Why I Am a Dispensationalist

Thanks for the article. May God continue to bless you in the study of His Word.

Interestingly, I would also use #'s 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 to describe my Non-Dispensational Theology. I would also use #2, but I would mean something different than you by it.

In order for a doctrine to be present in "seed form," the doctrine in question must be shown to be the logical conclusion of a trajectory of reasoning. For example, Calvin is often credited with being the inspiration for presuppositional apologetics, or at least the Kuyperian "antithesis." Such a connection is confirmed by the similarity in approach between Calvin and Kuyper, and the manner in which Calvin develops his Institutes.

Your assertion, however, that Dispensationalism is a fulfillment of the Reformation, is entirely contrary to fact. Luther, for example, expressly indicated that the Church is the true Israel and the heir of the Old Testament promises (any work on Luther and the Jews will abundantly confirm this). Moreover, the mere presence of similar words in Luther's thought and in Dispensationalism's terminology do not necessarily indicate any similarity of meaning. First and most importantly, Luther does not use the categories "law" and "grace," (that was Karl Barth) but law and gospel (not interchangeable terms). At this point, your comparison is already ridiculous. It gets worse, though. The Lutheran view of law/gospel is entirely opposed to Dispensationalism. Far from seeing law and gospel as differing in regard to chronology or economy, the Lutheran teaching of law and gospel affirms that the two run side-by-side throughout the pages of Scripture and are fulfilled in Christ. Luther's "law" does not primarily refer to a time period, or even the content of the Mosaic Law, but to God's eternal demand on each person which condemns them to judgment. Similarly, the "gospel" does not refer to an age of fulfillment, but to the timeless promise of Scripture that "the just by faith shall live," known by all the Old Testament states and specifically stated in Habakkuk 2:4. In short, there is no plausible connection between Reformational theology and Dispensationalism.

Actually, the Reformers had a well-thought out hermeneutical program and expository method of preaching hundreds of years before Dispensationalism. Their hermeneutics did not lead them toward Dispensationalism, but rather toward the opposite. Some other factor must have intervened in order to make such a large theological shift. The 2 major forces influencing the move to "Dispensational" hermeneutics were Jacksonian democracy (populism) and Baconian inductivism turned toward intuitionism. Some studies relevant to this subject include Nathan Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity, Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and This World Is Not My Home by Michael Williams. There are many others, but that should be enough.

Charlie, I agree with Joseph in the other thread that there is a connection between Arminianism and democratic Americanism, but I don’t see the connection to dispensationalism. Unless you are just suggesting that an everyman his own theologian attitude allowed a bad doctrine to prosper. Make that connection a little clearer for me if you will.

Alex, I think a distinction between what Luther meant by "gospel" and what dispensationalists mean by "grace" is pretty hard to sustain. In any case, Scharf's point is that he sees the seeds of dispensationalism in the distinction between law as what condemns and gospel as what forgives. He is clear in the paper that Luther would be appalled at the idea of dispensationalism.

In general, I think too many approach the whole notion of dispensationalism with a strong bias in favor approaches that are perceived to predate it and a strong aversion to newness... though I continue to be amazed at how selective the aversion to newness is.
For example, though this doesn't describe anyone here (let's hope), many who disdain dispensationalism out of the box because it's a theological innovation (in their eyes), turn around and gleefully embrace Wright's "new perspective on Paul."
So "new is bad" or "new is good" depending on what day it is and the price of eggs in China, I guess.

...and once again Joseph ends a post with a variation on "this point is so obvious it can't be argued"...

Red,

The following paper provides a helpful and concise overview of some of the main issues that I think Charlie was referring to. And it also cites most of the relevant literature on the topic, at least enough to get one started.

http://bible.org/article/relationship-common-sense-realism-dispensationa...

I'm trying really hard to be embarrassed, but just can't seem to work it up.
How bright Wright is has absolutely nothing to do with my point... nor does it have a whole lot to do with how right Wright is.

