In Closing
Dispensationalism is a system that is constantly maturing. It is not an “aberration”, as some call it, but a legitimate system based upon sound principles of Scriptural interpretation. It does not rob the believer of the Scriptures, but opens the Bible up to the believer shedding new light on passages. It does not take deep theological training to understand the system known as Dispensationalism because it encourages interpretation of the Bible, not on some sort of allegorical, typological language, but upon the plain, normal sense of a word. In the Dispensational system, anyone can understand the Scriptures.
The main purpose of this brief study was to introduce students of the Bible to this system and give them some definitions and some understanding of the issues involved in Dispensationalism. I gave a definition of Dispensationalism. I examined the foundations of Dispensationalism. I looked at a brief history of Dispensationalism.
I also explored some of the systems that are contrary to Dispensationalism including Progressive Dispensationalism which is becoming a more popular system everyday. I have a few friends who have left the Dispensationalism camp to become Progressive Dispensationalists. The sad thing is that one or two of them have embraced a belief in Historic premillennialism. I also pointed out a few things about “ultradispensationalism”.
The final studies just pointed out the Bible, Salvation, and Prophecy in Dispensationalism in a brief way. I mainly wanted to highlight those three issues because they seem to be so important to the Dispensational system. One thing I did not explore was the difference between
In closing, I want to remind the reader that this was study was not intended as an apologetic for Dispensationalism. I hope that the reader did walk away with a better understanding of the system, and perhaps any misinformation that may have been received from other sources has been corrected. As Dispensationalism moves into the future, the hope is that others will begin to see the truth of this Scriptural teaching and apply it to their own Bible studies. I have been a Dispensationalist for a few years now and it has been rewarding to apply those principles and concepts to my own study of the Scripture. May the Holy Spirit bless your study of the Bible also.
UltraDispensationalism
I just want to mention one more system of importance when discussing Dispensationalism. This is the system commonly called “ultradispensationalism”. Of course, I believe they should be called Mid-Acts or Post-Acts Dispensationalists instead of “ultradispensationalists” because “ultra” is a relative term. I am considered “ultra” by some because I believe the Church began at Acts 2. However, just for ease of reference, I will use the term “ultradispensationalist” in this study.
Now, what do ultradispensationalists believe? Well, there are two groups. The first group believes that the Church began in Acts 28. Up until that point, the Apostles had been preaching “the Gospel of the Kingdom” and offering the Kingdom to the Jews. Churches referred to during this time are each local bodies, but they do not comprise the Body of Christ. When the Jews rejected in
The second group believes that the Church began in Acts 9 (Some believe in Acts 13). Up until that point, God had been dealing with
Now, ultradispensationalists make some good points about some things. In fact, I agree with ultradispensationalists on many issues and I even once entertained the ideal of Acts 9 Dispensationalism, but there are problems in the system. The one big one is the ideal that Paul and Peter were at odds with one another. Aside from the disagreement recounted in Galatians, there is no ideal that these two were not in agreement. Just because one was the Apostle to the Gentiles and the other the Apostle to the Jews does not mean that they were both not preaching the same message. Paul still preached to Jews and Peter still preached to Gentiles. Both men taught salvation is through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The other big problem is the almost deification of Paul by many who are “ultradispensationalists”. The Lord Jesus Christ died for us on the Cross, not Paul. Some of my “ultradispensational” friends forget that at times I believe. Now, not all do this, but some do and I think it is a result of the system if one is not careful.
