What is a "Dispensationalist" Theology?
Image
A Dispensationalist is a Christian who sees in Scripture certain clear divisions in the progress of revelation in which God governs history. At its best this is done on the basis of the covenants revealed in the Bible. A “dispensation” (Greek, oikonomia) is an administration or economy, wherein, within a certain period of time (known to God, but afterwards revealed to man), God pursues His plan through the lives of men. The term oikonomia is made up of two other words: oikos, meaning house, and nemo, meaning to administer, manage, or dispense. Literally, an oikonomia is a house-management or household administration. In its theological usage it is well suited to describe what we might call a divine economy. This is much the way the word is used in Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25-26, and 1 Timothy 1:4. These passages also show that Paul held to the reality of certain dispensations in the broad sense given above.
Not unsurprisingly therefore, even Covenant theologians often speak of dispensations. For example, both Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof employ the term much like Dispensationalists do. Willem VanGemeren speaks of “epochs.” The number of these administrations is open to debate. Though commonly held, the seven dispensations articulated by C. I. Scofield are not the requisite number in order to be admitted into the ranks of Dispensationalist thinkers. The present writer, for instance, questions the theological value of some of these “economies” except perhaps as markers helping one trace the flow of God’s acts in biblical history.
Plain-Sense Interpretation
A characteristic of Dispensational theology is the consistent use of what is called the “grammatico-historical” method of interpretation. Here ‘consistent’ applies in principle, although not always in practice. Whether dealing with biblical narrative, or poetry, or prophetic literature, the Dispensationalist applies the same hermeneutics to each genre. This certainly does not mean that the genre is ignored; clearly, for example, so-called apocalyptic literature is not the same as historical writing or wisdom literature. But Dispensational scholars do not believe that one needs to change hermeneutical horses midstream when one passes, say, from Matthew 23, (Gospel narrative), to Matthew 24-25, (which many scholars would describe as apocalyptic or at least prophetic). They believe that exploring the grammatical sense of a passage within its context, and throwing whatever historical light they can upon a text, will yield the intended meaning. To drift away from this is to get caught up in the currents of the academic fads of the day; whatever is or is not in vogue should not dictate biblical interpretation.
The supposition of the Dispensationalist includes a belief in the full inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, together with a belief that the propositional nature of Scripture. Propositionalism is best adapted when a statement indicates a “literal” or plain sense. Thus, Dispensationalists are adherents of propositional revelation—a position that is being affirmed less and less within the conservative community, as scholars make biblical interpretation more the province of the specialist than the “common man.”
The Importance of the Covenants of Scripture
Essential to the theology of all classic Dispensationalists are the Covenants of Scripture. These are the explicit and clearly recognizable covenants defined in the pages of the Bible. They include the Noahic Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant; the Land Covenant; the Mosaic Covenant (which has been terminated); the Priestly Covenant; the Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant. The principal biblical covenant for most Dispensationalists is the Abrahamic, out of which come those which follow. Because most of these are unilateral in nature (i.e. they were promises made solely by God and given to men) they cannot be rescinded or altered, since God can always be counted on to do just what He promises. Still, they may, like treaties generally, be supplemented by additional though never contradictory statements. An example of this would be the additional clarifications of the Abrahamic Covenant that one notices when reading Genesis 15 through Genesis 22.
The consistent application of the grammatico-historical method to these biblical contracts made by God with men leads to certain specific and undeniable expectations. Among these expectations is the one which, perhaps more than any other, distinguishes Dispensationalism from its main evangelical alternative, Covenant Theology. This distinguishing feature is the belief that there remains a set of incontrovertible promises given to the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (“the Fathers,” Rom. 11:26-29).
These promises, confirmed as they were by irrevocable Divine Covenant (see especially Gen. 15 and Jer. 33:15-26), must be brought to a literal fulfillment; a fulfillment which includes a physical land, and a king on a literal throne in earthly Jerusalem. As far as Israel’s inheritance of these promises is concerned, any future restoration of Israel to their land will not be apart from the new birth (Ezek. 36:21-28; Rom. 11:5, 25-29). But the Divine favor for this “remnant” of ethnic Israel is based on God’s gracious unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mediated through Christ via the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34).
