Do you consider yourself a dispensationalist?
Forum category
Poll Results
Do you consider yourself a dispensationalist?
No. Votes: 15
Yes, in the “classical” sense (Ryrie, Chafer, McCune, etc.) Votes: 16
Yes, but not quite in the classical sense. Votes: 17
I’m more of a Progressive Dispensationalist (Robert Saucy, etc.) Votes: 8
What’s a dispensationalist? Votes: 2
- 24 views
Aaron, I probably should have posted this earlier, but just didn’t. Your poll was very confusing to me; it seemed also to show a lack of familiarity (or disagreement?) with the standard historiography of Dispensationalism. Blaising and Bock did some work on the development of Dispensationalism and came to regard the movement in three stages - classical, revised, and progressive. This chart, though it could be much more exhaustive, gives the basic overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_dispensationalism#Development_…
According to this reading, Ryrie stands (for many reasons) in the Revised category. Many people who call themselves “traditional” Dispensationalists would fit in this category. So, all that to say, when your poll lumped in Ryrie as “classical” with Scofield and Chafer, it distorted the categories that are generally accepted. It also made things difficult for your third choice, since I would naturally associate “not quite classical” with Ryrie or Archer (McClain maybe?). As it stands, I don’t really know what that choice means. I wonder, then, if Ryrie/Revised Dispensationalism had been separate from Scofield/Chafer, if the numbers on the “classical” choice would not have dropped. “Classical” Dispensationalism is all but dead in academia, surviving in a handful of third-tier Bible colleges and such. I would be extremely surprised if, even in Fundamentalism, more than a few knowledgeable people on this board would choose it.
According to this reading, Ryrie stands (for many reasons) in the Revised category. Many people who call themselves “traditional” Dispensationalists would fit in this category. So, all that to say, when your poll lumped in Ryrie as “classical” with Scofield and Chafer, it distorted the categories that are generally accepted. It also made things difficult for your third choice, since I would naturally associate “not quite classical” with Ryrie or Archer (McClain maybe?). As it stands, I don’t really know what that choice means. I wonder, then, if Ryrie/Revised Dispensationalism had been separate from Scofield/Chafer, if the numbers on the “classical” choice would not have dropped. “Classical” Dispensationalism is all but dead in academia, surviving in a handful of third-tier Bible colleges and such. I would be extremely surprised if, even in Fundamentalism, more than a few knowledgeable people on this board would choose it.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Dennis Clemons] I agree, but many many nondispensationalists agree on 2 plus of them.Agreement on the “2 plus” would just about always be more of a “partial overlap” than “agreement.” That is, the agreement is apparent when you’re looking at a one sentence summary, but when you start digging into what dispensationalists mean by the statement, the gulf generally widens.
[Aaron Blumer]… it may be actually be more fruitful to start at the end and work backwards… going from “what dispies tend to believe” and working backward to “why they believe it.”Yes, it may not serve purpose, but maybe we’re not thinking of the same purpose here. If the purpose is to identify what what all dispensationalists believe and come up with a short summary that defines dispensationalism, it makes sense to me to look at what views/conclusions dispies just about always hold to and work to generalizations inductively.[Dennis Clemons] That may defeat the purpose. Presumably, what they believe is built on their principles.
That might not go anywhere either, but, to me, the method still looks promising… if defining dispensationalism is the goal.
On the other hand, if the goal is to try to identify general prinicples that are then easily dismantled (due to lack of self-consistency), it would be more “fruitful” to rush to generalizations and proceed to dismantle them. :) But what happens in that scenario is that lots of dispies are reading and going “That’s not what I believe!” So it invites dismissal on the grounds of caricature.
[Dennis Clemmons] On the second and third points, I agree that these things often enter into the argumentAgain, if what we’re discussing is “what defines dispensationalism?” These things do more than enter into the argument because you have to search high and low to find the odd duck dispie who doesn’t believe in these things… and some others that could be added to the list. So if we want to take a fresh look at what’s the essence of the system, doing something inductive seems like a good approach… I suspect this is how dispensationalism as we know it came to be in the first place.
And I do need to point out one more time that if the purpose is to define dispensationalism, the fact that one point or another may be agreed to by some non-dispensationalists does not disqualify it as a mark of dispensationalism. I accept that what is unique to dispensationalism is more valuble for clearly seeing what it is. But there will be overlap at the boundaries.