Before closing this brief section, I want to comment on H.A. Ironside’s book Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. I usually like Ironside, but lost a lot of respect for him after reading this book. He takes a few “ultradispensationalists” and makes their beliefs representative of the whole group. Just because a few believe in universalism and annihilationism does not mean they all believe in that nor does it mean that it is a natural result of the system. I know Acts 2 Dispensationalists who believe such nonsense. I have even heard Ironside quoted to back up such views. Does that mean Dr. Ironside holds such views? Of course not. The fact is that Ironside misrepresented the views of “ultradispensationalists” in his book. While I do agree that they are wrong about some things, I do not agree that they are heretics. I have met several who hold the “ultradispensational” view. They are missionary minded. They preach the same Gospel we preach which is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who died for us and rose from the dead. They are adamant believers in the inerrancy of Scriptures, the Trinity, the deity of the Lord Jesus, and several other doctrines all Christians hold dear. They are Premillennial and Pretribulational in every sense of the word.
My main purpose in writing this section is just to point out, in a very simple way, what “ultradispensationalists” believe and to also dispel some nasty things that are usually said those who hold such a view. Some of what they teach I have applied to my own study of the Scriptures and it has clarified some things for me. They teach the Word of God and are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Words From Augustine
I was thinking about Augustine this morning and thought to post a few quotes from him.
Unless you believe, you will not understand.
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.
Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.
Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.
Progressive Dispensationalism
The next system of interpretation to look at is Progressive Dispensationalism. Now, most people see the name and think that this is just another form of Dispensationalism. This is not true. It is actually a completely new system of theological interpretation. Progressive Dispensationalism is not a revised form of Dispensationalism, but a brand new system of interpretation.
Charles Ryrie gives a listing of seven basic tenets of Progressive Dispensationalism. They are:
1 The kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history.
2 Within biblical history there are four dispensational eras.
3 Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic reign in heaven at the right hand of the Father, which equals the throne of David, though He not yet reigns as Davidic king on earth during the Millennium.
4 Likewise, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yet fully realized until the Millennium.
5 The concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid.
6 A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside a literal hermeneutic. This means that the New Testament makes complementary changes to Old Testament promises without jettisoning those original promises.
7 The one divine plan of holistic redemption encompasses all people and all areas of human life — personal, societal, cultural, and political. 1
Now, if we examine these in the light of the basic tenets of Dispensationalism (literal interpretation, division of Israel and Church, and God’s glory centered purpose), it is seen that Progressive Dispensationalism is a radical departure from Dispensational thought. First off, Progressive Dispensationalists do not believe in a literal hermeneutic alone. They believe that the meaning of texts can change without taking away from the original meaning. The New Testament does change and advance Old Testament promises, but it does not change the original promise. The promises in the Old Testament to Israel are already being partially fulfilled in the Church, but they are not yet fully fulfilled and will not be until the Kingdom. This is called complimentary hermeneutics. A good example of the results of this type of interpretation is the Progressive Dispensational view of the throne of David. They believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is already on the throne of David (as they allege the New Testament shows), but that does not negate the Lord Jesus from reigning on the throne of David here on Earth as promised in the Old Testament.
The Progressive Dispensationalist also does not differentiate between the Church and Israel. Robert Saucy, a Progressive Dispensationalist, writes, “ According to Paul, baptism with the Spirit forms the body of Christ. The body, in turn, is frequently identified with the church. From this we could conclude that all participants in the new covenant, including the nation of Israel, are included in the church as the body of Christ and therefore any distinction between Israel and the church–which is the heart of dispensationalists’ interpretation–is prohibited.”2 The Progressive Dispensationalist does not believe that God has a distinct plan for the Church and a distinct plan for Israel. They see the historical differences between the Church and Israel, but they do not see the Heavenly calling of the Church versus the Earthly calling of Israel. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock write, “The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles), nor a competing nation (alongside Israel and Gentile nations), nor is it a group of angelic-like humans destined for the heavens in contrast to the rest of redeemed humanity on earth.”3
I have just scratched the surface of Progressive Dispensationalism. The main ideal I want to get across in closing is that Progressive Dispensationalism is not Dispensationalism. Keith Mathison, who is no friend to Dispensationalism, makes a good observation when he says, “The church suffers far too much when people do not identify what they really believe. For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding, ‘progressive dispensationalists’ should no longer claim to be dispensational.”4 Postmillennialist KennethGentry believes that advocates of progressive dispensationalism should abandon the term dispensationalism and use the word “covenantalism” instead since the view “comes close to a more covenantal understanding of development of God’s purpose in redemptive history.”5 Progressive Dispensationalists have introduced an almagamation of Covenant theology and Dispensational theology. They are only Dispensationalists in the absolute broadest sense of the word.