The Name “Dispensationalism”
It is because of the significance of these biblical Covenants that “Dispensationalism” is a rather unfortunate name. If it were not for the fact that it might cause some confusion with what is called “Covenant Theology” Dispensationalism would be more accurately identified as “Biblical Covenantalism.” Indeed, pursuing that idea and its ramifications has been a preoccupation of the present writer for several years.
This covenantal aspect of Dispensational theology can lend to it a powerful eschatological and teleological force, but this has not always been placed under the correct theological or hermeneutical controls. One example of this is the popular success of writers like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, authors who concentrate only on a populist approach to eschatology and who do not do justice to the whole discipline which is (or at least could be) Dispensational systematic theology.
Sad to relate, but much of Dispensationalism over the past fifty years has been held captive to this type of non-technical eschatological treatment. This has meant that serious development of Dispensational theology at the levels of exegesis, theological method, and philosophical explication has suffered greatly. Perhaps the most detrimental outcome of all this in terms of the thinking of many Dispensationalists has been the lack of exploration of the worldview implications of a full-orbed Dispensational systematic theology. This will be treated in another post.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 366 views
Most of you are already aware of these resources, but …
- Dr. Cone has a long, but useful blog post summarizing the various views on the NC. He comes down on the side of “Israel Only.”
- Dr. Cone, and others, have put out an entire volume arguing for an Israel-only view of the NC for those interested.
- Regular Baptist Press put out a volume presenting different dispensational views on the NC a few years back.
As for myself, 1 Cor 3 is far too explicit to ignore. Israel-only cannot be the case.
–––––-
Larry, you wrote:
On the topic of the doxological principle, isn’t the point of that to contrast the covenantal focus on the redemptive motif?
That is precisely correct! Ryrie made that point explicitly. My copy of Dispenstionalism is at my church office, but I believe he made that point to say that DT can be seen as more God-glorifying than CT.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Larry]To repeat myself, can you, from Genesis 3:15 and antecedent revelation, demonstrate anything that you have said about Christ above that makes Christ the content of faith for the people of that time? If you only had Genesis 3:15 and nothing past that, what would someone (Adam and Eve) need to believe to be saved?
After a frustrating day like this one, I might shoot from the hip more so than others, but I will try to answer you.
There was no antecedent revelation concerning redemption prior to this judgment scene. Christ the Lord is the One giving the prophecy here so He is referring to Himself. Gen. 3.15 seems to me to be the thesis statement of the Bible.
Larry, don’t get me wrong, I have not figured everything out here but, it seems, neither have any others from my searches. I have questions as to the skins for Adam and Eve, the sacrifice of a firstborn by Able, and other sacrifices. I am thinking not everything has been preserved for us, the later generations, is my present conclusion. The Bible does not give us all truth even about God and His dealings with us. There is much more truth about God that He has not disclosed to us sinners in Adam. He has given us all we need though.
In my view, Larry, propositional truth does not save us. It is necessary to a degree, yes, but it is God who saves us. No one (or very few) knows very much propositional truth when they turn to the Lord.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
In my thinking the New Covenant is absolutely in effect for the Church (both Jews and Gentiles). It was made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel at Shavuot, 50 days after Pesach which was fulfilled by Christ’s crucifixion. Note all the different nations represented where the dispersed of these Two Houses came from to reside in tents temporarily at Jerusalem to observe this feast. These constituted all the tribes in my thinking. Now Rabbinic Judaism is being made jealous by a mostly Gentile Church. All this (Gentiles as people of God) was foretold in the Song of Moses (Dt.32).
I contend that when Christ gave the command to disciple all nations that the disciples thought about the Jewish Diaspora. It was only later revealed that Gentiles could be included apart from becoming Jews first. This was what the disciples could not bear in Jn.16.12.
Those who do not believe the New Covenant is fully in effect, please list your objections. How can anyone read Hebrews and think the New Covenant is not here yet?
