Why I Am a Dispensationalist
I was reared in a conservative Lutheran church and school where dispensationalism was a term of derision and began life as a most unlikely candidate to become a teacher of dispensational theology. Today, however, I am deeply committed to classical dispensationalism and feel so strongly about this position that it affects every aspect of my belief and practice. Why am I now a dispensationalist? I offer seven introductory reasons.
1. Dispensationalism understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture.
Teachers in the denomination I grew up in employed several catch phrases when they came to difficult prophetic sections of Scripture. They would speak of “closing the Book” or talk of passages like Daniel 7-12 or Revelation 4-20 being “filled with mystery.” Preterists and other non-dispensationalists also cloud such portions of Scripture by speaking of them in terms of “apocalyptic language” which is incapable of clear, systematic interpretation (especially futurist) and fulfillment.
Dispensationalists recognize that the symbols in these difficult passages are actually meant to shed light on real people and events (see Rev. 22:10; cf. Deut. 29:29, Prov. 25:2) in the same way inspired writers used devices to communicate in non-prophetic writing . Dispensationalists relish unearthing the meaning of obscure passages which may be understood only in the light of clearer (often later) revelation.
The dispensationalism I have known is not given to wild sensationalism, but rather compels the student to master the Scriptures (in their original languages, if possible) so that he or she may fully develop all that the Scriptures contain. From the dispensationalist’s vantage point, the task will never be complete this side of glory.
2. Dispensationalism employs consistent literal interpretation.
Seeing distinctions between the church and Israel, dispensationalism rightly promotes a glorious future for both. Confusing these two peoples of God has resulted in much mischief throughout church history. Conversely, when the church is understood as a New Testament mystery (Eph. 3:1-12) which began at Pentecost, the free church model and the Baptist distinctives become plainly evident.
The distinction between the church and Israel is one of the firstfruits of literal interpretation. This coincides with a proper understanding of progressive revelation, normally interpreting later revelation on the basis of that which came earlier.
In Michael Vlach’s words,
Dispensationalists want to maintain a reference point in the Old Testament. They desire to give justice to the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers in accord with historical-grammatical hermeneutics (Vlach 17).
Ronald Diprose contrasts the alternative:
The logic of replacement theology required that much of the Old Testament be allegorized. Only in this way could the Church be made the subject of passages in which the nation of Israel is addressed. This led to the virtual abandonment of the Hebrew world view and concept of God and the adoption of a framework of thought which had its roots in Greek philosophy (Diprose 169-170).
Literal interpretation involves the idea that there is no allowance for interpreting a text on the basis of any subjective influence, including the meaning of metaphors or images in a non-parallel passage. In my opinion, the consistent use of literal interpretation has been modeled best by dispensationalists.
3. Dispensationalism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding all of history.
The flow of history is obvious and logical when it is expounded through the seven dispensations of traditional dispensationalism. The God Who created all things in six days will work within history to fulfill the plan He has revealed—bringing His kingdom to earth for 1,000 years as history’s culmination.
The Bible makes it clear that in the future—as in the past—history will be marked by definite events and that the significance of these events is certain and knowable. Christ said, “When these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near” (Luke 21:28, NKJV).
Above all others, dispensationalists have done well in explaining the significance of the flow of history and its signal and distinctive events. The attempt to use the system to analyze specific signs of the times is a byproduct of dispensationalism rather than its driving force.
4. Dispensationalism emphasizes the glory of God.
Though not exclusive in this regard, dispensationalists clearly proclaim that the glory of God is the purpose behind His working in history—from creation to the final judgment at the Great White Throne. With each new dispensation, God’s glory is declared in a new and fresh way, through the advance of special revelation and the additional resources which He provides, so that men might more fully reflect His glory.
In the present age, believers enjoy the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17) and even the very mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16)—and yet these blessings pale when compared to those which still await us (1 John 3:2).
5. Dispensationalism brings the ministry of Christ into clear focus.
If one begins with the Old Testament and works forward, it becomes clear that Israel’s Messiah came offering the Kingdom which they had expected since the days of Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:6). Bible scholar extraordinaire Alva J. McClain summarized as follows:
The Kingdom announced by our Lord and offered to the nation of Israel at His first coming was identical with the Mediatorial Kingdom of Old Testament prophecy, and will be established on earth at the second coming of the King. This…is supported by the material in both Testaments taken at its normal or face value (McClain 275-276).
