I got a little annoyed by a Babylon Bee article last week – not a lot, just a little. I get a little annoyed whenever people take cheap shots at Dispensationalism. And it happens a lot.
I realize that we are fair game. The spirit of the age is that Dispensationalism is a relic of our past, that we’ve evolved past such a view, that it is for rubes and rednecks, but that no serious student of the Bible would actually hold such a doctrine today. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone share how they used to be one of those dispensationalists, but then they “studied the Bible for themselves” and had seen the light and left such foolish things behind.
Here’s what annoys me – besides the disrespect and condescension constantly shown for a doctrine held by sincere Christians. It is that the criticisms are so often aimed at things that Dispensationalists, at least more scholarly and grounded Dispensationalists, don’t actually teach. I am more than aware that my camp has more than its fair share of wingnuts and wackadoodles, but Dispensationalism may be the only doctrine that people seem to think they have refuted simply by refuting the abuses of the doctrine.
Calvinists recoil when they are accused of “being against evangelism.” I’ve actually met Calvinists who thought evangelism was useless – why bother, they ask, when God has already settled it? But they are not the norm in Calvinism. Catholicism does not teach the worship of Mary and yet many Catholics, especially in third world countries, are more devoted to Mary than to her Son. I’m not wanting to open theological cans of worms, but to point out that most theological movements have been twisted, and we must deal with what the doctrine teaches in its purest form, not simply refute the twistings and the perversions.
Three Types of Dispensationalism
Actually, Dispensationalism has been through many forms. While the haters love to point out that it is a relatively recent innovation as a theological system, many of its key components can be traced back much earlier. Even after the organization of the doctrine there have been several iterations. C.I. Scofield is famous for his notes in the Scofield Study Bible, but when I attended Dallas Seminary in the 70s, Scofield Bibles were rarer than college degrees among SEC football players. In Bible study classes, we were forbidden from using them and heaven help the man who footnoted Scofield! The classic Dispensationalism of Walvoord, Ryrie, and Pentecost drew on but also rejected much of Scofield’s teaching. Today, progressive Dispensationalism has staked out a moderated position. Dispensationalism is hardly a monolithic view, any more than Calvinism or even the Baptist faith is. But I’m not talking about theological differentiations here. I’m talking about something more practical.
- There is populist Dispensationalism.
This is what you encountered in your church growing up and what many react to when they reject the doctrine. It views other eschatological systems not only as wrong but as evidence of theological drift. “If you ain’t pre-trib, you must be pre-Lib!” It tends to engage in reading back events into the Bible, is completely focused on Israel, and can be just as annoying as people admit.
I would caution, though, that you sheath your swords a little. I grew up around populist dispensationalists. They are loyal, Bible-loving, gospel-proclaiming Christians. Even if they are a bit annoying at times, they don’t deserve to be treated as if they are the crazy uncles of the church at the Thanksgiving dinner. They are the redeemed of Christ and perhaps they show imbalance and morbid fascination with end-times, but they are salt of the earth Christians.
- There is sensationalistic Dispensationalism.
The first was the fruit; this is the root. I remember the first Rapture fiction of the 60s and 70s. “Thief in the Night” (I have a friend who was in that). The books of Hal Lindsay and Salem Kirban. Of course, the “Left Behind” series of the 90s put sensationalistic Dispensationalism (or at least the pre-trib aspect of it) on the front pages. There were many radio and TV preachers like Jack and Rexella who saw prophetic portent in every headline.
Some of these were good men and women who got a little bit out of balance in their focus on the end times. Some, I’m convinced, are charlatans who saw the opportunity to cash in on the public’s fascination with populist eschatology.
Here’s the problem: when we studied eschatology at Dallas, a good part of our study was correcting misconceptions about what we believed as Dispensationalists.
We do not believe a lot of things people assume that we believe, because their exposure to Dispensationalism comes primarily from sensationalistic preachers and populist church members and Sunday School teachers.
- There is scholarly Dispensationalism.
I had a friend who was charismatic and a scholar, a Ph.D. His preferred Bible version was Nestle Aland. We used to joke about the oxymoron of “Charismatic scholar.” The same conundrum exists for many concerning dispensational doctrine. The assumption is that it is a foolish and childish doctrine for those who have not been enlightened. If you study and reach a level of maturity, you will abandon this foolishness.
But there exists a scholarly Dispensationalism carried on by serious scholars. Mecca for this academic view is Dallas Seminary, of course, but it is not the only place. I studied there under brilliant men who were true scholars of God’s word and did not abandon this doctrine when they achieved their degrees.
If you are going to refute Dispensationalism, you need to refute academic dispensationalism, not just demean Jack and Rexella or reject the populist versions you have encountered. You need to read Pentecosts’ “Things to Come” to ground yourself in Classic Dispensationalism, then read some of the Progressive Dispensationalists to see how the doctrine has developed.
