In reviewing chapter 18 (What will happen when Christ returns?) in our Christian Essentials class today, the topic of Dispensationalism came up as it relates to promises made to Israel and how they play into some views of end-times. If this was a new term for you, here is a short introduction.
Any dispensationalists out there please feel free to post any other resources that you think would provide a good introduction.
Eric, do you mind if we post some other resources even if we’re not dispensationalists? 🙂 I was attending Ken’s class this morning so was not at yours (hope to in the future), but as long as you’re asking, here’s another resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
And at the bottom it notes that there’s a new movement called “progressive dispensationalism”, asserted to be led by faculty at Dallas Seminary (said to be a center of dispensationalism), with the new movement said to have a goal of reconciling with Covenant theology. That’s encouraging, I suppose.
As this is my first posting on a Grace Fellowship blog, I’d like to introduce myself. My name is Charlie Arehart, and my wife Kim and I have been attending here for 4 weeks. I’ll share something more of my background (of relevance to this blog entry, I mean) in a follow-up.
I do want to say how much I enjoy the blogs–and of course the church. It’s certainly helping to spread God’s fame, and I pray for God’s continued blessing over your collective efforts.
Following up my last comment, I’d like to share a perhaps unique perspective (and hopefully a useful observation). I mentioned (and I’m sure some had already heard) that Dallas Seminary is known as a center of dispensationalism. I have to say I find that curious. Here’s why: I’ve been attending the Seminary since 2004 (remotely, via the Atlanta campus).
Now, before I go further (and especially if that sets off any alarms for anyone!) let me say as well that I’m very likely going to withdraw. God willing, I hope to switch to a seminary with a reformed/covenantal perspective (I’m looking at Reformed, Greenville, Whitefield, and others). But it has nothing to do with dispensationalism, and I wonder if my explanation of that may be helpful to anyone who may know others who attend DTS (or come across an article or sermon by a DTS professor or alumnus). My point is: DTS does not equal dispensationalism. 🙂
In the 5 classes I’ve taken so far, the topic of dispensationalism never came up. Now, granted, being remote and having limited class offerings, I simply may not have had the chance to take classes where it might, and perhaps some of those would be offered to newcomers more typically at the main campus.
But when I read about dispensationalism (such as the info on that link you offer, Eric), I’m not surprised that people reading such would conclude that the topic is indeed suspicious and controversial. When I read it, I think so, too. 🙂 Yet that sort of discussion just has never come up so far in my classes.
So clearly it’s NOT the underlying theology of all who may attend/teach at/graduate from DTS. I guess it’s like how some may lump all people in a given denomination as being of some given bent, when in fact that may not share the presumed perspective. Indeed, God may have given individuals either different information or insights that could put them outside the tradition in which they operate.
What really matters is whether they (and the tradition in which they operate) are operating in a mode that recognizes and honors the Gospel. I can certainly attest that DTS does, and many of the fine graduates whose ministries some of us hear also never mention anything approaching the topics mentioned in that article (Andy Stanley, Chip Ingraham, Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, Bruce Wilkinson, and many more).
Finally, as for why I’m choosing to leave, it’s simply that I find reformed/covenantal theology to be biblically correct and God-honoring, and I’d like to move to a seminary that makes that its focus, as do those I’ve listed above. It’s also one of the main reasons my wife and I left Andy Stanley’s Northpoint Community Church and began our search for another church which has ultimately led us here.
In both cases, I’m not moving away from dispensationalism, as I never got any sense of it in the first place. 🙂
Charlie, welcome to the GF blogs!
For the record, I did not mean to imply that there is anything necessarily wrong with dispensationalism. While it’s a relatively new (within the last 150 years or so) theological tradition and is still evolving (noting the recent development of ‘progressive dispensationalism’), any view that boasts John MacArthur as a strong advocate is worth considering.
I grew up in dispensational churches and am graduating with an M.Div. this May from a dispensational seminary. It is actually through my training at this dispensational school that I have come to take very serious issue with some of the main tenets of the dispensational system. All that to say, I think I can speak with some authority about dispensationalism as a system, yet I reject the system as a whole in preference for what Charlie called a “more biblically correct and God-honoring” way of systematizing theology. (Although I’m not actually a strict Covenant guy either…at this point.)
