Where Is Dispensationalism Going? (Part 1)
Image
Read the series.
Dispensationalism is definitely in decline. I have written two major articles1 probing the causes of that issue and—though I take no delight in that conclusion—it is certainly one that deserves our attention.
The history of dispensationalism’s downturn is well known. But, for those who may not be aware, let me rehearse a few general facts. There was a time, before the so-called Reformed Resurgence,2 when dispensationalism carried the day in evangelicalism on the popular level and, to a large extent, on the academic level.
When I interviewed Dr. Thomas Ice for the first time, back in 1997, he summed it up like this: “We were so big we couldn’t get any bigger.”3
Consider the fact that many of the largest and most prestigious evangelical seminaries in the country were thoroughly committed to dispensationalism—and their professors were producing books through mainstream evangelical publishers that taught and explained dispensational theology. Not only that, but these schools also provided many of the faculty members for other schools and they, in turn, trained thousands more students in the tenets of dispensational theology—using their old professors’ textbooks.
Our minds, of course, immediately run to Dallas Theological Seminary. Names like Chafer, Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, Toussaint, Lightner and Zuck form a dispensational ring of honor in our memories.
But Dallas was not the only significant dispensational seminary. My mentor, Dr. John Whitcomb, taught for nearly four decades at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, IN. It was not at all unusual for men to earn their master’s degree at one of these institutions, then do their doctoral studies at the other. In fact, Dr. Whitcomb loved sharing a humorous little verse that was appreciated in Winona Lake—even if not so much in North Texas or Greater Los Angeles. It went like this: “And now abide these three—Dallas, Talbot and Grace. But the greatest of these is Grace.”
Dispensational teaching also filled the airwaves since the early days of Christian broadcasting through programs such as Back to the Bible, Radio Bible Class, Thru the Bible, and a host of others—including those presented by the pioneers of the sermon-based teaching format, featuring the voices of Bruce Dunn, John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll and more.
Then, lying on the coffee tables of Christian homes, there was even more dispensational Bible teaching in the form of popular Christian magazines. They included The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry’s own Israel My Glory—which turned 80 years old this past year—along with others like Confident Living, Gospel Herald and The Sunday School Times and Moody Monthly. Christians of every kind of denomination and church background were also getting a regular intake of dispensationalism—whether they realized it or not—as they ingested Our Daily Bread.
So, what happened? There are myriad answers to that question. Many of the popular-level outreaches that I’ve listed above continued on, but their influence was muted to some extent by the growing Reformed outlets which would eventually flip the script and bring amillennialism, postmillennialism, preterism, and covenant theology, in general, into a place of unforeseen prominence—even in formerly dispensational circles.
Another major issue, which was developing during the time that I was in Bible college, was the launch of progressive dispensationalism. This new teaching almost immediately spread like wildfire through academic institutions previously known for their commitment to dispensational theology.
Amidst the newfound allure of Reformed theology, the dispensational fire inside many of my generation and those younger began to go out. Some were taught poorly, or never grounded at all, in dispensational thinking. I’m convinced that many threw the baby right out with the bathwater, attaching dispensationalism in their own minds to issues like legalism or even allegorical interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures—oddly enough, things diametrically opposed to dispensational orthodoxy.
Then, some of those who’ve remained in our camp have gone to seed, especially regarding prophetic truth, and moved into dispensational sensationalism—a term I’ve recently come across. Denying Scriptural sufficiency, their focus has shifted to UFOs and other oddities, real or imagined.
So, we know the how and the why of dispensationalism’s decline—and I’ve also written at length on why I believe this is so damaging and dangerous for the church at large.4
Yet, dispensationalism is far from dead and gone. So, the pressing need now is for us to focus on what we as dispensationalists can, should and must do as we move ahead.
And I’ll turn toward those matters in the next installment.
Notes
1 See Paul Scharf, “Facing Replacement Theology,” Israel My Glory (January/February 2023) https://israelmyglory.org/article/facing-replacement-theology/, Internet, accessed 11 May 2023; and Paul J. Scharf, “Young, Restless, Fundamentalist: Is There Still a Future for Israel?” Baptist Bulletin Vol. 85, No. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2019): 17-20.