But now, to my point. I’d like to share some things that we Dispensationalists DON’T actually believe. If you believe we believe these things, you’ve been getting your viewpoint from the sensationalists or the populists.
Things Dispensationalists Do Not Actually Believe
- The church should be all about Israel.
Of course, Israel has a special place in any Christian’s heart, but the populist and sensationalist Dispensationalist would tell us that we must support Israel no matter what they do, and almost give the idea that it is noble and godly to despise Arabs.
I remember a professor in seminary confronting that view. We believe we live in the “church age.” In the future, after the church is taken away, Israel will be restored as the primary people of God. But today, our orders are to go into ALL the world and preach the gospel. Yes, Israel is sacred ground. Frankly, I love it and would live there if I could.
But Jesus died for Palestinian refugees as much as he died for Jews in Jerusalem. Today, God is calling out a people for his Son from every tribe and language on earth and there is no preference for Jews. Read Romans 2 and 11.
The mistake populists and sensationalists make is confusing the future with the present. Yes, we believe that Israel – the physical nation – is in God’s future. We reject replacement theology. The church may be “spiritual Israel” but the promises God made to physical Israel will be given to them in the future.
Dispensationalism does not demand a virulent or unthinking pro-Israel or anti-Arab stance. If you meet a Dispensationalist, he will likely be pro-Israel. But if he is a careful Dispensationalist, he will balance that with the realization that he is commanded to make disciples among Muslims as well; that the gospel reaches all nations.
- Every event in the news is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
Actually, we believe that is not true. Jesus could come back for the church at any moment – NOTHING has to happen first. The “signs of the times” that are predicted take place during the Tribulation. Are there things that are happening today that are interesting in terms of end times prophecy? To me, yes. But there’s not a single event today that is a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
Dispensationalists teach that the next event on God’s calendar is the sounding of the trumpet! Nothing has to take place between now and then.
As my dad used to say, “We are not looking for signs, we are listening for the Son.”
- Dispensationalists do not obsess about eschatology.
At Dallas, eschatology was a part of the systematic theology curriculum. Instead of one semester, you had four years of systematic theology, starting with Theology Proper your first year and going right through the major theological categories. Eschatology was one class in that 4 year track. And, of course, eschatology provided a framework for hermeneutics and study in other classes. But in my time at Dallas, we spent little time discussing eschatology.
The populists and sensationalists turn it into an obsession and everyone assumes that such is the norm. It is not. It is a theological and hermeneutical framework, but honestly, I think you could listen to my 11 years of preaching at Southern Hills and my Dispensationalist views would be in evidence only sometimes.
- Dispensationalists do not doubt the salvation of non-Dispensationalists.
Yes, I’ve heard it done. But it is not a view held by serious Dispensationalists. If someone in the church you grew up in claimed Amillennialists were liberals and probably hated Jesus and puppies, I can’t do anything about that, but be assured that is not the teaching of the scholarly version of Dispensationalism.
Do we believe our view is correct? Yes. Do we believe non-Dispensationalists make interpretational errors that cause them to make false conclusions in exegesis? Yes. But we do not question their faith, their love for Jesus, or the reality of their conversion.
What Do We Believe?
This is getting long, so let me just give a few categories of what we actually do thing matters.
- Revelation is futurist, not preterist.
We reject the arguments that Revelation is typically apocalyptic literature meant to describe the events of John’s day and believe it is futurist. This we hold in common with some other views.
- “Literal” hermeneutics are key.
Literal is probably not the best word, but it is the common one. We believe that a thousand years refers to a thousand years. We believe the 7 years is an actual 7 years. We accept that there are figures of speech in the Bible (no, Dispensationalists are not all idiots) but we think they should be taken in their most natural and plain meaning. It would take another post to argue this, of course. But the chief difference between eschatological views is actually hermeneutical.
- The distinction of Israel and the Church.
This is where Progressive Dispensationalism has done some interesting work, but we reject the idea that the promises of God to Abraham were taken from Israel and given to the church. We rely on Romans 11 which says that Israel was removed but will be re-grafted in after the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
- Salvation never changes, but its expression does.
This is way too complicated for a brief summary. But even those who reject Dispensationalism realize that things worked differently under the Law than they did after Pentecost. One is saved today by repenting of sins and putting faith in Jesus Christ. How did someone “get saved” in the Old Testament era? We have a lot of easy rubrics. “By looking forward to the death of Christ, just as we look back on it.” But is there evidence that anyone really understood that enough to have a conversion experience. Dispensationalism is a way of categorizing the changing expressions of faith during different epochs of God’s salvation history.