My point is a very simple one. One of the most often touted arguments against dispensationalism is that it's a new kid on the block and does not adequately respect the corpus of orthodox historical theology. My answer to that is, in part, that folks are very selective about their use of the newness argument, dismissing one set of ideas out of hand on that basis while embracing other ideas that really are new and dramatic departures from the supposedly much beloved body of historical theology.
The reception many have given N.T. Wright's new perspective is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Wow, I've said it twice and I'm still not embarrassed.
(I'm afraid that I'm hopelessly beyond the persuasive power of long paragraphs extolling the brilliance of scholar X and decrying the ignorance and stupidity of dispensationalists... and the word philosopher just doesn't quicken my pulse or make my eyes go starry at all... though I'll admit to finding several of them interesting).

I'm a convert away from dispensationalism for the record. And I agree that "newness" is a big argument against it. So I can see Aaron's point as being true among many young fundamentalists I've heard of. This isn't to say a straight comparison can be made to Wright. And I'm not disagreeing with the assessment Joseph gave of Wright. I just think Aaron was just briefly mentioning newness and used Wright as an off-hand example, and then this was jumped on with an incredibly detailed response. I agree with most of the response, I just don't see how it was "asked for" by Aaron.

I'm surprised that classical dispensationalism is what is being held to here, really. And I agree that many of the 7 points characterize my understanding of Scripture based on covenantal thought.

I also take exception to the phrase "replacement theology". That is a loaded phrase in my opinion that tries to stack the deck against CT. CT doesn't claim to be replacement theology in this sense at all.

I think the two articles pro and con to dispensationalism were pretty good, but neither really presented an overwhelming or fascinating case. But the limitations of a blog post probably prevent that. It's been interesting reading the comments. I'm enjoying jumping back into Sharper Iron for the first time in a while.

God Bless,

Bob Hayton

One of the things that I find perplexing and frustrating is the way in which Fundamentalists seem to have a kind of monolithic idea of "the academy" or "scholarship," as if they are things that one can simply endorse or cast a skeptical eye upon. There are qualitative differences among scholars, and I'm not merely saying Wright is a good scholar. He is a theologian and biblical interpreter, as well as a historian, of really remarkable gifts, ability, and cultivation, and this fact is important. It reflects ignorance, perhaps in combination with other factors, but nothing positive, when a person rejects something of which they are ignorant. Much of the Fundamentalist responses to "scholarship" and "philosophers" strikes me as having the tone and perspective of people distinctly on the outside, just as Fundamentalists always find descriptions about them somewhat bizarre, even if sort of correct, so too I think people like myself, who are in the academy, find many Fundamentalists reaction to the academy bizarre and difficult to square with the way things look from the inside.

I don't presume to dismiss professions about which I am ignorant in some substantial way merely because I dislike aspects of those professions, and it certainly seems that this is a good principle, but one which people do not apply when it comes to scholarship, about which we are all , it seems, qualified judges who can proudly profess our imperviousness from and issue judgment upon the intellectual morass of the modern academy.

I think people don't really understand anti-intellectualism, or they would not deny it about themselves because sometimes, like right now, I sort of start and realize that what I'm desribing sounds an awful lot like anti-intellectualism. Indeed, much of this is manifest in the fact that many people, including many Fundamentalists, do not seem to distinguish scholarship from supporting education, or having universitives, or having gone to college, as if going to business school or learning computer programming is the same thing as preparing for or undertaking the profession of a teacher and/or researcher in the university. or that it automatically means one is not anti-intellectual. There's no real way to point this out and not be "the bad guy," although Charlie has already referenced some works that go a long way towards explaining this sensibiltiy, which I hasten to add is shared by others (it's largely an American thing), but is unsettingly prevalent among conversative Christians.

