Indefensible Dispensationalism
- 48 views
I have seen a connection, and it is usually a matter of ego and wanting to embrace what I call a spiritual aura, a sort of snobby peer group. People are drawn to reformed theology’s emphasis on sovereign grace, and then end up wanting to be “part of the group” and eventually embrace the whole ball of wax. “Scholarship” becomes more the criteria than straightforward Scripture. It’s not a whole lot different than teens who dress like their peers. All our human tendencies usually surface during or by our teen years. The adult version is more cloaked, perhaps, but just as vibrant.
Logically, embracing Sovereign Grace should lead to the belief that God will keep His promises to ethnic Israel precisely because He IS sovereign, and He can do what He promises. There are neither surprises nor a need to make alterations, which, essentially, is what covenant theology suggests (albeit vehemently denied at the same time).
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed, your prejudices are showing.
G. N. Barkman
The reasons I never left dispensastionalism (in the main) is that when one has a commitment to Biblical Theology…..not just Systematic Theology….dispensationalism is the best ball game in town! Because of a commitment to the text I enjoy reformed theology in a variety of sphere’s not because it is inconsistent with dispensationalism …. but becomes it comes out of the text. The same thing with a dispensational understanding of a doxological view of God’s work. In my view of the message of the Scriptures the dispensational understanding is far more consistent than the single “covenant of grace” …. The struggle I have with covenant theology is that I’m not sure when I’m supposed to take Scripture literally and when I’m supposed to dip into the bag of allegory. With dispensationalism we go with “literal” when the text is “literal” (and it almost always is “literal”) and go “figurative” when the text is “figurative.” It’s much safer that way. Dispensationalism has a God that’s big enough to fulfill promises made to Israel that actually get’s fulfilled to Israel. No “bail-out” plan necessary with dispensationalism. The Church is the Church. Israel is Israel. The elect are the elect! Dispensationalism has never been perfect and most of us depart from this dispensational teacher or that dispensastional teacher….but after 25 years of careful study of God’s Word….my conviction is that the essence of a dispensational understanding of God’s interworking with man, pre-Israel, Israel, the church and the eschaton is most consistent with the text of Scripture. I’m staying. Straight Ahead! jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Bauder said,
Many non-dispensationalists make the mistake of thinking that the popularizers represent all of dispensationalism. They do not. In fact, many academic dispensationalists find the popularizers’ presentations quite distasteful.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Anyone attending the 9th annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, which will be held September 14 & 15 at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN. The topic will be Dispensationalism and Literal Interpretation. I attended the council last year at Clarks Summit and enjoyed the thoughtful, substantive, scriptural presentations and discussion. Won’t be able to get to IN for this one, though. Hoping it’s near NYC again in 2017.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/dispensationalism
Dispensationalism has always come in different varieties. It has also developed over time. For example, few (if any) present-day dispensationalists accept Scofield’s complete system. In spite of the differences, however, dispensationalists also display similarities. Charles Ryrie tried to identify these similarities in his 1969 volume Dispensationalism Today. Ryrie was not articulating a new form of dispensational theology so much as seeking to articulate the common features that distinguished dispensational theology from other approaches to Scripture.
Ryrie famously reduced dispensationalism to three essentials, which he reiterated in the later revision to his book, retitledDispensationalism. These sine qua non include the following. First, dispensationalism “keeps Israel and the church distinct.” Second, this distinction arises from “a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.” Third, God’s underlying purpose in the world consists not only in the provision and application of salvation, but in the glory of God.
In spite of Ryrie’s (and others’) explanations of these distinguishing marks, confusion remains. Do not covenant theologians also emphasize the glory of God? Furthermore, do dispensationalists not recognize many non-literal passages in the Bible? As for Israel and the Church, does not the New Testament itself apply many Old Testament Scriptures to the Church that were first spoken to Israel? Rather than counting against Ryrie’s sine qua non, these questions reflect poor understanding of dispensationalism’s core ideas.
For example, dispensationalists acknowledge that other theologies strongly emphasize the glory of God. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (hardly a dispensational document) insists that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. How, then, can Ryrie say that God’s doxological purpose is a difference between his system and theirs?