On the basis of this understanding, one can fit together many passages in the gospels which would otherwise remain puzzling. The work of Christ—past and future (cf. Acts 1:6, 7)—may also be set in its complete context.
6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.
Though he would be horrified at the thought (as Dr. Myron Houghton, my theology teacher, once said), Luther taught me dispensationalism in seed form in my Lutheran grade school religion classes. His emphasis on the distinction between Law and Grace is truly the basis for understanding the Bible dispensationally. It reveals the truth that God has dealt with mankind on the basis of different stewardship responsibilities at different times in history without providing different ways of salvation.
The charge that dispensationalism cannot be correct because of the recentness of its development is impossible to reconcile with either history or theology, as the progressive refinement of the understanding of truth during the church age demonstrates. Ultimately, I do not view dispensational theology as a betrayal of my strong Lutheran upbringing, but rather, a fulfillment of it.
Dr. Thomas Ice, executive director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, introduced this concept to me during a conversation which I had with him while in seminary. In short, he explained that dispensationalism flourished—beginning in the 19th century—as a result of the literal interpretation and verse-by-verse teaching which had been re-introduced by the forces of the Reformation. Theology is the queen of the sciences, and dispensationalism is the queen of all theologies.
7. Godly dispensational teachers have modeled this theology for me.
God has given me the indescribable privilege of receiving dispensational theology directly from some of its greatest teachers. Among them have been Dr. Rolland McCune, Dr. Charles Ryrie, Dr. Renald Showers, Dr. John Whitcomb and the late Dr. John Walvoord.
I have found that dispensationalism is not a distraction for such men, nor does it deter them from teaching “the weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23, NKJV). Rather, it drives them to perfect their understanding in all areas of theology so that they might build upon the foundation offered by historic, orthodox Christianity with the surpassing glory of dispensational truth.
A new generation of “faithful men” (2 Tim. 2:2) is committed to carrying these teachings forward. Efforts such as the Pre-Trib Study Group (with its annual conferences) and Baptist Bible Seminary’s Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics evidence new energy which will continue to drive serious study and advance within dispensationalism for many years to come, should Christ tarry. By His grace and for His glory, I hope to be in the center of that movement.
Works Cited
Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, 2004.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1974.
Vlach, Michael J. Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2008.
Paul J. Scharf is a graduate of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI) and Faith Baptist Theological Seminary (Ankeny, IA). He is the editor of the Columbus Journal in Columbus, Wis., an associate with IMI/SOS International in Hudsonville, Mich., and a ministry assistant for Whitcomb Ministries, Inc. in Indianapolis, Ind. Scharf served as a pastor for seven years and has taught the Bible on the elementary, secondary and college levels. He is a contributor to Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Master Books, 2008) and has written numerous articles for Gospel Herald and The Sunday School Times. He is a member of the Pre-Trib Study Group. Paul is married to Lynnette, and the couple resides near Columbus, WI.- 609 views
I am stunned by your response! There is a lot here to unravel, so I will just take a few points.
Chafer did not “found” dispensationalism, he founded Dallas Seminary — using the classical education offered at historic Princeton Seminary as the model for his concept.
The “founders” of dispensationalism did not in any way, shape, form or fashion offer “a complete break with historical theology” or a “radical break with historical views of Scripture.” Those are ridiculous claims.
Regarding languages — are you at all familiar with J.N. Darby’s qualifications on that point?
“We have to realize that the only place dispensationalism could have caught on like it did among conservative Christians is in an environment that had a low view of history and academics and a high view of personal piety.” I find this statement to be needlessly condescending.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Greg,
No problem; I myself, as evidence on this thread, have made many a gaff, and I’m glad so many people are willing to criticize me.
Aaron,
The question you raise is, in my opinion, one fo the hugest that can be raised, especially for a Protestant, because it is in essence the question of doctrinal development. I myself am nowhere close to have resolution on the question of doctrinal development, and it’s something I intend to study for a long time. Cardinal Newman gave a set of criteria in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, which was the first book to really raise the question as sharply as Newman did. There is no easy answer to be given, and none that can come without very deep reflection. For me personally, much is at stake. Let me offer one example about how this question is structured in my thinking. Classical Liberal theology (Schleiermacher through Ritschl, Harnack, Troeltsch, et al.) was very impressive theologically and historically; it was nothing like the tepid junk most people associate with liberal theology, in part because someone like Harnack, for example attempted to root his theology in his interpretation of the history of doctrine (his 7 Vol. Dogmengeschichte or HIstory of Dogma is still standard reading if you’re a historian of theology). Harnack and others gave us tools that we use, even as conservatives, even though we reject much of their conclusions (the Germans, which means largely liberal Protestants, practically invented historical studies). Now, the classic line of argument of liberals like Harnack, Karl Holl (Holl was a bit different, but still a liberal; he was Harnack’s colleague at the University of Berlin), and some of their famous students, like Wilhelm Pauck, was that Schleiermacher and the consequent liberal tradition was a consistent and faithful outworking of the Reformation.
