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
RE: Aaron Blumer, “Perspicuity and Sola Scriptura”
Thank you, Aaron. At last the discussion has come down to the very basics, and they are relatively simple. I trust that the readers of this SI thread appreciate what just developed before their own eyes. The lesson taught is not far removed from the tale of “The Emperor’s Clothes.” The issue in the development of dispensationalism, or any of the other biblical teachings, is one of ultimate authority. Is it the testimony of the sovereign God in Scripture itself, or the scholastic quest of would-be autonomous man? In short, is it Sola Scriptura or historical theology? All of us as readers have been forced to come to grips with the age-old question at the bottom of all systematics and biblical studies—Is one’s authority divine or human; God or man? Its that simple, and one can’t have it both ways.
Sola Scriptura comes wrapped in a whole parcel of truths, such as divine propositional revelation, the idea of miracles, the regeneration of the human personality, the inspiration, inerrancy, and perspicuity of the Bible, the use (and univocality) of the biblical languages and all human language, the soul liberty of each believer and the privilege and duty to come personally and directly to Scripture via the indwelling triune God, the faculty of an illumined, renewed mind, and the sufficiency of Scripture, among others. In other words, with this moral, spiritual, and intellectual propaedeutic we are confronted with a self-attesting Bible, a self-referential God, and a self-identifying Christ, all from Scripture itself.
The historical theological methodology we have been encouraged by some in this blog to adopt, which includes its philosophical assumptions and theological presuppositions antithetical to Sola Scriptura, has admittedly led to a blind alley with regard to the most elementary, basic and load-bearing question in doing theology—How does biblical doctrine develop? Conversely, Sola Scriptura leads us to the Bible as the Word of God in order to see our need for the Bible and everything Christian, not least Christian theology.
Harnack, Troelstch, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl with their “classical liberal theology” that “was very impressive theologically and historically,” along with Gerrish, Pauck, and a SI blogger or two have no answer worthy of acceptance. Joseph, for example, said, “I myself am nowhere close to have resolution on the question of doctrinal development,” a problem he intends “to study for a long time.” Speaking for himself (and actually for the list of scholars “mainly trained in the German tradition” he outlines) in answer to the question of how doctrine develops, he gives a self-confessed lame answer, “I don’t know, and when I do ….”
Dear Christian friends and Bible-believers, in the kindest candor I can muster, that conclusion is at least 20,000 leagues under being pathetic. And we are to accept that kind of finding in refutation of dispensationalism? But it is an honest answer, given in remarkably transparent candor—the only answer possible in that methodology for doctrinal studies. Aaron is patently kind, clear and correct, if not studiously understated: “As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere for them to go…. History [ironically!] is clear where that road usually leads.”
Arguing for or against dispensationalism (or any biblical teaching) on the basis of historical theology, or with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically normative to any degree, is a dead end. Nearly any doctrine, true or crackpot, can be supported by history, probably the most unreliable sources are the Fathers, along with rabbinic studies and others with even worse presuppositions.
Rolland D. McCune
Thank you, Aaron. At last the discussion has come down to the very basics, and they are relatively simple. I trust that the readers of this SI thread appreciate what just developed before their own eyes. The lesson taught is not far removed from the tale of “The Emperor’s Clothes.” The issue in the development of dispensationalism, or any of the other biblical teachings, is one of ultimate authority. Is it the testimony of the sovereign God in Scripture itself, or the scholastic quest of would-be autonomous man? In short, is it Sola Scriptura or historical theology? All of us as readers have been forced to come to grips with the age-old question at the bottom of all systematics and biblical studies—Is one’s authority divine or human; God or man? Its that simple, and one can’t have it both ways.
Sola Scriptura comes wrapped in a whole parcel of truths, such as divine propositional revelation, the idea of miracles, the regeneration of the human personality, the inspiration, inerrancy, and perspicuity of the Bible, the use (and univocality) of the biblical languages and all human language, the soul liberty of each believer and the privilege and duty to come personally and directly to Scripture via the indwelling triune God, the faculty of an illumined, renewed mind, and the sufficiency of Scripture, among others. In other words, with this moral, spiritual, and intellectual propaedeutic we are confronted with a self-attesting Bible, a self-referential God, and a self-identifying Christ, all from Scripture itself.
The historical theological methodology we have been encouraged by some in this blog to adopt, which includes its philosophical assumptions and theological presuppositions antithetical to Sola Scriptura, has admittedly led to a blind alley with regard to the most elementary, basic and load-bearing question in doing theology—How does biblical doctrine develop? Conversely, Sola Scriptura leads us to the Bible as the Word of God in order to see our need for the Bible and everything Christian, not least Christian theology.
Harnack, Troelstch, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl with their “classical liberal theology” that “was very impressive theologically and historically,” along with Gerrish, Pauck, and a SI blogger or two have no answer worthy of acceptance. Joseph, for example, said, “I myself am nowhere close to have resolution on the question of doctrinal development,” a problem he intends “to study for a long time.” Speaking for himself (and actually for the list of scholars “mainly trained in the German tradition” he outlines) in answer to the question of how doctrine develops, he gives a self-confessed lame answer, “I don’t know, and when I do ….”
Dear Christian friends and Bible-believers, in the kindest candor I can muster, that conclusion is at least 20,000 leagues under being pathetic. And we are to accept that kind of finding in refutation of dispensationalism? But it is an honest answer, given in remarkably transparent candor—the only answer possible in that methodology for doctrinal studies. Aaron is patently kind, clear and correct, if not studiously understated: “As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere for them to go…. History [ironically!] is clear where that road usually leads.”
Arguing for or against dispensationalism (or any biblical teaching) on the basis of historical theology, or with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically normative to any degree, is a dead end. Nearly any doctrine, true or crackpot, can be supported by history, probably the most unreliable sources are the Fathers, along with rabbinic studies and others with even worse presuppositions.
Rolland D. McCune
Rolland McCune
Thank you, Dr. McCune, for your clear reminder of what is at stake here.
I would like to repost Paul’s earlier comment—reminding us that Paul is that author of the article under debate here—and encourage us to continue the thread according to his desires.
I would like to repost Paul’s earlier comment—reminding us that Paul is that author of the article under debate here—and encourage us to continue the thread according to his desires.