I’m not sure exactly what I’d like to accomplish with this post. I’d encourage some of my friends to understand that even those populist Dispensationalists are good people who love your Savior. Disrespect and disdain may feel good, but they are not helpful. On the other hand, if you are going to refute Dispensationalism, refute what we actually believe. Tearing down the teaching of the sensationalistic and obsessive Dispensationalists may be satisfying, but it is not sufficient.
You have to deal with what we really believe.
(Folks, the most devastating argument for my view is this – we have the best charts and graphs. If Amils can come up with a decent chart, I might give their view some credence. Show me the charts, guys!)
I have been ignoring the site for the last 5 or 6 days. Frankly, after the convention, I’m a bit burned out. I’m also gearing up with the team to get started on the Pastors Conference planning.
I’m looking forward to life settling down, but it doesn’t show much sign of that any time soon.
One correction you might need to make: “Calvinists recoil when they are accused of “being against Calvinism.” I’ve actually met Calvinists who thought evangelism was useless ”
Shouldn’t that read “of ‘being against evangelism'”?
Calvinists against Calvinism sounds Van Impian… 😉
Done
Dave, I may be misreading you, but some of your take on this in defending dispensationalists also seems like an attack on some dispensationalists. I have known and grown up with folks, church members who weren’t “scholars” — had never been to DTS or any other seminary — but were serious students of the Bible and were not “populist” or “sensationalist” dispensationalists. Just solid folks who believe the Bible and interpret it dispensationally. I get what you mean when you say that folks disputing with dispensationalism need to discuss the views of Walvoord and Ryrie, not just Jack and Rexella van Impe! I guess what I’m saying is there is some solid and legitimate ground that falls somewhere between the scholars and populist. (And you probably agree with it; I think some of the way you said some things just rubbed me the wrong way.) I’m not even sure what I’m saying!!
Well,, if you read what I said, you’ll see I said that while the populists tend to corrupt Dispensational doctrine, they are good, faithful believers who are not deserving of the ridicule they receive. I believe I said it twice, perhaps three times. The fact remains that populist doctrine does not represent the actual teaching of the doctrine.
I also said some of the sensationalist Dispensationalists are just a bit misguided – others I believe may be profit-motivated charlatans. For instance, I’m not a huge fan of the Left Behind series, but I think Lahaye is a solid man of God. Some of the others out there…I’m not so sure.
All of this is what I said in the piece and I stand by what I wrote. Yes, Dispensationalism is complicated and it tends to suffer from sensationalism and populism.
“The fact remains that populist doctrine does not represent the actual teaching of the doctrine.” Who gets to decide that and why?
Not really interested in an argument, Robert. Read the standard works on Dispensationalism if you are interested in classical Dispensationalism. If you are interested in arguing, I really don’t have the time.
No, I’m not interested in just arguing, and, yes, I have already read some of those works. But rather than continue down a line you find disagreeable, let me ask you one further question and then I’ll let it be.
Where would you put John Nelson Darby, Cyrus I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer in your three categories of dispensationalists?
I personally fall somewhere on the line between historic pre-mil and progressive dispy. In a past life I was a full out pre-mil pre-trib dispy, but I started to shy away from that after so many dispies I knew relied more on the Left Behind books and the notes in their end-times study bibles for their beliefs than the actual bible itself. To be sure, these were high schoolers and college students at the time I knew them, so their ability and desire to “dig deep” likely was not that strong, but still, it pushed me away.
And for the record, the only position I believe is “liberal” or more precisely heretical, is full preterism. I have serious reservations about partial preterists too.
You have reservations about me? A partial preterist post mil? I’m hurt. 🙂
I’m not optimistic to be pre-mil and to pessimistic to be post-mil #DatAmil 🙂
Dave,
Under what you believe #3:
“The distinction of Israel and the Church.
This is where Progressive Dispensationalism has done some interesting work, but we reject the idea that the promises of God to Abraham were taken from Israel and given to the church. We rely on Romans 11 which says that Israel was removed but will be re-grafted in after the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”
What I believe is somewhat different: The church has not replaced Israel, Those saved now are the children of Abraham, or true Israel, just as OT believers are true Israel. Looking at Romans 11, those saved now are grafted into Israel, into the true vine. And when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, ethnic Jews will be grafted in enmass as the Gospel fruit blossoms among them.
There isn’t a distinction between the Church and Israel: we are all Abraham’s children, all part of the Body of Christ, for Jesus has abolished the wall that was between the two and made us into one.
Good article. I grew up with the term Premillennial rather than Dispensationalist.
I remember years ago in seminary Dr. Leon McBeth announced in class he was going to tell us what Premillennialists believed. He then preceded to relate the most extreme Premillennial views as if that’s what we all believe. I raised my hand and said I was a Premillennialist and I did not believe any of what he just said. He angrily replied, well, that’s what they believe.
