Recommended Reading in Dispensationalism

Alex,

OK, let’s try to focus our attention here.

At no stage of the discussion has anyone attempted to argue, one way or the other, for the truth or falsehood of dispensationalism, hyper-dispensationalism, or covenant theology (though I’ll grant that sympathies are pretty evident). If I wanted to make that argument, there are a thousand better ways than a citation from Ironside.

The point of the quotation is that the divide between dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism is equal to or greater than the divide between dispensationalism and covenant theology. Consequently, Dr. Henebury is quite correct to exclude those references from a bibliography on dispensationalism. That is the only point of the quotation.

Your contribution was very creative. The teaching staff has decided to award you a star.

[James K]

Paul, what exactly is Dispensationalism Proper? Is it Scofield/Chafer? Is it Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost?

Your question is understandable, but though some variants between, say, Scofield and Chafer, or Walvoord and Sauer, or Ryrie and some other guy have appeared, they were all within the same constituency. This is most definitely not the case with PD’s, whose hermeneutics introduces the Analogy of Faith (under the guise of “canonical exegesis” - a question-begging term if ever there was one!), into the process of exegesis and results in conclusions much closer to covenant premillennialism. Neither is it the case with ultra-dispensationalism, which in its statements about, e.g., only the “Prison Epistles” pertaining to the Church, is a different animal, as Dr Bauder has said.

It is my belief that in attempting to attach progressive dispensationalism onto the dispensationalism of Darby through Ryrie, Craig Blaising confused the issue. PD is not continuous with earlier models. If you have read Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants and Michael Horton’s God of Promise, and you compare them with Witsius, you would not conclude that the very real variations between their accounts of Covenant Theology excluded one or more of them from being Covenant Theology proper.

This is no place to enter into long explanations, but the genius of Dispensationalism is not the dispensations, but its ability to link covenant to blessing without making God equivocate along the way.

I hope that helps :)

[Kevin T. Bauder]

Alex,

OK, let’s try to focus our attention here.

At no stage of the discussion has anyone attempted to argue, one way or the other, for the truth or falsehood of dispensationalism, hyper-dispensationalism, or covenant theology (though I’ll grant that sympathies are pretty evident). If I wanted to make that argument, there are a thousand better ways than a citation from Ironside.

The point of the quotation is that the divide between dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism is equal to or greater than the divide between dispensationalism and covenant theology. Consequently, Dr. Henebury is quite correct to exclude those references from a bibliography on dispensationalism. That is the only point of the quotation.

Your contribution was very creative. The teaching staff has decided to award you a star.

I don’t disagree that Dr. Henebury’s list was wisely annotated. But these kinds of illustrations are not always so benign in its intended service. That is, such an illustration has some collateral damage by way of implication in being so severe. I suspect a little qualification would have helped. But I do see how you intended to use the instrument, not with respect to the claim but the nature of objection(s) by Ironside, thus understood.

But it does beg the question, if one uses as an illustration the “Satanic” divide, not as an argument but illustration of a divide and concludes that it is wise to thus not include something because of the nature of this divide, then are we to do the same with all theology when it appears to have induced a “Satanic” divide by way of its propositions and subsequent objections? Because, as I said, that would include Calvinism when it comes up among Evangelicals. I ask the question not necessarily seeking an answer, it is more rhetorical and moving away from the topic. Thank you for taking your time, however, to respond to the earlier post. Star in hand.

Good bibliography! Some excellent books indeed. I have seen the propaganda floating over the internet comparing covenant and dispensational scholars. They forget the real scholars in dispsensaitonalism: Ryrie, Walvoord, Feinburg, Fruchtenbaum, Pentecost, Showers, Benware, Unger, etc. and list people like Ironside. The old straw man. This Bibliography is a good refutation.

Whatever viewpoint one holds, it is important to be honest, ethical, and not sarcastic, cynical, or given to mockery.

