Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Miscellaneous Thoughts on Dispensationalism
It has been several years since I read on this issue. At that point, I had read Schofield, Showers, and Larkin. I also had read a compilation of quotes from Calvin on ecclesiology and escatology that were relevant, because he positions himself clearly to consider Israel as replaced by the church, which leads to a strong allegorism. Recently, I read a paper on the subject, but I did not get a copy which cited the author. I have spent many years concentrating on defending the Bible in its historical, grammatical sense. I believe that the Bible makes both historical and doctrinal distinctions. I believe that the conclusion of this paper is very essential and necessary to hermeneutics:
1. A distinction between Israel and the Church
2. A consistent, literal interpretation of the Scriptures
3. A doxological purpose of biblical history
As I make some comments on some issues, I will point out some concerns that are important to me.
In defining the debate, I noticed that this seems to be a debate of past generations. The authors are older and/or deceased. None of my friends really know what the word dispensationalism means. This is clearly a sign of our times, but most Christians will defend the hermeneutical principles of dispensationalism. In reading and listening to contemporaries, I see in church culture a huge tendency to not try to harmonize biblical history, resulting in a merging of preterist, amillenial, and post millenial views, while the pre millenial view is seen as inferior. This is clearly troubling.
I do not know really who or what progressive dispensationalism is; I will have to read more of it.
Most contemporary literature on the subject is very negative and frames all dispensationalists into a Schofield Bible Notes referential. I find this very troubling because I reject the idea that angels were created in "eternity past." This is because I believe that all of creation happened in six days, that angels are finite beings (confined to limited space), that Satan (as a fallen angel) or evil were not present before God called everything that He had made "very good." I also have no place for God to create a new world or fix the old one without the coming of the eternally purposed Messiah. All of these are historically prevalent in dispensationalism as defined by Schofield and his contemporaries. This is my biggest problem with most dispensationalists, but is not really discussed here. I also see some of the ministries of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the New Testament but necessary for "sainthood" in any age, but I see a distinction in ministries as articulated in John 14-16 and Acts 1-2.
I think it is actually appropriate that there has been a shift from discussion of hermeneutical system to theological system. I know that this might be considered a deviation from sola scriptura, but I do not think so. Here is why: in my opinion, much of conservative bibliology is built (in many cases unintentionally) on the criss-crossed ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes, namely that universal truth is personally discovered, which leads to the necessity of a god, which leads to the necessity of revelation, which leads to the credibility of the Bible, Which leads to the knowledge of the true God (I am simplifying for time). This idea, in essence, bases all of its truth in man's ability to reason out truth, not in God's establishment of it, nor the Holy Spirit's testimony to it. This is why so many unregenerate men have looked at the Bible and come to apostate ideas, which we see in many anti Christ sects throughout history. In essence, I am saying that a person cannot autonomously come to the right hermeneutic by starting with neutral views and reasoning the Bible into a proper theological position. In other words, I believe that good theology is in the Bible, but that it takes a supernatural intervention to see it clearly. This puts me strongly in the camp that says that Christian theology is its own best apologetic, which is presuppositionalism, as I understand it.
Missing here seems to be a discussion of how God's program for salvation is seen. I know some dispensationalists that say that in the time of the Law, people were saved through Temple sacrifices; that in the time preceeding this that various sacrificial systems with similarities were valid, but that now God saves by grace through faith alone. I know non dispensationalists that see no distinctions between earthly convenants made with Israel, Abraham, Noah, etc. and the "new testament" of Christ's blood. The former say that God always offered grace, but the means was different, sometimes works. The latter say that there are no distinctions, and that men always chose between salvation by grace or by works. I am not clear on how all of this is resolved. I think that both views are false, and that they ultimately lead to a relationship with God based on earned status, and not on imputed righteousness.
It seems that pretty much everybody defends a literalism, but that they all define it differently. Even the principles stated as the "essentials" of dispensationalism are used frequently by covenant theologians, with exception of the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Of course, the Bible never debates or states whether the New Testament is more important than the Old or visa versa. It does model by its structure that the Old Testament came first, but the New Testament writers clearly used the Old Testament in ways that upset the religious leaders of their day, which looks like taking the New Testament to interpret the Old. Asking the question "Which Testament is more important?" is asking the wrong question, if we are to harmonize them. The term "verbal plenary" makes this point by saying that all of the Bible is equally inspired, meaning that it takes both testaments and all of the books equally to truly understand God and His program for history.
I know many dispensationalists defending views on the "literal vs allegorical" line that use no allegory for the church with respect to Moses or the Millenium, but they allegorize much of the Old Testament to speak of "Christian Life Principles." In my opinion, this is inconsitent.
Clearly, this is not a debate between two huge, monolithic structures. There are wide varieties of understanding within all groups.
In the concluding sections of the paper, I had some concerns that I think are worth mentioning. First, I would re-arrange the priorities of Ryrie and not omit the doxological element. In fact, I would make it first in priority. All of God's plan is doxological. God's glory should govern every aspect of one's hermeneutic. Second, I think that one should much better define the term literal, rather than use the word and risk equivocation. Third, I think that the escatalogical issue, while relevant, is subject to the issue of ecclesiology. The identity and purpose of the church is much more relevant to the debate. The allegorization of the present has produced the allegorization of the future. I also disagree that in this sense: the non dispensational do not use the New Testament to interpret the Old, but visa versa. They try to say that baptism means the same as circumcision, communion with the Passover, church leadership with the aaronic priesthood, locations of worship with the Temple, worship itself with the Sabbath, the mosaic covenant with Christian living, etc. This is because they need a single program for history and since they deny different phases and parallel purposes in God's plan, they really have a hard time accepting a New Covenant that sees those things as shadows which are passing away. They identify themselves more with the Old Testament and Israel than the New Testament as a new people: neither Jew nor Greek. Finally, I appreciate the call for a love without compromise on truth. That is a common critique of conservative theologians: that they defend Christian doctrine, while showing no Christian love.