[Paul J. Scharf] The discussions on this thread are very interesting, but some of them have very little to do directly with the original article.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Thanks, Dr. McCune. I think you have expressed it well, as you usually do.
I think some people misunderstand the nature and role of historical theology. Historical theology, to my way of thinking, is simply a chronicle of what people have believed. It is in no way a statement of what people must believe. As you, Dr. McCune, point out, historical theology is notoriously unreliable for authority because it is so broad.
Who hasn’t seen John Calvin appealed to for both sides of any given issue? Some people can’t even agree on how to spell his name. The church fathers can be appealed to for support for just about everything except whether or not fried chicken and pimento cheese sandwich quarters (with the crusts cut off) are required at church potlucks for true Christian churches.
Furthermore, much of historical theology is the work of rank unbelievers, men who have no part in the atoning work of Christ. It is the work of men who denied some of the most foundational and fundamental elements of the Christian faith. These are men with keen philosophical insights that seem devoid of the work of the Spirit. While these keen philosophical insights may be true by virtue of God’s common grace, and his intent to bring about his glory in his church, they do not validate the assertion of untrue theological tenets.
I also find the charge that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old and therefore suspect less than satisfying. It seems to me that many have argued cogently that while the systematization of dispensationalism may date to 1830ish, the tenets of dispensationalism go back much farther. I, in half-jest, trace it to the Garden of Eden, where Adam understood that “Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was not a command to not drive a car. He understood the words to mean exactly what they said. He knew what the referent was and he didn’t try to make it something else. Now, I realize that’s somewhat simplistic, and intentionally so. But to me it emphasizes that words have meaning and we don’t get to change those. I find unconvincing the idea that NT authors somehow gave new meaning to OT ideas. I think that has some severe consequences for our doctrine of bibliology.
I am a dispensationalist because my conscience, as I study Scripture, gives me no other option. I find unconvincing the arguments that I have seen put forth against dispensationalism and in favor of one of the alternatives.
I think some people misunderstand the nature and role of historical theology. Historical theology, to my way of thinking, is simply a chronicle of what people have believed. It is in no way a statement of what people must believe. As you, Dr. McCune, point out, historical theology is notoriously unreliable for authority because it is so broad.
Who hasn’t seen John Calvin appealed to for both sides of any given issue? Some people can’t even agree on how to spell his name. The church fathers can be appealed to for support for just about everything except whether or not fried chicken and pimento cheese sandwich quarters (with the crusts cut off) are required at church potlucks for true Christian churches.
Furthermore, much of historical theology is the work of rank unbelievers, men who have no part in the atoning work of Christ. It is the work of men who denied some of the most foundational and fundamental elements of the Christian faith. These are men with keen philosophical insights that seem devoid of the work of the Spirit. While these keen philosophical insights may be true by virtue of God’s common grace, and his intent to bring about his glory in his church, they do not validate the assertion of untrue theological tenets.
I also find the charge that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old and therefore suspect less than satisfying. It seems to me that many have argued cogently that while the systematization of dispensationalism may date to 1830ish, the tenets of dispensationalism go back much farther. I, in half-jest, trace it to the Garden of Eden, where Adam understood that “Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was not a command to not drive a car. He understood the words to mean exactly what they said. He knew what the referent was and he didn’t try to make it something else. Now, I realize that’s somewhat simplistic, and intentionally so. But to me it emphasizes that words have meaning and we don’t get to change those. I find unconvincing the idea that NT authors somehow gave new meaning to OT ideas. I think that has some severe consequences for our doctrine of bibliology.
I am a dispensationalist because my conscience, as I study Scripture, gives me no other option. I find unconvincing the arguments that I have seen put forth against dispensationalism and in favor of one of the alternatives.
[Rolland McCune]A few things should be clarified. At least speaking for myself, I am not advocating doing theology from history, but with history. There is quite a difference. The reason why we’ve gone down this particular line of reasoning, rather than a more exegetical one, is simply because Aaron asked a question, and it is a good question that deserves a thoughtful answer. So, I am not arguing against Dispensationalism from history, but showing how someone attuned to historical theology might find Dispensationalism less plausible. I have no lack of exegetical arguments that are persuasive to me and doubtlessly unpersuasive to you.
Sola Scriptura comes wrapped in a whole parcel of truths, such as divine propositional revelation, the idea of miracles, the regeneration of the human personality, the inspiration, inerrancy, and perspicuity of the Bible, the use (and univocality) of the biblical languages and all human language, the soul liberty of each believer and the privilege and duty to come personally and directly to Scripture via the indwelling triune God, the faculty of an illumined, renewed mind, and the sufficiency of Scripture, among others. In other words, with this moral, spiritual, and intellectual propaedeutic we are confronted with a self-attesting Bible, a self-referential God, and a self-identifying Christ, all from Scripture itself.
So where does that leave us? With your slogans, but no help. I’m aware of where you’re coming from, because I read your systematic theology (at least the first 100 pages). Really, though, none of what you said helps. Sola Scriptura refers to Scripture as the only infallible source of truth and authority, not the only source. And, it doesn’t help resolve a situation in which two people believe different things because they are “biblical.” Similarly, inerrancy and divine propositional revelation does not guarantee that any specific person is interpreting the Bible correctly, or is able to in their current condition. The “univocality” of language does not keep people from arguing about what a set of words means, in the Bible or elsewhere. Regeneration does not result in automatically correct Scriptural interpretations. Having the Holy Spirit does not guarantee that any individual person is illuminated at any specific point.
None of those slogans (and I am not saying that they are slogans, but the way you used them comes awfully close) actually answers the question of how we resolve disputes about what the Bible means. I for one am not ready to say that people who disagree with me lack the Holy Spirit or are in some sin that clouds their vision or just aren’t regenerate. Joseph, I think, put it best. If Bible interpretation is a skill (or at least includes skill components), then some people are going to be better at it than others. The difference is going to be (among other things) discipline of study and mastery of the subject matter. The idea of the Bible interpretation as a “common sense” endeavor is not compatible with the idea of it as a skill. One is right, the other wrong. I submit that the “common sense” approach his been historically disqualified, since there is no apparent reason why no one in the first 1800+ years of church history had enough “common sense” to reach the “common sense” conclusions of the Bible.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Thank you Dr. McCune for providing a wonderful and authoritative answer which helps us all bring our thoughts back toward God and His eternal Word.