You can see this, for example, in Pauck’s still excellent book, “The Reformation Heritage.” (Also see a delightful short book by Pauck, “Harnack and Troeltsch: Two HIstorical Theologians”) And these claims were coming from some of the best historian theologians in Europe, so they were not simply to be dismissed. B.A. Gerrish, a student of Pauck and therefore the academic “grandson” of Harnack and Holl, argues the same thing in his superb interpretations of Calvin and Schleiermacher (see, for example his essays in “The Old Protestantism and the New” and “Continuing the Reformation”). Now, this is a very difficult question, one that I inherited as meaningful from my undergraduate mentor, Dr. Hinkson, who was a student of Gerrish.and is an expert on the development of Luther’s image in Lutheranism. And I don’t an have an answer to it; many Catholics then and now agreed with Harnack et al. and argued that that was a good reason to reject Protestantism since Protestantism leads to Liberalism.
Any student of the development of Protestantism who cares about theology is troubled by these lines of attack because they have a lot of plausibility given the historical record. So, the problem, as I hope is clear, is essentially the same problem you raise: when is doctrinal development just that, deveopment, and not aberrant departure? The question is imperative because Luther and Calvin, for example, would have had, in many ways, a difficult time recognizing modern so-called Protestantism, and they might not want to be associated with much of conservative Christianity in American. Moreover, Gerrish is one of the leading Schleiermacher scholars in the world as well as being a leading scholar of Luther and Calvin, so his work, even if one disagrees with its conclusions, is rigorously argued and not dismissable (his work on Calvin and Luther is some of the best available in English).
These concerns are now remote to many theologians (sadly), but a few carry them on - mainly those trained in the German tradition described above. A good work by one of the best theologians (in my opinion) in America, is “Suffering Divine Things” by Reinhard Huetter, a theologically serious German who teaches at Duke Divinity School. If you read just the first chapter of that book, you’ll get a sense of these questions from someone who is still concerned about them; and I think we should be - and thus your question is important - because these are the questions that historically minded Christians need to ask.
So, lame as it may be, the answer is I don’t know, and when I do, I may very well convert to a different denomination.
Alex,
The degrees you mention are, as Audrey says, honorary - they’re not earned degrees. I’m not sure that Chafer had any earned degrees, in fact. Regarding the bit about his education, that may take a while to find, but I’ll post it if I find it soon.
Admin note: edited to set post author back to Joseph
[Charlie] So, I think there are 2 marked differences between the Reformers and the early Dispensationalists. First, their actual knowledge of the field in which they labored. Second, their conceptions concerning what Scripture was and how it was to be approached. I really think Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity opened my eyes more than any other single work to what happens when individualistic interpretation and a “common sense” approach combine. In the 19th century, the leaders of Methodism, Campbellism, Dispensationalism, Universalism, the Millerites….Would it fair to summarize your answer as follows:
1) The Reformers’ departure from much of the accepted theology of the day is worthy of our acceptance because they were widely regarded as brilliant and well educated at the time
2) The departures of dispensationalism should be dismissed on principle [edit: or at least greeted with extreme skepticism] because they were championed by men of inferior intellect and educaiton
I’m thinking I’m probably overstating you here and I’ll need some correcting, but I want to boil it down to short statements as much as possible.
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.
The thing that stands out to me is that, from all that I know of Luther, he appealed to the Bible alone — and continued to approve accepted teachings only to the extent that they intersected with the teachings of Holy Scripture. He did not intentionally reverse that process in order to become acceptable with the academic elite of his day, to my knowledge.
By contrast, the picture I am receiving of him here is of one whose goal was to be “academically credible” with a corrupt and apostate church system. I believe that is inaccurate.
“Much of (the Reformers’) argument was that they were supported by great Catholic theologians such as Augustine.” It is true that the Reformers used these types of arguments when they were helpful, but they did not rely upon them as their gauge of truth.