Charlie… on the poll question… I’m not sure Bock and Blaising’s analysis is all that widely accepted. In any case, I didn’t really aim to be precise with the questions. They were literally off the top of my head as a starting point. I don’t think I mentioned Scofield, because I was not really sure where to put him. Perhaps including Chafer with Ryrie was unhelpful. I’m not really sure how similar they are on the details. My impression of Ryrie is that there is not much that has been
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] If the purpose is to identify what what all dispensationalists believe and come up with a short summary that defines dispensationalism, it makes sense to me to look at what views/conclusions dispies just about always hold to and work to generalizations inductively.I would like to see if we can agree on what make dispensationalism dispensationalism. The dispensational apologists that I read and hear tend to claim distinguishing marks that CTs just as readily agree upon so they aren’t really distinguishing marks. I would like to see if we can agree upon the real sine qua non of the system if we can.
That might not go anywhere either, but, to me, the method still looks promising… if defining dispensationalism is the goal.
So with that said, would you like to propose where to start?
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Well, there must be something … or it doesn’t really exist. I can’t imagine why anybody wanting to define it would intentionally choose qualities that are not really definitive, so I think what has happened there is a couple of things I’ve already suggested. But I can probably say it a better way…
a) The distinguishing positions are held to a greater degree
b) Sometimes when they sound the same as non-dispensationalism, they do not mean what they sound like they mean
c) What’s intended is that the combination of things define the sine qua non, not any of them individually.
By the way, I don’t mind admitting I looked it up: sine qua non means “what it can’t exist without.” So it’s not quite the same as “what is unique to it.”
That said, Ryrie was clearly aiming—w/the sine qua non effort—to do something defining.
So I think it’s fair to say that
a) Dispies are always, on the whole, more inclined to interpret literally/”normally” than non-dispensationalists
b) Dispies consistently see a bigger distinction between Israel and the church than non-dispensationalists
c) Dispies are always less inclined to unify the flow of biblical history around the gospel (narrowly defined) and more inclined to see continuity in the doxalogical purpose and rather than the soteriological purpose specifically
All of these are differences of degree. It would, in some ways, be fair to say CTers are dispies only alot less so and Dispies are CTers only alot less so. :)
a) The distinguishing positions are held to a greater degree
b) Sometimes when they sound the same as non-dispensationalism, they do not mean what they sound like they mean
c) What’s intended is that the combination of things define the sine qua non, not any of them individually.
By the way, I don’t mind admitting I looked it up: sine qua non means “what it can’t exist without.” So it’s not quite the same as “what is unique to it.”
That said, Ryrie was clearly aiming—w/the sine qua non effort—to do something defining.
So I think it’s fair to say that
b) Dispies consistently see a bigger distinction between Israel and the church than non-dispensationalists
c) Dispies are always less inclined to unify the flow of biblical history around the gospel (narrowly defined) and more inclined to see continuity in the doxalogical purpose and rather than the soteriological purpose specifically
All of these are differences of degree. It would, in some ways, be fair to say CTers are dispies only alot less so and Dispies are CTers only alot less so. :)
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.
1. Adam, concerning the difference between “classical” and “revised” Dispensationalists, I would encourage you to look at the chapter “Extent and Varieties of Dispensationalism” in Progressive Dispensationalism. If it would be hard to get that, some similar information is available through Google Books in Chapter 1 of Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism.
2. The unique feature of Dispensationalism, in my opinion, is the temporary and secondary nature of the Church. In all Dispensational schemes, the “Church” as we envision it today ends up yielding to a Kingdom that looks an awful lot like the Old Testament administration, complete with a temple, sacrifices, a priesthood (sons of Zadok), etc. The Church really does seem to be an interruption. All Protestant varieties of non-Dispensationalism see the Church as qualitative and permanent progress over Israel’s state. So, moving from the living temple of the Church back to a temple of stone (for example) would be seen as retrogression, a denial of Christ’s first advent work.
2. The unique feature of Dispensationalism, in my opinion, is the temporary and secondary nature of the Church. In all Dispensational schemes, the “Church” as we envision it today ends up yielding to a Kingdom that looks an awful lot like the Old Testament administration, complete with a temple, sacrifices, a priesthood (sons of Zadok), etc. The Church really does seem to be an interruption. All Protestant varieties of non-Dispensationalism see the Church as qualitative and permanent progress over Israel’s state. So, moving from the living temple of the Church back to a temple of stone (for example) would be seen as retrogression, a denial of Christ’s first advent work.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Dennis, I have to admit you have given me pause with your quote from Joshua. As of yet it don’t change what I believe but I will have to try and dig out a reason, I can’t let something like that go. And I hope thats a good thing.