Thank you also Greg and Larry for your good comments.
In this thread, dispensationalism has been maligned, if not completely dismissed, because it grew up in an American hothouse — in the midst of a time when liberty was giving birth to what would become modern culture and all kinds of weird cults were also springing up like weeds. It was not born out of the great traditions of the academic elite in Europe who had incredible respect for historical theology — both Roman Catholic and Protestant.
I attempted to refute this kind of thinking in my article within the constraints of the limits imposed on it. My goal in part was to show that indeed dispensationalism is connected to true historical theology.
At the risk of sounding provincial and obscurantist, let me propose an additional reason why dispensationalism developed here (by men building on Reformational truth, as the Chafer quote provided by Alex Guggenheim reinforces) and not in Europe — and perhaps someone with more time and historical expertise than me can build on this in a God-honoring way, whether he or she agrees or disagrees:
Dispensationalism may have developed here for the same reason that children’s ministries, youth ministries, Bible societies, mission boards (which would send thousands of missionaries to European countries, by the way), colleges, seminaries, youth camps, radio and TV ministries, and a thousand other things (including development of all schools of orthodox theology and Bible knowledge in general) also did — because in God’s mercy America has been a base of Bible belief for the world, whereas Europe for the most part has given itself over to liberalism and near-total apostasy.
As much as I respect N.T. Wright’s credentials and enjoy listening to him talk, I would not want to emulate him as my model of theological integrity — to say nothing of the thousands of men and women who are part of European academia who would make Wright look like a flaming fundamentalist.
As Dr. McCune points out, dismissing dispensationalism because it does not meet certain academic and historical standards is an insufficient response. It is the theological equivalent of what our Supreme Court does when it uses international law as a guide to interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
To say it another way: We have had at least 80 years wherein men with earned doctorates from world-class universities and seminaries have espoused dispensationalism. Does this now make it historically and academically credible? If not, who could? If that is not really the issue, why have the discussion?
Thank you also Greg and Larry for your good comments.
In this thread, dispensationalism has been maligned, if not completely dismissed, because it grew up in an American hothouse — in the midst of a time when liberty was giving birth to what would become modern culture and all kinds of weird cults were also springing up like weeds. It was not born out of the great traditions of the academic elite in Europe who had incredible respect for historical theology — both Roman Catholic and Protestant.
I attempted to refute this kind of thinking in my article within the constraints of the limits imposed on it. My goal in part was to show that indeed dispensationalism is connected to true historical theology.
At the risk of sounding provincial and obscurantist, let me propose an additional reason why dispensationalism developed here (by men building on Reformational truth, as the Chafer quote provided by Alex Guggenheim reinforces) and not in Europe — and perhaps someone with more time and historical expertise than me can build on this in a God-honoring way, whether he or she agrees or disagrees:
Dispensationalism may have developed here for the same reason that children’s ministries, youth ministries, Bible societies, mission boards (which would send thousands of missionaries to European countries, by the way), colleges, seminaries, youth camps, radio and TV ministries, and a thousand other things (including development of all schools of orthodox theology and Bible knowledge in general) also did — because in God’s mercy America has been a base of Bible belief for the world, whereas Europe for the most part has given itself over to liberalism and near-total apostasy.
As much as I respect N.T. Wright’s credentials and enjoy listening to him talk, I would not want to emulate him as my model of theological integrity — to say nothing of the thousands of men and women who are part of European academia who would make Wright look like a flaming fundamentalist.
As Dr. McCune points out, dismissing dispensationalism because it does not meet certain academic and historical standards is an insufficient response. It is the theological equivalent of what our Supreme Court does when it uses international law as a guide to interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
To say it another way: We have had at least 80 years wherein men with earned doctorates from world-class universities and seminaries have espoused dispensationalism. Does this now make it historically and academically credible? If not, who could? If that is not really the issue, why have the discussion?
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Charlie:
Sorry you feel Sola Scriptua (at least how I understand it) falls under the general slogan of “Slogans.” In my view that is incredibly reductionist, somewhat like using Sola as a sloganism to refer solely to the “ ‘infallible’ source of authority, not the only source.”
You understandibly want to include history apparently as an outside aid to understand doctrine, to which I have no real objection. However, my point was that even in that modified scenario, my contention is that “with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically NORMATIVE, [that methodology] is a dead end.” Do you dispute that proposition? If you do, it seems to me that Sola has been abandoned and we are back to the essential anonymity and agnosticism of the historical method, and Sola then truly becomes a slogan, but void of biblical/theological content. Sola, as well as any biblical doctrine or datum, cannot stand on some kind of independent, autonomous footing detached from all the other truths I mentioned, to say nothing of its primacy in the whole interlocking, correlative truth system of the one living and true God as revealed in the Protestant canon.
Sorry you feel Sola Scriptua (at least how I understand it) falls under the general slogan of “Slogans.” In my view that is incredibly reductionist, somewhat like using Sola as a sloganism to refer solely to the “ ‘infallible’ source of authority, not the only source.”
You understandibly want to include history apparently as an outside aid to understand doctrine, to which I have no real objection. However, my point was that even in that modified scenario, my contention is that “with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically NORMATIVE, [that methodology] is a dead end.” Do you dispute that proposition? If you do, it seems to me that Sola has been abandoned and we are back to the essential anonymity and agnosticism of the historical method, and Sola then truly becomes a slogan, but void of biblical/theological content. Sola, as well as any biblical doctrine or datum, cannot stand on some kind of independent, autonomous footing detached from all the other truths I mentioned, to say nothing of its primacy in the whole interlocking, correlative truth system of the one living and true God as revealed in the Protestant canon.
Rolland McCune
The issue is not about the normativity of history, but about history (historical theology) being the medium in which theologians work. Is theology a discipline, or is it not? I say it is. How do advancements come in any discipline? They come by people climbing upon the shoulders of those who came before, and from that vantage point offering their contribution. They do not come by people on the outside leaping into the sky by themselves.
