Dispensationalism Then & Now, Part 1

Hi Ed,

Does Olive Tree Theology entail the whole bible? I believe it is an *architectural feature* but not the supporting wall. This is the same as D.T. Theology, it merely notes a feature : discontinuous and progressive redemption. These features note things such as gentiles being grafted in or a progressive movement, but it doesn’t go further, it is only explanatory.

Contrast the Promise Plan given in Gen. 3.15. This is organic flowing out of God’s pronouncement of what will happen. It is a judgment scene in Genesis and sure promise encapsulating all of redemption, and therefore thematic. At the end of history this theme is completed when “that old serpent, the devil” is dealt the *head blow*. How the Promise Plan of the Messiah is powerful is that we see its partial fulfillment in the redemptive pierced heal of Christ. This engenders confidence and hope that the final act will occur. The Promise of the Messiah is the thread throughout God’s redemptive disclosure reoccurring time and again. So, at the beginning it is given, the sacrifice and judgment events refer to it and at the end of history it is completed. These features make it the only logical comprehensive biblical theology.

Olive Tree Theology and Dispensationalism mark certain features which are true but they are not the underlying foundation supporting all of biblical thought.

To Ed Vasicek,

Earnest Pickering, you and myself have a common connection: Kokomo, IN. It was under his preaching in the 1960s while at Bible Baptist Church in Kokomo that really convinced me of the truth of Christ. It took me a few years before I accepted the exclusivity of this truth.

So, while I appreciated his ministry greatly, I cannot in good conscience walk lock-step to all his ideas.

The Dispensationalists saw the deficiencies of C.T. and tried to forge a better and consistent way. Some things such as a return to Premillenialism were good, but their *working theory* in the end was not a complete biblical theology in my view.

Hi Alex. This is my 33rd years serving as pastor at Highland Park Church in Kokomo. Funny you should have roots here! In all my years, not once did I hear that Ernest Pickering had been pastor at Bible Baptist. I read Pickering’s book on Separation about 35 years ago, so I would have noted it (I think) if someone had dropped his name. I guess too many people were Ga-ga over Stowell, so Pickering was forgotten.

As far as Olive Tree theology goes, it is strictly a harmonization of the people of God, the nation of Israel, and the church. David Stern elaborates upon this in this book, “Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel.”

My viewpoint is that there are two themes that flow throughout the Bible: (1) The “scarlet thread of redemption and (2) God’s determined, relentless faithfulness to Israel despite their unfaithfulness. To me, they are both obvious, but others do not see it this way, I know.

Let me attempt to summarize a strand of this discussion:

1. Dr. McCune is saying that there are three foundational essentials of Traditional Dispensationalism and that Progressive Dispensationalism has rejected them, and thus, has blurred the lines between dispensationalism and other paradigms which attempt to explain the structure and storyline of Scripture.

2. Ed Vasicek agrees with at least one of Dr. McCune’s foundational essentials, the distinction between the Church and Israel, but disagrees that Progressive Dispensationalism has rejected that essential. If any lines have been blurred, they must in order to comport with Scripture, and Traditional Dispensationalism does not comport with Scripture as well as Progressive Dispensationalism.

3. According to alex o., seeing the distinction between the Church and Israel does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist of any stripe. He is neither a dispensationalist nor a covenant theologian, but he does recognize the distinction between the Church and Israel. [Question: Does alex o.’s “third way” tend to prove or disprove Dr. McCune’s point that rejecting one of the foundational essentials of Traditional Dispensationalism blurs the lines between dispensationalism and other paradigms?] Alex o. would also say that, if any lines have been blurred, they must in order to comport with Scripture. However, he would say that his “third way” comports with Scripture better than Traditional Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, or Covenant Theology.

4. Aaron Blumer is saying the key to evaluating this foundational essential is how you define “Israel.” In distinguishing between the Church and Israel, Israel is defined as an “ethnic/geo-political” people not a “spiritual” people. God has made covenant promises to Israel as an ethnic/geo-political people which will be fulfilled in the future to Israel as an ethnic/geo-political people. Dr. McCune, Ed Vasicek, and alex o. would all agree with this from their respective Traditional Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational, and “third way” positions. I believe that Aaron Blumer holds to Progressive Dispensationalism.

Therefore, assuming Aaron Blumer’s definition of “Israel,” holding this foundational essential would be necessary in order to be a dispensationalist of any stripe but would not necessarily make one a dispensationalist at all or a dispensationalist of any particular stripe. One could hold this foundational essential and not be a dispensationalist, but one could not reject this foundational essential and still be a dispensationalist.

[Please correct me if I have mispresented anyone’s position].

DISCLOSURE: I am a Covenant Theologian, who moved from Traditional Dispensationalism most of my life [I had Robert Gromacki as a professor for the Book of Revelation at Cedarville College back in the early 1980s] to Progressive Dispensationalism to Covenant Theology.

