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.- 584 views
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Interestingly, I would also use #’s 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 to describe my Non-Dispensational Theology. I would also use #2, but I would mean something different than you by it.
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.I am not sure that all the Baptist distinctives are “plainly evident” as many are as often debated as is dispensationalism. But that said, I don’t think the Baptist distinctives rise and fall on dispensationalism although there is some interplay.
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.Since I have used this argument let me clarify. I don’t think the argument is usually that dispensationalism “can’t” be true due to its novelty. I have never said that. I think it should be looked at skeptically as should all novel ideas about Scripture that people claim to have discovered. The burden of proof lies on the novel idea, so to speak. What I have said is that dispensationalism can’t be the self-evident result of a “plain reading” of Scripture because if it was everyone wouldn’t have missed it for the first 1800 +/- years of the Faith.
6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.In order for a doctrine to be present in “seed form,” the doctrine in question must be shown to be the logical conclusion of a trajectory of reasoning. For example, Calvin is often credited with being the inspiration for presuppositional apologetics, or at least the Kuyperian “antithesis.” Such a connection is confirmed by the similarity in approach between Calvin and Kuyper, and the manner in which Calvin develops his Institutes.
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.
Your assertion, however, that Dispensationalism is a fulfillment of the Reformation, is entirely contrary to fact. Luther, for example, expressly indicated that the Church is the true Israel and the heir of the Old Testament promises (any work on Luther and the Jews will abundantly confirm this). Moreover, the mere presence of similar words in Luther’s thought and in Dispensationalism’s terminology do not necessarily indicate any similarity of meaning. First and most importantly, Luther does not use the categories “law” and “grace,” (that was Karl Barth) but law and gospel (not interchangeable terms). At this point, your comparison is already ridiculous. It gets worse, though. The Lutheran view of law/gospel is entirely opposed to Dispensationalism. Far from seeing law and gospel as differing in regard to chronology or economy, the Lutheran teaching of law and gospel affirms that the two run side-by-side throughout the pages of Scripture and are fulfilled in Christ. Luther’s “law” does not primarily refer to a time period, or even the content of the Mosaic Law, but to God’s eternal demand on each person which condemns them to judgment. Similarly, the “gospel” does not refer to an age of fulfillment, but to the timeless promise of Scripture that “the just by faith shall live,” known by all the Old Testament states and specifically stated in Habakkuk 2:4. In short, there is no plausible connection between Reformational theology and Dispensationalism.
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.Actually, the Reformers had a well-thought out hermeneutical program and expository method of preaching hundreds of years before Dispensationalism. Their hermeneutics did not lead them toward Dispensationalism, but rather toward the opposite. Some other factor must have intervened in order to make such a large theological shift. The 2 major forces influencing the move to “Dispensational” hermeneutics were Jacksonian democracy (populism) and Baconian inductivism turned toward intuitionism. Some studies relevant to this subject include Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity, Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and This World Is Not My Home by Michael Williams. There are many others, but that should be enough.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
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.
[Charlie], Luther does not use the categories “law” and “grace,” (that was Karl Barth) but law and gospel (not interchangeable terms). At this point, your comparison is already ridiculous. It gets worse, though. The Lutheran view of law/gospel is entirely opposed to Dispensationalism. Far from seeing law and gospel as differing in regard to chronology or economy, the Lutheran teaching of law and gospel affirms that the two run side-by-side throughout the pages of Scripture and are fulfilled in Christ. Luther’s “law” does not primarily refer to a time period, or even the content of the Mosaic Law, but to God’s eternal demand on each person which condemns them to judgment.While you are most accurate (but not exclusively accurate), regarding the intent of law and gospel with Lutherans you wrongly employ this distinction as if it qualifies them as rejecting dispensational schemes when in fact not only does the LCMS but so did Martin Luther accept such distinctions though not with the thoroughness of later theologians, with clear expressions such as rejecting Sunday being the new Sabbath seeing that now we were and are in the age of the church in which Christ is our Sabbath, a theological contradiction always resting uneasily upon the heads of Reformed believers who assert Sunday is the new Sabbath (this is but one observable admission by Lutherans they understand divine economies and their consequences practically and doctrinally).
In general, I think too many approach the whole notion of dispensationalism with a strong bias in favor approaches that are perceived to predate it and a strong aversion to newness… though I continue to be amazed at how selective the aversion to newness is.
For example, though this doesn’t describe anyone here (let’s hope), many who disdain dispensationalism out of the box because it’s a theological innovation (in their eyes), turn around and gleefully embrace Wright’s “new perspective on Paul.”