The real issue is whether or not dispensationalism is right or wrong based upon the solid exegesis and interpretation of Scripture — not whether it is philosophically compatible with the writings of the greatest contemporary scholars in European universities. Sadly, I find that those who oppose dispensationalism often revert to these kinds of arguments, however. It is not dissimilar to the experience one has when proposing Biblical creationism in an evolution-saturated academic environment.
I would find a discussion focused on Scripture (with history and philosophy used only for supporting or illustrative purposes) to be much more edifying, personally.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Joseph] So, the problem, as I hope is clear, is essentially the same problem you raise: when is doctrinal development just that, deveopment, and not aberrant departure? The question is imperative because Luther and Calvin, for example, would have had, in many ways, a difficult time recognizing modern so-called Protestantism…Now we’re getting somewhere. There is ultimately only one possible answer to the question (that can result in a reasonable expectation of continuing orthodoxy.)
So, lame as it may be, the answer is I don’t know, and when I do, I may very well convert to a different denomination.
I don’t mean to be cryptic… or maybe I do. I think it needs to sort of hang out there for a while.
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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Alex Guggenheim] Joseph,Here’s the relevant quote from pg. 128 of Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind:
Concerning this claim about Chafer, I would like to see the source, in context, as you are using it, otherwise one might be convinced you owe a retraction.
[Mark Noll]source: http://books.google.com/books?id=J2fmHHqc-vIC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Lew…
Chafer reportedly felt that his lack of formal theological training was an asset to his work as a theologian, because by not examining what others had done, he was preserved from their errors. In Chafer’s words, “The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”
[Aaron Blumer]I think you’re at least on the right track in understanding me. I should probably make two clarifications. First, I don’t really want to put the emphasis on Luther’s and other’s sheer brilliance, or even their generally high level of education. Intelligence alone is not the issue, since Erasmus was just as bright as Luther. The application of intelligence to master a subject matter is the real evidence of scholarship. The real issue for me is that the Reformers were thoroughly versed in the field in which they were operating (theology). Luther was intimately familiar with the theology he rejected. He had listened, so to speak, before critiquing. Despite what seems to be the popular image of Luther - one man against the Church - Luther was convinced that he had rediscovered the theology of the early Church and was publishing it against the Antichrist, the Pope, who had come in as the Devil’s agent to confuse the Catholic Church. Luther remained a Catholic to his death, still hopeful that God would intervene to restore the Catholic Church to doctrinal purity or intervene in the second coming. Heiko Oberman has done fantastic work on Luther’s conception of the one true Church, the Antichrist, and the fast-approaching parousia of Christ. In summary, Luther operated as a theologian of the Church, convinced that his place was to carry on the theological conversation that started in the first century.[Charlie] So, I think there are 2 marked differences between the Reformers and the early Dispensationalists. First, their actual knowledge of the field in which they labored. Second, their conceptions concerning what Scripture was and how it was to be approached. I really think Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity opened my eyes more than any other single work to what happens when individualistic interpretation and a “common sense” approach combine. In the 19th century, the leaders of Methodism, Campbellism, Dispensationalism, Universalism, the Millerites….Would it fair to summarize your answer as follows:
1) The Reformers’ departure from much of the accepted theology of the day is worthy of our acceptance because they were widely regarded as brilliant and well educated at the time
2) The departures of dispensationalism should be dismissed on principle [edit: or at least greeted with extreme skepticism] because they were championed by men of inferior intellect and educaiton
I’m thinking I’m probably overstating you here and I’ll need some correcting, but I want to boil it down to short statements as much as possible.