The answer lies in how each system sees God glorifying Himself. Non-dispensationalists believe that God glorifies Himself in the world primarily through the salvation of individuals. For their part, dispensationalists acknowledge that individual salvation is one way in which God glorifies Himself, but they see His doxological plan as much grander and more complex. God plans to get glory when people are brought to salvation, but He also plans to get glory when He finally judges the wicked. He plans to get glory from the elect angels, and He also plans to receive glory through the fate of the angels who sinned. God’s plan includes not only individuals, but also ethnic groups (nations) such as Egypt and Assyria (Isa. 19:19-25). God’s plan includes the restoration of the created order, its dissolution, and the creation of a new order (2 Pet. 3:9-14).
Both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists understand that God’s purpose in the world is to bring glory to Himself, and both yearn to see Him glorified. The dispensationalist, however, insists that God’s glory is so magnificent and manifold that it must be revealed in many ways. For the dispensationalist, salvation history is one of those ways, but only one.
What about dispensationalism’s supposedly literal hermeneutic? Of course, dispensationalists recognize the full orbit of stylistic and literary devices that are present in the text of Scripture. Indeed, they stand in awe that God has chosen to reveal Himself in such ways. For the most part, dispensationalists interpret the Bible just as other Christians do.
The difference arises over the interpretation of prophecy, and particularly of promises and prophecies that remain unfulfilled. All true Christians believe that God will keep His word and that all unfulfilled prophecies and promises will someday be brought to completion. The question is how they will be fulfilled, and the answer to that question is what distinguishes dispensationalists from others.
Dispensationalists insist that unfulfilled promises and prophecies must be interpreted in the same way as promises and prophecies that have already been fulfilled. For their purposes, prophecies that contain both fulfilled and unfulfilled elements are especially illustrative. The unfulfilled aspects must be fulfilled in just the same way as the parts that have already been fulfilled. For example, Daniel 9 narrates the famous prophecy of the “seventy weeks.” All agree that sixty-nine of these weeks are already past. Dispensationalists insist that the seventieth week must be a week of the same kind as the first sixty-nine.
One can find disagreement among dispensationalists as to whether Old Testament promises and prophecies made to Israel can somehow be extended to apply to the Church. Generally, progressive dispensationalists are more optimistic about such applications, while traditional dispensationalists are less so. All dispensationalists agree, however, that no application to the Church is sufficient to exhaust the fulfillment of these prophecies. Even if they can somehow be extended to include the Church, they cannot be detached from Israel. Their ultimate fulfillment has to be understood using the same hermeneutic that applies to fulfilled prophecy.
The three sine qua non are linked, and the discussion of hermeneutics has already opened the third mark of dispensationalism: the problem of Israel and the Church. To be clear, most dispensationalists do not wish to deny the element of continuity in God’s dealings with all saved individuals of all ages. The book of Hebrews is predicated upon an analogy between the life of faith in the Old Testament and the life of faith in the New. If Israel and the Church were utterly and qualitatively different, then a chapter like Hebrews 11 would be impossible.
Nevertheless, dispensationalists also see a significant element of discontinuity between God’s dealings with Israel and God’s dealings with the Church. The distinction is great enough that the two should be seen as different peoples (if people is understood in its normal biblical sense of ethnic nationhood). Israel is constituted as a people by virtue of its biological union with the patriarchs. The Church is constituted as a people by its spiritual union with Christ. The two are not interchangeable, nor do they exhaust the category of peoples of God. God intends to have other peoples besides Israel and the Church. Furthermore, some saved individuals are identified with no particular people at all.
On a dispensational understanding, Israel and the Church stand in an analogous relationship. Since both are peoples of God, whatever is said of Israel as a people of God can often be said of the Church as a people of God. What is said of Israel as Israel, however, is unique to Israel. Specifically, promises made to Israel must be fulfilled to Israel, whether they can somehow be applied to the Church or not.
One may or may not agree with Ryrie’s sine qua non. Whether one affirms or denies them, however, one ought to understand what they mean. Even if they are not true, they are coherent and, taken together, they do distinguish dispensationalism from the alternatives.
