Romans 5:7-9

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

A Public Address

There are two main considerations I wish the public at large would make when dealing with scandals in the "church".

1. There are three divisions that orthodox Christianity would make among people in the world:

  • Members of the invisible Church. Persons who God has saved; God no longer looks at their sin in hatred, but He has placed that hatred for their sin on Christ at the cross; when they recognize that they have sinned against God, these individuals agree with God that they have done wrong, and in varying degrees, they struggle against sinful habits.
  • Members of the visible church. Persons who consider and probably refer to themselves as "Christians", normally due to family tradition, and they may even attend church regularly, but they have never actually had their sins put on Jesus the Son by by God the Father; they may feel sorry for their mistakes and what they do wrong, but they never actually agree with God that they are wrong to the degree that they continue a life-long struggle against their sins.
  • Persons who either, don't believe God exists (thus there is no transcendent being to offend), or they believe He exists and they don't think they have any need to ask His forgiveness because they don't believe that He can be offended.

2. The second thing is that, the members of all three of these groups have one thing in common, they do make mistakes, do things wrong, they do offend morals, they do offend the common ethos, but the difference is in the way individuals in each group deal with their guilt. The first group sees their guilt and shame paid for by Christ, the second usually ends up trying to propitiate their own guilt, often living lives of legalism, and some in the third group try to satisfy the demands of a "new" law they devise by assimilating thoughts from various ethical systems and even from absolute morals, but I believe that the larger part of the third group attempts to absolve their guilt ex nihilo, or "out of nothing". When they have determined that there is no God to offend, or that He is never offended, then they vainly attempt to convince themselves that they have no guilt, thus their minds are blinded, their hearts are darkened, and their consciences seared. This produces either great antinomianism or great legalism.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Which is Easier?

One of the greatest offences Christ caused for the Pharisees (next to His claims to be God and have God as His Father) was His display of the power to forgive sins. On more than one occasion, Christ absolved the sins of an individual, to the dismay of the religious elite.

Matthew 9

1 "And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." 4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men."

The declaration Jesus made here to the paralytic man was not just the daily forgiveness that comes through the means of sanctifying repentance, but this is the very declaration of the justification of this man's soul before a Holy God. Whether or not it was at that moment that the man received the Holy Spirit through His sovereign, supernatural act of regeneration or whether Jesus was making this declaration sometime after that event, it is not clear. The one thing that is clear is that Jesus Christ forgave this man of the original sin he inherited from Adam; that sin which has separated us from the Living God by spiritual death; the forgiveness of sins that was a consequence of his being counted in Christ instead of being counted in Adam.

Today, as did Peter, Paul, James and other apostles, preachers of the Word of God who have been ordained to the ministry of that Word to God's people are standing in the place of Christ, as it were, to administer the same forgiveness that He gave while He was here on Earth. Not that the preacher declares us righteous and forgiven by his own power to justify us, but he assures all those who believe that we are forgiven in the eyes of God of all the sins we have and will commit, to His glory and our joy! After having heard the Law preached to show our utter dependence and the Gospel preached to show Christ's utter success, and after having seen and tasted the Word at the table in covenant feast, our broken consciences are absolved in the benediction established by Christ which is distributed in grace, by His servant shepherds.

There is another type of "absolution" practice in the secular realm. I'm sure that it has gone on as long as creation, because we know that Satan tempted Adam and Eve to believe in a presumptuous absolution. The absolution of our American culture manifests itself as a consequence of usurping morals with ethics. The ethics or the ethos of a given generation and culture are fluid and driven by popular thought, the "fama etho" if you will. On the other hand, morals or the moras of humanity are much broader, and are trans-cultural and trans-generational because they eminate from the very Holy character of the creator of humanity; they are absolute and immutable. But it is common practice for the world to tell us that certain things are OK, because "everybody" does that. They try to provide a temporal absolution to ease our conscience; this is exactly what Paul described in Romans 1, "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

Friday, January 18, 2008

Prequel to “Responding to Dispensationalism”, Installation #19: Dispensational Differences; Progressive Dispensationalism

Progressive Dispensationalism (PD)

I think that there are two important questions which must be answered as one attempts to distinguish Progressive Dispensationalism from any other form:

1. Have progressive dispensationalists jettisoned the “sine quo non” of Dispensationalism, the separation of Israel and the Church?
2. Why do they consider themselves “progressive”?