On the other hand, Darby and Chafer were also exceptionally brilliant. I do not see in them, however, the same respect for their subject matter. Darby’s theology was expressly opposed to all denominations and forms of church government in favor of a near-Quaker kind of egalitarian interpretative equality. (I have read at least one full biography on Darby, so I’m not just pulling this off sketchy websites). His approach to theology, then, didn’t really have a category for historical theology, and even the systematic theology that came out of the early Dispensational movement bears a different character than earlier systematics (it’s more geared toward collecting the verses and adding them together, as I explained before). Quite contrary to the Reformers, early Dispensationalists seemed not to see any particular need or benefit in listening to the theological conversation. All that came before them was so much irrelevant “tradition,” as opposed to their “plain Bible reading.” They were not, nor did they want to be, theologians of the Church.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Joseph]So the celebration to which Chafer is alluding is not the superiority of no formal training in and of itself (as it seems to me to be the context in which you used this and “Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” intended in its use), rather he was referring to the benefit of a theological tabula rasa. Because if Chafer truly did not believe in the benefit of no formal training, his failure to retract this in light of his advancement of formal preparation throughout much of his career is too conspicuous. The debate over the value of the comment by Chafer might be a valid point but your use of it and his intent do not seem harmonious. Nevertheless, the point is made and the citation supplied as requested. I do think that though you contend with Chafer’s theology his body of work is a reasonable representation of a good pedigree and merits better words while disagreeing. Thanks.[Alex Guggenheim] Joseph,Here’s the relevant quote from pg. 128 of Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind:
Concerning this claim about Chafer, I would like to see the source, in context, as you are using it, otherwise one might be convinced you owe a retraction.[Mark Noll]
Chafer reportedly felt that his lack of formal theological training was an asset to his work as a theologian, because by not examining what others had done, he was preserved from their errors. In Chafer’s words, “The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”
But whether Chafer, Darby & Co. had that high regard or not an important fact remains: No theological development of any kind occurs unless a student is willing to depart in some degree from those who have gone before him.
In the case of orthodox theological development, seems to me that no “progress” has ever occurred unless a student believed a) he was able to see something others had not and b) he was able to see something in Scripture those before him did not.
To put it another way, genuinely orthodox growth in theology requires the conviction that the meaning of Scripture is accessible to a significant degree to the individual believer… and actual success in getting at that meaning.
To put it even more plainly, you don’t advance orthodox theology (very much) unless you believe you can figure the Bible out for yourself, at least to some degree, and then actually do so.
So I’ll grant for the sake of argument that some of the early dispensationalists (as far as a developed system goes) had, perhaps, an exaggerated sense of this ability to “figure it out myself.” But I don’t see how we can deny that Luther, for one, had a very strong sense of “I don’t care what anybody says… the Scriptures are clear.” There could have been no 95 theses otherwise… (OK, granted, several of the theses are pretty mild assertions… but some are real doosies).
All the significant gains (and, yes, all the worst heresies, too) have arisen from somebody thinking “Maybe I can get at some answers others have gotten wrong.”
If we believe in the sola scriptura principle, then the only thing that justifies departing from the historical theology—on pretty much any point—is the conviction that the Scriptures have been widely neglected or misunderstood.
As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere good for them to go. They either cling to the developments in theology so far and go no further, or they go further on the basis of some other authority, such as philosophy or science. History is clear where that road usually leads.
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 am stunned by your response! There is a lot here to unravel, so I will just take a few points.
Chafer did not “found” dispensationalism, he founded Dallas Seminary — using the classical education offered at historic Princeton Seminary as the model for his concept.
The “founders” of dispensationalism did not in any way, shape, form or fashion offer “a complete break with historical theology” or a “radical break with historical views of Scripture.” Those are ridiculous claims.
Regarding languages — are you at all familiar with J.N. Darby’s qualifications on that point?
“We have to realize that the only place dispensationalism could have caught on like it did among conservative Christians is in an environment that had a low view of history and academics and a high view of personal piety.” I find this statement to be needlessly condescending.”
Mr. Scharf,
I must admit to being somewhat “stunned” myself. First of all, I was using the term “founder” in a very broad sense; Chafer was influential in the spread of dispensationalism, was he not? As to breaking with historical interpretations of Scripture, could you please point out to me where, in historical views of the Scriptures, dispensationalism’s understanding is to be found?
As to the final statement, I am very sorry that you find it condescending. I did not mean it to be such. I was not intending to impugn the characters of the early dispensationalists in any way, nor modern dispensationalists. Many of the people in my life whose opinion and wisdom I respect the most I know to be less intelligent and less well-read than I am. I do not say that proudly, nor am I so foolish as to think that my intelligence or reading somehow makes me more wise or godly. Historically speaking, American Christianity and Americans in general have been proud of being self-made. Thus, they have placed little value in academic degrees or how their history shaped them. This was the environment in which dispensationalism flourished. I say that this is the environment it had to have to flourish because in another context, one which placed high value on history and academics, dispensationalism would have been regarded with suspicion because of its newness, as well as because of the lack of academic credentials of its main early proponents. That is not to say that those who hold it now are not intelligent or that they do not have good reasons for holding to it. Merely that the conditions were right here in America for dispensationalism to flourish in a way that it could not have in another context (Charlie cited Hatch’s book, and I’m sure that there are others that establish this historically). Whether that is a good thing for the church or not is another question altogether.