You stated in relation to one of Dr. McCune’s statements:

I would be interested in a more detailed development of the statement “there were unsystematized principles of a dispensational nature long before him [Darby].”

While there may be other good sources, one that I found helpful on that topic was Larry V. Crutchfield’s series of articles in the Conservative Theological Journal all titled “The Early Church Fathers and the Foundations of Dispensationalism”:

• Volume 2 n.7 (Dec 1998):375-404.
• Volume 3 n.8 (April 1999):26-52.
• Volume 3 n.9 (August 1999):182-203.

They can be found at Galaxie Software online or in Logos Bible Software.

Scott S.,

Much appreciated. Between your recommendation and Ed Vasicek’s reference to Nazarite Jews, I have some reading and research to sink my teeth into.

[Ed Vasicek]

My viewpoint is that there are two themes that flow throughout the Bible: (1) The “scarlet thread of redemption and (2) God’s determined, relentless faithfulness to Israel despite their unfaithfulness. To me, they are both obvious, but others do not see it this way, I know.

If you think about it there is only one thread or theme, redemption. This makes it a unifying Biblical Theology, the promise of the Messiah.

You mention Israel and the promise to this people that God chose solely out of love. The same can be said about any individual believer. Every believer is unfaithful to an extent and no ethnic group more special than any other in some sense. Yes, God will deal with ethnic Israel comprehensively in the future but now they are going through a partial hardening whereas before the gentiles were hardened except for the occasional gentiles who were saved which were several and diverse and who made up some of Messiah’s lineage.

So I see that in the end “salvation is of the Lord.” This one thread of redemption (Promise and execution of the Plan by the Messiah) gives hope, it ties the whole of revelation together, and explains the bible more fully than either D.T. or C.T.

I have to disagree with Alex O. when he states:

If you think about it there is only one thread or theme, redemption.

Redemption is a very prominent sub-theme of Scripture, but I agree with McCune (in his follow-up comment) that “God’s self-glory” is the unifying theme, only with a bit of a caveat. With respect to Scripture, it is disclosing this theme to mankind, because mankind was the unique creature made in His image to be like Him and communicate with Him on the verbal level. That is, mankind was designed by Him to reflect Him in creation for the purpose of making visible the invisible God to His creation, and language was for God to communicate to His creature made in His image.

Prior to the fall of man, there was verbal disclosure (God speaking to Adam), but not (so far as we know) any written disclosure, much less inspired, written disclosure through a divine-human joint agency. This is partly why I believe human language itself has certain fundamental “rules” for which it was designed to disclose truth, reveal error, etc., accurately and without chance of miscommunication in God’s original, perfect creation. Rules that God Himself follows because He created them for the purpose of communicating to His creature. These rules still undergird languages today, but are complicated by sin, falsehood, and lies (and of course, language was complicated by its diversification at Babel).

When mankind fell into sin, this verbal disclosure had to come (or at least God chose to have it come) in a written form, so that it would be preserved for generations. Written communication is far less corruptible than verbal words from human agents whose memories were affected by sin. That is not to say that the written word has not had its corrupting influences, as seen in the variants of text forms, but it is largely uncorrupted (and in my view of majority text being the correct text form, also objectively identifiable).

So Scripture (i.e. written revelation) may have arisen purely because of the need for redemption from sin (it might have come anyway in a sinless world as a means for finite people to communicate with other finite people what God had specifically declared to them; but that is speculation), and hence one reason why redemption is a major sub-theme in the larger theme of God intending to glorify Himself through mankind in creation.

Alex, with all due respect, I have thought about it deeply. Most of my Bible was written by and directed toward the Jewish people. The Kings and Chronicles do not talk about the history of India. They do not claim to talk about the history of God’s People, although occasionally some non-Jews are highlighted (Job, Melchizedek). They predominantly address the history of ISRAEL.

The theme of God’s faithfulness to Israel begins with the forefathers of Israel, and then narrows to Israel (Jacob) himself and his descendants. The prophets mostly call Israel to repentance. The Messiah comes from Israel. The disciples come from Israel, including the Apostles. All the authors of the Bible, perhaps apart from Luke and Acts (Luke was probably a gentile) were Jewish. Paul explains that God had to take off Jewish branches to graft in gentiles — it took their unbelief to bring the blessings we now experience. And one day “all Israel will be saved” for God’s calling and gifts are irrevocable (that’s faithfulness!).

Text (volume) wise, a larger percentage of our Bible deals with Israel and God’s relationship and faithfulness to her than any other subject, including redemption. Now redemption is a richer subject, I will give you that.

God created all things for His glory. That is a no brainer. However — even when we talk about God’s purpose for man — the Bible emphasizes a goal more specific. For man, it is to love God and our neighbor. For His Word, it is redemption and His stubborn faithfulness to a rebellious and unbelieving people. And the two are completely intertwined.