The answer to number two is quite simply stated here, “The label progressive dispensationalism is being suggested because of the way in which this dispensationalism views the interrelationship of divine dispensations in history, their overall orientation to the eternal kingdom of God (which is the final, eternal dispensation embracing God and humanity), and the reflection of these historical and eschatological relations in the literary features of Scripture.” So it is not the case that PDs (Blaising and Bock at least) believe that they have progressed beyond the Ryrie sort of Dispensationalism, but instead they use the word progressive to modify their particular understanding of the relationship between the dispensations themselves. I’m sure they do believe that their understanding of what dispensational theology should be and how it should be represented is superior to the former (why else would they endeavor to describe revisions) but they are not intending to make that assertion in the simple title, “Progressive Dispensationalism”.

As one being presently educated in the realm of Covenant Theology, I would largely agree with what Blaising and Bock have to say in the definition above (not just that I agree with their interpretation of their own system); unless they mean by the progression of dispensations that there is no overlapping of the promises, fulfillment, stipulations and elements, I could say that I have no disagreement with what that definition says about biblical dispensations or ages.

Ryrie Dispensationalism Critiques Progressive Dispensationalism

It is actually quite common to hear classic/historical dispensationalists calling PDs non-dispensationalist because they have forsaken what is essentially dispensational. In an attempt to answer the same question I have asked as #1, in an article called What Is Progressive Dispensationalism? Thomas Ice says this,

“Israel and the Church: PD [Progressive Dispensationalism] blunts distinctions between Israel and the Church, while the older forms of dispensationalism highlight distinctions. Even though some distinctions are maintained by PD I wonder how long it will be before this new form of “dispensationalism” will become the highway leading one totally away from most, if not all, of the distinctions of dispensationalism? Blaising explains that their search for a new dispensationalism has led many dispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of heavenly verse earthly peoples in favor of a historical distinction in the divine purpose. The unity of divine revelation, of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the kingdom of God. (33)

One of the few distinctions which PD has maintained from older dispensationalism is their rejection of replacement theology. If a full replacement of Israel for the church were to start to happen, then no one could successfully argue that this could be a valid form of dispensationalism. PD current commitment to a futurist eschatology keeps them from totally commingling the church and Israel. But the[re] is no question about their overall tendency to stress unity of the dispensations at the expense of diversity when compared to older dispensationalism.”

For Ice, it is clear that the Israel/Church distinction is very, very important but in his opinion, as long as PDs maintain a “futurist eschatology” they may remain in the club.

Progressive Dispensationalism Critiques Ryrie Dispensationalism

What I have found is that, PDs consider themselves to be in the dispensational camp for these (probably among other) reasons: they believe in a series of dispensations which mark “differences” in God’s dealings with mankind, they believe in a future period of great tribulation which is followed by the second coming of Christ at which time He will set up His earthly millennial kingdom, they believe that the land promises made in the Old Testament will be fulfilled by the nation of Israel obtaining it through God’s grace and finally, they interpret Scripture according to a literal hermeneutic. Though PDs claim a “literal” hermeneutic, they do make this observation:

Of Ryrie, Blaising says, “He is quite insistent that the difference between a dispensational and a nondispensational hermeneutic is that the former is consistent in the employment of literal or normal interpretation. The presence of spiritual or allegorical interpretation to any extent “in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.”

“The issue is not a distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we share. The question most simply put is, how does “new” revelation impact “old” revelation and expression?”

Most Ryrie Dispensationalists view the church age as a “parentheses” in the plan of God as He deals with His people Israel and the two (as dispensations and elect peoples) are completely and totally separate from one another, now and in eternity. In an article by Tim Warner called Progressive Dispensationalism 101, he has this to say,

“Progressive dispensationalists however believe the 'church age' is the fulfillment of certain promises in the Old Testament, regarding the new covenant, and salvation of Gentiles. Rather than being unrelated to God's program for Israel, the Church is an integral part of that program, and is currently participating in the new covenant promises in this dispensation. Progressive dispensationalists believe the New Covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Himself, by shedding His blood”

Tim Warner goes on in his article to list 5 major problems with Classic/Historical Dispensationalism he believes Progressive Dispensationalism has solved. Please remember as you read that these are Warner’s (and PDs’ by association) objections and not necessarily my own:

1. “Old Testament Prophecy applied to the Church by New Testament writers.”

“If the present dispensation is a 'parenthesis' in God's plan for Israel, and the Church is not related to OT prophecy, we would not expect New Testament writers to apply Old Testament prophecy to the Church. Yet, there are many examples of this very thing.” (Warner)

2. “The New Covenant, promised to Israel, is now in force.”