Finally, I wrote what I wrote in response to a specific set of posts, mainly by Aaron, to clarify why it might be more understandable for intellectual, historically minded to people to accept one new idea and not another. That is not to say that ideas that intellectual, historically-minded people might repudiate for intellectual and historical reasons are rightly repudiated for those reasons. Charlie said pretty much the same thing I did, only better.
[Aaron Blumer] I think the conversation about the education level of Darby, Chafer, et. al. might not be worth a lot of wrangling. I doubt anyone here is willing to say “You cannot contribute to theological development unless you have the proper credentials.” I do think we have one or two involved who would be willing to say “You cannot contribute to theological development unless you have a high regard for the history of the effort and the work of those who have gone before.”I would disagree with the way you have framed this entire discussion. Your idea that gains in theology come from correcting past errors is only half right. This is a Hegelian way to view the problem, with competing thesis and antithesis. Rather, I think that most theologians prior to modern criticism have tried very hard to labor by addition and deepening rather than correction. The Middle Ages were unduly concerned with this, often grossly reinterpreting earlier theologians in order to show how they were “correct” even when the newer theologian was espousing different ideas. Luther never thought of himself as discovering a new gospel, but rather recovering an ancient that had been temporarily obscured by the Pope. The Reformed Church developed not so much by correction but by broadening the approaches to theology. Witsius, for example, was one of the first to employ the “biblical theological” method of treating the Bible chronologically. However, he often goes out of his way to show how such a reading is in line with existent Protestant dogmatics. Really, the idea of progress involving leaving behind outdated ideas is a relatively recent phenomenon caused by Enlightenment thinking. So, it seems that there is a difference between saying that a person has developed an idea more deeply (Reformed confessionalism) and saying that every previous framework of theology was essentially wrong in its hermeneutics, ethics, and conception of the nature of the Church (Dispensationalism).
But whether Chafer, Darby & Co. had that high regard or not an important fact remains: No theological development of any kind occurs unless a student is willing to depart in some degree from those who have gone before him.
In the case of orthodox theological development, seems to me that no “progress” has ever occurred unless a student believed a) he was able to see something others had not and b) he was able to see something in Scripture those before him did not.
To put it another way, genuinely orthodox growth in theology requires the conviction that the meaning of Scripture is accessible to a significant degree to the individual believer… and actual success in getting at that meaning.
To put it even more plainly, you don’t advance orthodox theology (very much) unless you believe you can figure the Bible out for yourself, at least to some degree, and then actually do so.
So I’ll grant for the sake of argument that some of the early dispensationalists (as far as a developed system goes) had, perhaps, an exaggerated sense of this ability to “figure it out myself.” But I don’t see how we can deny that Luther, for one, had a very strong sense of “I don’t care what anybody says… the Scriptures are clear.” There could have been no 95 theses otherwise… (OK, granted, several of the theses are pretty mild assertions… but some are real doosies).
All the significant gains (and, yes, all the worst heresies, too) have arisen from somebody thinking “Maybe I can get at some answers others have gotten wrong.”
If we believe in the sola scriptura principle, then the only thing that justifies departing from the historical theology—on pretty much any point—is the conviction that the Scriptures have been widely neglected or misunderstood.
As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere good for them to go. They either cling to the developments in theology so far and go no further, or they go further on the basis of some other authority, such as philosophy or science. History is clear where that road usually leads.
As far as your second point, that you can’t advance orthodoxy without believing that you can understand the Bible, I agree with you in word only. This is one of the cruxes of disagreement. Just because I think I have the capability to understand the Bible, or parts of the Bible, does not mean that I believe that other people have the same level of ability. In Catholicism, ontology decides who gets to interpret the Bible. To simplify some, the Pope is closer to God in the hierarchy of being, so he makes the rules regardless of his intellectual or moral state. In Charismatism and pietism, spirituality decides who gets to interpret the Bible. Whoever is most “gifted” by or “yielded” to the Holy Spirit can interpret the Bible. In populist movements, the everyman is the best interpreter of the Bible. Just use common sense, Joe. In Protestant orthodoxy, we generally award the prize to our most intellectually gifted and academically devoted members. So, it seems that we need to establish what the prerequisites are for someone interpreting the Bible before we know who we can trust.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Aaron Blumer] No theological development of any kind occurs unless a student is willing to depart in some degree from those who have gone before him.Aaron, I find myself both agreeing with this and yet questioning it. As I consider it, two ideas occur to me—nuances almost. My hunch is that you will agree with them, but I do think that they shift the emphasis a bit.