By the way, Dr. McBeth was a great history professor, but was terribly biased when it came to Premillennialism. Though he strongly reproved me for this comment and a few others in class, he gave me a higher grade than I expected. Maybe for class participation?
Dr. Paige Patterson gives an excellent summary of why he is a Premillennialist in his book, “Revelation,” The New American Commentary, B&H; 2012.
Premillennialism is not a Calvinist or Traditionalist thing. Many in both groups, and a number of other groups, are Premillennial.
But as you point out, we Premillennialists / Dispensationalists are always going to disagree on some details.
David R. Brumbelow
This is great stuff, Dave. I’m a Pre Trib, Pre Mil, myself. I’m not a hardcore Dispy, but I do lean that way, a lot, because I believe that’s what the Bible teaches.
David
I am 64 years old and spent my Junior High school years in an IFB church. ( I was startled recently to find out that Bob Jones and John R. Rice sort of parted ways). Pre-millineal and dispensationalist were on the church sign. Since this church was sure that each dispensation was 1000 years, doing the math indicated that the Rapture would occur in 1984. (7 year error in the Gregorian calender and 7 year tribulation) Around 1986 I went ,” Wait! Either the Rapture didn’t happen or I have been left behind.” Didn’t see much of the AntiChrist either.
This is a perfect example of common teachings that Dispensationalists don’t actually believe, but many seem to think we do.
Actually your post was the first time in 52 years I had even heard of 3 types of dispensationalism. I guess the church I attended would be “populist” since sensationalist had not yet developed. I do remember John R. Rice’s “Sword of the Lord” newsletter.
My dad was once an avid reader of that.
In re-reading your post, I am thinking the dispensationalist church I attended believed the 4 things that you say dispensationalists do not believe. Could the divide between the 3 groups be wider than presented?
On my computer I have a copy of the highly detailed and intricate chart produced by Clarence Larkin. Also there was a book called ” Mark of the Beast” by Peter Ruckman. My Dad was influenced by that and the Scofield bible. The Civil Rights Movement and the Catholic Church were seen as problems.
Lynwood,
I’ll say this….Progressive Dispensationalism is a good step in the right direction.
Larkin was the chart king.
I’ve been more of a dispy than I am today, but I still think dispensationalism has its value. I don’t think it should provide the foundation for a hermeneutic as to do so makes it a more contrived system, but I think it should provide context hermeneutically for the relevant passages. That said, I don’t take offense at Babylon Bee’s humor. I think it painted a nice caricature that was appropriately inaccurate. That’s what satire is supposed to do.
I’m Just an average wife and mother but a Calvinist and a pre-tribber just because after 35 years of walking with Christ and studying his word it just makes sense. Dispensationalism just makes sense. I understand the frustration you feel though. As a member of an SBC church I often feel like the black sheep. Our leaders in my church are maniacally Arminian and believe, I suppose, that I hate missions even though I’ve always said that the cooperative program is what attracts us to the SBC. Those who are against evangelism are being disobedient. It’s not our job to determine what we think is still worthwhile but to be obedient to what God has determined is worthwhile regardless of the generation we live in. I just find it all so interesting and somewhat tiring. Oh and btw, I’ve never met a Calvinist who didn’t believe in evangelism, most of my Calvinist friends are missionaries… ?
I used that as an example. I’d really like this not to be an argument about Calvinism.
Several years ago Christianity Today had a fairly long article dealing with changes in beliefs by dispensationalists over the years. Two professors from Dallas Seminary answered the question “To what do you attribute these changes?” with “interaction with the Scriptures.” That is a direct quote and surprised me when I saw it.
Dave,
I agree with everything you wrote in this article. I think you might be getting smarter.
Dave,
I have your election as PC President on my rapture chart…
Nerd
Lol
Excellent article Dave. Thank you.
Rob
Yep! and Dispensationalists need to stop calling Covenant Theology “Replacement Theology.” Calling it replacement theology reveals a misunderstanding of what Covenant Theology is. We need to represent each other correctly across the board. (By the way, I’m neither a Covenant Theologian or Dispensationalists)
Tyler, you doing believe that believers constitute Israel today?
I mean “don’t” not “doing”
Replacement theology is one aspect of Covenant theology, is it not?
The church replaces Israel AND receives the promises God made to Israel.
Dave, no CT is not replacement theology. This link is a good explanation. http://heidelblog.net/2013/08/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/
Les, that’s an interesting article. If I understand it correctly, it pretty much describes where my thinking is right now.