“Paul wrote to the church in Corinth regarding their observance of the Lord's Supper, as a reminder of Jesus' establishment of the New Covenant… This would hardly be appropriate had the New Covenant not been inaugurated, or if it applied exclusively to physical Israel. Paul also saw himself as having a role in the spread of the New Covenant among the Gentiles… Jesus was the "mediator of a better covenant, which was established [past tense] on better promises" [Heb. 8:6-13]. The writer then quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 and applied the prophecy of the New Covenant to the Church. This is not to say that everything related to the New Covenant has been completely fulfilled. Jeremiah's prophecy said "after those days ... all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." The universal acceptance of the New Covenant by Israel will only occur after the partial blindness is removed.” (Warner)

3. “God Continues to Deal with Israel in this Dispensation.”

“Certain things have and are occurring in Israel's history since the Day of Pentecost that are the direct fulfillment of prophecy. This makes the traditional dispensational 'parenthetical' theory untenable.

a. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the direct fulfillment of Daniel 9:26.
b. The regathering of Israel into their land is the likely fulfillment of Ezekiel 37.
c. God is also using the salvation of the Gentiles to provoke (unbelieving) Israel to jealousy. [Rom. 10:18,19 & 11:11].” (Warner)

4. “Only a Remnant of Old Testament Israel is Saved.”

“Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" and the "Church" as two distinct peoples of God. While all true members of the "Church" are saved, and will be resurrected at the resurrection of the just, this is not the case with Israel. Traditional Dispensationalists are comparing apples to oranges here, when they refer to two different peoples of God. Israel is a "nation," not a spiritual entity. Dispensationalists fail to address the fact that the Old Testament promises to Israel will be fulfilled literally in the Millennium, but ONLY by the righteous remnant who are raised at the resurrection of the Just… Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" as a nation, yet they fail to clearly distinguish the believers from the unbelievers within Israel. Consequently, they speak of the Old Testament promises being fulfilled for "Israel" in the Millennium, yet imply that this is merely all the Jews still alive after the tribulation. They have forgotten about all of the saints of Hebrews 11 from the Old Testament, who will receive the literal fulfillment of those promises to Israel in the Millennium, in resurrected bodies.” (Warner)

5. “Multiple Plans of Salvation”

“Many traditional dispensationalists have devised different plans of salvation for Israel and the Church. Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith. Progressive dispensationalists see only one means of eternal salvation, through the blood of Christ. All saints are united in Christ by the blood of Christ, regardless of whether they lived before or after the cross.” (Warner)

What is a Dispensation?

According to the PD, a dispensation is defined in a very similar way to the way it is defined by Ryrie. The difference is more between the way each of the dispensations relate to one another, and the possible overlap of certain elements which Ryrie and Classic/Historical Dispensationalism would maintain strict separation, such as the fulfillment of the promises God made to the nation of Israel.

What are the Distinctives of Dispensationalism?

As listed by Jack Brooks, here are the distinct differences between PD and other forms of Dispensationalism:

1. One plan of salvation.

It seams to me that many sources that claim the progressive dispensational label also criticize (at least the classic/historical form) former expressions of dispensationalism as teaching two ways of salvation, one under law and one under grace, so it is not just the covenant theologian who has made this appraisal.

2. Four dispensations:

Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial, and Zionic (which would include an earthly millennial reign and the eternal state)

3. One people of God.

“The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct.” (Jack Brooks in, Progressive Dispensationalism: What is it?”

4. Complimentary hermeneutics.

“The old claim that a consistent grammatical-historical method of interpretation will always produce traditional dispensationalists is demonstrably untrue. The NT doesn’t follow Charles Ryrie’s definition of “consistent literalism” in the way that it handles OT prophecy… The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.” (Brooks)

5. An “already/not” yet view of the kingdom

“The Kingdom of God’s blessings are mostly reserved for Christ’s second advent, but parts of it are manifested today through the Holy Spirit. The geo-political aspects will occur in the future.” (Brooks)

6. Some degree of present Davidic reign.

“Christ’s Davidic reign began in part when He ascended to the right hand of the Father. Some of the Davidic promises have been fulfilled, many others must wait until Christ returns. Salvation blessings are mediated to us through Jesus, who fulfilled Psalm 110:1-2. “Christ” and “Son of God” were both Davidic titles. Jesus’ priesthood is that of Melchizedek, an office originally given to David. Jesus’ Davidic kingship was the method by which God would fulfill all of His promises to Abraham (Luke 1:55)” (Brooks)

Brooks goes on to compliment the professional contributions that progressive dispensationalists have made, and to describe why he still does consider himself a dispensationalist.

“However, I am not a covenant theologian! I am still dispensational, because I still believe:

• The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.)
• There will be a real 1,000 year reign of Christ some day in the future.
• The geo-political prophecies of the Old Testament will all be literally fulfilled.
• Ethnic Israel will be nationally converted in the end-times (Zech. 12.)
• Christians are not under the Law, including the Fourth Commandment.
• The Kingdom is not exhaustively experienced in the earthly church.
• Christ’s kingship is not fulfilled until He sits on David’s throne in Jerusalem.”