Unfortunately this is not off topic, for, as the article about dispensationism that I linked to indicates, this mentality is not wholly dissimilar from that held by many of the early dispensationalists. There is a distrust, having nothing to do with Christianity and having everything to do with American cultural sensibilities, of "eggheads" and "intellectuals" that pervades certain regions and sub-cultures of America, as any student of American history of politics realizes, and this distrust is strong still among many Fundamentalists.

I close by noting that the often justified distrust of aspects of the academy, which has done much to muddle and contribute to the disorder of culture, is often poorly expressed, and this is unfortunate. The best way to deal with bad work in a field is to find others, who actually are in the field, to do the criticism, rather than risk launching a screed or making oneself appear ignorant and therefore obfuscating one's poorly presented yet still valid criticism. This, I fear, is a rather common problem among conservatives, both politically and religiously, and hence we are often dismissed with a certain justification by those against who we rage. Tempered and thoughtful critics who are able to criticize nonsense always exist, and if they are not invoked it indicates that a person has not even done sufficient homework to know who, within the area they are attacking, supports what they are saying and has articulated in terms plausible to members of the discipline.

But that is quite enough of this; I hope some little clarity is brought to my dissatisfaction with certain kinds of responses (the content is rarely the main problem; the form is).

BTW, my earlier post directed at Joseph was snarky and did nothing to contribute to the discussion. For that I apologize, Joseph.

I personally would not attribute to Luther a "Reformational" identity though his body of work coincides with this age seeing that often he refuted the rationalism of Reformed theology but I do understand the use of the identity if it is respective of his period and not his theology, he simply is too distinct.

And I am certainly not arguing Luther was a dispensationalist but that observably Luther went notably further in his theology than Reformers in regarding economic distinctions and the theology behind it which lends the idea that Luther recognized without unnecessary resistance, this kind of scheme. But his eschatology, one must say, would not point to any attempt by him to approach or validate classic dispensationalism.

I believe my front here stems from an unhealthy practice I have observed by Reformed believers who too often borrow the name of Luther as their ally and theological comrade when, while his respect and appreciation for Reformed teachers certainly can be observed, his opposition to Reformed rationalism is as clearly observable, if not more so.

An interesting quote by "father" Chafer on dispensationalism and the Reformation:

http://bartimaeus.us/pub_dom/dispensationalism.html

(Bold mine)

Aaron, I do agree that "law and gospel" and "law and grace" should not be view as synonymous terms though they are quite familiar with one another. It might be with the latter, its development is built upon some of the fundamental concepts found in the former.

Thanks, Bob. I wonder if we could get Joseph to chime in on the question(s). (If the topic isn't simply beyond the pale of what we're capable of discussing intelligently in this venue, etc... sorry, couldn't resist teasing a little there, Joseph).

I raise these questions in particular because it seems that in many cases answers to them--or assumed answers--establish a starting point in looking at dispensationalism that isn't fair to it as an approach to theology. And I'm interested in seeing it get a chance at thoughtful evaluation by as many people as possible.

Aaron,

I certainly understand why you might say that it seems random that some "new" ideas are preferred over other "new" ideas like dispensationalism. However, I think the point that is not coming out here is that there is a qualitatively different kind of newness between, say, dispensationalism and the Reformers, which explains why it would be more understandable to choose one and not the other. For one thing, the Reformers were not a complete break with historical theology. In fact, much of their argument was that they were supported by great Catholic theologians such as Augustine, and many who stayed within the Catholic church agreed with much of what the Reformers said and wanted reform within the Catholic church. Also, the Reformers studied intensely to come to their positions. They lived in a time of renewed interest in the Classical languages and knew the Biblical languages, as well as knowing the church fathers. Their ideas were "new" but were not in any way the kind of radical break with historical views of Scripture in the way dispensationalism was. The founders of dispensationalism were, no doubt, godly men, but, and here's the key, they were not as well-prepared academically as the Reformers (Did Chafer even know the Biblical languages? Did he read the church fathers?), and their views on Scripture were a radical break from historical ways of viewing Scripture. Does this make them wrong? Of course not, but we have to realize that the only place dispensationalism could have caught on like it did among conservative Christians is in an environment that had a low view of history and academics and a high view of personal piety. So, we can say that comparing the "newness" of dispensationalism and Wright is like comparing apples and oranges because, like between the Reformers and dispensationalism, there is a qualitative difference in that newness. Wright is offering a radical view of one aspect of Paul's teaching, but he is largely in line with historical theology (and he is arguing for his point historically, from the context of the Scriptures), and he is a well-respected scholar. Thus, it is in many ways more understandable for intellectual people to follow the "newness" of Wright, while repudiating the "newness" of dispensationalism.
Anyway, the point is not so much about Wright as it is about why people choose some "new" ideas over others.