Les, the article you posted decries dispensational mischaracterizing of reformed theology, then it immediately misrepresents dispensational teaching. Dispensationalism doesn’t teach that the abrahamic covenant is a codicil of the Mosaic covenant, nor does it teach that the Mosaic covenant is permanent.
John Wylie,
The author says, “At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that….”
Dispy, as this article shows, is not monolithic in all aspects.
Jim, maybe you would identify with the Reformed Baptists Groups. They adhere to covenant theology.
http://www.theopedia.com/reformed-baptist
Les, that’s certainly possible. I have to admit that I’m not as well-studied on the matter as I would like. The first hermeneutic I was taught was dispensational (J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, Zondervan, 1947). I reject it now because it seems like significant portions of the hermeneutic is based on a systematic application of the dispensations instead of letting the study of dispensations be governed by the hermeneutic. I don’t know if Covenant Theology does this at all. The hermeneutic I learned at CIU was from Robertson McQuilkin’s Understanding and Applying the Bible and the course in hermeneutics I took a year or so ago from RBS was taught by Sam Waldron, whose teaching was very similar to McQuilkin’s. I know at least Waldron is an amil-er and I didn’t detect any sign of false construction like what I got from Hartill’s work. I myself have taught hermeneutics loosely based on McQuilkin’s work and a personal survey/criticism I made of Luther, Zwingli, and Erasmus a couple of decades ago.
As for eschatology, I’m historic premill and only Revelation 20 away from amil. The only thing holding me back on that point is that I think it’s a reference to the Hebrew millennial eschatology well-accepted at the time. That’s what the Jews in the Asian churches would have understood. It doesn’t prove the deal, but it’s enough to keep my judgment reserved on it.
Les, I see what you are talking about, but right after that one admission, the article straightway uses the term “dispensationalism” without said disclaimer. Like look at this quote, “4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. It makes the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.”
Further, the statement above is patently false. Dispensationalists of all stripes simply recognize that God’s covenant with Abraham was eternal, whereas the Mosaic covenant is not.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could buy into the Amillennial position. I read Riddlebarger’s book, and it was the biggest long way around the barn mess that I have ever seen. Amils have a lot more problems than just Revelation 20, although I admit that Revelation 20 is their biggest hurdle.
I don’t really see a problem in Rev. 20, at least from the preterist, post mil viewpoint.
Les, It sinks the Amil position. First of all, Revelation 20 eliminates what we call the general resurrection view, the idea that everyone will be resurrected at the same time. There is an obvious gap of time between the resurrection of saints and the lost. Second, it repeats the idea of 1000 years 6 times in the first 7 verses, thus at least given credibility to the idea of an actual millennium. Thirdly, the concept of Satan being bound and the Amil idea that he is currently in that state is just indefensible, because the language in Revelation 20 says that his binding will render Satan incapable of deceiving the nations. I could go on, but Revelation 20 is the death blow to any Amil interpretation.
Also, Les, in order to remove the hurdle of Revelation 20, Amils simply place a bizarre interpretation on the text. They essentially claim that the first resurrection spoken of in the chapter is the born again experience instead of the bodily resurrection of believers.
John,
I will be traveling today to Montgomery, AL and spending the day there meeting with family and some possible (hopefully) new supporters. So I doubt I’ll have much opportunity for interaction. But for now…
I do not argue for the amil position. I am a postmil guy. But in either case, we do not see the need to take all of Rev. 20 as literal. Especially we see no need to take the 1,000 years literally just as we see no need to read that Satan is literally bound with a literal chain for example. For sure we don’t think that the Lord owns the cattle ONLY on a literal 1000 hills (Psalm 50). I could go on about how the 1,000 need not be literal when reading such a highly symbolic book of the bible.
Dispensationalist John Walvoord talks about “revelation through symbols, as in this book.” He also writes: “Apocalyptic literature is in a place all by itself because all agree that this is not, strictly speaking, literal in its revelation. Outstanding examples, of course, are the Books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation.”
Anyway again, I do not argue for the amil position against which you are arguing.
Blessings brother.
I understand the “optimism” of the postmil view, but the scriptures seem uniform in predicting perilous times and the growth of evil as the return of Christ approaches, not the victory of the church. We are a faithful remnant till the end, when Jesus conquers.
Thank you Les. I agree that 1000 years could very well be a symbol of an indeterminant amount of time, but we must agree that it is some space of time, thus separating the resurrection of the just and the unjust. Of course, a spiritual creature would not be bound with a literal chain, but we can all agree he will be literally bound. I have no problem with the idea of symbolic language, but symbols generally symbolize something real. To simply dismiss the 1000 years as mere symbolism, but failing to identify what they symbolize is not an acceptable interpretation.
I do recognize that you weren’t defending the Amil position. Anyhow, have a great day with your family brother.