So “new is bad” or “new is good” depending on what day it is and the price of eggs in China, I guess.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m afraid your comparison of N.T. Wright and dispensationalism is rather poor, indeed catastrophically so (if I may exaggerate, ever so slightly). Besides the fact that I think you idea about an aversion to newness is wrong and therefore not a helpful way of viewing the issue, the comparison misses some crucial points.
First, Wright is a brilliant scholar and theologian; Dispensationalist’s founders were nowhere close to Wright in their theological, philosophical, and hermeneutic depth, breadth, and sophistication. Even if one disagrees with Wright about many things (and I’m sure I would if I read much of his work), no one denies the above characterization. Wright’s brilliant, an intellect of the first order. Not only does dispensationalism not have any founders in a league with Wright’s calibre, it has produced no theologians who have done work of the same calibre, breadth, and depth as Wright. And, in case people don’t know, I do not buy the New Perspective (of Wright’s) but have read enough of Wright and enough about him to have an enormous respect for him and for what he is doing and has done positively for Christianity.
Second, it’s often things the same things that draw people towards Wright that draw people away from Dispensationalism (certainly it is so in my case), like Wright’s impressive grasp of philosophy, intellectual history, hermeneutics, theology, and his own discipline. A guy like Wright has more academic authority than any dispsentionalist has ever had, and he deserves to because of the scholarship he’s done. Just as an example regarding hermeneutic naivety and lack of a sense of history, Wright has co-authored a history of of N.T. Interpretation (Oxford: 1988), L.S. Chafer was proud of his lack of formal education and helped lead the bastion of dispensationalism. Wright’s written books on hermeneutics and its history; I’d be surprised if Chafer read any books on hermeneutics and its history. Wright reads all the relevant biblical, cognate, and research languages, and has mastered a significant amount of cultural, historical, and textual information ranging from jewish history to Greco-Roman culture to modern theology, philosophy, and culture. Chafer studied music and did not finish his degree. And this could go on, and on. The comparison is embarrasing, but you asked for it, I’m afraid.
There’s no denying that silly and thoughtless people have always existed, and that such people often adopt positions for bad reasons. But a selective aversion to newness seems to me a strikingly poor suggestion as to why people reject dispensationalism. It’s not newness; it’s lack of historical awareness, groundedness, and scholarly and intellectual acumen (esp. among its founders), among a veritable plethora of other factors. Moreover, with respect to innovations, you need to read Wright’s latest book, Justification, before you speak too much of innovation, for there Wright affirms practically every major Protestant distinctive, with one exception. See Craig Blombergs review here: http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/justification-gods-plan-and-pauls…
As I view the above factually incontestable given its profound unoriginality and obviousness (it’s hardly my “opinion”; I could have just quoted reviews and blurbs from everyone else, ranging from liberals to conservative evangelicals, all of whom recognize the above qualities in Wright) I won’t “defend” Wright further if someone attacks him or this post. If one can’t recognize the difference in quality between Wright and the founders of Dispensationalism, there’s no argument that will help resolve that dispute.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long]…and once again Joseph ends a post with a variation on “this point is so obvious it can’t be argued”…Greg,
On a charitable reading, I’m struggling to see the relevance or value of what you say here. Do you think 1) I am misinformed regarding Wright’s stature as a scholar, or 2) that I have intentionally misspoken in saying that what I reported was factual and could easily be corrobated by Wright’s academic peers, from far Left to far Right? I’m struggling to see other options but am happy to consider them if you provide them.
If you think 1, I suppose I’ll just wait for you to substantiate your opinion. If 2, the proper mode of confrontation would be private, as it’s would be a distraction to the forum to impugn my character publically.
In either case, if I’m wrong it should be terribly easy to show that, seeing the very public nature of my claims. I don’t particularly wish to, but should anyone be huffy or skeptical I’m willing to spend a few minutes on google collecting the quotes I said I could have substituted for my own comments on Wright.
[Red Phillips] Charlie, I agree with Joseph in the other thread that there is a connection between Arminianism and democratic Americanism, but I don’t see the connection to dispensationalism. Unless you are just suggesting that an everyman his own theologian attitude allowed a bad doctrine to prosper. Make that connection a little clearer for me if you will.Red,
The following paper provides a helpful and concise overview of some of the main issues that I think Charlie was referring to. And it also cites most of the relevant literature on the topic, at least enough to get one started.
http://bible.org/article/relationship-common-sense-realism-dispensation…
[Alex Guggenheim]The recognition of distinctions between the Old and New Testament does not make one a Dispensationalist. All of the Reformers recognized distinctions between the Old and New Testaments. The Reformed doctrine of exclusive psalmnody, for example, rests on the idea of instruments being an “Old Covenant” form of temple worship. (FWIW, I disagree with EP.) Even the Reformed view of the Sabbath doesn’t ignore the difference between Mosaic and New Covenants. It appeals to the idea of a creation Sabbath principle that is actuali. You may not find the argument persuasive, but there is a recognition of historical progression. All the major Reformed biblical theologians (Witsius, Cocceius, Owen, Edwards, Vos) have affirmed many distinctions between different economies.