Regarding the “fracturing” of Dispensationalism, I think there are many variations of all positions.

My solution is to clarify the heart of dispenastionalism, which is God’s faithfulness. He will fulfill his promises to Israel, ultimately, because he is not thwarted by human response. Here is a link to my article that seeks to unite various forms of Dispensational Theology and others who believe God is big enough to do what he said he would do without a latter changing of terms.

http://www.midrashkey.com/new-testament-midrashim-papers/fidelity-to-jacob-theology/

Alex,

I’m interested in the question of your last paragraph, though I confess that I find myself a bit tripped up while moving from clause to clause.

If you are asking whether it is appropriate to reference statements like Ironside’s to illustrate the depth of division between points of view, then I think the answer is yes.

If you are asking whether it is necessary to state one’s own judgment in response to someone like Ironside, I think the answer is not necessarily. If you’re curious, however, I think he badly overstates the case. But it’s necessary to say so only if one is arguing the merits of the question, not if one is simply pointing to the division between the views.

If you are asking whether we necessarily have to perceive all divisions as Satanic (which was neither Ironside’s point nor mine), then I think the answer is no. All divisions about the faith are sinful to some degree, but not all sins are Satanic. We can also be led toward sin by the world and by the flesh. But in every difference about the faith, at least one party must be wrong—either by defect or by excess. Since God requires us to understand and believe what he has said, everyone who holds a false understanding of the faith is sinning.

If you are asking whether we always have to point out the sinful nature of those disagreements, the answer is, not always. Very often we understand that one of us is wrong. In principle we admit that it could be us, but in practice we believe that it is the other person (or we would change our view). The other person understands that we think he is wrong, and vice versa. Often, little is to be gained by pointing out the sinful nature of being wrong.

But as you say, we are now wandering from the point—I further than you.

But you tempted me!

Kevin

I think the confusion or strife that has arisen from the varying castes of dispensationalism is that it has, IMHO, been allowed to be perceived as theology instead of a method of interpretation. I wouldn’t necessarily say that it is an evil to lay emphasis on the labeling of a method of interpretation, but when the debate over the label rises to the same level on contention as the debate over theology, I think it can detract from a proper debate of the merits of the Biblical doctrine in contention on it’s own merit, rather than allowing an opponent of a particular debated subject a convenient exit by blaming the differences in conclusions on dispensationalism.

For example, we may debate the 70th week of Daniel. Was the “he” of Daniel 9:27 Christ or the antichrist that confirms the covenant for one week? Where the confirming of the covenant occurs after the Messiah is “cut off”, is the preterist, historicist allowed to redefine the term “after” to force the interpretation to imply an entire fulfillment of the 70 weeks without there being one week remaining? When the matter is debated with preterists, historicists or covanenters, the debates seems first to require a clarification of the dispensational field one adheres to before Daniel 9-11 can even be discussed on its own merit.

Often it appears that debates hinge on what branch of dispensationalism is applied, and it is ignored whether or not the opponent is even applying sound principles of hermenuetics. While I do not see the harm in creating a classification label for the divisions that are clearly indicated in Scripture, I would be reluctant to give a debate of dispensationalism the same weight as a debate over theology proper when it becomes apparent that the merits of a doctrine being discussed will not reach a conclusion if dispensationalism becomes paranthetical to the debate at some point. That is not to minimize the importance of rightly dividing the Word of truth, but so long as the discussion does not overemphasize dispensationalism as if it were it’s own branch of theology rather than a proper focus and interpretation of a doctrine itself.

I guess then that may created an entirely separate debate as to whether or not it is necessary to clarify the boundaries of ones dispensational views to determine whether or not ones conclusions about a particular doctrine are even credible.

…is most often abused by bias, not liberalism. It is simplistic in the approach. For example, when Jesus instructs His disciples to not own more than one coat, a dispensationalist does not need to spiritualize the passage to mean ‘take care of the poor.’ It is simply proof that in the future earthly kingdom Jesus Christ who is God the Provider gives no need for a closet full of coats. What is satanic about that?

