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.
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
2 comments:
For an interesting read, Google "Pretrib Rapture Diehards" and "Famous Rapture Watchers." Marge (The author of them also wrote the current bestseller entitled THE RAPTURE PLOT - which I bought at Armageddon Books online.)
Anon,
I'm a bit confused about your post, are you suggesting these books/documents to be positive? I thought that maybe you disagreed with those books and wanted to share their humor. Have you read other articles I have written in this series?
Post a Comment