I am in the middle of reading through Progressive Dispensationalism, by Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, right now. It is dense reading, but very scholarly and very informative. I highly recommend theological students read this book before dismissing dispensationalism out of hand.
I actually hold to a more progressive dispensational view.
Yep.
I would argue that progressive dispensationalism is closer to historic premillennialism than it is the “classic” Darby/Scofield dispensationalism. I am not kidding when I say that one of the main reasons why I shy away from fully labeling myself a progressive dispensationalist is that I hate the political connotations of the word “progressive” and I hate the theological connotations of the word dispensationalist. If more people read Dave’s article (both dispies and anti-dispies) than maybe I would not have a problem with that second word. But alas, in the world we live in…its all down hill until Christ comes!!! 😛
Steven, I know of NO ONE (though I’m sure there are a few – probably in Indy Fundy Baptist circles) who still follows the Darby/Scofield view.
In the 70s, when I was at Dallas, Scofield was held in honor in some ways, but also roundly rejected in many others. Many of his ideas and systems had been rejected by Dispensationalism THEN and even more so NOW.
Forgive me Dave, maybe I am not well versed in the differences between the Darby/Scofield dispensationalism and the “modern” Tim LaHey “Left Behind series” dispensationalism.
Again, it’s the difference between the old style Scofield dispensationalism and the more modern scholarly development of Pentecost, Ryrie, Walvoord, et al, which then was built upon by the even more modern “Progressive Dispensationalism” that has developed in the last 20 to 30 years.
Scofield codified the doctrine in many ways, because he had the hubris to put his notes in a study Bible – something that at the time was unheard of and considered scandalous by many. Perhaps it still should be.
Then Chafer developed his “Systematic Theology” which was a significant step up from Scofield.
The Walvoord/Ryrie/Pentecost group developed the post-war system which took some steps away from Scofield on some issues (maybe “refining the system” might be more accurate?).
Progressive Dispensationalism is a little bit more of a refining, perhaps, and some of the more old school guys don’t like it.
A man like LaHaye fits into the classic Ryrie mold, with a few alterations, but he is not considered a great Dispensational scholar.
svmuschany, in his article What is Dispensationalism?,
Michael Vlach of The Master’s Seminary divides this way: 1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s, e.g. John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer); 2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985, e.g. John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain) and 3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present, e.g. Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy).
I should not have neglected to mention Vlach. In terms of modern work on Dispensationalism, he is about as good as it gets. And I think his terminology works pretty well, though I might quibble that Chafer would be a sort of bridge between category 1 and 2.
I never considered Chafer a bridge to “modified” Dispensationalism. He was a contemporary and friend of Scofield. I thought Scofield was a great influence on Chafer. However, Dave you are the DTS grad and surely know more than most about Chafer.
If all you know of Lahaye is the Left Behind Series, which I never read, then I encourage you to find a copy of his book, Revelation Illustrated and made Plain. I find this book helpful and it does follow Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost.
One danger of Calvinism is it “can” be a grid that some place on top of Scripture. Dispensationalism shares the same danger. I respect John Phillips and have read every word of his that is in print. However, at times he finds Dispensationalism in some verses that I can’t.
That is a danger with any theological system, Dean, that we begin to allow the system to govern scripture than to allow the scripture to govern the system.
I only say that because I don’t think that Chafer held to all the positions that Scofield did that were modified by the guys I sat under.
Frankly, I’m trying to remember what some of them were, but my brain isn’t functioning.
By the way, great article, Dave. Some great Bible scholars held to a dispensational view. And many others held to some form of pre-millenialism, like Spurgeon.
With ya, bro.
I never thought of CT or NCT as replacement theology. The church has not replaced Israel, the church has always been Israel (and vice versa).
Not sure I get that one, Bill.
Exactly Bill Mac. The church are the children of Abraham [Romans 4 and Galatians 2 + 3.
True Jews are those circumcised in the heart by the Spirit, Romans 2. The NT saints are grafted into the vine, Romans 11. That same vine will receive a multitude of ethnic Jews when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, Romans 11.
President Miller,
What do you believe regarding the idea that the seven churches of Asia represent dispensations of church history and can one reject that idea and still be considered a Dispensationalist? I ask because I am a pre trib rapturist but I have problems making the churches fit neatly into church history as representing time periods.
That is not an interpretation you get to from grammatical-historical hermeneutics and dispensationalists are supposed to be sticklers for that.
It’s interesting, but no, I don’t think that is a correct interpretation.
I don’t think that most of the more scholarly dispensationalists would advance that interpretation either. If you can’t get there from the text – and you most certainly can’t – then it’s suspect.
The point about Israel is important. Most of the committed dispys I know think that Israel can do no wrong, that whatever they do, we must support. If they have any criticism of Israel, it’s that they don’t simply annihilate the Palestinians. I had one man tell me that if we disagree with anything Israel does, we are cursing them.