Or perhaps Mr. Ironside objected to a true dispensational reading of the word ‘baptism?’ Look up every occurrence of the Greek word and you will not find water in each transliteration. In dispensational context the translator would have had no problem. For example: “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” One means ONE, so which one? (Ryrie fudges his bet by adding one as he states there is one real and one spiritual, but that equals TWO!). Israel understood what ritual water baptism was - indeed you can find synagogues today with baptistries used for ritual cleansing.

Another misunderstanding is the ‘beginning of the church.’ This could be the subject of a book! (I’m sure there are some here with suggestions). Well, the church was not possible until the cross work of Christ was accomplished, but instructions to the church did not come until Paul was raised up and called out. I am not of the Acts 28 ilk as God gave a transition period to Israel and the Gentiles as they merged into one body. Peter, we see, had an initial difficult time with this transition, as do many today with their tongues-speaking and ‘healing’ ministries. AND those who put undue emphasis on baptism. (How satanic is it to hear a respondent say, “Of course I am saved…I was baptized April __, 19__.”)

Paul, the differences between Scofield/Chafer and Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost are enough that many authors refer to the periods as Classic and Revised dispensationalism.

Of course there are great similarities between the two, but they are still distinct enough to not be identical.

The charge against dispensationalists believing in two ways of salvation is mostly a bogus strawman based on a poorly worded note in the Scofield reference Bible. Let us not forget the preAdamic race, gap theory, 2 new covenants, etc., that the Revised walked away from (mostly).

This is why I asked what Dispensationalism proper was. Is it essentially how Ryrie defines it?

Dr. Bauder,

With indulgences from the Admin and Mods I will reply to the side bar. First, yes I do confess to leaving the mechanisms of my thoughts both bear and with autistic transitions. However, they are deliberate under the premise that if solid thought is meant to be chewed the don’t prepare it so that it may swallow it like applesauce.

As to the body of response, your view that Ironside badly overstates his objections is good to hear and is consistent with how you tend to hesitate with the strongest of language unless absolutely necessary as I have learned from reading your work.

And I do concede that the illustration of divisions in theology being so strong that they elicit fierce descriptions such as “Satanic” are not always inappropriate or unfairly used as long as they are buttressed by reasonable arguments (and of course here it was used by you with reference to an illustration and not an argument, hence the absence of Ironside’s arguments) though one can disagree. But when such illustrations are used, even to simply point out the nature of a divide, one may not have to qualify it with their opinion but it does appear that if they do not the tables can be turned, later, in pointing out a divide by some theological point to which they may hold. But no doubt from there good men would debate the merit of such descriptions with their arguments.

Thank you for the exercise and answers to the many possibilities of my question.

[James K]

Paul, the differences between Scofield/Chafer and Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost are enough that many authors refer to the periods as Classic and Revised dispensationalism.

Of course there are great similarities between the two, but they are still distinct enough to not be identical.

The charge against dispensationalists believing in two ways of salvation is mostly a bogus strawman based on a poorly worded note in the Scofield reference Bible. Let us not forget the preAdamic race, gap theory, 2 new covenants, etc., that the Revised walked away from (mostly).

This is why I asked what Dispensationalism proper was. Is it essentially how Ryrie defines it?

James,

My list includes Peters and Sauer who differ in places from Chafer and Walvoord. Early Walvoord differs from Later Walvoord and Pentecost differs from Pentecost. You cannot put your finger on a timeline and declare “All dispensationalists in this period believed in the Gap Theory or two new covenants, etc.”. That is just not true.

Fruchtenbaum believes some Pemberisms, and Geisler holds to old-earth creationism (with e.g., Sauer and Scofield), and others reject and have rejected both out of hand. You seem to be aware of Blaising’s taxonomy, but I think it’s shaky and is a covert attempt to get a pass for PD anyway.