So there are two things to consider in any discipline. First, the subject matter. In this case, it is the Bible. Second, the current body of knowledge already available about the subject matter. In this case, historical theology. New breakthroughs in physics come by physicists who know current physics theory laboring to correct, modify, add, develop, etc. They do not come by non-physicists deciding to ignore all that has been said about physics before and think of something on their own based on “common sense,” since God obviously wanted us to understand nature and wouldn’t have made it hard or require intensive study.
You see where I’m going with this. Theology is a discipline concerned with the investigation of propositional truths. There is a longstanding body of thought devoted to expounding those truths. I believe that new advancements are more likely to come from people intimately acquainted with that body of knowledge than with someone who thinks they can dismiss it. My whole point in this conversation with Aaron was not to prove that Dispensationalism is false, but to show why some people more readily accept Luther’s “innovations” than Darby/Scofield/Chafer’s. Luther was more like the trained physicist, whereas the others seemed to champion an epistemology that actually encourages jumping into the sky.
Really, all I have been trying to do is explain to Aaron the seeming inconsistency between accepting Luther and rejecting Darby. I do, though, believe that historical theology is the formal principle of systematic theology whereas the Bible is its material principle. I also find it hard to believe that one (such as Chafer) can argue that theology is “common sense” while all the while knowing that the massive weight of history is against you. How can you explain the total absence of “common sense” among every branch of Christendom over the last 1800 years? I think the early Dispensational platform would actually have been stronger by using an appeal to superior scholarship than to common sense.
So there are two things to consider in any discipline. First, the subject matter. In this case, it is the Bible. Second, the current body of knowledge already available about the subject matter. In this case, historical theology. New breakthroughs in physics come by physicists who know current physics theory laboring to correct, modify, add, develop, etc. They do not come by non-physicists deciding to ignore all that has been said about physics before and think of something on their own based on “common sense,” since God obviously wanted us to understand nature and wouldn’t have made it hard or require intensive study.
You see where I’m going with this. Theology is a discipline concerned with the investigation of propositional truths. There is a longstanding body of thought devoted to expounding those truths. I believe that new advancements are more likely to come from people intimately acquainted with that body of knowledge than with someone who thinks they can dismiss it. My whole point in this conversation with Aaron was not to prove that Dispensationalism is false, but to show why some people more readily accept Luther’s “innovations” than Darby/Scofield/Chafer’s. Luther was more like the trained physicist, whereas the others seemed to champion an epistemology that actually encourages jumping into the sky.
Really, all I have been trying to do is explain to Aaron the seeming inconsistency between accepting Luther and rejecting Darby. I do, though, believe that historical theology is the formal principle of systematic theology whereas the Bible is its material principle. I also find it hard to believe that one (such as Chafer) can argue that theology is “common sense” while all the while knowing that the massive weight of history is against you. How can you explain the total absence of “common sense” among every branch of Christendom over the last 1800 years? I think the early Dispensational platform would actually have been stronger by using an appeal to superior scholarship than to common sense.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Y’all, I’ve been finding the discussion very interesting. But I’ve got a trip to get ready for then go on, so I’m going to have to go silent.
Just wanted to explain why I’m disappearing.
As a sort of last contribution on it from me, for now…. maybe it would help to pause and review what we’ere all agreed on.
I don’t think any of us would deny that…
1. Theology is a discipline and the work of those who have gone before is important to moving sensibly forward
2. Moving forward (whether actually or only in perception) has always involved some degree of departure from the work of those who have gone before
3. For some sola scriptura is just tossed around as a slogan… but for many, it’s pretty much the foundation everything else is built on… and for these, there is no such thing as “forward” unless it is toward a fuller understanding of what is written (which presupposes that a diligent student can understand what is written without recourse to philosophers).
OK, for what I’m not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be…
1. The Reformers did depart a big way (how’s that for precision) from many of the pretty much settled conclusions (another technical term) of the discipline of theology for the several centuries that preceded them
2. They did so with varying degrees of reluctance because they were very knowledgeable of that body of work
3. They did so with great boldness once they arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures required them to make those departures…”Here I stand I can do no other”
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
6. That (#4 & #5), in itself, does not mean they were wrong!
That’s really all I’ve been saying (except for the journey into “If the history of the discipline is so important, just when is it OK to deviate from it?” …and my answer, whenever study of the Scriptures themselves warrants that… but I have to also echo Dr McCune’s observation that there is not so much consensus in the discipline/historical theology as some seem to think… once you get past the early councils)
Just wanted to explain why I’m disappearing.
As a sort of last contribution on it from me, for now…. maybe it would help to pause and review what we’ere all agreed on.
I don’t think any of us would deny that…
1. Theology is a discipline and the work of those who have gone before is important to moving sensibly forward
2. Moving forward (whether actually or only in perception) has always involved some degree of departure from the work of those who have gone before
3. For some sola scriptura is just tossed around as a slogan… but for many, it’s pretty much the foundation everything else is built on… and for these, there is no such thing as “forward” unless it is toward a fuller understanding of what is written (which presupposes that a diligent student can understand what is written without recourse to philosophers).
OK, for what I’m not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be…
1. The Reformers did depart a big way (how’s that for precision) from many of the pretty much settled conclusions (another technical term) of the discipline of theology for the several centuries that preceded them
2. They did so with varying degrees of reluctance because they were very knowledgeable of that body of work
3. They did so with great boldness once they arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures required them to make those departures…”Here I stand I can do no other”
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
6. That (#4 & #5), in itself, does not mean they were wrong!
That’s really all I’ve been saying (except for the journey into “If the history of the discipline is so important, just when is it OK to deviate from it?” …and my answer, whenever study of the Scriptures themselves warrants that… but I have to also echo Dr McCune’s observation that there is not so much consensus in the discipline/historical theology as some seem to think… once you get past the early councils)
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.
[Aaron Blumer]
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
Thanks Aaron for your summation!
In your list of things that you are “not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be,” I am not willing to concede as a given no. 4 and 5, as quoted above.
First of all, comparing the Reformers and the early dispensationalists is really an apples and oranges comparison, in this sense: the Reformers were really going way out on a limb - and had better have been right, as they often stated in so many words - as they were arguing about the nature of eternal salvation for the souls of millions of men and women from that day down to ours.