I really wish I had a better understanding of your view on this. But things being as they are, I’d like to ask you something. Requesting only that you give my question the exact same weight you’d wish us to give yours -
” “If your position is right, then Joshua is wrong. If Joshua is right, your position is wrong. Let God be true and every man a liar. “
Being that Jesus on the cross
Jhn 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
said “It is finished” And knowing that he died right after that and was raised 3 days later, Allowed Thomas to touch his wounds, Told the 11 to wait and that he would send the comforter to them, And at last called Paul to go to the gentiles.. I’d think it safe to say he didn’t mean those things were finished.
What was finished ?
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.
“Let the children first be filled” If everything was finished back in Joshua’s day, Why were the children not yet filled ?
I really wish I had a better understanding of your view on this. But things being as they are, I’d like to ask you something. Requesting only that you give my question the exact same weight you’d wish us to give yours -
” “If your position is right, then Joshua is wrong. If Joshua is right, your position is wrong. Let God be true and every man a liar. “
Being that Jesus on the cross
Jhn 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
said “It is finished” And knowing that he died right after that and was raised 3 days later, Allowed Thomas to touch his wounds, Told the 11 to wait and that he would send the comforter to them, And at last called Paul to go to the gentiles.. I’d think it safe to say he didn’t mean those things were finished.
What was finished ?
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.
“Let the children first be filled” If everything was finished back in Joshua’s day, Why were the children not yet filled ?
Marty - thanks for giving consideration to this perspective. I don’t take it lightly when someone is willing to honestly entertain a different idea. I know all-too-well that that’s not easy.
[Marty H] Being that Jesus on the crossI agree, he wasn’t saying that more was finished than actually was. I suppose (off the top of my head) that he was talking about His substitutionary atonement. [Rev. 13:8]
Jhn 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
said “It is finished” And knowing that he died right after that and was raised 3 days later, Allowed Thomas to touch his wounds, Told the 11 to wait and that he would send the comforter to them, And at last called Paul to go to the gentiles.. I’d think it safe to say he didn’t mean those things were finished.
What was finished ?
[Marty H] Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.This seems to me to be about the gospel as all of His miracles were. As Paul later said, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16, Rom. 2:10)
“Let the children first be filled” If everything was finished back in Joshua’s day, Why were the children not yet filled ?
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Dennis, As I’ve said before. Bible is Bible. I can’t sidestep or ignore a passage just because it don’t seem to fit what I believe or what I am comfortable with.
Anyway, thanks. Getting back. Just what are the points that you fail to agree with as far as dispensations go ?
Anyway, thanks. Getting back. Just what are the points that you fail to agree with as far as dispensations go ?
Sorry for the time out, guys. Work has had me by the throat for a while and this isn’t a topic that I felt could abide short quips without some thought. So … the sin qua non of dispensationalism.
Ryrie says,
Ryrie says,
- Israel/Church distinction;
- Literal hermeneutic (which deviates from the historic definition and therefore needs another term - I suggest wooden hermeneutic); and
- The purpose of God in the world is His own glory.
- belief in a future geo-political reign of Jesus Christ
- rejection of the idea of a single “covenant of Grace”
- identification of the Church as a body that began during or after the first advent of Christ
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Dennis,
Not sure what to add to a sine qua non. This line of discussion seems to be off the whole idea of ‘sine qua non:’ Without which there is not. That is the simplest translation of the Latin. Without a distinction between Church/Israel, without a plain reading of the text, without God’s Glory being central, you can not be dispensationalist.
If there are those who identify themselves as Covenant Theologians, and agree in part with these, fine. Dispensationalism and Covenantalism should not be heretical. I hold, as do most dispies, and I think all true Biblicists, Sola Gratcia. That does not make me a covie. The two should not be so antagonistic, but we should recognize that our eschatology differs and our hermeneutic is the basic underlying reason. NOT for arguments sake, but for clarity. I could be wrong, there might not be a 1000 year reign. If there is not, then my underlying dispie paradigm is off, PERIOD. If I am right then my paradigm is right, PERIOD. We will know in the future.