Thomas, Is that meeting at Grace Seminary open to anyone? I googled and couldn’t find any information about it. I am a Grace Seminary grad and live about an hour and a half away. I could be interested in attending it.
As far as I know, it’s happening according to the info I provided. It seems that the recent name change of Summit University to Clarks Summit University required a web domain change also, and the council page didn’t make it to the new website. I don’t see it posted on the Grace website either. Perhaps Mark McGinniss (http://bit.ly/2aVD0vn) can provide you with more info. And if so, you could post it in this thread. He assisted me in my registration previously.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
G.N. Barkman said Ed, your prejudices are showing.
Yes they are. I am not into concealing my views, as you know! But I do feel the other main story line of the Bible — (besides the scarlet thread of redemption) is at stake: God’s dogged faithfulness to Israel (and God’s faithfulness in general). I am very passionate about this.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Joel Tetreau]The reasons I never left dispensastionalism (in the main) is that when one has a commitment to Biblical Theology…..not just Systematic Theology….dispensationalism is the best ball game in town! Because of a commitment to the text I enjoy reformed theology in a variety of sphere’s not because it is inconsistent with dispensationalism …. but becomes it comes out of the text. The same thing with a dispensational understanding of a doxological view of God’s work. In my view of the message of the Scriptures the dispensational understanding is far more consistent than the single “covenant of grace” …. The struggle I have with covenant theology is that I’m not sure when I’m supposed to take Scripture literally and when I’m supposed to dip into the bag of allegory. With dispensationalism we go with “literal” when the text is “literal” (and it almost always is “literal”) and go “figurative” when the text is “figurative.” It’s much safer that way. Dispensationalism has a God that’s big enough to fulfill promises made to Israel that actually get’s fulfilled to Israel. No “bail-out” plan necessary with dispensationalism. The Church is the Church. Israel is Israel. The elect are the elect! Dispensationalism has never been perfect and most of us depart from this dispensational teacher or that dispensastional teacher….but after 25 years of careful study of God’s Word….my conviction is that the essence of a dispensational understanding of God’s interworking with man, pre-Israel, Israel, the church and the eschaton is most consistent with the text of Scripture. I’m staying. Straight Ahead! jt
Joel,
I appreciate your perspective and how you’ve been led with over 25 years of careful study to remain a dispensationalist. I also respect that. I have also wrestled with the literal/figurative and many other issues. Examples would be Ezekiel 40-48 with a restored temple, sacrifices, etc. or Ez. 37:24 “My servant David shall be king over them…,” and whether a resurrected David is co-regent with Christ in the Millennium or if David refers to the greater David, the Lord Jesus. I imagine not even all dispensationalists agree on some of these matters but netierh should we imagine that it is crystal clear.
Some might say that my study has not been as careful as yours over the past 40 years but I lean in a different direction. It seems to me that promises made to Israel are fulfilled first in Jesus, the only sinless Israelite, then in the church, not as a replacement for Israel or restored Israel but as an expansion of the promises to include Jew and Gentile in one body, one people of God, one new humanity. One example would be the promise to Abraham for the land which has been expanded to the world (Rom. 4:13). There are so many NT scriptures that point in the direction that in establishing the New Covenant that the Church is now the one people of God composed of Jew and Gentile, that Abraham is the father of all who believe, that true Jewishness is a matter of the heart not of the flesh. I think of the OT language of I Peter 2:9 used to describe the church: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
The whole tenor of the NT seems to move away from any special place for ethnicity with little to support a future national, prominent, ethnic entity co-existing with church age glorified believers (and non-glorified believers from the Tribulation from whom are born those who will rebel against the King). As I read (and re-read Scripture) it appears to point more in the direction of one glorious appearing of our Savior, one resurrection of the just and unjust rather than resurrection phases - at the Rapture, end of Tribulation, end of Millennium. I’m not saying that dispensationalism doesn’t have any basis or able defenders. I think I see how they get where they get to with the discontinuity between Israel and the church. It’s just that I’m not convinced.