Dispensationalists, building on the work of the Reformation and standing on the shoulders of the Reformers (as was my point in the article), were arguing more than anything else about the nature of the church and for a future salvation for Israel — through the same gospel we enjoy today. They felt they were finally able to grasp the whole Bible and enjoy all of its sweetest fruit; they were not launching a parallel but different kind of Reformation, but telescoping out from the work of the Reformers. Again, that was my original point, and I have seen nothing from anyone that has countered what I am saying about dispensationalism — either conceptually or historically.
The stature of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin — especially Luther — in my humble opinion, had more to do with the courage they displayed and the way God used them at a particular moment in time than with their academic qualifications, intrinsic brilliance and superior abilities, though no one would deny that they were men of great ability.
They were also steeped in Roman Catholicism (not merely academically, but personally and spiritually; which, I guess, can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how important you believe historical theology to be) and each also had great personal shortcomings. (But to paraphrase an earlier post, that is an embarrassing discussion, so let’s not go there.)
Would you really have expected the Reformers — in just one generation — to go from Roman Catholicism to a pre-trib rapture and a future salvation for Israel? That seems highly unrealistic to me.
Did all truth end with them? I first began to wrestle with (internally) and then fight (externally) that concept when I was in the 8th grade.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Aaron Blumer] Y’all, I’ve been finding the discussion very interesting. But I’ve got a trip to get ready for then go on, so I’m going to have to go silent.Aaron, I would pretty much agree with what you wrote here. I would only take some issue with your first #3. I agree that doctrine is not dependent upon a person, such as a philosopher. No thinker, whether Aristotle or Kant, has a grid that will unlock the Bible. Theology and philosophy, though, are interrelated enough that what you do in one affects the other. People who have bad philosophy, or have never conscientiously articulated a philosophy, are more susceptible to error. One of my great concerns with the “common sense” movement (which is broader than Dispensationalism), is that people aren’t really avoiding philosophy, they’re just doing it poorly (that is, unconsciously). Saying “I just do theology and don’t worry about that philosophy stuff” seems to me to be the same sort of error as “I don’t do theology, I just believe the Bible.” But, I think that we’re in general agreement, and that some people have read more “historicism” into my method than is really accurate.
Just wanted to explain why I’m disappearing.
As a sort of last contribution on it from me, for now…. maybe it would help to pause and review what we’ere all agreed on.
I don’t think any of us would deny that…
1. Theology is a discipline and the work of those who have gone before is important to moving sensibly forward
2. Moving forward (whether actually or only in perception) has always involved some degree of departure from the work of those who have gone before
3. For some sola scriptura is just tossed around as a slogan… but for many, it’s pretty much the foundation everything else is built on… and for these, there is no such thing as “forward” unless it is toward a fuller understanding of what is written (which presupposes that a diligent student can understand what is written without recourse to philosophers).
OK, for what I’m not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be…
1. The Reformers did depart a big way (how’s that for precision) from many of the pretty much settled conclusions (another technical term) of the discipline of theology for the several centuries that preceded them
2. They did so with varying degrees of reluctance because they were very knowledgeable of that body of work
3. They did so with great boldness once they arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures required them to make those departures…”Here I stand I can do no other”
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
6. That (#4 & #5), in itself, does not mean they were wrong!
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] People who have bad philosophy, or have never conscientiously articulated a philosophy, are more susceptible to error. One of my great concerns with the “common sense” movement (which is broader than Dispensationalism), is that people aren’t really avoiding philosophy, they’re just doing it poorly (that is, unconsciously). Saying “I just do theology and don’t worry about that philosophy stuff” seems to me to be the same sort of error as “I don’t do theology, I just believe the Bible.” But, I think that we’re in general agreement, and that some people have read more “historicism” into my method than is really accurate.You are protesting people reading more “historicism” into your method than is accurate, and your clarification is fair, yet you isolate a general comment by a Dispensationalist and exaggerate it to the point of claiming it is the the basis of an entire theological movement so that you can conveniently argue against its value. If you want people to fairly read your approach it stands to reason you are obligated to be a bit more fair of Chafer’s theological perspicacity. :)
“1. Dispensationalism understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture.”
The need to examine Scripture, even the difficult passages, is very important. I agree with the need to examine and the relevance of Scripture; I disagree that Dispensationalism has an exclusive ownership of this point though. As such, I don’t see why this is a helpful point to make in why one should be a dispensationalist because others can make the exact same point. The fact that the opening article speaks of others not searching does not lead to the conclusion that ‘only’ a dispensationalist understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture. Such a conclusion is a non-sequiter, a conclusion that does not arise from the data.
“2. Dispensationalism employs consistent literal interpretation.”
I’d have to disagree here. Dispensationalists do not employ a consistent literal interpretation. I have never heard of a dispensationalist interpret Jesus’ statement that one should forgive 70 times 7 in a literal way. I have never read a dispensationalist take literally the supposed culmination in Matthew where Jesus is “offering” the kingdom. One has to be non-literal in order to arrive at such an “offer” even existing in the chapters. Further, the opening article does not hit upon the role that systematic theology has upon what one calls literal. The Open Theist, denying the non-literal poetic genre of the Psalms, says that he is taking passages “literally” that speak toward God’s lack of knowledge. Further, “literal” has to include the various genres in which the OT and NT is written; “literal” needs to deal with the different rhetorical devices which the authorial intent includes, which may very well not be literal. Genre cannot be missed! Further, whether or not one holds to an OT, NT, or complementary priority of the testaments and the bearing this has on what one calls literal needs to be taken into account. In summary, Dispensationalism does not employ a “consistent” literal hermeneutic, and is suffers from being unable to clearly define the term “literal” in the context of the many different hermeneutical issues.
“3. Dispensationalism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding all of history.”
Much like my response to #1, dispensationalism does not have an exclusive claim on understanding history. Hence, this point can be used by other systems to support why one should be a holder to the other systems.
“4. Dispensationalism emphasizes the glory of God.”
I appreciate the fact that the author of the opening article writes that dispensationalism is not exclusive in this regard. One big misnomer is that disp theology emphasizes the glory of God, and covenant theology does not. This would be to completely straw man covenant theology. Disp is not exclusive in this category, so this point can be used as a reason for advancing another system.