According to Brooks Dispensationalism is defined by several nonnegotiable items:

1. The Church began at Pentecost.
2. A future Kingdom, realized in a real 1ooo year period, in which ethnic Israel will be converted, they will be in the “Land”, worshipping in a literal temple with Christ as their King seated on the literal throne of David in literal Jerusalem.

Conclusions

In this study I have found a few things that seem to have bound all sorts of dispensationalists together since Darby; I do realize that I have left out considerable (valid or not) historical contributions that have been made to broaden this debate, men in other dispensational camps such as, E.W. Bullinger’s dispensationalism (classified as ‘ultra’) and Miles Stanford’s Pauline Dispensationalism.

After this brief and incomprehensive survey, I would say that the primary distinctions of Dispensationalism are these:

1. Tenacism - If an Old Testament prophesy is ever “expanded” in the New Testament that expansion can never negate, trump or “explain away” the grammatical/historical understanding of those prophesies. This is a primary distinction and I call it “Tenacism” because hold tenaciously to an exclusively grammatical/historical interpretation of Old Testament prophesies.
a. As a necessary consequence of (1), Israel and the Church cannot be confused in a comprehensive group of elect persons referred to as “God’s people” and the promises to each group must remain separated. This is a common distinction within the history of Dispensationalism.
i. Millennialism - As a consequence of (1a), a literal, millennial, earthy reign of Christ on David’s throne is also a common distinction.
ii. Temporalism - As a consequence of (1a), a literal temple (as described in Ezekiel’s prophesy) will be constructed in the millennial period, which would include the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Covenant sanctioned by God as a memorial of Christ’s death and part of the “rule of life” for the believers in that dispensation. This is also a common distinction.

So far as I can tell, there really is only one primary distinction of Dispensationalism. The subsequent ones are common, but not primary, and the latter distinctions all have the former as a prerequisite; even though the primary distinction does not force the common distinctions practically and in every case, they do seem to logically issue forth from Tenacism as their root.

What is Expository Preaching?

I believe that the definition of expository preaching has been on the minds of Christians worldwide recently. I think part of this is due to the revival of Reformed theology especially among younger Christians; this coupled with the reaction to the shallow theology of the seeker sensitive movement has cultivated a demand for the clear preaching of God's Word; the proclamation of the Gospel.

That being said, I humbly offer my simple and concise definition of Expository Preaching:

The act of exposing the Law and the Gospel through the history, prophecy, type, symbol, indicatives and imperatives of a particular passage of scripture.

Others have said that expository preaching is the act of telling people what the passage means, and I agree with this while I offer the above definition because the passage is always about God's relationship to men through the Law and the Gospel as they are presented in redemptive history .

Saturday, January 12, 2008

My Wife on the Girl Talk Blog

I'm sure that some of your wives are familiar with the "Girl Talk" blog. My wife Melissa submitted a story for the "Friday Funnies and they posted it yesterday; you can read it at their site here.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Prequel to “Responding to Dispensationalism”, Installation #18: Dispensational Differences; Ryrie or Post Chafer Dispensationalism

Ryrie or Post Chafer Dispensationalism

What is a Dispensation?

These are the words of Charles Ryrie as he describes in the second chapter of his work, Dispensationalism just what a dispensation is,

“A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment. But at this point we are seeking a definition, not a description. In using the word economy as the core of the definition, the emphasis is put on the biblical meaning of the word itself. Economy also suggests that certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar. Differing political and economic economies are not completely different, yet they are distinguishably different. Communistic and capitalistic economies are basically different, and yet there are functions, features, and items in these opposing economies that are the same. Likewise, in the different economies of God's running the affairs of this world certain features are similar. However, the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations. These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.”

Ryrie continues by saying this, “The phrase "the outworking of God's purpose" in the definition reminds us that the viewpoint in distinguishing the dispensations is God's, not man's. The dispensations are economies instituted and brought to their purposeful conclusion by God. The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God. Erich Sauer states it this way:

A new period always begins only when from the side of God a change is introduced in the composition of the principles valid up to that time; that is, when from the side of God three things concur:

1. A continuance of certain ordinances valid until then;
2. An annulment of other regulations until then valid;
3. A fresh introduction of new principles not before valid.’ [15]

To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His householdworld God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.”
Underlining is mine.

What are the Distinctives of Dispensationalism?