So here is what has been for me the most helpful resource on dispensationalism: Understanding Dispensationalists, by Vern Poythress. It’s available in paperback from Amazon.com for about $9.00. Now, it’s important to realize that Poythress is not a dispensationalist himself. However, having been one, I can attest that he represents those who hold that system very accurately. He presents what hard-line dispensationalists believe and, more importantly, what modern dispensationalists believe and why. Then he critiques not just the what, but also the why.
Eric, you’re certainly right in giving the system that MacArthur touts credit. However, it should be noted as well, that MacArthur is not a dispensationalist in the strict, Ryrie/Scofield sense. He is much more modified, and the seminary would lean towards progressive tendencies if I’m not mistaken. I have some friends there, and that is their impression of their professors for the most part.
The difficulty of using the “system” of interpretation called dispensationalism is that there are so many colors and shades. I graduated from what I affectionately call “the bastion of dispensationalism” – Philadelphia College of Bible (now Philadelphia Biblical University). I remember walking past C.I. Scofield’s Bible enshrined behind glass as I went to class. It was amazing to see the notes and markings that screamed to me that this man loved the study of God’s Word. I also learned a tremendous amount from the very God-centered professors. While attending the school, along with graduate studies held by D.T.S. (Dallas Theological Seminary), I studied under Dr. Charles Ryrie (old school Dispensationalism) as well as Dr. Craig Blaising (progressive Dispensationalism). There are many aspects of the system that I believe are accurate: the variations of God’s working with people throughout history (discontinuity within continuity), the distinction of physical Israel and the church as well as a revived appeal to a literal historic hermeneutic.
The downfall of the “classic” system that was introduced by Darby, popularized by Scofield (through the Scofield Reference Bible), and propagated by Chafer at D.T.S., is when the basic truths cited above extend to illegitimate conclusions. For example, the distinction between Israel and the Church forever; viewing history in terms of human failure vs. God’s glory; dicing and slices terms such as “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God” into nice, neat packages. These are the types of things that get Dispensationalism into trouble.
Am I a dispensationalist? Yes. (BTW, so are you if you believe that we can now eat pork sandwiches). Am I a classic dispensationalist? No. Am I a progressive dispensationalist? When a quality definition develops, I will let you know…
As a new teenage believer in the early 80’s I was discipled from a correspondence course that was heavy on this topic. This was at an independent Baptist church in Dunwoody that had a strong outreach youth organization in the late 70’s and 80’s around Atlanta called “Youth Ranch”. Many would just write that group off now as pushing easy believism theology but that is the vehicle God used to bring me to Himself and for that I am obviously thankful.
Now back on topic…
Though many of these terms and theories are just a creations of man when you boil it all down, like the gap theory and pre or post trib, the concept of dispensations helped to give me a very basic understanding and appreciation to my then 14 year old mind of how God has dealt with us throughout time, and how He will deal with us in the future. It also helped to “visualize” God’s plan of redemption from beginning to “forever”. Not perfect stuff in all those theories, but great foundational concepts based on scripture interpretations, and definitely much of this is not anything to split a church over! Just very interesting! Then there were also those really cool and very graphic charts that some of these people came up with. Some in the form of huge murals that could fill a room.
Not seen this taught in any churches in years, and would be interesting for people to understand it all even though many might not agree with it all.
So there’s my non-scholarly, non-seminary student, layman’s personal experience on this for anyone to ponder.
I hope to make it in this group one Sunday fully armed with my duct tape ready to keep my brain intact. 😉
Good night all.
Good variety of perspectives above. Speaking of which, as for another resource, there’s the relatively recent book, “Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?” by Keith Mathison. Also of interest to the whole discussion (perhaps) are the comments in the Amazon reviews, clearly showing a wide range of takes on the book (and the subject in general):
http://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Rightly-Dividing-People-God/dp/customer-reviews/0875523595
From the many reviews on that book it seemed as though this is a writer who is against this altogether and just wanted to prove his point instead of explaining the differences. Even the title is very provocative.
Again this is all great and interesting discussion but much of this is not what I consider “foundational truths” to divide each other.