In the case of orthodox theological development, seems to me that no “progress” has ever occurred unless a student believed a) he was able to see something others had not and b) he was able to see something in Scripture those before him did not.
To put it another way, genuinely orthodox growth in theology requires the conviction that the meaning of Scripture is accessible to a significant degree to the individual believer… and actual success in getting at that meaning.
First, I agree with “depart” so long as it includes the notion of “going beyond.” Some theological developments seem less about finding that those before are incorrect (in the sense of affirmatively wrong) and more about finding that they are incomplete. Thus, the departure may be moving from a position of less complete understanding or explanation to a more complete one.
Second, I agree with the notion of accessibility to the individual. Yet in responding to the notion that individuals cannot interpret the Word themselves, I wonder whether we sometimes go too far in the opposite direction, overemphasizing the individual. There is real value in collaborative discussion with other thoughtful, Spirit-led believers, and there is real value in reading and grappling with the works of believers who have gone before us. (Viewing our circles as a whole, our ignorance of history is, dare I say, appalling.)
I am thinking of references in my Systematic Theology class last term to the development of the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. There were, of course, elements of finding error in certain (heretical) beliefs of others. Yet it seems that within the realm of orthodoxy they involved a “going beyond” that which was previously understood as various statements of Scripture were worked together into a whole. Further, without ignoring the contributions of individuals, these efforts combined the work of many believers.
In sum, I would lean towards rephrasing your later statement, “Maybe I can get at some answers others have gotten wrong,” to something more along this line, “Maybe we can get at some better answers than others.”
Brent
Things that Matter
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
Wouldn’t disagree with much there. I think progress is often, as you say, going beyond or finding something better. Occasionally, it has involved something closer to perpendicular and still less often something antithetical. Some would describe Luther and the other Reformers as simply going beyond, but they look a good bit more rebellious than that to me. Their departures were seen as outrageous at the time and it was not uncommon to accuse them of the worst sort of arrogance for maintaining that they were reading something in Scripture contrary to the accepted doctrine of the day. The Diet of Worms comes to mind.
I’m emphasizing that era and those men in particular because (warning: a couple of you will find the association I’m about to make shocking and offensive… that really isn’t my goal, but it can’t be helped) those who have labored to systematize dispensational thought are often characterized as arrogantly and brashly tossing aside the beloved historical theology.
In reality, dispensationalism is not even perpendicular, much less antithetical, to most of orthodox historical theology.
So I argue that if Luther & co. can go theologically ballistic, why can’t Darby, Chafer, et. al., go at least a little punchy?
We’ve heard in this discussion that they can’t do that because they were not well enough trained and/or did not have the high esteem of enough of their peers (or that they weren’t even the peers of any theologians worthy of the name in their time).
All of that may or may not be. Doesn’t matter a whole lot to me. Either a man can stand up and say so when he believes the Scriptures teach something against the flow of historical theology (and be right) or he cannot. I have no doubt at all that he can.
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.
It’s clear, I think, that the differences between Aaron and others, like Charlie or myself, are deep and will not be resolved by arguments on a forum. The benefit then can be a clear statement of the differences between us. The difference is not amenable to slogans or one-liners, like “I believe individuals can interpret the Bible,” or “I don’t.” The real disagreement lies in what is meant, and what must be assumed for that meaning to be legitimate, by Aaron’s claims that individuals have the kind of competence he ascribes to them.
Because of the nature of our society, most of the forces that shape us in the most profound ways are invisible to us, and so we are not forced to acknowledge them. James Davison Hunter, a sociologist, in a truly profound and important book, The Death of Character, has put it this way:
[Hunter]Hunter shows convincingly that the death of character is a result of the death of the moral frameworks, embedded in cultural institutions and practices which in turn shape our assumptions about and orientation towards reality. Individuals are fundamentally, in the most powerful elements of their being, shaped (not determined) by the cultural frameworks and institutions in which and through which they live their particular lives. Hunter’s arguments applies far beyond character, although character is an important component of the Christian life. His broader argument is that we have profoundly underestimated the ways in which we are shaped by culture, and therefore we have assumed that the solutions to problems, like poor character in children, can be addressed by focusing on individuals, when in fact teaching a moral framework is impossible unless a person is cultivated by and inducted into a certain view of reality, usually through an institution like a family.