I’ve met and know many “default dispys”, those that don’t care much about eschatology, but if pressed, and dispensationalism were explained, they would identify with it. I’ve never met a scholarly dispensationalist.
I wouldn’t say that there hasn’t been scholarly dispys. There’s Charles Ryrie, John MacArthur, and our own Dave Miller.
I am in no way a dispensational scholar. I intended to be a scholar, but got burned out on school and never went back! Now, I think I’m too old. But my dispensationalism is a background program for me. After 11 years here in Sioux City, few of my people have heard me mention it. It colors my approach to certain passages.
Mostly, I just get annoyed when people take shots at Dispensationalism based on false ideas about it. But I’m not a scholar of the doctrine. I’ve studied it enough to have an understanding of the issues, but I’m far from any kind of scholar.
Dave, I was emphasizing a distinction by identifying someone who was scholarly without actually being a scholar. You are far from one of the kooky pop dispys.
You need to get out more, Bill!
I sat under the greats of the classic Dispensationalist movement – Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, et al. These men were Bible scholars, brilliant, and Dispensationalists
That’s the point I’ve been making. People are exposed to the populist version of Dispy doctrine – which is sincere, genuine, and should not be mocked, but which also has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills (someone asked about the 7 Letters thing) and to become obsessive and fixated. When you react against that version of dispensationalism, it’s like condemning Calvinism because of that annoying cage-phase Calvinist in your church who calls everything a heresy if it doesn’t match up to Sproul or Piper’s writings. That guy isn’t Calvinism and the populists aren’t dispensationalism.
Bill, get a copy of “Things to Come” by Dwight Pentecost or Ryrie’s book Dispensationalism Today (written in the 70s, I think) and Blaising’s Progressive Dispensationalism. Pentecost is the standard, Ryrie’s is a little more of a layman’s work, but it you don’t want to wade through 800 pages, it might be your best bet. Read Pentecost or Ryrie first, then Blaising.
But don’t react to “dispensationalism” based on Hagee or Lahaye or that guy who teaches a class in your church. These are the guys who define the position.
That is true – that Dispensationalists TEND to be that way.
My point is that it is a misundderstanding of Dispy teaching. We believe that the church age, today, is a time when the Gentiles have been grafted in and that Jesus is gathering a people from every tribe and language. A preference for Israel is natural among Christians, and a healthy counter-balance to the anti-Semitism that has dominated until more recently. But Dispensational teaching does not demand that we unthinkingly support Israel’s political aims today.
Dave: Honest question, Do you think many evangelical’s negative reaction to environmentalism can be linked to some aspects of dispensationalism? I’ve seen it, but I have only anecdotal experience to make that connection.
I’ve heard that link made. Possible? I don’t know.
The link would be that our eschatology (based on CLEAR scriptures!!!) tells us that the world will continue to degrade until the end when Jesus returns. So, why bother with cleaning up the environment when Jesus is coming back soon and the world is going h-e-double hockey sticks anyway?
There might be a link. I’ve actually heard a preacher preach that we need not worry about nuclear annihilation, since the Bible defines how the world is going to end. But I don’t know how significant some of that is overall. I suspect the bigger issue is that the environmental movement has been pushed by hippies and left-wingers and the people of the church are suspicious of those types.
I’ve not met too many left-wing, hippie Dispensationalists.
I thought the Babylonbee post on dispys was Very funny.
One thing that makes satire good is that no one is “safe” or shielded from its strike.
I also liked the one about Cals and Ritalin.
The cool thing about charts is that with a chart you don’t even have to show people where the Bible says that and they’ll believe you!!! The other way is to say “I read this on the internet”.
Thoughts on the Scofield Study Bible:
Scofield Bible, First 100 Years
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/09/scofield-bible-first-100-years.html
By the way, you can be an optimistic Premillennialist. I’m one of them. Too many are too pessimistic.
David R. Brumbelow
Mr. Miller, when you mentioned Israel above, who are you talking about? Are you defining the nation of Israel today with the Israel mentioned in the Bible?
I have heard dispensationalists (not sure what kind) use OT promises toward OT Israel applied to Israel today. For example, some will say we must support the nation of Israel citing Gen. 12:3, “I will bless those who bless you, I will curse those who treat you with contempt, and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” I’m not sure I follow their assertion.
Mark, Are you trying to say that Israel today is not the same people as Israel in the OT. You don’t think that they are the ancient Hebrews?
I personally am not sure the current atheistic geopolitical nation of Israel should be identified as “Gods beloved and chosen people.”