Aaron, I was actually thinking about this before I saw your post, but you're right, it is the logical question. Is there a difference between Luther and company and Darby and friends? I think there is. Luther critiqued from a position of knowledge. He was regarded as one of the most brilliant minds in all of Europe, praised even by Erasmus. He was intimately acquainted with the scope of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology. As a professor, he had lectured through Aristotle, Aquinas, Lombard, and portions of the Scriptures. When he contradicted Catholicism, he knew whereof he spoke. Also, Luther was not quite as unique as historians have made him out to be. Recent publications in intellectual history have pointed out the presence of a schola Augustinia moderna, which was proceeding speedily down the same path by having recovered critical editions of Augustine and by using Erasmus' GNT to correct the faulty Vulgate. When Luther made his "breakthrough," there were many primed to accept it all over Europe, particularly within the rapidly developing humanist communities. With Zwingli and Calvin, you get more of the same. They critiqued from the intellectual high ground, being both brilliant and well studied. For more information, I'd point you to Alister McGrath's The Intellectual History of the European Reformation or any of the works of Heiko Oberman.

With the early Dispensationalists, I don't see that same critique from the high ground. Darby was a very intelligent man, but didn't formally study theology. One of the first things that his new theology led him to do was to declare that all institutional churches were corrupt and that any form of church government or clergy was a sin. Darby's conception of the church was that of equal authority because everyone was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is the key point. Darby's theology was essentially populist. It operated on the assumption that learning and study, especially formal study, was really inconsequential to the illumination of the Holy Spirit. If you just read your Bible with the Holy Spirit's help, you'd get it right. (I'm not sure, though, how he explained the utter failure of past Christians to read the Bible with the Holy Spirit). In the 19th century, Darby was one among many people who acted on a new conception of Scripture. Before then, the church had always thought of Scripture as being given to the Church corporate, and containing different levels of perspicuity. No one person could interpret the Scripture by himself without the help of the Church, and not all parts of Scripture are equally easy or difficult to interpret. The emerging 19th century consensus was that Scripture was a book of facts just like any physical object. One person could simply analyze it and understand it. So, the corporate aspect of interpretation was removed as each man was encouraged simply to read the Bible for himself to determine what it said. Furthermore, understanding any one topic in the Bible was as simple as collecting the relevant verses and listing them off, adding up their teaching like a math problem. This method led to two predictable consequences: 1) the loss of the concept of hermeneutical center, and 2) the methedological breakdown of systematic theology.

(Rabbit trail: This approach to Scripture is still evident at, say, Bob Jones, where I was taught you could do a biblical theology of the book of 1 Thessalonians simply by highlighting all the verses containing the word "God" (or Father) with one color, Christ with another color, salvation with another color, etc., and adding them together. This shows quite a disregard for discourse analysis and literary sensitivity. One could randomly scramble all the sentences in the book of 1 Thessalonians and still come out with the same biblical theology!)

I won't go into detail, but Chafer had a similar background and expressed the same sentiments. His only education was in music from Oberlin College (the school where Charles Finney was president!). His theological training came pretty much from the Niagra Prophecy Conferences and his relationship with C.I. Scofield (a man of disreputable character and again, no formal theological training). I won't belabor the point.