“5. Dispensationalism brings the ministry of Christ into clear focus.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. In fact, it may be debated that disp theology actually misses the relevance of Christ by missing His role as THE seed of Abraham of which those in union with Him also become inheritors of the promises. But that is an argument that I will simply set on the table to look at, but I will not try to defend it. I will leave that to others.
“6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.”
This has already been covered in the course of the thread, so I will not add anything.
“7. Godly dispensational teachers have modeled this theology for me.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. Hence, it becomes a moot point on why one should be a dispensationalist.
The need to examine Scripture, even the difficult passages, is very important. I agree with the need to examine and the relevance of Scripture; I disagree that Dispensationalism has an exclusive ownership of this point though. As such, I don’t see why this is a helpful point to make in why one should be a dispensationalist because others can make the exact same point. The fact that the opening article speaks of others not searching does not lead to the conclusion that ‘only’ a dispensationalist understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture. Such a conclusion is a non-sequiter, a conclusion that does not arise from the data.
“2. Dispensationalism employs consistent literal interpretation.”
I’d have to disagree here. Dispensationalists do not employ a consistent literal interpretation. I have never heard of a dispensationalist interpret Jesus’ statement that one should forgive 70 times 7 in a literal way. I have never read a dispensationalist take literally the supposed culmination in Matthew where Jesus is “offering” the kingdom. One has to be non-literal in order to arrive at such an “offer” even existing in the chapters. Further, the opening article does not hit upon the role that systematic theology has upon what one calls literal. The Open Theist, denying the non-literal poetic genre of the Psalms, says that he is taking passages “literally” that speak toward God’s lack of knowledge. Further, “literal” has to include the various genres in which the OT and NT is written; “literal” needs to deal with the different rhetorical devices which the authorial intent includes, which may very well not be literal. Genre cannot be missed! Further, whether or not one holds to an OT, NT, or complementary priority of the testaments and the bearing this has on what one calls literal needs to be taken into account. In summary, Dispensationalism does not employ a “consistent” literal hermeneutic, and is suffers from being unable to clearly define the term “literal” in the context of the many different hermeneutical issues.
“3. Dispensationalism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding all of history.”
Much like my response to #1, dispensationalism does not have an exclusive claim on understanding history. Hence, this point can be used by other systems to support why one should be a holder to the other systems.
“4. Dispensationalism emphasizes the glory of God.”
I appreciate the fact that the author of the opening article writes that dispensationalism is not exclusive in this regard. One big misnomer is that disp theology emphasizes the glory of God, and covenant theology does not. This would be to completely straw man covenant theology. Disp is not exclusive in this category, so this point can be used as a reason for advancing another system.
“5. Dispensationalism brings the ministry of Christ into clear focus.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. In fact, it may be debated that disp theology actually misses the relevance of Christ by missing His role as THE seed of Abraham of which those in union with Him also become inheritors of the promises. But that is an argument that I will simply set on the table to look at, but I will not try to defend it. I will leave that to others.
“6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.”
This has already been covered in the course of the thread, so I will not add anything.
“7. Godly dispensational teachers have modeled this theology for me.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. Hence, it becomes a moot point on why one should be a dispensationalist.
Dispensationalism appears to be a theological perspective uniquely emerging from a Bible only ism (Sola Scriptura) approach to scripture.
1. The Japhetic (European) tradition of theology was inseparably entangled with Greek philosophy with the influence of Plato, Aristotle, and others being conveyed via Plotinus and emerging in Augustine. There is agreed consensus that the Reformers, especially Calvin, were influenced by Augustine. Yet Augustine was terribly wrong on Justification, sacraments, the church, and the Kingdom. He became the primary influence that resulted in replacement of Israel and the kingdom with the blessings and ceremonies reformed and transferred to the Gentile church. This centuries old European theology needed to be purged in order for theology to become sola scriptura.
2. The Puritans brought the entanglements of European theology to the new land of north America. Their devotion and exaltation of Christ is to be appreciated. However, their attempts to bring the European concept of the church in the state initially sought to suppress any emerging theology that saw sola scriptura leading to different perspectives. The great awakenings eventually over powered the old lights and new theological ideas emerged. Subsequent events in Revivalism, emerging denominations, and a desire for Bible truth without complicated philosophical ideas. European influences waned and sola scriptura prospered.
3. Approaching the Bible with minimal influences from the flow of Gentilized European Christian history resulted in the emergence of a true sola scriptura approach that rose above old historical prejudices. The attempt to approach scripture without old influences resulted in seeing the Bible through Shemitic eyes rather than Japhetic eyes. The Hebraic nature of scripture, including the N.T., brought a better understanding of the plan of God. Jesus came as Israels Messiah. God’s intent of blessing the Gentiles comes only through Israel. Dispensationalism finally systematized theology within the unique election of God for Israel.
4. Historical theology must be studied to understand our errors and appreciate our truth. However, it must not be considered as normative for truth or as an aid to truth. The reality of history must warn us. Why do we embrace a man’s ideas yet find it constantly necessary to excuse the life style and actions of some whose ideas we embrace? It is because they are terribly flawed men who can easily teach error. This should lead us to pursue sola scriptura with passion. We certainly must learn from men who also do so, but recognize our obligation to compare their guidance with that which alone has the authority a Holy God.
5. Dispensationalism seeks to take scripture in a normal literary manner (literal, historical, grammatical). This endeavor is made by flawed men but most with a sincere effort to honor the scriptures as the sole authoritative word from God. This is the sole issue involved. To bring in academics, tradition, and history is interesting but not relevant to the final truth of scripture. Many seek to obfuscate the issues with a pseudo intellectualism 9involving philosophy and/ or history. This is not the issue here.
1. The Japhetic (European) tradition of theology was inseparably entangled with Greek philosophy with the influence of Plato, Aristotle, and others being conveyed via Plotinus and emerging in Augustine. There is agreed consensus that the Reformers, especially Calvin, were influenced by Augustine. Yet Augustine was terribly wrong on Justification, sacraments, the church, and the Kingdom. He became the primary influence that resulted in replacement of Israel and the kingdom with the blessings and ceremonies reformed and transferred to the Gentile church. This centuries old European theology needed to be purged in order for theology to become sola scriptura.