2 The phrase is part of the title of a book by Brad Vermurlen, Reformed Resurgence: The New Calvinist Movement and the Battle Over American Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).
3 Personal conversation, Feb. 21, 1997.
4 See Paul Scharf, “The Danger of Replacing Israel” (three-part blog series), The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Part 1—Sept. 24, 2021, https://foi.org/2021/09/24/the-danger-of-replacing-israel-part-1, Internet, accessed 11 May 2023.
Paul Scharf 2023 bio
Paul J. Scharf (M.A., M.Div., Faith Baptist Theological Seminary) is a church ministries representative for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, based in Columbus, WI, and serving in the Midwest. For more information on his ministry, visit sermonaudio.com/pscharf or foi.org/scharf, or email pscharf@foi.org.
- 3329 views
Wow! Thanks for reading and for the responses!
I can't possibly respond to everything that has been said in these comments, but let me add this: Having "progressed" in my lifetime from confessional Lutheranism to dispensationalism, you can forgive me for not viewing the movement of the church at large from dispensationalism back to amillennialism, etc., as "progress."
There is a long history between Calvinism, specifically, and dispensationalism. I do not see these two issues as necessarily being diametrically opposed—unless one is arriving at certain Calvinistic conclusions through Reformed theology, perhaps without even realizing it.
I will take all your thoughts into consideration as I continue this series.
Thanks again—God Bless!
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I might suggest that at least part of the reason is the rise of theology and the decline of exegesis. With the relatively recent increase of the idea of biblical theology, actual exegesis has taken aback seat. So what a passage teaches is immediately subjected to what is considered the storyline of the bible. A passage is no longer able to be understood on its own first. The genius of dispensationalism is the actual exegesis of passages in my opinion. Well of course there is a hermeneutical spiral, exegesis should dictate theology at the root rather than theology dictating exegesis. Many dispensational positions are rejected, not because of the exegesis of the text, but because they do not fit in with the needed theological conclusion. For instance, if your theology denies a future for national Israel, no exegesis of the text can allow for a future for national Israel. In such a case the exegesis is determined by the theological conclusion ahead of time. That’s why there are many who will admit that their beliefs are not in line with what the text says but they have already decided on a conclusion.
I would agree that there is more of an emphasis on biblical theology, but that it comes at the expense of systematic theology, which is where dispensationalism looks its best.
pvawter wrote:
dcbii wrote: I can hardly believe any serious student of theology would dismiss a particular eschatological view simply because that view was portrayed (in fictional, not always accurate fashion) in a popular series.
Don’t underestimate the temptation to determine one’s theology based on how he’ll be perceived by others. George Ladd comes to mind
I think the Left Behind series more likely provided those already critical of dispensationalism with opportunities to mock what they long ago decided was a silly view of future events. Where it may have had an actual impact is on young students who had/have not yet worked through a lot of questions for themselves. Portraying something as ridiculous and extreme is particularly effective among the immature. As a young student, you get to dismiss something, avoiding some work, and you get to join in having a derisive laugh. So that path has a double appeal.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
60 years ago I was indoctrinated into Scofield Dispensationalism complete with Larkin's charts and my Scofield Bible. Since then I've seen variations of Dispensationalism which made me wonder if had a simple definition. Is there a list of the essentials of dispensationalism that every dispensationalist agrees on. Once I humorously referred to myself as a dispensational minimalist because I held strongly to a literal interpretation of the Scripture, a difference between the nation of Israel and the Church, and the pre-millennial return of Christ. I was told that wouldn't do because I wasn't sure about a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church. So is there a list of essentials that everyone agrees on?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron Bean wrote: So is there a list of essentials that everyone agrees on?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: Depends on which version of dispensationalism you follow. Ryrie proposed three "essentials" of dispensationalism, but other dispensationalists are not as convinced and add others.
That was one of the things that struck me when I took the dispensationalism class at seminary. There is little agreement among dispensationalists about almost every aspect of dispensationalism. If there is common agreement, it would be that Israel and the church are distinct. How distinct? Depends on whom you ask.
