with the needed theological conclusion. For instance, if your theology denies a future for national Israel, no exegesis of the text can allow for a future for national Israel. In such a case the exegesis is determined by the theological conclusion ahead of time. That’s why there are many who will admit that their beliefs are not in line with what the text says but they have already decided on a conclusion.
I would agree that there is more of an emphasis on biblical theology, but that it comes at the expense of systematic theology, which is where dispensationalism looks its best.
pvawter wrote:
dcbii wrote: I can hardly believe any serious student of theology would dismiss a particular eschatological view simply because that view was portrayed (in fictional, not always accurate fashion) in a popular series.
Don’t underestimate the temptation to determine one’s theology based on how he’ll be perceived by others. George Ladd comes to mind
I think the Left Behind series more likely provided those already critical of dispensationalism with opportunities to mock what they long ago decided was a silly view of future events. Where it may have had an actual impact is on young students who had/have not yet worked through a lot of questions for themselves. Portraying something as ridiculous and extreme is particularly effective among the immature. As a young student, you get to dismiss something, avoiding some work, and you get to join in having a derisive laugh. So that path has a double appeal.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
60 years ago I was indoctrinated into Scofield Dispensationalism complete with Larkin's charts and my Scofield Bible. Since then I've seen variations of Dispensationalism which made me wonder if had a simple definition. Is there a list of the essentials of dispensationalism that every dispensationalist agrees on. Once I humorously referred to myself as a dispensational minimalist because I held strongly to a literal interpretation of the Scripture, a difference between the nation of Israel and the Church, and the pre-millennial return of Christ. I was told that wouldn't do because I wasn't sure about a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church. So is there a list of essentials that everyone agrees on?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron Bean wrote: So is there a list of essentials that everyone agrees on?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: Depends on which version of dispensationalism you follow. Ryrie proposed three "essentials" of dispensationalism, but other dispensationalists are not as convinced and add others.
That was one of the things that struck me when I took the dispensationalism class at seminary. There is little agreement among dispensationalists about almost every aspect of dispensationalism. If there is common agreement, it would be that Israel and the church are distinct. How distinct? Depends on whom you ask.
What I have a hard time doing ....
(I could probably say with JMac, "I'm a "leaky dispensationalist").
I'm definitely:
- Pre-mil
- Oriented to pre-trib
- Definitely see a distinction between the church and Israel
But: I have a hard time defining a dispensation.
I find more and more people straying away from a defined eschatology. The OT prophets didn't understand future events entirely, the disciples even in the presence of God were confused. The Dispensationalism that I grew up with had the end times all worked out. I have a hard time believing that somehow magically in 2023 we have it all worked out. Prophesy in my opinion is less about us defining the future and more about when the future arrives and we see what is taking place, that the prophesy now validates what we see. I am not such a fan of Covenant Theology entirely either, and I am not so sure I see a distinction between the church and Israel. Many of the people that I meet aren't really one or the other either.
Ron Bean wrote: Is there a list of the essentials of dispensationalism that every dispensationalist agrees on.
This is true for covenantalists as well. Is there a Covenant of Redemption or no? Is the Abrahamic Covenant an iteration of the Covenant of grace, or is it divided between the covenants of works and grace? Amill, Post, or preterist? If preterist, is it partial or full? And then there's New Covenent Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, 1689 Federalism, and on it goes.
Anyone who would reject dispensationalism because "they can't agree on the system" needs to get out more.
I don't "reject" dispensationalism, I just don't embrace it. And I'm comfortable with not being tagged with either the covenant or dispensational label. My ignorant neutrality has served me well. BTW, like dgszweda, I find it interesting that dispensationalists are the only ones who figured out nearly every detail of Biblical prophecy.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
By the time of my senior year at UGA I had taken most of the courses for my major and had several elective hours to fill in. So I took a year of Hebrew from Dr. George Howard in the Religion Department. He was an unsaved, liberal Church of Christ member who had a huge office filled with books. One day in class he said, half smiling, that the way to make a name for yourself in scholarship is to think of something new or a variation of something already known and get it published. Unfortunately that seems to be the goal of some in Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism. Although new insights in theology are always welcome, perhaps some of what we are seeing today in the dispensational/covenant debates is not so much genuine research but a boredom with the old and fascination with the new.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
The Northfield (Massachusetts) Conference of 1886-1889 seems to mark the beginning of dispensationalism. I've had the opportunity to read a lot of the literature that was produced out of that conference and in the following 20 years. While pre-millennialism was not new (not all pre-mills are dispensational!), the dispensational interpretation of prophecy was a "new" thing then.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I have often asked myself why the Lord Jesus has allowed certain lines of thinking to continue. For instance, there are issues faced today because of key words being translated the way they were like 'church' instead of 'congregation, and 'baptize' rather than 'immerse.' Another instance is the eschatological question of literal kingdom or spiritual. The beginning 150-200 years of church history, the vast majority of the church held to a literal earthly and Jewish kingdom. Augustine's "The City of God" changes things, and have continued almost unchallenged until the late 19th century. Why did God allow that to continue?