While you are most accurate (but not exclusively accurate), regarding the intent of law and gospel with Lutherans you wrongly employ this distinction as if it qualifies them as rejecting dispensational schemes when in fact not only does the LCMS but so did Martin Luther accept such distinctions though not with the thoroughness of later theologians, with clear expressions such as rejecting Sunday being the new Sabbath seeing that now we were and are in the age of the church in which Christ is our Sabbath, a theological contradiction always resting uneasily upon the heads of Reformed believers who assert Sunday is the new Sabbath (this is but one observable admission by Lutherans they understand divine economies and their consequences practically and doctrinally).
The key issue, though, is that neither Luther nor Calvin nor any other “Reformational” theologian affirmed the kinds of distinctions that Dispensationalists do. In fact, they expressly denied them. Luther’s arguments against the Jews are a pretty strong form of “replacement theology.” It’s not possible that Dispensationalism is in “seed form” in Luther if he is adamantly opposed to all of its main tenets. Also, I’m not aware that any of the early Dispensationalists claimed to be following through any particular line of Lutheran/Reformed thinking.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Joseph] The comparison is embarrasing, but you asked for it, I’m afraid.I’m trying really hard to be embarrassed, but just can’t seem to work it up.
How bright Wright is has absolutely nothing to do with my point… nor does it have a whole lot to do with how right Wright is.
My point is a very simple one. One of the most often touted arguments against dispensationalism is that it’s a new kid on the block and does not adequately respect the corpus of orthodox historical theology. My answer to that is, in part, that folks are very selective about their use of the newness argument, dismissing one set of ideas out of hand on that basis while embracing other ideas that really are new and dramatic departures from the supposedly much beloved body of historical theology.
The reception many have given N.T. Wright’s new perspective is a prime example of what I’m talking about.
Wow, I’ve said it twice and I’m still not embarrassed.
(I’m afraid that I’m hopelessly beyond the persuasive power of long paragraphs extolling the brilliance of scholar X and decrying the ignorance and stupidity of dispensationalists… and the word philosopher just doesn’t quicken my pulse or make my eyes go starry at all… though I’ll admit to finding several of them interesting).
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]
My point is a very simple one. One of the most often touted arguments against dispensationalism is that it’s a new kid on the block and does not adequately respect the corpus of orthodox historical theology. My answer to that is, in part, that folks are very selective about their use of the newness argument, dismissing one set of ideas out of hand on that basis while embracing other ideas that really are new and dramatic departures from the supposedly much beloved body of historical theology.
The reception many have given N.T. Wright’s new perspective is a prime example of what I’m talking about.
[Craig Blomberg]From Blomberg’s review of Wright’s “Justification,” (linked above).
More clearly and in more detail than in any of his previous works, Wright demonstrates repeatedly that he wishes to maintain all the most central doctrines of the Reformation, including the Reformers’ (and especially Calvin’s) reading of Paul’s major affirmations. Indeed, only one doctrine, and that one not uniformly held by all Calvinists (though passionately promoted by Piper), appears to Wright not actually to be found in Scripture.
It’s clear, Aaron, that you did not read what I said carefully, or read the article I linked. As the above quote makes quite clear, there is good reason to question your comparison just on the grounds of novelty alone. The kind of “novelty” people accuse dispenationalism of is hardly of a piece with the “novelty” of N.T. Wright (at least, such a claim would need to be established, not assumed). Much of what Sanders originally argued with respect to Second Temple Judaism has been, in large measure, accepted, even by evangelicals, as a needed corrective to the historic position, for the articulation of which the Reformers did not have the historical resources we now have (See, for example, Carson’s introduction and Conclusion to Vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism).
Wright’s is not rooting himself in nothing or denying the link to his tradition. Moreover, on the matter of Wright’s achievements, they are not inconsequential when the validity of a comparison between his work and that of dispensationalism is in question. As I noted, people like myself appreciate Wright for some of the same reasons we reject Dispensationalism.
If your point remains, it seems to me to have an unclear target and to be based on an comparison that is far from apt.
Even if what you said was true and your comparison was apt, it would merely indicate that people are inconsistent, which, while unfortunate, is not apparently relevant to the questions at hand.
Finally, the only part of my post you quoted was unnecessary polemic on my part, and given that you fixated on it, rather than on the substance of my post, I have been duly punished and regret the offending sentence.
Discussion