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Since there are too many thoughts here, let me get back to the main one, doxology. I went back to Ryrie’s book and he states that each system of theology answers the need for a philosophy of history. In light of your OP on the theological value of the these economies, Ryrie’s discussion on this shed some light. (I believe economies are more than markers, they demonstrate the progressive nature of His revelation to man, His purposes and His reasons for revealing Himself to us.)
Perhaps you don’t see value in this but it seems to me from his writing, that the philosophy of history, the “why” these events occurred provides a foundation for our systems of thought. Perhaps you may disagree with his conclusions, but this is where his foundation for doxology begins. In order to define this correctly, Ryrie suggests that one needs a proper goal, proper unifying principle, and a proper concept of progress (regarding revelation). The proper goal is the establishment of the millennial kingdom. The proper unifying principle in dispensationalism is the eschatological. He designates in his discussion on the sine qua non and in Chapter 5, that the unified purpose of the events throughout history is not redemption but the glory of God. All things happen so glory may be given to God, who created all things. The theological value of the dispensations is to show how God is working thru events to bring glory to Himself and have all His creation give glory to Him.
I guess you are asking DT’s to think about whether or not the glory of God should be this unified purpose of dispensational thinking. I guess my question would be what would you replace it with? Do you disagree with his philosophy of history?
Respectfully,
KML
I would recommend the argument and conclusions of Dr. Roy Beacham of Central Seminary on this topic. One may or may not agree with Dr. Beacham, but his work should be considered on what constitutes a covenant ratification and its bearing on the subject of the church and the NC.
Rolland D. McCune
Rolland McCune
In Acts 1:6, the disciples held to the core of dispensationalism.
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
This is the heart of the matter, not the name or listing of eras. Dispensationalistis say the question was legit and that Jesus’ answer did not condemn the question as wrong, while Covenant/Replacement interpreters say Jesus was indirectly correcting their theology.
Either way, at the point of Acts 1:6, the disciples were dispensationalists. So my advice is to stop arguing about which is older, and instead focus on the question of which is more Scriptural.
"The Midrash Detective"
[KLengel]Since there are too many thoughts here, let me get back to the main one, doxology. I went back to Ryrie’s book and he states that each system of theology answers the need for a philosophy of history. In light of your OP on the theological value of the these economies, Ryrie’s discussion on this shed some light. (I believe economies are more than markers, they demonstrate the progressive nature of His revelation to man, His purposes and His reasons for revealing Himself to us.)
Perhaps you don’t see value in this but it seems to me from his writing, that the philosophy of history, the “why” these events occurred provides a foundation for our systems of thought. Perhaps you may disagree with his conclusions, but this is where his foundation for doxology begins. In order to define this correctly, Ryrie suggests that one needs a proper goal, proper unifying principle, and a proper concept of progress (regarding revelation). The proper goal is the establishment of the millennial kingdom. The proper unifying principle in dispensationalism is the eschatological. He designates in his discussion on the sine qua non and in Chapter 5, that the unified purpose of the events throughout history is not redemption but the glory of God. All things happen so glory may be given to God, who created all things. The theological value of the dispensations is to show how God is working thru events to bring glory to Himself and have all His creation give glory to Him.
I guess you are asking DT’s to think about whether or not the glory of God should be this unified purpose of dispensational thinking. I guess my question would be what would you replace it with? Do you disagree with his philosophy of history?
Respectfully,
KML
You are right about the different strains in this combox. Allow me to respond to those parts of your last which I have underlined:
I believe economies are more than markers, they demonstrate the progressive nature of His revelation to man, His purposes and His reasons for revealing Himself to us.
1. This would entail you having to explain the idiosyncratic mix of concepts within the names of the dispensations. It would also oblige you to explain just how the dispensations “demonstrate the progressive nature of His revelation to man” rather than just mark it. This involves delineation of the dispensations while arguing with those who would disagree (e.g. Cone, VanGemeren). Are God’s purposes revealed in the dispensations? How? This wraps one up in the problems of things like why the post-flood dispensation is distinguished more by government than conscience; or the Mosaic dispensation is more Law than government. Note also what I said about the problems inherent in the dispensation of promise. Further, I don’t see God’s “reasons for revealing Himself to us” in the dispensations. I do see them in the covenants. But the covenants are being overwhelmed by the dispensations!
