The Changing Face of Dispensationalism

Re: ” If the defining doctrine of dispensationalism is the two-peoples-of-God theory, then to reject that theory is to reject dispensationalism itself”

Response: Didn’t know two-peoples-of-God theory was a “defining doctrine of dispensationalism”

I skimmed the article in the OP, and I see that this statement comes from a postmillennialist critic Keith Mathison. But then, I check the glossary, and I see that the publication itself would own that notion.

Two-peoples-of-God Theory is a defining aspect of Dispensationalism that views Israel and the church as separate entities with distinct promises.

What are your thoughts, Craig? Would you distinguish between the notion of “two peoples of God,” and the better-known sine qua non from Ryrie?

It makes a clear distinction between Israel and the church in God’s purposes.

When I read Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants, I was intrigued when he dismissed the “literal hermeneutic” as the big dividing point, but instead pointed to the earthly/heavenly dichotomy as the real driving force behind Dispensationalist theology.

I was confused about this when I was first introduced to dispensationalism. I probably still am. I could see a literal hermeneutic and pre-millennialism. What confused me was the “Israel is the Wife but the Church is the Bride” and having Abraham and his OT associates waiting in some backroom while I enjoyed the Bridal Supper of the Lamb. The teaching/implication that redeemed Israel was not part of the Body of Christ was beyond me as was the idea that the Gospel that was preached to Abraham was a different Gospel.

Jim said:

Couldn’t both of these be true?

The church is NOT Israel

But there is one people of God

I mean, I am not ethnically a Jew (not a blood descendant of Abraham!). I never was part of the nation of Israel (and still am not)

But … I am a spiritual heir of Abraham

As one who sees a difference between the Church and Israel, I agree but I’ve been told by some that this doesn’t “fit”.

Jim, if I remember right, Chris Barney offered the formula, “one people, two institutions” as a possible way that both those propositions could be true. I don’t remember the details of how that works out in practice, because I think the sticking point is in what ways, if any, the “church” benefits from the promises made to “Israel.”

I don’t consider myself a Dispensationalist, but if forced to answer true-or-false for “The church is NOT Israel,” to me it still seems clearest to answer “true.” But…there’s a lot more to it than that.

I think dispensationalism, as a system, is not comprehensive and is an external framework forced upon Scripture:

• I believe the Biblical covenants are a far better roadmap to the Biblical story.
• And, it’s hard to boast that you have a complete theological system when all you focus on is eschatology and selected aspects of ecclesiology.

However, dispensationalism has many true insights (e.g. the two-peoples concept, etc.) that I am very grateful for and believe in. If you pin me down, I’d say I’m kind of dispensational. I’m very unmoved by appeals to be faithful to one particular strand of dispensationalsm vs. the other. I don’t think it’s a wholistic interpretive grid; it only covers eschatology and fragments of ecclesiology. It’s a still-born system that people try to make wholistic.

It strikes me that a lot of the difference between a system “forced upon Scripture” and one that works well with it is whether one describes the core of dispensationalism (or whatever system) primarily in terms of its ingoing assumptions, or its conclusions. If I viewed, say, Ryrie or Hagee’s conclusions in the same way that Presbyterians would view the covenant theology portions of the Westminster Confession, I would entirely agree with Tyler. I would not be a dispensationalist simply because I could not go along with each conclusion.

If, however, I viewed dispensationalism primarily as the notion that we ought to view God’s promises as literal unless the context of the promise makes clear that it’s figurative, then I can sign on 100% as a dispensationalist.

I believe the Biblical covenants are a far better roadmap to the Biblical story.

That is one of the core parts of dispensationalism, particularly the covenants with Abraham, Moses/Israel, David, and the New Covenant. You can’t have dispensationalism without dealing with these covenants.

Roy Beacham recently delivered the Rice Lectures on this topic at DBTS: http://www.dbts.edu/rice/

It’s worth the time.

And, it’s hard to boast that you have a complete theological system when all you focus on is eschatology and selected aspects of ecclesiology.

The reason for this is that only eschatology and ecclesiology are distinct in dispensationalism (and a bit of pneumatology). The rest is virtually the same as non-dispensationalism. So it is complete. It simply mirrors what is widely accepted in other systems as well. Here you can see Dispensational systematics and see that there isn’t much difference elsewhere.

So there may be good reasons not to be a dispensationalist. I don’t think these are those reasons.

Larry:

When I wrote “roadmap,” I meant “framework.” DT does not use the covenants as the skeletal framework to tell the Biblical story. It uses the dispensations. To be sure, DT contains the covenants and mentions them, but the framework hangs on the dispensations. It always has. A far better framework is to use the covenants themselves (e.g. Nohaic, Abrahamic, Old, Priestly, Davidic, New) as the skeleton to flesh out the story - not the dispensations.

The covenants are explicitly mentioned and discussed in the text. The dispensations are not; they’re assumed. Consider the alleged distinction between Promise and Law, for example.

I owe a great deal of my thinking on this subject to Paul Henebury. I was groping my way towards his same conclusions in an unfinished form, but I’ve been very, very pleased read Henebury’s more mature version of my own thoughts over the past several years. I look forward to his book on this matter.

When I wrote “roadmap,” I meant “framework.”

But history predates the covenants. So where does that fit? And the covenants (except the Noahic) are with Israel, yet God’s plan is bigger. So where does that fit? And now, there is no covenant in force. So where does that fit? For these reasons, I think the framework of covenants is too small and too limited.

The idea of progressive revelation in which God outlines his working with humanity is a better and more comprehensive idea. And since we are dealing with revelation I am not sure of the basis for the claim that this is not mentioned in Scripture. Do you mean by that that the word “dispensation” is not mentioned in these places? It seems to me that the progress of revelation is explicit and the changes in how God relates to man is explicit in that.

How did I miss this? All this time I thought the New Covenant was in force now.

How did I miss this?

Cuz you didn’t read the Bible closely enough. :D … Seriously, the New Covenant is with Israel who is now in rejection for their sins. The church may participate in some of the blessings of the NC, but according to the Scripture, they are not party to it. The NC passages in Scripture are clear and unequivocal about the parties: God and the house of Israel/Judah, those who were led out of Egypt by God, those who broke the old covenant. It is with the offspring of Israel, the nation of Israel. It is not with the church.

Again I commend the lectures by Roy Beacham at http://www.dbts.edu/rice/.