The geo-political reign of Jesus is a result of separation of Church and Israel and plain reading. Not a new sine qua non.
Rejection of the idea of a single “covenant of Grace.” is a definition debate not even close to being established. How many covenants of grace do you all think dispies have? Is there salvation in dispie land that is not based on grace. (the answers are only one covenant for salvation, Church and Israel were not saved differnently both deductions of plain interpretation of scriptures, in my and most dispies reading and study.) Not a new sine qua non.
identification of the Church as a body that began during or after the first advent of Christ. This one just confuses me and allows for “ultra dispensationalism” to be lumped with orthodox theology by us dispies and I do not agree with that. The Church begins in Matthew and the change of leadership from Jesus in person, to the Holy Spirit and men occurs on the day of Pentecost. This is a plain reading of John and Acts, where we get a prophecy and an initial fulfillment. Again not a sine qua non.
In all fairness to Aaron, probably useful descriptions in his explanations, but they are deductions based on his holding to the distinctives. Often it is said it is easier to describe ourselves by what we are not. Perhaps this makes some headway into the distinctions between dispies and covies.
IMO, you can not be a dispie and not see at least a mill. kingdom. You can not state that the purpose of the Bible is salvific in nature. (thus one should not allegorize OT passages as a primary reading. I know Paul allegorizes in Galatians, but he does not claim that his allegory is the primary purpose of the Hagar passages.) I chose dispensationalism over covenantalism because it seems to me to be the simpliest explanation of this world and my bible. I appreciate the work of the covies, and find we can agree on a majority of items, but when we disagree, I understand it is based on paradigm differences and NOT heresies.
All that to say, less “sine qua non’s” is the purpose of establishing them. If we could get it to one, that would be an improvement. Adding them simply muddies the water.
IN Christ
Duane
Not sure what to add to a sine qua non. This line of discussion seems to be off the whole idea of ‘sine qua non:’ Without which there is not. That is the simplest translation of the Latin. Without a distinction between Church/Israel, without a plain reading of the text, without God’s Glory being central, you can not be dispensationalist.
If there are those who identify themselves as Covenant Theologians, and agree in part with these, fine. Dispensationalism and Covenantalism should not be heretical. I hold, as do most dispies, and I think all true Biblicists, Sola Gratcia. That does not make me a covie. The two should not be so antagonistic, but we should recognize that our eschatology differs and our hermeneutic is the basic underlying reason. NOT for arguments sake, but for clarity. I could be wrong, there might not be a 1000 year reign. If there is not, then my underlying dispie paradigm is off, PERIOD. If I am right then my paradigm is right, PERIOD. We will know in the future.
The geo-political reign of Jesus is a result of separation of Church and Israel and plain reading. Not a new sine qua non.
Rejection of the idea of a single “covenant of Grace.” is a definition debate not even close to being established. How many covenants of grace do you all think dispies have? Is there salvation in dispie land that is not based on grace. (the answers are only one covenant for salvation, Church and Israel were not saved differnently both deductions of plain interpretation of scriptures, in my and most dispies reading and study.) Not a new sine qua non.
identification of the Church as a body that began during or after the first advent of Christ. This one just confuses me and allows for “ultra dispensationalism” to be lumped with orthodox theology by us dispies and I do not agree with that. The Church begins in Matthew and the change of leadership from Jesus in person, to the Holy Spirit and men occurs on the day of Pentecost. This is a plain reading of John and Acts, where we get a prophecy and an initial fulfillment. Again not a sine qua non.
In all fairness to Aaron, probably useful descriptions in his explanations, but they are deductions based on his holding to the distinctives. Often it is said it is easier to describe ourselves by what we are not. Perhaps this makes some headway into the distinctions between dispies and covies.
IMO, you can not be a dispie and not see at least a mill. kingdom. You can not state that the purpose of the Bible is salvific in nature. (thus one should not allegorize OT passages as a primary reading. I know Paul allegorizes in Galatians, but he does not claim that his allegory is the primary purpose of the Hagar passages.) I chose dispensationalism over covenantalism because it seems to me to be the simpliest explanation of this world and my bible. I appreciate the work of the covies, and find we can agree on a majority of items, but when we disagree, I understand it is based on paradigm differences and NOT heresies.
All that to say, less “sine qua non’s” is the purpose of establishing them. If we could get it to one, that would be an improvement. Adding them simply muddies the water.
IN Christ
Duane
He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine
Discussion