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
Some of the posts here remind me of the proverbial man who got up in front of the Rotary Club and said, “Dear friends, I have come today to speak about ‘Life, Science, History and the Seven Great World Religions.’” :)
Either my article must have touched a nerve, or else some people just needed to get some things off their chests.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] Thanks Caleb! We obviously disagree, but you made your points clearly, concisely, understandably and positively. Speaking as a first-time author on SI, I would like to see more posts like yours that help us all “sharpen one another” and can help me to learn and grow as a writer.One positive that I just remembered, about a particular disp teacher, is the following. I do greatly appreciate the following through of the Abrahamic covenant throughout the OT. I enjoyed seeing the various passages and then moving to the Davidic covenant, which enlarges the Abrahamic covenant, I enjoyed seeing this covenant as Christ comes on the scene. When you read the passage about another prophet like Moses who will be coming on the scene, and then you read the Davidic covenant and how one will sit on the throne forever (yes, the term “forever” is taken by some as “indefinitely” and I’m not sure where to stand on that point yet), and then you read of Christ. In this sense, I do appreciate what you have already stated about the focus on Christ in dispensationalism. I did not state that I agreed with some of your comment on the portion of your opening article, so I’m doing that now. My disagreement my be exactly “how” that fulfillment takes place, and I’m still ironing that one out.
Some of the posts here remind me of the proverbial man who got up in front of the Rotary Club and said, “Dear friends, I have come today to speak about ‘Life, Science, History and the Seven Great World Religions.’” :)
Either my article must have touched a nerve, or else some people just needed to get some things off their chests.
We do disagree, or at least I’m more questioning of the disp paradigm, but I do wish to be charitable about it. I appreciate the charity in your return response. Thanks!
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.In 1945 Concordia House Publishing (a Lutheran publishing house) published a two-volume anthology of doctrinal essays edited by Theodore Laetsch, D.D. entitled The Abiding Word and in one essay on the use of God’s Word A.F. Miller writes:
The reading of the Scriptures also strengthens the conviction that our Lutheran doctrine is founded on and agrees fully with the Bible. We Lutherans have always made the claim that our doctrine is true and pure. Rome makes the same claim, so do the sectarians. When you ask them, How do you know that yours is the true faith? the Catholic will answer with an appeal to tradition, and the sectarian to reason. And the Lutherans? The Bible is the only source of my faith; all our doctrines are in agreement with the Scriptures, and therefore right and unadulterated.Lutherans may not be Dispensationalists but they, though birthed in the midst of tradition and matured during the rise of the Renaissance seem to, in spite of all these advantages, share a form of theological myopia with Dispensationalists.
Alex, how true! Good point. Reminds me of the old days, and hearing: “Every Lutheran doctrine is a Bible doctrine, and every Bible doctrine is a Lutheran doctrine.”
As I have been pondering this discussion on historical theology in light of Dr. McCune’s words, I was reminded also of what I heard D. James Kennedy say once in a sermon. Speaking of what a professor once told an unsuspecting young man in his class, Kennedy quoted the teacher as saying, “Young man, the scholars say…everything!”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
The sense and weight of time here can be palpable. Locals have used dykes to push the sea around for 500 years. In some ways the sense of time can be like a security blanket. Just the other day I went to a working windmill in the next village; over the door is a keystone that reads “1725”. It is not a museum, it is someone’s livlihood. I bought a large sack of homemade, 10-grain wholemeal flour and went home to make some bread using a real lekker recipe with honey and linseed. We anticipated a slice of that bread for the whole 3.5 hours it was baking.
Thank you very much for you comment. It is heartening to know I have had some positive impact. I did spend a considerable time writing my (especially the last two) responses, and I’m grateful to know they were somewhat beneficial.
I too am enjoying the give and take on our continuing “dialogue” (if you please) on historical theology/historicism and its place in the hermeneutics of Scripture and doctrinal development which has come about as an offshoot (legitimatly so, in my view) of Paul’s original SI affirmation of dispensationalism. I want to clarify my view a little better as well as gain more clarity of what to me is a problematic view. I will try to develop a problem or two and then perhaps list as pithily as possible some other concerns.
1. I do not believe, and have neither affirmed nor implied, that historical study is of no usefulness or should have no input in doctrinal development. And, I know of no one nor have read I any dispensationalist who would say or imply that assertion in context. That is not (and has never been) a hermeneutical norm for dispensationalists. I am not guaranteeing that it never has nor will occur, but it would have to be in some exceptional, isolated situation. His/her peers would immediately reject it roundly. I speak for myself as one who has been ransacking dispensational literature for 50 years or so, which of course does not give the force of Sola Scriptura to it. I concur with Robert D. Culver that the “source” of theological studies is confined to the Scriptures but that the “resources,” of course, go beyond them (Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, p. xv).