Perhaps it is so we will continue to pour through His Word deeply, studying and grappling to know Him and His will. For me, I don't want to be reductionistic or simple, but I have yet to hear a legitimately good exegetical argument for why the events of 1 Thess. 5 don't follow on the heels of 1 Thess. 4.
Where are the dispensationalist systematics? In this lane, Chafer has perhaps not yet been equalled. Ryrie is very good, but abbreviated. McCune is Reformed-ish with dispensational icing—dispensationalism as a wholistic system didn’t seem to be his burden. I confess I don’t rate Geisler highly and don’t have his systematic.
McClain died after only completing the first volume of his projected work. Walvoord (IMO) frittered away his gifts writing too much pop prophecy. Pentecost didn’t produce a systematic. Ryrie was perhaps the best hope in his generation, but didn’t go beyond his smaller, “light” systematic.
It seems like there is still lots of work to be done. Who is doing it?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Geisler's Systematic is an excellent source of logical, Biblical arguments. A good study in reasoning. Not perfect, but good.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Ron Bean wrote: I don't "reject" dispensationalism, I just don't embrace it.
Fair enough. I didn't accuse you of rejecting it. I just observed the foolishness of rejecting one position for another which fails the same test.
TylerR wrote: It seems like there is still lots of work to be done. Who is doing it?
Sounds like a dissertation option for a future Ph.D.
I’m not enough of a dispensationalist to be passionate about that topic!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Dispensationalists have just not written a Systematic to rank with the best CT's. Geisler, for instance, is heavily reliant upon deductive reasoning (although his 4th Volume is good). Again, the problem is (IMO) that DT's have not examined their method and its product. No Prolegomenon of any decent depth. No comprehension of what "Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic" means in terms of a WHOLE Systematic Theology. Then there are those "dispensations" from which nothing can be produced.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I need to read Chafer again. At seminary, we were assigned Erickson but I had to read another systematic as a requirement for ST3-Man, Sin, Salvation. I chose Chafer knowing nothing about him. I’ll literally never forget reading his doctrine of salvation and thinking it was the very best thing I’d ever read. He is the only dispensationalist who deliberately structured his entire system around dispensationalism. You may disagree with him in a number of areas, but his achievement was (and still is) remarkable.
I’ve always wondered why Merrill Unger didn’t produce more. The guy had impeccable academic credentials. That’s not to say he didn’t write much, but I wonder why he didn’t write more—he did his bible dictionary, a book or two on archaeology, his Zechariah commentary, and his demonology book—what else? Gerald Stanton is another guy with great credentials who wrote even less. I believe they spent their time teaching, which is certainly nothing to sneer at. I just wish they’d written about the system as a system that they believed in so much.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
TylerR wrote: I believe they spent their time teaching, which is certainly nothing to sneer at.
Several years ago Mark Ward interviewed Robert Bell, BJU OT. Dr. Bell talked some about the tension between teaching and writing. I took more courses from Dr. Bell than any other teacher at BJU. Dr. Bell's books are excellent. His teaching even more excellent.
https://byfaithweunderstand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1Marks-Interview-Series-Robert-Bell.mp3
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I enjoyed having Dr. Bell for a number of courses at BJU. It may be the years, but I can't recall any of his books. I remember he wrote a number of excellent articles but couls you point me to some of his books?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Theological Messages Of The Old Testament Books: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Messages-Old-Testament-Books/dp/1606821598/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3R0FAY3WJ6X0B&keywords=robert+bell+theological+messages&qid=1684417181&sprefix=robert+bell+theological+messages%2Caps%2C449&sr=8-1
Theological Themes Of Psalms: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Themes-Psalms-Theology-Book/dp/1532654170/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3ETZO38707OA8&keywords=robert+bell+theological+themes+psalms&qid=1684417265&sprefix=robert+bell+theological+themes+psalms%2Caps%2C106&sr=8-1
Also available at abebooks.com, but not much cheaper than Amazon.
I have given away several copies of Theological Messages Old Testament Books. Both books are filled with preaching/teaching material.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I used to teach through the entire set of Chafer when I was a Prof.,minus the Supplement. I agree with Tyler (again) that his material on salvation is terrific. My chief issue with him is some disorganization of themes and his reliance on long quotations when things get too deep. It is the best Dispey Systematic though.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Featured Resource
Discussion