Though in this post I have intended to show the dissimilarities between the classic/historical and the Ryrie type of dispensationalism or where I believe Ryrie has departed from the historical expression of it. Ryrie himself would claim to share the same hermeneutic as his distant predecessors, and the following quote is an interesting piece of evidence in that regard. “Nondispensational interpreters (of the covenant theology school) have been guilty of reading back (and sometimes forcing) the teaching of the New Testament into the Old, especially in an effort to substantiate their doctrine of salvation in the Old Testament.” Underlining is mine.

This quote is taken from the same chapter quoted above, but under the section titled, “THE RELATION OF THE DISPENSATIONS TO PROGRESSIVE REVELATION”. I believe it is Ryrie’s attempt to describe what is at the heart of the matter concerning why covenant theologians see more unity in the two testaments, and his attempt at pin pointing the source motivation behind a hermeneutical principle that is in fact held very dear by covenant theologians. From this section alone, one problem I see in Ryrie’s interpretation of the covenant theologian’s involvement in the controversy is that he seems to think that we either believe that their in NO DISUNITY between the two testaments, or that the system doesn’t logically allow for any. Either way, he would be wrong in that analysis, covenant theology in fact does see forms of disunity between the testaments; one very important one is the disunity of the forms of worship regarding the nation of Israel and the Church. And in Reformed Baptist circles, they even see disunity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, two sacraments that are very important to each of their respective covenantal structures. Yet another quote from the next section of his chapter, titled “CHARACTERISTICS OF A DISPENSATION” he has this to say, “ ‘Through Him everyone who believes is freed [justified] from all things, from which you could not be freed [justified] through the Law of Moses’ (Acts 13:39). Here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world regarding man's responsibility in relation to the most important area of justification. Whatever his responsibility was under the Mosaic Law may be left unspecified at present (see chapter 6), but with the coming of Christ the requirement for justification became faith in Him. This, too, is obviously a distinctive stage in the progress of revelation. Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated, since the economy and responsibility changed and the new revelation was given.” Underlining is mine.

Obviously, Ryrie displays a surface misunderstanding of Acts 13:39. It is clear in the context that Paul's intention was to remind everyone that no one can be saved by obedience to the Law of Moses. Paul doesn't limit that statement to his present audience rather, he actually links his statements of Christ and His sufficiency to free dead men to what God promised to the fathers (v. 33). This causes us to believe that the application of Christ's righteousness for justification is transdispensational in its efficacy.

These two quotes appear to contradict Ryrie's statements that affirm his belief in one way of salvation...so what does he mean by one way?

Listen to Ryrie's words here as he answers my question, "The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation." Ryrie distinguishes between what he calls the object of faith and the content of faith. In his mind, the object of faith is a constant--God, but this object is quite vague--were the people of God in the dispensation of the Law only theists who obeyed the Law of Moses? Certainly covenant theologians do not assert that the average Israelite would have known that Jesus of Nazareth would be the Messiah, but they would assert that they would have known that the sacrifices were symbols ans shadows of someone to come; if the average Israelite believed that the sacrifices were an end in themselves, sufficient to work their salvation, then he wasn't saved. Ryrie continues on to say that the content of one's faith is different. The problem I see with Ryrie's attempted explanation is the definitions of content and object. He defines the Object as God, but what could be the possible difference in the content of faith of the Old testament saints and the New; is the quantity of the content different; does he infer that the Israelite's faith was only in God the Father, while the Christian's faith is in God the Son and His work?

We can definitely say that Ryrie and present dispensationalists say that they do not teach multiple ways of salvation in regards to the necessity of faith in every dispensation, but it is the object of this faith that is dispensationally specific. It is at this point that I believe Dispensationalism is tangential to Arminianism, and I believe that this difference was much more pronounced as one travels further back in the history of dispensational theology. One of the purposes of Ryrie's book in 1965, Dispensationalism Today was to make an attempt to clarify statements made by Scofield onto which covenant theologians have latched and charged Scofield and Dispensationalism as a whole with teaching two ways of salvation.

"Ryrie asserted that earlier dispensationalists, including Scofield, did not teach multiple ways of salvation. They made “unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today’s debate.” Ryrie also called on nondispensationalists to acknowledge the significant change in the New Scofield Bible regarding John 1:17 in which the controversial wording was removed and a clear statement of one way of salvation was affirmed."--Vlach in his article, Does Dispensationalism Teach Multiple Ways of Salvation?

Here is the 1917 version of Scofields' notes on John 1:17, "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation," I fail to see a huge improvement.