So with that in mind….carry on. 😉
P.S. So used to typing my full name everywhere with business (C.A. Nix III) but will try to be less formal going forward here as you know I am not a formal kind of guy. 😉 At least I was not using my full name (Carl Augustus Nix III)
There is another great book, called “Continuity and Discontinuity.” It is edited by John Feinberg and is a collection of essays from both dispensational and non-dispensational authors. That way you get kind of a point/counterpoint approach to issues such as the Kingdom of God, Israel and the Church, etc.
One warning, though, is that it is a fairly technical book. I hate to say that because I don’t want anyone to not read it for that reason. It’s very rewarding, especially if you can read it with other people and work through it together. It stimulates healthy debate on the topics.
I know I’m somewhat of a guest here, so I need to be careful, but I need to take issue with a comment Dan made. Dan, you said that anyone who eats a pork sandwich is a dispensationalist. I assume you mean that such a person would recognize that the Mosaic dietary laws do not apply to us. In all honesty, though, do you actually know Covenant guys who hold to the dietary laws? Even strict Covenant Theologians recognize varying “dispensations” or ways in which God dealt with people. My only concern, besides accuracy and fairness to CTs, is that if we broaden the definition of a dispensationalist too much then we have no real definition at all. Just my two cents. 🙂
Will, I agree. It’s like saying… Do you think God has made covenants with man? Yes? Great. Then you are a Covenant Theologian.
CA, can I ask you to reconsider your proposal to use only your initials? There are two CAs in this entry’s comments alone, and if we’re both active here (and should there be any others), it just seems too rife for confusion. Thanks
Also, as for the reviews on the Mathison book, I did point them out intentionally. Still, I think it would be unfortunate to completely accept the assertions there that he “just wanted to prove his point instead of explaining the differences”. I mean, yes, some of the reviewers felt that, but others clearly did not.
It seems that it’s one of those many topics where people on each side can tend to be defensive and argumentative. Our challenge, as always, is to be discerning, which means reading from both perspectives if we want to clearly understand each side.
Hey Charlie:
I was getting the idea from the tone of this blog that most here would consider themselves “anti-dispensational”. When people have such strong beliefs on these types of non foundational doctrines/ideas/philosophies/theories of men we tend to discuss the other side in a less than flattering way to strengthen our own point of view. That seems to be human nature. I know I do it all the time. Not sure if that would always be sin most of the time unless it was pride or to directly hurt someone.
Many of the reviews on that book seemed to say the same thing and though I have not read the book, the concept of someone writing a book out of passion for their own beliefs instead of debating the issues fairly is completely plausible and possible.
Example….I had always wanted to write a book about the failings of the modern protestant movement, the “partial reformation”; the “Iraq of Christianity” as I call it where we got our theology fairly accurate, but left in many traditions and setup structure of the Catholic Church and never focused on building the body/relational Christianity. Never quite finished what was started. Paid performances, paid professionals, big buildings and even bigger egos. I wanted to call the book “Why Churches Suck”. ;0 I refrained as it would have only been myself spouting off about my personal experiences to bash the institutional church and not caring to discuss any other side but my side. Not God honoring. However that is still what I believe very strongly to this day, and is why we were seeking a house church before God led us to GF twice. On that note…I praise God everyday for bringing us to Grace Fellowship where God’s fame is the sole focus and serving God by caring about others even outside of Sunday morning.
Now back on topic again about dispensationalist….sorry!
I love hearing both sides of these types of discussions as they are interesting and lively. In many cases they are based solely on concepts and many times loosely based on scripture. Just opinions or ideas.
Detailed discussions in scripture on dispensations and pre and post trib are not there from what I know. Just great verses that some can come up with different ideas and theories on that are fun to talk about and debate as “non-foundational”.
Always seeking the truth and studying to show ourselves approved, but that must come with clear understanding of what is clear and what are clearly man made ideas. At least in my opinion. Seminaries like DTS and great scholars and men of God like Ryrie and Moody are sometimes but not deliberately put on a pedestal and even close to on part with scripture with their theories and interpretations. Extremes of this sometimes results in sects like with Joseph Smith. Anyone care to debate this idea? 😉
Again with these in mind we can have some really lively and fun discussions on the “things of God”.