So, I think there are 2 marked differences between the Reformers and the early Dispensationalists. First, their actual knowledge of the field in which they labored. Second, their conceptions concerning what Scripture was and how it was to be approached. I really think Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity opened my eyes more than any other single work to what happens when individualistic interpretation and a "common sense" approach combine. In the 19th century, the leaders of Methodism, Campbellism, Dispensationalism, Universalism, the Millerites (later 7th Day), the Unitarians, the Brethren, and others all had one platform in common. They all said that if the common man would just read through the Bible like they had never heard anyone tell them about it before, the people would agree with their group. Several leaders or prominent members of these groups said that they came to their theology for locking themselves in a room with their Bible for days or weeks at a time. The remarkable thing is how many of these groups either started or soon became heretical, and how none of them were able to recognize the role of presuppositions in their theology.

(This is Joseph; I accidentlly used my wife's account, and I don't know how to delete the post)

Greg,

No problem; I myself, as evidence on this thread, have made many a gaff, and I'm glad so many people are willing to criticize me.

Aaron,

The question you raise is, in my opinion, one fo the hugest that can be raised, especially for a Protestant, because it is in essence the question of doctrinal development. I myself am nowhere close to have resolution on the question of doctrinal development, and it's something I intend to study for a long time. Cardinal Newman gave a set of criteria in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, which was the first book to really raise the question as sharply as Newman did. There is no easy answer to be given, and none that can come without very deep reflection. For me personally, much is at stake. Let me offer one example about how this question is structured in my thinking. Classical Liberal theology (Schleiermacher through Ritschl, Harnack, Troeltsch, et al.) was very impressive theologically and historically; it was nothing like the tepid junk most people associate with liberal theology, in part because someone like Harnack, for example attempted to root his theology in his interpretation of the history of doctrine (his 7 Vol. Dogmengeschichte or HIstory of Dogma is still standard reading if you're a historian of theology). Harnack and others gave us tools that we use, even as conservatives, even though we reject much of their conclusions (the Germans, which means largely liberal Protestants, practically invented historical studies). Now, the classic line of argument of liberals like Harnack, Karl Holl (Holl was a bit different, but still a liberal; he was Harnack's colleague at the University of Berlin), and some of their famous students, like Wilhelm Pauck, was that Schleiermacher and the consequent liberal tradition was a consistent and faithful outworking of the Reformation.

You can see this, for example, in Pauck's still excellent book, "The Reformation Heritage." (Also see a delightful short book by Pauck, "Harnack and Troeltsch: Two HIstorical Theologians") And these claims were coming from some of the best historian theologians in Europe, so they were not simply to be dismissed. B.A. Gerrish, a student of Pauck and therefore the academic "grandson" of Harnack and Holl, argues the same thing in his superb interpretations of Calvin and Schleiermacher (see, for example his essays in "The Old Protestantism and the New" and "Continuing the Reformation"). Now, this is a very difficult question, one that I inherited as meaningful from my undergraduate mentor, Dr. Hinkson, who was a student of Gerrish.and is an expert on the development of Luther's image in Lutheranism. And I don't an have an answer to it; many Catholics then and now agreed with Harnack et al. and argued that that was a good reason to reject Protestantism since Protestantism leads to Liberalism.

Any student of the development of Protestantism who cares about theology is troubled by these lines of attack because they have a lot of plausibility given the historical record. So, the problem, as I hope is clear, is essentially the same problem you raise: when is doctrinal development just that, deveopment, and not aberrant departure? The question is imperative because Luther and Calvin, for example, would have had, in many ways, a difficult time recognizing modern so-called Protestantism, and they might not want to be associated with much of conservative Christianity in American. Moreover, Gerrish is one of the leading Schleiermacher scholars in the world as well as being a leading scholar of Luther and Calvin, so his work, even if one disagrees with its conclusions, is rigorously argued and not dismissable (his work on Calvin and Luther is some of the best available in English).