God has a special purpose for Israel, so He brought them out of Egypt and instituted the Passover. The Passover foreshadows the work of the Messiah, the matzoh representing His body, the cup, His blood. Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22). Trying to separate the two has been a very long-standing error, IMO.

[Rolland McCune]

This is probably worth its own thread but, briefly and broadly, a unifying theme should encompass all God’s activity external to Himself. This would begin at the original creation and extend to the eternal consummation when God is all in all. This means starting with Gen 1:1 and not Gen 3:15 and/or Gen 12:1-3. I.e., a redemptive-type theme cannot fairly account for God’s pre-fall activity and pre-redemptive revelation. This brings us back to one of Ryrie’s irreducible minimum—God’s self-glory. This governs His every purpose, plan, proposal and action on the historical level or what is sometimes called the time-space-mass continuum, down to every exchange of energy. The only knowledge of this is His verbal revelation bequeathed to us in the Bible rightly interpreted.

Yes, this has always been Dispensationalism’s criticism of C.T. It wants to make God’s glory a unifying theme. I am not denying God’s glory in any way, God gets glory in everything He does. However, both pre-Fall and the eternal state are limited in their analysis potential, I believe God is relational and this relating is through knowing Him in redemption.

I know you would disagree about the analytic potential of pre-Fall, but, to me, people have made too much of it and have built unwarranted *air castles*.

Anyway, are there any other reasons that you can think of besides the redemptive approach is lacking than its not *cover to cover*.

I will read the replies to this thread and the other one (part #2) but need to wear a *home improvement hat* so I will not engage much if at all.

Some of my reply to Dr. McCune covers some of Scott’s points. Of course I am not denying God’s glory in any way but the approach misses the bigger point. It is a given that God is glorified in that the builder has more glory than the house. That is inherent in creation. It does not mean we are to miss the main event: His disclosure of Himself in redemption.

Ed, the Apostle Paul rightly states that there is much advantage of being Jewish. He names at least two reasons in Romans: they were entrusted with the oracles of God and “from whom is the Christ.” I am not saying it was merely these two reasons at all but these two functions necessitated choosing a people-group. God used them throughout their history to teach about Himself and their own need. Today, as Paul says, these things are written for examples, encouragement, and hope of us readers. It seems all throughout the O.T. that God was showing the Jewish nation that it was not about them but about God’s love toward them. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree here but I am always willing to listen to valid reasoning so you may have the last word on this.

Thanks. Alex.

Let me reply to just two of your comments.

God used them throughout their history to teach about Himself and their own need.

Yes, but He is still using them to reveal His dogged faithfulness and the irrevocable nature of His promises. This is a case of the greater to the lesser: If God keeps His covenant with those who vehemently reject Him and the Messiah He sends them, then God’s faithfulness and promises are sure in all lesser cases. This is the point, I think, that many seem to miss. Israel is not so evil that God makes an exception to His amazing attributes.

Paul says, these things are written for examples, encouragement, and hope of us readers

Yes, that is what Paul says. But the fact you mention this suggests you are interpreting it as “Paul says, these things are written ONLY for examples, encouragement, and hope of us readers.” Israel and Israel’s history serves many purposes; we don’t want to offer a part for the whole.

Anyway, are there any other reasons that you can think of besides the redemptive approach is lacking than its not *cover to cover*.

I won’t pretend to speak for Dr. McCune, but for my part, I don’t think a “redemptive motif” is big enough to explain the things that don’t have to do with redemption, like creation or judgment or sovereignty over all things including non-redemptive things like the hairs of our head or the birds that fall to the ground. A redemptive motif can only account for these things by what seems like some rather awkward line drawing.

Furthermore, it seems that the overriding message of Scripture is that in the end God wins—he sets up his kingdom for his glory, just like he did at the beginning. Even redemption itself is the servant to the glory of God (Eph 1). So I find the redemptive motif too lacking to explain enough of Scripture.

[Ed Vasicek]

Thanks. Alex.

Let me reply to just two of your comments.

God used them throughout their history to teach about Himself and their own need.

Yes, but He is still using them to reveal His dogged faithfulness and the irrevocable nature of His promises. This is a case of the greater to the lesser: If God keeps His covenant with those who vehemently reject Him and the Messiah He sends them, then God’s faithfulness and promises are sure in all lesser cases. This is the point, I think, that many seem to miss. Israel is not so evil that God makes an exception to His amazing attributes.

Paul says, these things are written for examples, encouragement, and hope of us readers

Yes, that is what Paul says. But the fact you mention this suggests you are interpreting it as “Paul says, these things are written ONLY for examples, encouragement, and hope of us readers.” Israel and Israel’s history serves many purposes; we don’t want to offer a part for the whole.

Maybe I didn’t express myself well. I do not mean “only,” yes, I agree, many purposes.