Even though Darby, Scofield, (in his later redaction of a questionable comment he made in the first version of his reference notes on John 1:17) Chafer, Ryrie and other dispensationalists affirm that there is only one transdispensational way of salvation, I think it is symptomatic of their hermeneutical errors and the faults of in their system when they make statements that open their theology up for such criticism that has been offered by covenant theologians; they do not have a system that guards them against making such vague and confusing comments.

Obviously, I think Ryrie, Vlach and others are wrong to give Scofield and Chafer so much credit.

Just listen to the words of Chafer, "A distinction must be observed here between just men of the Old Testament and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. . . . men were therefore just because of their own works for God whereas New Testament justification is God's work for man in answer to faith (Rom. 5:1)."--an excerpt from his systematic theology. It doesn't matter what era of human history Chafer wrote in after the Reformation, prior to the onset of dispensational theology, this statement would never had been viewed as orthodox, thus it is not the "unguarded statement" that Ryrie and others would like for it to be, it is instead the consistent theological outworking of a man who thoughts had been bathed in dispensational systematics; he certainly had thought very clearly about it and ever since the Reformation no one could make such a statement in an unguarded fashion unless one was utterly ignorant of historical theology.

Now regarding the stated particularities of Ryrie or Post Chafer Dispensationalism:

According to his 1965 work, Dispensationalism Today, Ryrie makes these three basic distinctions between dispensational and non-dispensational hermeneutics,

1. A clear distinction between Israel and the Church.
2. A “literal” hermeneutic.
3. The overarching purpose of God in the history of the world is His glory.

Much could be said about those three distinctions, it is plain that Covenant Theology would take issue with the first, but the second, as it is stated is too vague because covenant theology also affirms the “literal” interpretation of scripture when it is clearly right to do so, i.e., in historical narrative, but it also relies on the context of genre to corroborate its interpretation of passages, especially when the “plain” meaning of the text offends the hermeneutical principle of the analogy if faith. It is also not helpful to infer such a dichotomy between the two systems on this basis because the dispensationalist also takes a non-literal interpretation of certain portions of scripture, thus perhaps changing their hermeneutic when it suits them. So I submit that John Feinberg makes a more astute observation of the real differences that exist between covenant and dispensational theologians at this point, “The difference is not literalism v. non-literalism, but different understandings of what constitutes literal hermeneutics.”

Covenant theologians all see the glory of God as primary--the Westminster Confession of Faith says that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Perhaps Ryrie's motivation to state #3 as a distinctive has something to do with the fact that he recognises the underlying man-centeredness of his system, "The dispensations are economies instituted and brought to their purposeful conclusion by God. The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God." For the same reason that current dispensationalist must, time and time again remind their critics that their system teaches only one way of salvation, their critics must also be reminded that their system is not overly man-centered, because the apparent logical conclusions lead outsiders to make such critiques. But I now finally digress; in its inception, the point of this section of this article was not actually to refute the errors I find in dispensational theology but only to examine the similarities and differences between those who call themselves dispensationalist.

Presuppositions:

1. It is incorrect to “re-interpret” the Old Testament in light of the New. This assumption is basic to all the others, and in it there is a rudimentary misunderstanding of what covenant theologians say about the issue. It is clear that covenant theologians believe in the priority of the New Testament because the revelation of God truly is progressive, to the point that the latter Words must be used to help us fully understand the meaning of the former; the covenant theologian does not dismiss or "reinterpret" the grammatical/historical meaning of the Old Testament passages, but he does see that in many cases (prophetic passages in particular) God may not have intended for all the future implications of a prophecy to be fully understood by their immediate recipients, thus there really are two meanings to many of the Old Testament prophecies: its historical meaning and its spiritual meaning, this is part of the “redemptive historical” view. One very clear instance of this is the way Paul views the two women of Galatians 4:22-26. Once a New Testament text explains the spiritual portion of an Old Testament text, then that too, in some sense, becomes part of its historical meaning. The redemptive historical view does not distort the historical/grammatical meaning of an Old Testament prophesy but instead it amplifies it. This is the reason many dispensationalists do not see Christ in the Old testament, because it really isn't, to us in the present, a story all about Him if it wasn't a story about Him then, to those receiving the scriptures. I say that a Christless Old testament leads, for those privy only to Old Testament revelation, a Christless eternity, thus some of the contorted eschatological views held by dispensationalist regarding the separation of the "two peoples of God": the Church and Israel even into eternity.