What I have a hard time doing ....
(I could probably say with JMac, "I'm a "leaky dispensationalist").
I'm definitely:
- Pre-mil
- Oriented to pre-trib
- Definitely see a distinction between the church and Israel
But: I have a hard time defining a dispensation.
I find more and more people straying away from a defined eschatology. The OT prophets didn't understand future events entirely, the disciples even in the presence of God were confused. The Dispensationalism that I grew up with had the end times all worked out. I have a hard time believing that somehow magically in 2023 we have it all worked out. Prophesy in my opinion is less about us defining the future and more about when the future arrives and we see what is taking place, that the prophesy now validates what we see. I am not such a fan of Covenant Theology entirely either, and I am not so sure I see a distinction between the church and Israel. Many of the people that I meet aren't really one or the other either.
Ron Bean wrote: Is there a list of the essentials of dispensationalism that every dispensationalist agrees on.
This is true for covenantalists as well. Is there a Covenant of Redemption or no? Is the Abrahamic Covenant an iteration of the Covenant of grace, or is it divided between the covenants of works and grace? Amill, Post, or preterist? If preterist, is it partial or full? And then there's New Covenent Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, 1689 Federalism, and on it goes.
Anyone who would reject dispensationalism because "they can't agree on the system" needs to get out more.
I don't "reject" dispensationalism, I just don't embrace it. And I'm comfortable with not being tagged with either the covenant or dispensational label. My ignorant neutrality has served me well. BTW, like dgszweda, I find it interesting that dispensationalists are the only ones who figured out nearly every detail of Biblical prophecy.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
By the time of my senior year at UGA I had taken most of the courses for my major and had several elective hours to fill in. So I took a year of Hebrew from Dr. George Howard in the Religion Department. He was an unsaved, liberal Church of Christ member who had a huge office filled with books. One day in class he said, half smiling, that the way to make a name for yourself in scholarship is to think of something new or a variation of something already known and get it published. Unfortunately that seems to be the goal of some in Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism. Although new insights in theology are always welcome, perhaps some of what we are seeing today in the dispensational/covenant debates is not so much genuine research but a boredom with the old and fascination with the new.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
The Northfield (Massachusetts) Conference of 1886-1889 seems to mark the beginning of dispensationalism. I've had the opportunity to read a lot of the literature that was produced out of that conference and in the following 20 years. While pre-millennialism was not new (not all pre-mills are dispensational!), the dispensational interpretation of prophecy was a "new" thing then.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I have often asked myself why the Lord Jesus has allowed certain lines of thinking to continue. For instance, there are issues faced today because of key words being translated the way they were like 'church' instead of 'congregation, and 'baptize' rather than 'immerse.' Another instance is the eschatological question of literal kingdom or spiritual. The beginning 150-200 years of church history, the vast majority of the church held to a literal earthly and Jewish kingdom. Augustine's "The City of God" changes things, and have continued almost unchallenged until the late 19th century. Why did God allow that to continue?
Perhaps it is so we will continue to pour through His Word deeply, studying and grappling to know Him and His will. For me, I don't want to be reductionistic or simple, but I have yet to hear a legitimately good exegetical argument for why the events of 1 Thess. 5 don't follow on the heels of 1 Thess. 4.
Where are the dispensationalist systematics? In this lane, Chafer has perhaps not yet been equalled. Ryrie is very good, but abbreviated. McCune is Reformed-ish with dispensational icing—dispensationalism as a wholistic system didn’t seem to be his burden. I confess I don’t rate Geisler highly and don’t have his systematic.
McClain died after only completing the first volume of his projected work. Walvoord (IMO) frittered away his gifts writing too much pop prophecy. Pentecost didn’t produce a systematic. Ryrie was perhaps the best hope in his generation, but didn’t go beyond his smaller, “light” systematic.
It seems like there is still lots of work to be done. Who is doing it?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Geisler's Systematic is an excellent source of logical, Biblical arguments. A good study in reasoning. Not perfect, but good.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Discussion