Dispensationalism Primer

Brief Description: Dispensationalism is a system of theology that interprets the Bible through the lens of Dispensations (usually 7), and sees a distinction between God’s plan for Israel and for the Church. Dispensations are the outworking of God’s plan that have changed and will continue to change throughout redemptive history. Dispensationalists traditionally are very conservative, have a high view of Scripture, tend to interpret the Bible using a very literal hermeneutic, and stress the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.

History: Dispensationalism is a new system of theology, having been founded by John Darby in 1830. In spite of its recent origin, it’s probably the dominant system of theology held by evangelicals worldwide. There are several reasons for this.

1. The Scofield Study Bible. C.I. Scofield was an attorney and disciple of Darby who authored the world’s first study Bible in 1909 and the Scofield Bible is still popular today. The notes Scofield wrote were thoroughly dispensational, and assured this teaching would be widely transmitted. Today, there are numerous dispensational study Bibles on the market, and many are extremely popular. Two of note are the “MacArthur Study Bible” and the “NIV Study Bible”. I own both, and the NIV Study Bible was a major reason I was a dispensationalist for the first several years of my Christian life.

2. Many of the most successful evangelists and Bible teachers have been/are dispensational. Among them are D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and J. Vernon McGee. Many "megachurch" pastors have been or are dispensational - W.A. Criswell, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Rick Warren, and John MacArthur, just to name a few.

3. The impact of Dallas Theological Seminary. Founded in 1924 by Lewis S. Chafer (a disciple of Scofield), DTS has been one of the world’s largest and most influential seminaries. They have been thoroughly dispensational since inception. Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University is one of many Dispensational Bible Colleges; my own alma mater, Grace University, is also dispensational. Many influential Southern Baptists, and Southern Baptist Seminaries are dispensational.

4. The sensationalist tendencies of some dispensational teachings have led to many works of fiction popularizing dispensationalism. DTS alumni Hal Lindsey’s 1970 best-seller “The Late, Great Planet Earth” is one example. Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series is another.

Dispensationalism has been evolving for several decades as its teachings have been increasingly scrutinized. John MacArthur’s 1988 book “The Gospel According to Jesus” (his finest work, IMO) started a firestorm of controversy within Dispensationalism. Prominent DTS professors Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges each wrote a book to refute MacArthur’s. Unlike MacArthur’s fine work, both Ryrie and Hodges’ books were roundly criticized for their poor scholarship. Non-dispensational Bible scholars watched with amazement, and had difficulty in understanding why anyone would have a problem with MacArthur’s outstanding book. The central issue – is repentance necessary for salvation? Ryrie and Hodges’ position – that it isn’t – was another embarrassment for dispensationalism, and led to accusations that dispensationalism is antinomian. This led to John Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth” – a relentless (and a bit unfair) attack on dispensationalism. A few years later, the latest movement within dispensationalism, known as “Progressive Dispensationalism,” began under the leadership of fine scholars such as Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, and Robert Saucy. Today, with many of the classic dispensationalists (Walvoord, Pentecost, and Ryrie etc.) either aging or with the Lord, dispensationalism is firmly within the grasp of the progressives.

Am I a Dispensationalist? Many Christians are dispensationalists, and have no idea they are. In fact, many are even unaware there is such a thing. As I said, I was firmly in the dispensational camp from the time I was saved until 1997. If you affirm any or all of these statements, you’re a dispensationalist:

1. God has two redemptive plans – one for Israel, and one for the church.
2. The church age is a “parenthesis” in God’s redemptive plan.
3. The rapture will be secret, and probably happen before the Tribulation.
4. The Tribulation is a 7 year period, and fulfills the final of Daniel’s 70 weeks.
5. Every time the Bible says “Israel”, it refers to ethnic, national Israel.
6. There will be a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on the earth from Jerusalem.
7. A future temple will be built in Jerusalem
8. The sacrificial system will be reinstituted/observed during the Millennium.
9. There will be multiple judgments (nations, sheep/goats, Great White Throne)
10. The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) is about events in the distant future.
11. Revelation 4-22 depicts events in the distant future.

Resources:

- Progessive Dispensationalism. Blaising & Bock
- The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Saucy
- Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church. Blaising & Bock
- Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. Gerstner
- Understanding Dispensationalists – Poythress
- The Great Tribulation – Past or Future? Ice and Gentry
- Faith Works (Appendix 2) – MacArthur
- House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology. Bahnsen & Gentry

Eschatology Primer

It just dawned on me I've probably been using terms and saying things that may be unclear to some. I think it's fitting therefore to clarify these things. In the coming days, I'll be describing a bit about the following:

There are three systems of theology

- Dispensationalism
- Covenant Theology
- New Covenant Theology

Four approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation.