Having said that I hope I can still enjoy fellowship with my dispensational friends who don’t see this a separation issue. What unites us in Christ is greater than our disagreements on the future workings of God. We agree that the Church is the one people of God in this era composed of Jew and Gentile without distinction, that God will fulfill all his promises to Israel exactly as he intended, and that Jesus is coming again and will reign forever. I’m still reading and still studying but I’ve come to the conclusion that some of this wil only be resolved when it happens and we may all be surprised.
Steve
Hi Josh,
My answer is no. I think perhaps you are confusing an emphasis within dispensationalism with the self-identity of dispensationalism. Why is it called dispensationalism? Further, the Israel/Church dichotomy and plain-sense hermeneutics by themselves do not a system make, let alone define. And they are not prescriptive. Perhaps you see it differently and can point me to some modern works which lessen dispensations? But even if that were true there is a sad lack of positive work being done to develop the system as a system in its own right. Far too many of the main players have always reduced dispensationalism to ecclesiology and eschatology, with sometimes a bit of “free grace” thrown in. That is not good enough. It tacitly admits that dispensationalism is not a full theology and is incapable of being a worldview. Plus, it is not enough to de-emphasize dispensations. They must be critiqued for the confused and incomprehensible things they are. Divine economies as they are usually defined are theologically incomprehensible. Hence they make dispensationalism indefensible to the degree that they dictate the play.
Truth be told, I would bid a fond farewell to dispensations.
God bless,
Paul H
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[jimcarwest]They [most dispensationalists] do believe in total depravity, election according to the foreknowledge of God, a universal atonement, grace that can be resisted because of free will, and perseverance of those who have been born again. Admitted, this is not the same as what you call the “doctrines of grace.” But who says your definition is correct?
The view represented here has an inconsistency. Before I get to it though, let me summarize the Calvinist view.
1. All mankind inherit’s their spiritual deadness from Adam.
2. The Father elects some of mankind from every tribe, tongue, and nation, on which he intends to extend mercy.
3. Christ satisfies the justice of God for those the Father elects.
4. The Spirit is the agent of bringing the elect to salvation through the preaching of the Gospel.
5. All those saved are secured because the Trinity has a singleness of purpose.
The view above sides with Calvinism on points 1, and 5, and with Arminianism on points 3, and 4. On point 2 the language used appears to side with Calvinism, but it’s support of Arminianism on 3, and 4, lead me to conclude that it affirms the Arminian view of foreknowledge.
This post at monergism.com explains the difference between both views.
Arminianism
God predestined to salvation those whom He foreknew would respond to His offer of grace (i.e., those whom He saw would of their own free will repent of their sins and believe the gospel).
Calvininism
God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individuals; these He predestined or marked out to be saved.
Here are 2 other explanations of the Arminian view:
God looks down the broad avenue of the future and sees those who will respond to His gracious offer, and so elects them.
He [God] chooses us because he knows in advance that we will choose him. The elect, then, are those who God knows will choose Christ freely.
The Calvinist view insists that God’s choice of man is primary, while man’s choice is secondary - man chooses God because God has first chosen him. The Arminian view insists that man’s choice is primary, while God’s choice is secondary - God chooses man because, in His omniscience, he has observed that man will choose him.
But no matter which view of foreknowledge one affirms, both views insist that the future is fixed by God’s electing choice. All the elect cannot fail to come to salvation, and all the non-elect will fail to come to salvation. The only way for this to be different is for God’s omniscience to fail, which is the view of Open Theism.
So here is the inconsistency with the view expressed above. First, it insists that the Trinity does not have unity in it’s purpose regarding salvation. Even though the Father elects a people for Himself, the Son suffers the Father’s wrath for both the elect and the non-elect. Secondly, it insists that the elect can resist grace and risk the possibility of being lost. Calvinism affirms that unregenerate man resists God’s will, but it’s not possible for the elect to resist in time, when God has chosen them for salvation before time, unless one abandons the doctrine of God’s omniscience.
p.s. Got Questions defines the phrase “doctrines of grace.”
The phrase “doctrines of grace” is used as a replacement for the term “Calvinism,” in order to remove the attention from John Calvin and instead focus on how the specific points are biblically and theologically sound.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Discussion