2. To me the real issue has to do with authority. By that I mean a final and absolute authority, for which no greater authorization can be given; i.e., it is indubitable. Also it is transendental; i.e., nothing is intelligible or successfully explainable or accountable without it. It is a necessary, obligatory ingredient (what I mean by “normative”) in theological studies, exegetical or historical. That authority for me is the Scriptures (more technically, of the Protestant canon), even for discerning the final authority of Scripture itself. (Don’t bother me just yet with the objection of circular reasoning.) I hold there is a theology of doing theology itself as well as historical theological studies. I do not discern that in the other position; indeed, it was stated that history is just the “medium” that has nothing to do with “normativity” at all (Charlie, #52). But if it is considered in the least necessary, if not primarily so, without which historical studies become directed willy-nilly by “slogans” (ibid.), it looks to me like it is very much authoritative/normative in the sense that it has, or at least shares, some real binding necessity, divine or otherwise, for the discipline (and I can’t see it as in any way divine). In that sense I do believe that the “past should have no authority” (Joseph, # 60).
3. It is said that Sola Scriptura means the “infallible” source of truth, not the “only” source (Charlie, #49). Assuming this means truth-in-general, it is true; not all truth is found in the Bible. But we’re handling divine truth in theological studies, propositional truths that have come from God Himself by the miracles of revelation and inspiration, a category of knowledge whose rubrics go well beyond the purview of those of mathematics, physical science, pharmacy, or even common, profane history (where I would put historical theology), in my understanding.
4. The formal and material principles in the configuration of doing systematic theology are not clear to me as to how they impact or change the authority issue in the present discussion (Charlie, # 52). Are they two sides of some kind of authority, or do they share authority in binary fashion, or what? Or is there no governing authority that referees historical theological studies? If not, then the formal and material principles come very close to becoming a slogan, it seems to me.
5. The “common sense” issue (Charlie, # 49, 52, 55) seems extremely irrelevant to me, and far too sweeping in its use against dispensationalism (per Alex, #56). It has some overtones of John Gerstener’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a hopelessly anachronistic attempt at refuting dispensationalism. He’s still stuck in the 1830s and some of the ideas in the early development of futurist premillennialism, in the break with centuries-old historicist premillennialism, the ecclesial teachings of the Plymouth Brethren, et al. I personally don’t see common sense as providing a viable, load-bearing point in the development of the infrastructure of dispensationalism; it was never a norm in that sense.
6. The issue of “literal interpretation” is also very outdated, in my view. Dispensationalists have answered that one multiplied times over.
7. As far as the contributions of the church Fathers to systematic theology or biblical doctrine, there are some indeed “to whom Christians owe so much” (Joseph, # 60). But on the whole, I view the literature of the Fathers as a roaring bee hive of opinion, some good, much of it bad. Even the Didache (AD 120 or so?) was confused about the recipients and mode of water baptism. So, if everyone who goes fishing in the Fathers (for affirmation of a theological assertion or of a doctrine, however strange or convoluted) is guaranteed to catch something to use, then the pond is much too large. If the Fathers (and other historical sources) as a whole can virtually teach everything, then they actually teach nothing. Which brings up the subject of authority again. Are historians required to bring the Fathers, et al., to terms with a greater authority? If so, what or who is it? And why?
8. In similar fashion, if it is true (and it is) that philosophy and theology interact with each other in an impasse, what or who is the arbiter? Both may be wrong but both cannot be right. Who or what decides, and why? Or is it ultimately insoluable by historical theological rubrics alone?
9. I really don’t get the dictum that Sola Scriptura, perspicuity and such are an appeal to the final authority of one’s self—a negative, unsavory notion attributed to dispensationalism (Joseph, #60).
10. The quote from MacIntyre (Joseph, # 60) seems in itself to make some sense, as long as he is not making the past some sort of norm, in this case, of interpretating the Scripture’s doctrines. Shedd is not making history (and he wrote a worthy 2 volumes of A History of Christian Theology) a necessary touchstone of a doctrine’s truthfulness. I read somewhere that Phillip Schaff opined or wrote a reasonable quote: “The present is the fruit of the past and the germ of the future.” I don’t think he was speaking in terms of German rationalism, although I could be wrong and would not go to the wall for it.
Rolland McCune
Discussion