- Futurist
- Idealist
- Historicist
- Preterist

Four views of the Millennium

- Dispensational Premillennialism
- Historic Premillennialism
- Postmillennialism
- Amillennialism

Amillennialism - Bad Theology? Part III

Last night, my wife asked me why I was so interested in this subject. That's a fair question, a good question. And I'm not sure of the answer. I think people are naturally intrigued by end-times issues. I recall going to a Bible conference at my church not long after I became a Christian. The subject during one evening was eschatology, and the lecturer gave a dispensational premillennial presentation that would have made Chafer, Ryrie, and Scofield proud. The place was packed! It was by far the biggest crowd of the week-long event. Another reason is I'm so disturbed at MacArthur's misrepresentation of Amillenialism. It really pains me to say this - he is such a personal hero of mine, one of the giants in Evangelicalism in the present day, and has a tremendous church, college, and seminary, in addition to "Grace to You," his broadcast and publishing ministry. He's rock solid in every area of theology - except eschatology, and the wheels really come off. What disturbs me most of all is his attitude. I took the kids to Great Salt Plains state park today, and on the way, I began listening to his presentation again. He says over and over that Amillennialists believe God's promises to Israel have been junked, accusing amils of of attacking God's character. Amils don't believe that. We affirm there is a future role for ethnic Israel. Rom 11:26 is clear that there will be a huge revival among ethnic Jews in the future. They will be saved exactly the same way Jews have always been saved (Gentiles too, for that matter) - by faith in Jesus Christ alone. He mentions that John Stott was interviewed and asked what Biblical significance does the existence of the nation of Israel have, and Stott said none. Mac counters this by stating the very fact they still exist proves otherwise, and proceeds to name several people groups, such as the Hittites, Agagites, and others who no longer exist as if this proves his point. Of course, he doesn't mention the fact that the Egyptians, Syrians, and Ethiopians are still around. He continually beats Amils up with this alleged "spiritualizing" hermeneutic, as if the Amil's method of interpreting Scripture is willy-nilly, inconsistent, and random. It's not true. I'm not a scholar, and I understand the Amil method. I cannot fathom how a guy as educated and as brilliant as MacArthur can fail to understand it.

Mac and our other dispensational brethren insists Scripture must be interpreted plainly, that is, the obvious, plain meaning of a given text is what it means. They do this......unless it does violence to their system. An excellent example is Matt 24:34. For the dispy, "this generation" means just that everywhere in the NT..........except here, where it means some generation in the distant future. Where did they get that idea? Not from the Bible. The Greek word for generation is used 30 times in the NT, and always means the generation contemporary to Jesus, except here....and only if you're a dispensationalist. Why? Because their system drives the interpretation. They must interpret this way. If they interpret "this generation" to mean what it does everywhere else in the NT, the entire dispensational house of cards comes crashing down. Read Matt 24:1-34. Admittedly, some of the language is difficult, and you have to be well-schooled in OT prophetic and apocalyptic literature to understand. But why in the world would Jesus respond to questions from His disciples by describing something in the distant future? Compare MacArthur's book "The Second Coming" with Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus" and decide who makes a stronger Biblical case.

Interpreting Revelation provides a similar situation. Rev 1:1-3 is key. What do the phrases "must soon take place" and "for the time is near" mean? I say take them at face value, because there is every reason to do so, and no reason not to. Remember, this book was written to encourage Christians being severely persecuted. Everyone agrees about this. How then do you justify the futurist interpretation? How do events of the distant future provide encouragement for Christians being persecuted? No, only the preterist approach answers all these questions. This is something futurists (and dispensationalist are universally futurists) have not been able to answer to my satisfaction. Gentry's outstanding book "Before Jerusalem Fell" is the seminal work on the issue. It is a must read.

