Post by Soulfyre on Jan 7, 2005 11:05:10 GMT -5
As an introduction, let me first mention some scholarly books that treat of this subject. Probably the best source on classic "dispensationalism" is book Dispensationalism Today, by Charles Caldwell Ryrie, one of my former professors at Dallas Theological Seminary. Dallas Theological Seminary was founded by Lewis Sperry Chafer, whom rgrove has referenced before, and is just down the streen from the Scofield Bible Church where C. I. Scofield (of the Scofield Bible fame) preached. It is one of the most articulate, well-written books that discusses at length the principles of biblical interpretation, championing the grammatico-historical method, which, when followed, tends to lend itself to a "dispensational" rendering of Biblical history. It is important to note, however, that the recognition of the progressive nature of revelation, or of "dispensations", is not the same as "disipensationalism", which refers to a more specific ordering of dispensations, and a recognition of a discontinuity between Israel and the church
Another more recent book I have found of great interest is Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. The scholarly representation in this book includes several modern dispensational theologians, and has thoughtful responses by Walter C. Kaiser, Willem VanGemeren, and Bruch Waltke. Craig (yes, I call him Craig since I knew him at seminary), also co-wrote, with Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, an excellent book which shows the development in dispensational theology. The most scholarly book I have seen is Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationships Between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg, written as a festschrift written to comemmorate S. Lewis Johnson, a former professor of Bruce K. Waltke and one of the most able Biblical scholars in the original languages I had the privilege of meeting. His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was prodigeous, although one would not consider him, during his later years, a "classic" dispensationalist. This book presents what I like to refer to as "dueling presentations", from both dispensational and non-dispensational scholars. And the scholars invited to participate are all articulate (no issue was "handicapped", as it were). As a matter of practice, I probably would not use a book written by an amillennialist, however scholarly, as my source for a primary definition of dispensationalism any more than I would ask the current president of Dallas Theological Seminary for his definition of amilliennialism (something Ryrie also attempts to define in his book). There is simply too much tendency for "spin", as Bill O'Reilly might say.
Secondly, I shall try my hand at defining "dispensationalism", in a rather skeletel manner. First, let me address an issue on which all evangelical scholars agree: progressive revelation. Essentially, all evangelical scholars believe in the progressive nature of revelation, that is, that God did not reveal the fullness of His plan regarding Israel, the Law, the Church, Salvation, and Jesus Christ beginning from the first chapter of Genesis. Actually, the most succinct statement of this fact is found in Hebrews 1:1,2, which states, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Throughout the New Testament, the church, the Body of Christ, is referred to as a mystery, not revealed until the "fulness of times". It is, in fact, the differentiation between Israel and the Church, their purpose in God's plan of salvation, and their eternal destinies, that form the crux of the debate between dispensational and non-dispensational forms of theology (using "dispensational" here in its broadest sense).
Of course, those who believe in the Historical Premillennial viewpoint of eschatology (which I will address elsewhere) would be loath to include themselves in the dispensational camp, because of the excesses of classical dispensationalism (as manifested by Chafer and Walvoord). And here is where I must make a further distinction. Dispensationalism, in an attempt to be strictly literal in their interpretation of the Bible, divide the history of salvation into seven different "economies", or "dispensations". In each, God provides a particular revelation of Himself to His people, regarding which humanity is held responsible. The subsequent failure of humanity to respond positively to each progressive revelation of God results in judgement, and a new and fuller represenation of God. It is at the point of the Church, the Body of Christ, that the crux of problem occurs. Essentially, the dispensationalist recognizes a bifurcation of God's people between Israel and the Church, in which each retains its distinct identity in God's salvation history. At no point does the Church supplant Israel as God's people.
God bless and keep you,
Matthew (soulfyre)
Another more recent book I have found of great interest is Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. The scholarly representation in this book includes several modern dispensational theologians, and has thoughtful responses by Walter C. Kaiser, Willem VanGemeren, and Bruch Waltke. Craig (yes, I call him Craig since I knew him at seminary), also co-wrote, with Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, an excellent book which shows the development in dispensational theology. The most scholarly book I have seen is Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationships Between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg, written as a festschrift written to comemmorate S. Lewis Johnson, a former professor of Bruce K. Waltke and one of the most able Biblical scholars in the original languages I had the privilege of meeting. His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was prodigeous, although one would not consider him, during his later years, a "classic" dispensationalist. This book presents what I like to refer to as "dueling presentations", from both dispensational and non-dispensational scholars. And the scholars invited to participate are all articulate (no issue was "handicapped", as it were). As a matter of practice, I probably would not use a book written by an amillennialist, however scholarly, as my source for a primary definition of dispensationalism any more than I would ask the current president of Dallas Theological Seminary for his definition of amilliennialism (something Ryrie also attempts to define in his book). There is simply too much tendency for "spin", as Bill O'Reilly might say.
Secondly, I shall try my hand at defining "dispensationalism", in a rather skeletel manner. First, let me address an issue on which all evangelical scholars agree: progressive revelation. Essentially, all evangelical scholars believe in the progressive nature of revelation, that is, that God did not reveal the fullness of His plan regarding Israel, the Law, the Church, Salvation, and Jesus Christ beginning from the first chapter of Genesis. Actually, the most succinct statement of this fact is found in Hebrews 1:1,2, which states, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Throughout the New Testament, the church, the Body of Christ, is referred to as a mystery, not revealed until the "fulness of times". It is, in fact, the differentiation between Israel and the Church, their purpose in God's plan of salvation, and their eternal destinies, that form the crux of the debate between dispensational and non-dispensational forms of theology (using "dispensational" here in its broadest sense).
Of course, those who believe in the Historical Premillennial viewpoint of eschatology (which I will address elsewhere) would be loath to include themselves in the dispensational camp, because of the excesses of classical dispensationalism (as manifested by Chafer and Walvoord). And here is where I must make a further distinction. Dispensationalism, in an attempt to be strictly literal in their interpretation of the Bible, divide the history of salvation into seven different "economies", or "dispensations". In each, God provides a particular revelation of Himself to His people, regarding which humanity is held responsible. The subsequent failure of humanity to respond positively to each progressive revelation of God results in judgement, and a new and fuller represenation of God. It is at the point of the Church, the Body of Christ, that the crux of problem occurs. Essentially, the dispensationalist recognizes a bifurcation of God's people between Israel and the Church, in which each retains its distinct identity in God's salvation history. At no point does the Church supplant Israel as God's people.
God bless and keep you,
Matthew (soulfyre)