I wasn’t trying to stick a drawing pin in one embodiment of Dispensationalism, I was just explaining why PD is, in my opinion, outside the boundaries (same with ultra-disp).

It might help if you told me what you were driving at. You surely know that while Ryrie changed and “improved” on Scofield other dispensationalists have felt free to disagree with Ryrie or both. But they all saw themselves as within the same movement. It wasn’t supposed to be a technical designation. It was just a term used to explain the omission of PD. Recall I included some Covenant Theology works to show that that system has people who differ but who recognize each others contributions as being in harmony with their own. another place to see this is the first part of Greg Nichols’ new Covenant Theology: A Reformed & Baptistic Perspective.

I hope that’s clear.

God bless,

P.

Paul, I am fine with your list. I wasn’t sure what Dispensational Proper meant. It seems as though you define it rather broadly between Ultra and Progressive.

The reason I bring this up, is because the differences between the godfathers of dispensationalism can be seen as quite vast. The connection between some while rejecting others seems that because they all thought they were together in a sort of fraternity against CT, then they are a cohesive unit. I suppose that really is what united the various dons of Dispensationalism. What I wonder about is if they were really together for something as much as they were against something else. Sometimes it takes a war of some kind to unite factions.

I never mentioned Blaising by the way.

James,

This will be my last comment on this thread. I have already explained my limited use of the phrase “Dispensationalism proper” as a of excluding PD. Since my list includes men from various generations you see that I think them to be covered by the term you are still questioning.

You claim,

The reason I bring this up, is because the differences between the godfathers of dispensationalism can be seen as quite vast.

I just don’t know what you mean by “quite vast,” and I don’t have much inclination to pursue the subject. Are you a PD? Forgive my suspicious nature, but I can’t understand your real point in all this. Ryrie (whom you have mentioned) traces “Systematized Dispensationalism” from Darby through the 1980’s (Dispensationalism [1995] , 67); thereby showing that he does not see the “Classic”/”Revised” dichotomy you refer to (Blaising - whether you are aware of it or not - does). Further, on pages 12 & 15 of the book he uses “normative dispensationalism” and “classic dispensationalism” (as opposed to “progressive dispensationalism”) as a general moniker for what he sees himself doing.

That, to me, is enough.

Paul, again, I am fine with your list. I was trying to figure out how you got to dispensationalism proper. You excluded 2 other kinds of dispensationalism because they weren’t dispensationalism proper. I was hoping to clarify what you meant by it. You have confirmed that because Ryrie thought he was continuing in the same tradition, than that is what it must be. Again, fine. That is your list and rationale for inclusion/exclusion.

By vast differences, it is simply what was previously alluded to: 2 new covenants, old earth, preadamic race, satan ruling over the world in darkness (gap theory), issues of continuity, etc. I find it rather bizarre that those such as Ryrie can think that a “literal” hermeneutic can actually allow for that nonsense and his work be within the same vein as theirs. If those of Ryrie’s persuasion don’t see any meaningful difference between them and the issues mentioned above, then their own ability to assess their own movement is not credible.

By vast differences, it is simply what was previously alluded to: 2 new covenants, old earth, preadamic race, satan ruling over the world in darkness (gap theory), issues of continuity, etc. I find it rather bizarre that those such as Ryrie can think that a “literal” hermeneutic can actually allow for that nonsense and his work be within the same vein as theirs. If those of Ryrie’s persuasion don’t see any meaningful difference between them and the issues mentioned above, then their own ability to assess their own movement is not credible.

Couldn’t let this go. Apparently you think you are in a position to offer a credible assessment?

Go for it! I’ve heard enough.

I know that when A does not equal B, it isn’t the same thing. It does seem like some people want the Classic and Revised to essentially be one movement to prevent the possibility that it could be further modified. I am not saying you are guilty of this. Maybe you are, maybe you aren’t.