Indeed, the power of culture is always measured by its power to bind us, to compel us, to oblige us in ways we are not fully aware of.
A direct implication of this is that individuals, to the extent that they are moral, or civilized, or competent, are not so because of themselves; the opposite is the case: a person is a polite individual, or has good character, or is competent or an expert at something only because he was part of a community and culture that shaped him decisively. So, to the extent that I can, as an individual, read and understand the Bible, I know I am thus enabled only because God has gifted me with a community of believers who have helped shape my maturity, helped me learn, through watching them read and live out the Bible, what it means to read my Bible. People bereft of these these structures are inevitably immature, at best, often simply not Christian, at worst.
Reading the Bible as Christians can only take place properly within the normative context in which that activity is supposed to occur: namely, the local church. To disengage the practice of reading the Bible from the church is engender precisely what takes place in secular department of religion in which secular people study a text, not as the Bible, but as a collection of religious writings representing simply one more holy book. Such people are not competent readers of Scripture, which is why Christians are justified in disregarding their work to the extent that it claims to have direct relevance for Christian’s study of the Bible. Yet to recognize and accept this negative example is to implicitly accept it positive corollary: that there is a proper context in which to read the Bible, and that certain individuals are able to do it better than others. To more fully appreciate this, listen to Alasdair MacIntyre on the idea of tradition (from After Virtue):
[MacIntye]Now that I take to be a very good description of tradition, and it is one reason why I affirm the importance of the church’s tradition. So, first, the individual is part of a community, the church, that shares a tradition, and the only way to possibly transcend and correct this tradition would be to know it. Knowing one’s tradition is a necessary condition for correcting and transcending it in a way that preserves continuity. We read the Bible, then, in the context of the church and her traditions, theological and practical. And, moreover, we recognize, if only implicitly, that some people are better at reading the Bible than others, and therefore more to be respected than others. This is because reading the Bible is a practice, one which, like any practice, requires the development of skills. One learns how to read the Bible; and one gets better at it as one matures in the broader framework of which reading the Bible is an integral part.
… it is central to the conception of such a tradition that the past is never something merely to be discarded, but rather that the present is intelligible only as a commentary upon and response to the past in which the past, if necessary and if possible, is corrected and transcended, yet corrected and transcended in a way that leaves the present open to being in turn corrected and transcended by some yet more adequate future point of view.
Now how does one learn skills? Not from a book, although these often help clarify what is involved in being skilled. No, one learns skills from other people who are more skilled than oneself. Piano teachers teach piano students; master craftsman take on apprentices. Michael Polanyi has noted that skills demand submission to authority. A novice is in no position to judge his teacher; he simply must submit to his teacher until he develops, through imitation and practice, sufficient skills that lend him a form of independence, an independence, note, which is the direct result of prior submission to authority and development of skills within the context of tradition and community within which qualitative increases in skill are measurable. People who don’t want to submit to music teachers will never be great musicians; people who refuse to submit to master carpenters will never become master carpenters; and people who refuse to submit to the authority of the tradition and community, and those in that community and tradition who are recognized as mature practitioners (e.g. elders) will never be skilled readers of Scriptures. Thus, people who refuse to submit to a local church, to commit themselves humbly to the process of developing under those more mature than they, are not competent readers of Scripture.
The point is not that, in some objective sense, bereft of any context, Scripture is “unclear.” The point is rather that learning to read well is a skill and discipline, and therefore cannot be developed without a community and tradition, without authority, submission, and commitment. God works in spite of our flaws, but he has made it clear that the church is not an option to which believers may opt out and still consider themselves competent practitioners of Christianity, people who are progressively realizing the ideals set forth in the process of sanctification. So, in fact individuals, considered in themselves, will never people competent readers of Scripture. But, thanks be to God, he has called individuals out of the world and into a new community, into a new way of living, thinking, into new attitudes, assumptions, dispositions, sensibilities, and, yes, skills and practices. As they progress in becoming acculturated to this new normative community, they are able to help others who used to be in their position: novices, but eager to grow and develop. This is God’s pattern for the church, and it is in part why I hold the commitments that I do on matters of Scripture and its interpretations. My hope is that the issue is somewhat clearer, at least with respect to my own position on this matter, and that some insight has been shed on what it actually means to read Scripture as an individual..
Discussion