Now off topic again regarding my name usage on here….
“Charlie Arehart” or “CA”….OK got it and agree where there could be confusion. Thanks for pointing that out. Actually I would more properly be called “CAN”. Just the C.A. Nix III is habitual but can be read a little snooty. I always used the III since my father had horrible credit and I used to have to make sure his name was not confused with mine. No kidding as I got a call from a collection agency once.
So how do you like this one? Had to try on the full name just once on here and you gave me just the excuse to do it! 😉
Now let me step aside, rest my fingers, and let others actually discuss specifics instead of me rambling on any more with sidebars.
YBIC….
Thanks, CAN. 🙂 Good solution, and good thoughts. Don’t know if there’s much steam left to carry this particular discussion further, but lively discussions of the “things of God” do sound compelling. Look forward to that on this and other GF blogs.
I do tend to beat a subject to a bloody pulp and leave it there as the end of a blog. 🙂 One of many flaws that I am willing to admit.
Thanks and welcome to the GF blog-o-sphere.
Will, thanks for asking for a clarification. My point is not to say those who wear the badge of “Covenant” do not recognize the practical applications of the dispensational concept; my point is to keep people from using the term in a pajorative way. For example, when “covenant people” use the concept of dispensation they often use the term “stages” (Louis Berkoff’s systematic theology is the classic example). Yet, when the idea of dispensationlism is brough up, many times it is negative toward the “classis” system, and yet they use the exact concept in their interpretative scheme.
Therefore, I am not aiming at those who are covenant yet recognize the need for a dispensational dynamic; I just want there to be balance in their approach. Balance can only be achieved by communication that has within it a desire for careful definition.
So, I am grateful for your desire to have me clarify.
Eric, although your comment is a simply point toward clarifying what a person believes, it is often that simple for people who want to take shots at something they don’t understand nor want to take the time to study. The reality is that dispensationalism is a useful system that many “covenant people” already practically follow, but don’t want anyone to know or don’t realize themselves. I know that labeling is often not that simple. Let’s face it the dynamic of labeling is all around us. How many times is a “Christian” assumed to be someone who believes the Bible is God’s Word? One would seem to point to the other, yet it often does not since a person’s unbiblical definition of a Christian or a poor understanding related to the inspirational qualities of the Bible.
Dan, thanks for the explanation. I agree that definitions are extremely important. It’s one of the bane’s of society that labels exist often without definition. That’s why the media can call Benny Hinn an Evangelical!
I also agree that Covenant people use the concept of different stages in history and even use the word “dispensations” to describe those stages. I think the difference is that the dispensations are not the big picture for Covenant people. For those of us who lean towards a more covenant-oriented view of history, “dispensation” is not a bad word, but “dispensationALISM” may well be. Dispensationalism as a world view and as a theological system is fraught with error (in my opinion). Recognizing dispensations within the covenant framework, however, is very necessary and appropriate.
It seems that the term that Covenant theologians use in a pejorative way is the term “dispensationALSIM,” not merely “dispensation.” That’s what you said; I’m just agreeing with you. 🙂 Perhaps the preference for “stages” over “dispensations” is an attempt to avoid being linked with what Covenant theologians perceive is a faulty theological system. Therefore, they acknowledge dispensations without calling them that.
Having grown up in dispensationalism, I was told on many ocassions that Covenant theology was sinful and unbiblical. So my dispensational heritage is one that used the term “Covenant” in a pejorative way. It happens on both sides of the fence.
I’m intrigued by both New Covenant theology and Progressive Dispensationalism. There seems to be a desire on the part of both to find the common ground and clarify terminology and hermeneutics. The future looks bright! 🙂
Yes, the ‘ism’ makes all the difference, doesn’t it?
I agree. It is very unfortunate that you were exposed to people who would have this view of Covenant theology. It is yet another reminder that we must seek to communicate toward a common ground of God’s fame being spread.
I have a couple of belated Christmas presents. You can receive them by going to Google, typing in “Powered by Christ Ministries,” and then clicking on “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism.” Also by Googling and putting in “Pretrib Rapture Diehards.” Lou