ENDNOTES
1 Ryrie, Charles. Dispensationalism. (Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1995), p.164.
2 Saucy, Robert. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. (Zondervan Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1993), pp. 183-184.
3 Blaising , Craig and Bock, Darrell Progressive Dispensationalism . (Baker Academic Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000), p.259
4 Mathison, Keith A., Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1995), 136-137.
5 Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr., “The Progressive Nature of Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. LX, No. 8 (August, 1995), 2.
Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism
The next few sections will consist of pointing out some views that are counter to classic Dispensationalism. It is not my purpose to completely discredit the systems. My only reason for looking at them is to point out what they believe and show a few points of disagreement with the Dispensational system. In looking at them, perhaps, a person can better understand the Dispensational system of interpretation.
The first of these is what is called “Covenant theology”. The proponents of this system believe God deals with man on the basis of covenants rather then dispensations. Now, dispensationalists believe that God deals with man on the basis of covenants as well, but covenant theologians give a strong place to covenants. Covenant theologians see the whole of Scripture as covenantal in theme and structure. Further, where the dispensationalist sees many covenants (Abrahamic Covenant, Palestinian Covenant, New Covenant, etc.), the covenant theologian sees two basic covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The two covenants are the covenant of works in the Old Testament made between God and Adam, and the Covenant of Grace between the Father and the Son where the Father promised to give the Son the elect and the Son must redeem them. Some frame these two covenants within a third covenant called the covenant of redemption.
The first thing that must be realized is that Covenant Theology attempts to read the entire New Testament back in to the Old Testament. In order to do that, there is a forced interpretation. I have already pointed out prophecy as a prime example. Covenant theologians attempt to make the Church Israel. Many also attempt to make the promises upon Israel to relate to countries today, such as the United States or Germany.
There is also the ideal of Law. Many Covenant theologians attempt to say the moral part of the Law is enjoining upon believers while throwing out the priestly system and the civil law as being done away with. In order to do this, they employ fanciful systems of typology, extreme examples of allegory, and forced exegesis of several New Testament passages. One covenant theologian writes, “The covenant of law which God made with Israel has features that have application only to the nation of Israel as it existed during the Old Testament period. It is this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant which makes it very difficult to interpret correctly. When does this covenant address the issue of Israel as a nation and when does it address the larger scope of the progress of the Gospel? This question is not always easy to answer.”
Another problem of Covenant theology is their teaching on the ideal of salvation throughout the ages. They accuse the Dispensationalist of teaching different ways of salvation, but then often do the same. Covenant theologians teach the ideal that Dispensationalists teach that salvation could come by obedience to the Law, but then Covenant theologians make comments like “The law is a declaration of the will of God for man’s salvation.” Neither side believes there are different ways of salvation, they just differ in their interpretation and application of the Law. Both sides also suffer from authors and teachers who maybe at times do not think about what they are saying.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (7:2) reads, “ The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” The natural conclusion from this teaching is that Adam could have saved himself. The natural ideal is that there are two ways of salvation in history. Man is depraved, but could be saved by his works if he could do them. Also, the ideal of a covenant of works is foreign to Scripture. It is nowhere explicitly stated and is just a much a product of Biblical interpretation as the Dispensational system.
Covenant theology is one of the more popular systems that stand in contradistinction to Dispensationalism. Many adhere to this system of interpreting the Bible. I, for one, disagree with the system for numerous reasons. That does not mean that I think Covenant theologians are evil, just that they are wrong in their system of interpretation. It also does not mean that I do not agree with them on other topics.
Next Page »