2. The dealings of God with the Church are unique to this present age. This is perhaps the most difficult of the items I am referring to as presuppositions. Obviously, I think that this thought in the backs of dispensational minds as they read scripture, leads them to misread and misunderstand portions of the Bible because of the hermeneutical system they’ve adopted, but it would be easy to misunderstanding this dispensational thought, because I believe it to be the logical and consistent result of the system. The word, “unique” used in the statement above is not just of my choosing as I attempt to describe dispensational presuppositions, it is one used by them the way I have used it above, and so it begs the questions, “what is unique about the church; is it the way, the means, the manner in which its members are saved?.” Though I do believe that it is clear that for classical/historical Dispensationalism, the content of the faith of Old Testament saints in the age of “Law” was not the merits of Christ, but that the merits of Christ were only the grounds by which all those who were obedient to the Law of Moses were saved (in part, because of its nearly Arminian soteriology) thus as individual saints the content of their faith would not be the coming Christ but rather, it would be their own obedience to the Mosaic Laws—that was the way they found favor and continued in favor with God. One could say that the difference in the salvation for Old and New testament saints in Dispensationalism is that the instrument of justification was, for the saint under the Mosaic economy, obedience to the Mosaic "rule of life", and for those in the church age, the instrument of justification is faith--not that the dispensationalist would say that there was no faith in the Old Testament, but it wasn't the instrument that God used to save those Old saints. Could a dispensationalist imagine the pastoral differences there? When one Old Testament Saint doubted his salvation, the priest would have to say, “…but remember that you have been circumcised, you have offered the appropriate sacrifices for your sins, and the Day of Atonement is before us and behind us…do not doubt God’s favor toward you, you have been an obedient child.” Grant it also that Covenant Theology does believe that there is uniqueness about the church, but this is a uniqueness acquired through varied forms of worship because all the Old Covenant shadows have been substantiated, and all the symbols have been recognized in Christ; The Temple, The Sabbath, The Rest, The Lamb, The Priest, The King, The Prophet, and The Counselor.

3. The Church in no way “supersedes” the nation of Israel as the people of God. My guess is that Ryrie and others make this assumption for the same reason that Darby did, they cannot reconcile the statements made to Israel in the Old Testament because they only read its passages in the historical/grammatical fashion, and refuse to allow the new testament to interpret those passages and the Old Testament types and shadows contained in them—they inevitably miss Christ in the Old Testament.

4. None of the promises God made to national Israel in the Old Testament are ever fulfilled by the Church. Same or similar words could be said here as were stated about the above two presumptions.

Large portions of this data were acquired from, Core Characteristics of Dispensationalism by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D., and What Is a Dispensation? Chapter 2 of Dispensationalism by Charles C. Ryrie.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Prequel to “Responding to Dispensationalism”, Installation #17: Dispensational Differences; Classic/Historical Dispensationalism

A Brief Autobiography

As I try to fully understand the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, I have come across a wide range of variances. I came from a dispensational background; though not all its elements were fully understood or proclaimed in a technical fashion, it was basically the default position. Later in life I embraced its doctrines as my own, especially after having attended a class at a local Bible college which had Charles Ryrie’s, Dispensationalism Today as the textbook. Around the same time I was also bathed in the speculative eschatology of the Left Behind series (though even it was understood to have veered away from what Ryrie called Dispensationalism). As I grew in my faith, God had me marry a beautiful young woman (who by the way attended that same college) and who also challenged several of my assumptions about God, man, and salvation. We attended a church near our home in Winston Salem, NC which was fertile ground for my coming to accept (through the proper exegesis of scripture) what I firmly now believe is the orthodox view regarding those matters, and at the very heart of the shift in my theology was this fact, belief does not precede the new birth, but rather, it proceeds from it. As short a sentence as that is, and as brief a statement it is on one’s theology, it turned my whole world upside down, or I should say, it turned my whole theological world right side up. Though I don’t consider my thoughts on this or any other theological topic as having been fully and perfectly formed, I do believe that they are far, far less malformed than in the previous 5 years of my journey with Christ.

I now want to proceed with the intention I set forth at the end of my last post in this series, I want to briefly present some similarities and distinctions between several forms of Dispensationalism. We must first restate the fact that, like Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism is not simply a collection of unrelated theological “truths” that must be considered by their individual value rather, they are both greater than the sum of their parts regarding the fact that they are both systems by which one is encouraged to interpret Holy writ in a degree of consistency internal to each different system, and based on the presupposed interpretations of several basic scriptural concepts. The type of Dispensationalism I will attempt to describe in this post is of the classic or historical sort.

Classic/Historical Dispensationalism

What is a Dispensation?

These are the words of C. I. Scofield as he describes for readers just what a dispensation is, “These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind, in respect of two questions, of sin, and of man's responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment - marking his utter failure in every dispensation.” Underlining is mine.

What are the Distinctives of Dispensationalism?