1. A distinction between Israel and the Church
2. A consistent, literal interpretation of the Scriptures
3. A doxological purpose of biblical history
As I make some comments on some issues, I will point out some concerns that are important to me.
In defining the debate, I noticed that this seems to be a debate of past generations. The authors are older and/or deceased. None of my friends really know what the word dispensationalism means. This is clearly a sign of our times, but most Christians will defend the hermeneutical principles of dispensationalism. In reading and listening to contemporaries, I see in church culture a huge tendency to not try to harmonize biblical history, resulting in a merging of preterist, amillenial, and post millenial views, while the pre millenial view is seen as inferior. This is clearly troubling.
I do not know really who or what progressive dispensationalism is; I will have to read more of it.
Most contemporary literature on the subject is very negative and frames all dispensationalists into a Schofield Bible Notes referential. I find this very troubling because I reject the idea that angels were created in "eternity past." This is because I believe that all of creation happened in six days, that angels are finite beings (confined to limited space), that Satan (as a fallen angel) or evil were not present before God called everything that He had made "very good." I also have no place for God to create a new world or fix the old one without the coming of the eternally purposed Messiah. All of these are historically prevalent in dispensationalism as defined by Schofield and his contemporaries. This is my biggest problem with most dispensationalists, but is not really discussed here. I also see some of the ministries of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the New Testament but necessary for "sainthood" in any age, but I see a distinction in ministries as articulated in John 14-16 and Acts 1-2.
I think it is actually appropriate that there has been a shift from discussion of hermeneutical system to theological system. I know that this might be considered a deviation from sola scriptura, but I do not think so. Here is why: in my opinion, much of conservative bibliology is built (in many cases unintentionally) on the criss-crossed ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes, namely that universal truth is personally discovered, which leads to the necessity of a god, which leads to the necessity of revelation, which leads to the credibility of the Bible, Which leads to the knowledge of the true God (I am simplifying for time). This idea, in essence, bases all of its truth in man's ability to reason out truth, not in God's establishment of it, nor the Holy Spirit's testimony to it. This is why so many unregenerate men have looked at the Bible and come to apostate ideas, which we see in many anti Christ sects throughout history. In essence, I am saying that a person cannot autonomously come to the right hermeneutic by starting with neutral views and reasoning the Bible into a proper theological position. In other words, I believe that good theology is in the Bible, but that it takes a supernatural intervention to see it clearly. This puts me strongly in the camp that says that Christian theology is its own best apologetic, which is presuppositionalism, as I understand it.
Missing here seems to be a discussion of how God's program for salvation is seen. I know some dispensationalists that say that in the time of the Law, people were saved through Temple sacrifices; that in the time preceeding this that various sacrificial systems with similarities were valid, but that now God saves by grace through faith alone. I know non dispensationalists that see no distinctions between earthly convenants made with Israel, Abraham, Noah, etc. and the "new testament" of Christ's blood. The former say that God always offered grace, but the means was different, sometimes works. The latter say that there are no distinctions, and that men always chose between salvation by grace or by works. I am not clear on how all of this is resolved. I think that both views are false, and that they ultimately lead to a relationship with God based on earned status, and not on imputed righteousness.
It seems that pretty much everybody defends a literalism, but that they all define it differently. Even the principles stated as the "essentials" of dispensationalism are used frequently by covenant theologians, with exception of the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Of course, the Bible never debates or states whether the New Testament is more important than the Old or visa versa. It does model by its structure that the Old Testament came first, but the New Testament writers clearly used the Old Testament in ways that upset the religious leaders of their day, which looks like taking the New Testament to interpret the Old. Asking the question "Which Testament is more important?" is asking the wrong question, if we are to harmonize them. The term "verbal plenary" makes this point by saying that all of the Bible is equally inspired, meaning that it takes both testaments and all of the books equally to truly understand God and His program for history.
I know many dispensationalists defending views on the "literal vs allegorical" line that use no allegory for the church with respect to Moses or the Millenium, but they allegorize much of the Old Testament to speak of "Christian Life Principles." In my opinion, this is inconsitent.
Clearly, this is not a debate between two huge, monolithic structures. There are wide varieties of understanding within all groups.
In the concluding sections of the paper, I had some concerns that I think are worth mentioning. First, I would re-arrange the priorities of Ryrie and not omit the doxological element. In fact, I would make it first in priority. All of God's plan is doxological. God's glory should govern every aspect of one's hermeneutic. Second, I think that one should much better define the term literal, rather than use the word and risk equivocation. Third, I think that the escatalogical issue, while relevant, is subject to the issue of ecclesiology. The identity and purpose of the church is much more relevant to the debate. The allegorization of the present has produced the allegorization of the future. I also disagree that in this sense: the non dispensational do not use the New Testament to interpret the Old, but visa versa. They try to say that baptism means the same as circumcision, communion with the Passover, church leadership with the aaronic priesthood, locations of worship with the Temple, worship itself with the Sabbath, the mosaic covenant with Christian living, etc. This is because they need a single program for history and since they deny different phases and parallel purposes in God's plan, they really have a hard time accepting a New Covenant that sees those things as shadows which are passing away. They identify themselves more with the Old Testament and Israel than the New Testament as a new people: neither Jew nor Greek. Finally, I appreciate the call for a love without compromise on truth. That is a common critique of conservative theologians: that they defend Christian doctrine, while showing no Christian love.