2. The Puritans brought the entanglements of European theology to the new land of north America. Their devotion and exaltation of Christ is to be appreciated. However, their attempts to bring the European concept of the church in the state initially sought to suppress any emerging theology that saw sola scriptura leading to different perspectives. The great awakenings eventually over powered the old lights and new theological ideas emerged. Subsequent events in Revivalism, emerging denominations, and a desire for Bible truth without complicated philosophical ideas. European influences waned and sola scriptura prospered.
3. Approaching the Bible with minimal influences from the flow of Gentilized European Christian history resulted in the emergence of a true sola scriptura approach that rose above old historical prejudices. The attempt to approach scripture without old influences resulted in seeing the Bible through Shemitic eyes rather than Japhetic eyes. The Hebraic nature of scripture, including the N.T., brought a better understanding of the plan of God. Jesus came as Israels Messiah. God’s intent of blessing the Gentiles comes only through Israel. Dispensationalism finally systematized theology within the unique election of God for Israel.
4. Historical theology must be studied to understand our errors and appreciate our truth. However, it must not be considered as normative for truth or as an aid to truth. The reality of history must warn us. Why do we embrace a man’s ideas yet find it constantly necessary to excuse the life style and actions of some whose ideas we embrace? It is because they are terribly flawed men who can easily teach error. This should lead us to pursue sola scriptura with passion. We certainly must learn from men who also do so, but recognize our obligation to compare their guidance with that which alone has the authority a Holy God.
5. Dispensationalism seeks to take scripture in a normal literary manner (literal, historical, grammatical). This endeavor is made by flawed men but most with a sincere effort to honor the scriptures as the sole authoritative word from God. This is the sole issue involved. To bring in academics, tradition, and history is interesting but not relevant to the final truth of scripture. Many seek to obfuscate the issues with a pseudo intellectualism 9involving philosophy and/ or history. This is not the issue here.
[Rolland McCune] RE: Aaron Blumer, “Perspicuity and Sola Scriptura”Dr. McCune (and Aaron), thank you so much for doing such a great job of putting into words what I am sure many of us have been thinking. Going down the road of “my mentor (or teacher, theologian, philosopher, school, etc.) is smarter than yours” may be appropriate in validating a theorem in math, a “new” idea in physics, or the qualifications of a carpenter, but this only can lead to a “dead end” in true biblical theology as you so aptly stated.
………………………………..
Dear Christian friends and Bible-believers, in the kindest candor I can muster, that conclusion is at least 20,000 leagues under being pathetic. And we are to accept that kind of finding in refutation of dispensationalism? But it is an honest answer, given in remarkably transparent candor—the only answer possible in that methodology for doctrinal studies. Aaron is patently kind, clear and correct, if not studiously understated: “As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere for them to go…. History [ironically!] is clear where that road usually leads.”
Arguing for or against dispensationalism (or any biblical teaching) on the basis of historical theology, or with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically normative to any degree, is a dead end. Nearly any doctrine, true or crackpot, can be supported by history, probably the most unreliable sources are the Fathers, along with rabbinic studies and others with even worse presuppositions.
Rolland D. McCune
If we take “sola scriptura” seriously and tie it to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, none of us needs to feel like second class citizens in the Kingdom to those who are the “experts.” I am a dispensationalist because I believe dispensationalism best describes the way God has worked in the past and will work in the future. I at times am a bit dubious about how everything is tied up in little packages with pretty string - but I believe the general form is correct. I also find it impossible to base my theology on Covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture. So, unless you have a better (more scriptural) way to look at the Bible, I am sticking with dispensationalism.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Practically everything that has been said here about Dispensationalism has been illustrated through the performative elements present in the defences of Dispensationalism on this thread.
To the question of doctrinal development, the need for continuity, and the importance of tradition, and the accusation that Dispensationalists have not taken these things seriously, Dr. McCune claims that that past should have no authority, that such approaches are a “dead end,” that the Church Fathers, to whom Christians owe so much, are probably our “most unreliable” sources.
To the question of authority of the past, Dr. McCune perpetuates a dichotomy between Scripture and tradition. Great students of Scripture, like the Reformers, knew such a dichotomy, rendered absolute, was false, and that to set it up was always to really elevate the self as the final authority. To those who do not have deference and respect for tradition, they self is the final court of appeals, but they mediate their own interpretations through statements like “sola Scriptura” and “perspicuity,” when of course these function to obscure the fact that they provide no means, in themselves, for resolving interpretive differences that arise between individuals.
As W.G.T Shedd said, in defending the Westminster Confession:
The past is dishonored with positivist platitudes (e.g., “simply a chronicle of what people believed”) fit for Voltaire and the philosophes, while people remain supremely confidence in their competence to correct, or not even bother correcting, for that implies studying, those who have gone before them. Even this radically individualistic attitude is the result of community and culture, but self-consiousness of that fact would undermine the attitude, and therefore awareness of shaping influences, whether history or culture, are studiously ignored or regarded as irrelevant.
This attitude toward the past is so strikingly identical to that held by most scientists and technophiles, by critics of the humanities, that it is worth noting. The same scienticism that underlaid the hermeneutic and theological assumptions of the original Dispensationalists, the same scienticism that underlies most of the scientific establishment, the same scienticism that has long been discredited in history and philosophy, is still the defining sensibility of Dispensationalists. The past is, at best, a collection of “facts,” at worst (and more likely) a catalogue of errors which we have thankfully superceded. It can be studied for illustrative purposes, to find examplars or sermon illustrations, or to find out who was wrong when and when people started agreeing with and anticipating our own opinions. (All of this has been beautifully laid out in Isaiah Berlin’s essay on The Divorce Between the Sciences and the Humanities). But, fundamentally, it is not necessary or very valuable for understanding our selves and our own position in the world. It has, and should have, no authority. That would be a dead end.
Note the emptiness of the claims about Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity, for is there not fundamental disagreement on this very thread? And what must the Dispensationalists say about those who disagree with them? If the Bible is so clear, apart from any eccesial and historical mediation, why do we disagree? Is it any surprise that many come close to saying things like, “They’re unspiritual,” or “They’re blinded by x,” for how else can someone who holds such a position explain disagreement? Everyone else is wrong, clearly - that is the attitude that must be adopted. For my own position, I am not surprised in the least that people disagree with it. People would need to come to recognize the value of goods, like tradition, history, rootedness, hermeneutic self-awareness, that they do not currently recognize. Absence the growing valuation of such goods, it would completely absurd for me to expect others to hold my own position.