I believe that it is historically responsible to claim that J. N. Darby spearheaded the dispensational hermeneutic, having taken advantage of their idea of the homogeny between clergy and laity (not for this purpose alone), through the context of separatist Brethren theology. His idea of Dispensationalism is what I will refer to as the classical or historical sort. This was later popularised in the Scofield Reference Bible and disseminated through Dallas Seminary by it's founder, Lewis Sperry Chafer. The following are at least a few fundamentally important particulars in this category:

1. The Church and any form of Israel (spiritual or physical) are always and forever to be considered distinct, not only in the covenantal promises God has made to each body, but also in the forms of worship that are ultimately considered by God as suitable to His holiness and are prescribed to each body differently as separated in His council and by the dispensational dealings with the two eternally distinct groups.

a. As a consequence, God’s dealings with “the Church” group are entirely parenthetical in regards to His dealings with the nation of Israel, and especially the elect remnant which is relegated to only exist as a segment of the nation of Israel—which is considered by the New Testament writers as the spiritual Israel; recipients of the New Covenant, of whom Jeremiah prophesied in the 31st chapter, and to whom God has promised to restore the physical earthy temple. In said temple, physical sacrifices will be made, thus fulfilling the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant and obliging God to rightly apply all of those promises to a completely future, natural Israel which God has preserved for the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the physical throne in Jerusalem.

2. The New Testament believer does not have to obey the Law of Moses to be saved.
a. Contained in the negative statement made above is the possible inference that the Old Testament believer did have to obey the Law to be saved.

3. The covenant promises made to Abraham are gained by national Israel alone, through their obedience, in order to remain in the land which God provided in that covenant.

Scofield’s Contribution

Many present dispensationalist leaders have complained about covenant theologians when they strongly criticise their theology and hermeneutic, such covenental authors as John Gerstner have been accused of having character flaws due to his bold claims against them, but I will remind them that such criticism is not one sided. Take for instance the scathing words of Miles Stanford, and even these words from C. I. Scofield in his work called Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,

“The Word of Truth, then, has right divisions, and it must be evident that, as one cannot be 'a workman that needeth not to be ashamed' without observing them, so any study of that Word which ignores these divisions must be in large measure profitless and confusing. The purpose of this pamphlet is to indicate the more important divisions of the Word of Truth...”

The pamphlet was such that it presented the dispensational hermeneutic, as in Scofield’s own words, as the important truths necessary for dividing the Word rightly, thus hermeneutical systems opposing Dispensationalism, at least in Scofield’s mind, were “in large measure profitless and confusing”. So, let us not criticise one another for standing boldly for what we think is right, and boldly against that which we think is, “in large measure profitless and confusing”, as I believe the rudiments of dispensational theology to be.

Dispensational Presuppositions:

1. The prophetic use of the word “Israel” in the Old Testament can never (in its historical context nor regarding any part of its fulfillment) mean anything except that national state set up by God, through Moses, with the "children of Abraham". “Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfillment of prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion... prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal” –Scofield.

2. The “test” which must be passed, or the condition which individuals must meet regarding their salvation, differs from dispensation to dispensation. “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ... The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church...”
And this regarding the Abrahamic Covenant, “The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing... The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19. 8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Ex. 19. 4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law”—Scofield.

So in the dispensation of Law, which according to Scofield was from Moses to Christ's death, the test or condition for salvation was legal obedience to the Mosaic laws, but in the dispensation of grace, which according to Scofield is to be from Christ's death to the rapture, the test or condition for salvation is accepting Christ as the redeemer of one's soul--if this is not two different ways of salvation, then I don't know what could possible qualify to be. It is very clear from the writings of Darby, Scofield and Chafer that they thoroughly rejected the Reformation doctrines of depravity and unconditional election; in the area of original sin they at least tended toward Wesleyanism if not Arminianism itself. Note here a paper written by a Brethren and dispensational fellow to Darby, Mackintosh, as he described Calvinism and Arminianism as "unbalanced".

3. Christ and the gospel records both exist under the dispensation of Law. Christ and Paul offered two different kingdoms, and the words of the gospels are no more a real part of the “New Testament” than are the words of Malachi. “The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews... The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace... the doctrines of Grace are to be sought in the Epistles not in the Gospels.”—Scofield.

What More Must be Said?

If one does need more proof that this form of Dispensationalism held to two different ways of salvation, read these words of Lewis Sperry Chafer

“...with the call of Abraham and the giving of the Law and all that followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into favour with God... These systems [of law and grace] do set up conflicting and opposing principles. But since these difficulties appear only when an attempt is made to coalesce systems, elements, and principles which God has separated, the conflicts really do not exist at all outside these unwarranted unifying efforts...”—from the work of Lewis Sperry Chafer in the book, Dispensationalism