2. You say,
The theological value of the dispensations is to show how God is working thru events to bring glory to Himself and have all His creation give glory to Him.
But this merely asserts something you believe. It does not demonstrate it. Neither does Ryrie. He just proves that DT has a more holistic view of doxology (which is true). The covenants actually do accomplish this job very well, as I have tried to show in my work.
3.
I guess you are asking DT’s to think about whether or not the glory of God should be this unified purpose of dispensational thinking. I guess my question would be what would you replace it with? Do you disagree with his philosophy of history?
I’m sorry, but you again misunderstand me. What I am asking dispensationalists is to prove their contention that the glory of God is essential to the system. I think the best that can be done is to say that doxology is essential to ANY theological system; ergo, it is essential to dispensationalism (although I believe the claim that it is a system is doubtful). I would replace it with a more robust and Christological position as set out, e.g. in my series Christ at the Center: The Fulcrum of Biblical Covenantalism.
Do I disagree with his philosophy of history? Well, the best work on this subject that I know from a DT perspective is by Ramesh P. Richard in Bib Sac. He does a good job. But then Richard leans toward PD! But yes, I disagree with building a philosophy of history on dispensations. There is too much uncertainty involved in the naming and defining of these dispensations. further, the covenants do a far better job. And this is especially so when it comes to the idea of historiography. But I can’t get into that here.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[TylerR]Most of you are already aware of these resources, but …
- Dr. Cone has a long, but useful blog post summarizing the various views on the NC. He comes down on the side of “Israel Only.”
- Dr. Cone, and others, have put out an entire volume arguing for an Israel-only view of the NC for those interested.
- Regular Baptist Press put out a volume presenting different dispensational views on the NC a few years back.
As for myself, 1 Cor 3 is far too explicit to ignore. Israel-only cannot be the case.
Tyler,
Greg Beale lists five ways the New Covenant has been understood in A New Testament Biblical Theology, 728. Cone’s work is very helpful too. But neither of them discuss another possibility: that Jesus Himself is the New Covenant (cf. Isa. 49:8; Heb. 9:16-17 with diatheke translated as “covenant” in line with the context).
–––––-
Larry, you wrote:
On the topic of the doxological principle, isn’t the point of that to contrast the covenantal focus on the redemptive motif?
That is precisely correct! Ryrie made that point explicitly. My copy of Dispenstionalism is at my church office, but I believe he made that point to say that DT can be seen as more God-glorifying than CT.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
If I believe the following:
- A literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic AND
- The Church ≠ Israel
Is that sufficient to call oneself a Dispensationalist?
[Jim]If I believe the following:
- A literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic AND
- The Church ≠ Israel
Is that sufficient to call oneself a Dispensationalist?
If you are then I am too!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Jim]If I believe the following:
- A literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic AND
- The Church ≠ Israel
Is that sufficient to call oneself a Dispensationalist?
At a bare-bones level I would say yes. A consistent G-H hermeneutics will produce the goods which mark out basic traditional DT. It will not mark out the dispensations themselves very clearly (but I think that’s okay). The Church Israel distinction is not an “economic” distinction, it is a covenantal distinction. But again, the answer is yes. That’s a good start.
P
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]At a bare-bones level I would say yes.
Me and Beanie are OK!
First of all, I view faith in Messiah as the only way of salvation from Adam until the end.
I am comfortable saying …
- A change took place w the Fall … death & the curse
- I see a pre-Israel period
- The national Israel period
- The inauguration of the church (commencing at Pentecost)
- The post-church (post rapture) period with the tribulation followed by the return of Christ
- The millennial period
- And the eternal state / final state
I’m glad Jim and I passed the minimum requirements. I always did have a problem with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David waiting to eat “post-shift” ( a little BJU Dining Room lingo there) while Jim and I finish dining with The Lamb! Or to see them cooling their heels in a low rent after-life (Paradise) for hundreds of years until Christ’s resurrection.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Paul Henebury]But then Richard leans toward PD!
Leaning in the right direction is always a good thing. Btw, seeing Christ as the NC is so important to a sound understanding of the NC.
James
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Discussion