I strive to know to what and to whom I am indebted (this is, not incidentally, part of the logic of the Fifth commandment), and I strive to honor those forces and persons that have shaped me for good, and to acknowledges those that have shaped me for ill, but I don’t deny that I have been shaped, nor do I imply that, without such shaping, I can reasonably expect people to hold positions similar to mine, or that, without community, tradition, and authority, the little competence i do have as a Christian could have been cultivated. So, I do not regard Dispensationalists as blind, as unspiritual, ad fundamentally ignorant, not do I think that secretly in their hearts they are disbelievers in perspicuity or Sola Scriptura (as I suspect they often think of those who disagree with them). That is why my endeavor has been to make clear some of the fundamental forces that have shaped Dispensationalism, as well as to clarify what it means to read the Bible. That people could possibly think a position like mine is in tension much less contradiction with the Reformers’ “Sola Scriptura” shows only how little they understand that principle or the principle of ecclesia sempre reformanda (the church is always needing to be reformed).
In closing, consider again (or, perhaps for the first time) MacIntyre’s definition of tradition:
To the question of doctrinal development, the need for continuity, and the importance of tradition, and the accusation that Dispensationalists have not taken these things seriously, Dr. McCune claims that that past should have no authority, that such approaches are a “dead end,” that the Church Fathers, to whom Christians owe so much, are probably our “most unreliable” sources.
To the question of authority of the past, Dr. McCune perpetuates a dichotomy between Scripture and tradition. Great students of Scripture, like the Reformers, knew such a dichotomy, rendered absolute, was false, and that to set it up was always to really elevate the self as the final authority. To those who do not have deference and respect for tradition, they self is the final court of appeals, but they mediate their own interpretations through statements like “sola Scriptura” and “perspicuity,” when of course these function to obscure the fact that they provide no means, in themselves, for resolving interpretive differences that arise between individuals.
As W.G.T Shedd said, in defending the Westminster Confession:
[Shedd, quoted in “Deconstructing Evangelicalism,” by D.G. Hart]Claiming only to follow Scripture alone, much like the claim in the Enlightenment to follow Reason alone, no matter how well intentioned, entails the implicit claim to the final authority of the self, a claim that fits so well with the individualism of our culture, an individualism which fed and nurtued American Christianity and is pervasive among Dispensationalists, as this thread demonstrates beyond dispute.
Of course Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. But this particular way of appealing to Scripture is specious and fallacious… . This kind of appeal to Scripture is only an appeal to Scripture as the reviser understands it. “Scripture” properly means the interpretation of Scripture, that is, the contents of Scripture as reached by human investigation and exegesis. Creeds, like commentaries, are Scripture studied and explained, and not the mere abstract and unexplained book as it lies on the counter of the Bible House. The infallible Word of God is expounded by the fallible mind of man, and hence the variety of expositions embodied in the denominational creeds. But every interpreter claims to have understood the Scripture correctly, and, consequently, claims that his creed is Scriptural …
The past is dishonored with positivist platitudes (e.g., “simply a chronicle of what people believed”) fit for Voltaire and the philosophes, while people remain supremely confidence in their competence to correct, or not even bother correcting, for that implies studying, those who have gone before them. Even this radically individualistic attitude is the result of community and culture, but self-consiousness of that fact would undermine the attitude, and therefore awareness of shaping influences, whether history or culture, are studiously ignored or regarded as irrelevant.
This attitude toward the past is so strikingly identical to that held by most scientists and technophiles, by critics of the humanities, that it is worth noting. The same scienticism that underlaid the hermeneutic and theological assumptions of the original Dispensationalists, the same scienticism that underlies most of the scientific establishment, the same scienticism that has long been discredited in history and philosophy, is still the defining sensibility of Dispensationalists. The past is, at best, a collection of “facts,” at worst (and more likely) a catalogue of errors which we have thankfully superceded. It can be studied for illustrative purposes, to find examplars or sermon illustrations, or to find out who was wrong when and when people started agreeing with and anticipating our own opinions. (All of this has been beautifully laid out in Isaiah Berlin’s essay on The Divorce Between the Sciences and the Humanities). But, fundamentally, it is not necessary or very valuable for understanding our selves and our own position in the world. It has, and should have, no authority. That would be a dead end.
Note the emptiness of the claims about Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity, for is there not fundamental disagreement on this very thread? And what must the Dispensationalists say about those who disagree with them? If the Bible is so clear, apart from any eccesial and historical mediation, why do we disagree? Is it any surprise that many come close to saying things like, “They’re unspiritual,” or “They’re blinded by x,” for how else can someone who holds such a position explain disagreement? Everyone else is wrong, clearly - that is the attitude that must be adopted. For my own position, I am not surprised in the least that people disagree with it. People would need to come to recognize the value of goods, like tradition, history, rootedness, hermeneutic self-awareness, that they do not currently recognize. Absence the growing valuation of such goods, it would completely absurd for me to expect others to hold my own position.
I strive to know to what and to whom I am indebted (this is, not incidentally, part of the logic of the Fifth commandment), and I strive to honor those forces and persons that have shaped me for good, and to acknowledges those that have shaped me for ill, but I don’t deny that I have been shaped, nor do I imply that, without such shaping, I can reasonably expect people to hold positions similar to mine, or that, without community, tradition, and authority, the little competence i do have as a Christian could have been cultivated. So, I do not regard Dispensationalists as blind, as unspiritual, ad fundamentally ignorant, not do I think that secretly in their hearts they are disbelievers in perspicuity or Sola Scriptura (as I suspect they often think of those who disagree with them). That is why my endeavor has been to make clear some of the fundamental forces that have shaped Dispensationalism, as well as to clarify what it means to read the Bible. That people could possibly think a position like mine is in tension much less contradiction with the Reformers’ “Sola Scriptura” shows only how little they understand that principle or the principle of ecclesia sempre reformanda (the church is always needing to be reformed).
In closing, consider again (or, perhaps for the first time) MacIntyre’s definition of tradition:
[Alasdair MacIntye, in After Virtue]
… 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.
Featured Resource
Discussion