Geopolitically national Israel is an ally – I staunchly support them in that regard – but I’m just not sold that nations/ national blessing (or cursing) is linked to political and military ties to the geopolitical nation of Israel.
Do you think that the people of modern Israel are the ancient Hebrews?
Those who will inherit the promises made to Abraham are those to whom the promises were made – his descendants. Israel. The nation which has as its capital the city of Jerusalem.
That nation is currently secular and rejects Jesus but such will not always be the case.
Let me tell you something else. If God chose Israel as his people, then utterly rejected them, you have a tough time making the point that we, the chosen of God, cannot be utterly rejected by him if we sin.
Dave Cline dismissed Israel as the people of God above because they are sinful and secular. If I sin, am I no longer a child of God?
The idea of a future in which God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled and they are redeemed is a sign of his eternal love and the power of his covenant. His promises never fail – those he made to Israel and those he makes to us.
But if God changed his mind about his promises to Israel and rejected them as his people, and will never restore them to his grace, then eternal security rests on a very shaky foundation.
Amen Dave.
Calm down Mr. President.
I made no rejections or definitive statements whatsoever I’m not sure where this seemingly hostile comment is coming from?
Nothing hostile in my comment at all. I’m making a point. You intimated that the atheist nation was not God’s people. If Israel cannot be God’s people because of their sin and rebellion, how can I be assured that God will not reject me if I sin?
I used your statement to make a point, but if you read hostility, that was completely a creation of yours.
I never said what you said I said, sir. I said that I’m not sure that the modern geopolitical nation of Israel (established with borders in what, 1948?) make up the “apple of God’s eye” or “his chosen people.”
Perhaps it was never the nation itself but the people of faith to whom the promises and covenants were made – and if so – God has not “changed his mind” at all.
Perhaps his chosen people are and have always been those who believe?
No, it was the physical nation of Israel – when they were obedient and when they were disobedient – that were the chosen of God.
Think about your construction. Does it not posit a salvation of works? Israel is a chosen nation because of its faith?
God said the opposite. They were chosen – as a nation – because of their hard hearts and God gave them GRACE. The sinful nation, with physical borders, DNA descendants of Abraham.
That’s certainly possible that I read into it. No biggie.
“Think about your construction. Does it not posit a salvation of works? Israel is a chosen nation because of its faith?”
I guess the answer to that question hinges on whether one believes that faith is a work or a gift.
Tarheel, I want you to know that I didn’t detect any hostility in Dave’s comment, what I was amening was his content about Israel.
Now as to your question. The answer is that Israel as a people were God’s covenant people and beneficiaries of His promises.
Romans 9:3-5 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, (4) who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; (5) of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” (NKJV)
Paul was clearly speaking of physical Israelis (my countrymen according to the flesh), and he said that all these things pertain to them: “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises”.
Paul loving his countryman and wanting them to come to face – does not necessarily constitute an affirmation of national salvation does it?
Romans 3:21 thru chapter 4 – Paul seems to argue that salvation and the promises of God have always been been realized faith.
*faith
Not face.
Lol
^…..Realized through faith.
Please re-read my last paragraph. What was expressed was a bit more than just the well wishes of Paul.
And it was in reaction to this statement in your earlier post, “Perhaps it was never the nation itself but the people of faith to whom the promises and covenants were made – and if so – God has not “changed his mind” at all.” Paul said that all these things pertained to his countrymen according to the flesh.
I also believe Genesis 12 and Romans 11 apply today to the Jews of today.
I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. -Genesis 12:3
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. -Romans 11:1
Believers in Jesus Christ should be the best friends Jews and Israel have today.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/11/support-israel-buy-their-products_2292.html
David R. Brumbelow
Just asking questions guys –
So if today’s national Jews Gods chosen and beloved people by nature of nationality then must they be saved by faith or is there some special election based on nationality?
If they’re “good” – how does that line up with the totality of the New Testament? If they’re not automatically “good” by nature of nationality – then what does it mean to be “chosen”?
Also, in Romans 11 – are we grafted in to national Israel – meaning we become Jews – or grafted into something else – if it is something else – what is it?
…and on what basis does this grafting happen?
The Jews were, and are, God’s chosen people. He chose them for service and to bless the world. Some were faithful to that calling, many were not.
There was a faithful remnant of Jews in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, and today. Many Premillennialists believe there will be a great revival among the Jews during the Tribulation.
But just because they are God’s chosen people does not mean they automatically go to Heaven. How does a Jew get to Heaven? The same way a Gentile gets to Heaven.
Speaking of Jesus – Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. -Acts 4:12
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through Me.
-Jesus Christ; John 14:6
David R. Brumbelow
Just as God is going to save people from every tribe, tongue, and people group, He is going to also save Israel when the times of the Gentiles is full. Meanwhile He is still saving Israelis today.