Amillennialism - Bad Theology? Part II

I had one of those "eureka" moments today. It just dawned on me a central issue, perhaps the central issue, in the debate between (dispensational) premillennialism and amillennialism is - how do you interpret the Old Testament? Do you interpret it as a separate entity, without regard to the fuller, more complete revelation presented in the New Testament? This is essentially what dispensationalism does. Or, do you interpret in light of the more complete NT revelation? This is what covenantalism does. If you interpret the OT in a wooden, literal way, you must accept that the temple will be literally rebuilt, the priesthood will be reinstituted, and animal sacrifices will again be offered. But weren't all these things fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ? An interesting twist - the New Scofield Study Bible (1967) suggests that Ezekiel's prophecy of the reinstitution of the sacrificial system "is not to be taken literally....but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of the redeemed in Israel...using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel's day" (p 888). I don't know who authored that note, but kudos to him! Houkema asks the obvious question "If the sacrifices are not to be taken literally, why should we take the temple literally?" (The Bible and the Future, p 204). Why indeed!

I'm listening to MacArthur's presentation on amil again. It's astonishing. He says most forcefully that amillennialism and Arminianism naturally go together. I have never heard of those two concepts going together. I have never heard of an amillennialist being an Arminian; indeed, virtually every Arminian I've ever met was dispensational and vice-versa. Take a look at this. It seems to bear me out. In addition, John Gerstner comes to the exact opposite conclusion as Mac in his "Wrongly dividing the Word of Truth." I have the book, and although I agree with Gerstner, I found his tone to be unnecessarily harsh and condescending. I'd suggest anyone interested examine the arguments of both of these men of God, and reach your own conclusion.

I love Sunday School. We have a great guy who leads our class, and yesterday, we were looking at 1 Pet 2:1-12. I don't generally like the SS quarterlies the Convention provides, but the version we're using is among the best I've seen. In that passage is a very difficult statement of Peter in v 8b. This is one of the "tough sayings" in the Bible, and I believe this is one of the proof texts Calvin used in defending the doctrine of reprobation, along with Rom 9:22. These are tough Scriptures to deal with, but deal with them we must, although it's probably wise to not plumb such deep theological depths in a SS class. Southern Baptist theologian Millard Erickson does a fine job in discussing these issues in his excellent work "Christian Theology." This was one of my college textbooks, and I still refer to it frequently. While I don't agree with Erickson about everything, what I like about his work is he does a great job in presenting all sides fairly. I have to put a plug in for John MacArthur's treatment of Romans 9 here. Although he seems to be stumbling a bit at the moment, he did a first-rate job when he preached through this difficult passage some years ago. His series "Putting God in His place" is fabulous. I highly recommend it. I own it, and have listened to it many times. Anyone is free to use it, although it's in cassette tape format, and I'm not sure if anyone can play those anymore. :)

The other difficulty which we didn't have time to get to is Peter's use of the OT in v9-10. Peter took several OT Scriptures and combines them here. He also, under the Holy Spirit's leading, changes the meaning. For example, v10 is a quote from Hos 1:9. Hosea was speaking of Israel; Peter is applying the same verse to the Church. This device is used elsewhere in the NT, so it shouldn't trip us up. Dr. Robert Thomas of The Master's Seminary wrote a piece on this a few years ago entitled "The New Testament use of the Old Testament" which is interesting and the subject of considerable debate. Suddenly, SS was over and it was time to go home....

Amillenialism - Bad Theology?

Last night, we had a guest preacher at church - one of the men in the congregation. He did a fine job, and I enjoyed his presentation. He did, however, say something that really caught my attention. He referred to a group of people who believes Israel has been replaced by the Church in God's redemptive plan as believers in "bad theology." I admit, in my dispensational days, I would have wholeheartedly agreed. I'm sure most of the people present did agree. But is this a fair characterization? I would say to people who believe it is to take a look for themselves. There are countless books and information on the Internet to look at, but be careful! You want to ensure what you're looking at is irenic and reputable. Here's a quick synopsis of amillenialism. You'll notice there are a number of Southern Baptists on the list....Boyce, Dagg, and even Herschel Hobbs. Coincidentally, I saw this man at the gym and spoke to him briefly. He reiterated his belief that God has two separate plans - one for Israel, one for the Church, and bases this on Ezek 36-38, and Zechariah. I admit - Zech poses a bit of a problem for me. My thoughts about the various end-times positions - Amillenialism, Postmillenialism, Dispensational Premillenialism, and Historic Premillenialism, is they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Each has significant problems. In my estimation, Amillenialism has the fewest problems, while Dispensational Premillenialism has the most. I have two books which discuss these issues in a very fair and even-handed way. One is Anthony Houkema's excellent work entitled "The Bible and the Future", the other is called "Three views of the millennium and beyond" I'm still learning.

It's Spring break week, and I took vacation during this time for the first time. Hopefully, I'll get some good family time in.