These concerns are now remote to many theologians (sadly), but a few carry them on - mainly those trained in the German tradition described above. A good work by one of the best theologians (in my opinion) in America, is "Suffering Divine Things" by Reinhard Huetter, a theologically serious German who teaches at Duke Divinity School. If you read just the first chapter of that book, you'll get a sense of these questions from someone who is still concerned about them; and I think we should be - and thus your question is important - because these are the questions that historically minded Christians need to ask.

So, lame as it may be, the answer is I don't know, and when I do, I may very well convert to a different denomination.

Alex,

The degrees you mention are, as Audrey says, honorary - they're not earned degrees. I'm not sure that Chafer had any earned degrees, in fact. Regarding the bit about his education, that may take a while to find, but I'll post it if I find it soon.

http://biblesanity.org/chafer.htm

I think you're at least on the right track in understanding me. I should probably make two clarifications. First, I don't really want to put the emphasis on Luther's and other's sheer brilliance, or even their generally high level of education. Intelligence alone is not the issue, since Erasmus was just as bright as Luther. The application of intelligence to master a subject matter is the real evidence of scholarship. The real issue for me is that the Reformers were thoroughly versed in the field in which they were operating (theology). Luther was intimately familiar with the theology he rejected. He had listened, so to speak, before critiquing. Despite what seems to be the popular image of Luther - one man against the Church - Luther was convinced that he had rediscovered the theology of the early Church and was publishing it against the Antichrist, the Pope, who had come in as the Devil's agent to confuse the Catholic Church. Luther remained a Catholic to his death, still hopeful that God would intervene to restore the Catholic Church to doctrinal purity or intervene in the second coming. Heiko Oberman has done fantastic work on Luther's conception of the one true Church, the Antichrist, and the fast-approaching parousia of Christ. In summary, Luther operated as a theologian of the Church, convinced that his place was to carry on the theological conversation that started in the first century.

On the other hand, Darby and Chafer were also exceptionally brilliant. I do not see in them, however, the same respect for their subject matter. Darby's theology was expressly opposed to all denominations and forms of church government in favor of a near-Quaker kind of egalitarian interpretative equality. (I have read at least one full biography on Darby, so I'm not just pulling this off sketchy websites). His approach to theology, then, didn't really have a category for historical theology, and even the systematic theology that came out of the early Dispensational movement bears a different character than earlier systematics (it's more geared toward collecting the verses and adding them together, as I explained before). Quite contrary to the Reformers, early Dispensationalists seemed not to see any particular need or benefit in listening to the theological conversation. All that came before them was so much irrelevant "tradition," as opposed to their "plain Bible reading." They were not, nor did they want to be, theologians of the Church.

I think the conversation about the education level of Darby, Chafer, et. al. might not be worth a lot of wrangling. I doubt anyone here is willing to say "You cannot contribute to theological development unless you have the proper credentials." I do think we have one or two involved who would be willing to say "You cannot contribute to theological development unless you have a high regard for the history of the effort and the work of those who have gone before."

But whether Chafer, Darby & Co. had that high regard or not an important fact remains: No theological development of any kind occurs unless a student is willing to depart in some degree from those who have gone before him.

In the case of orthodox theological development, seems to me that no "progress" has ever occurred unless a student believed a) he was able to see something others had not and b) he was able to see something in Scripture those before him did not.
To put it another way, genuinely orthodox growth in theology requires the conviction that the meaning of Scripture is accessible to a significant degree to the individual believer... and actual success in getting at that meaning.

To put it even more plainly, you don't advance orthodox theology (very much) unless you believe you can figure the Bible out for yourself, at least to some degree, and then actually do so.

So I'll grant for the sake of argument that some of the early dispensationalists (as far as a developed system goes) had, perhaps, an exaggerated sense of this ability to "figure it out myself." But I don't see how we can deny that Luther, for one, had a very strong sense of "I don't care what anybody says... the Scriptures are clear." There could have been no 95 theses otherwise... (OK, granted, several of the theses are pretty mild assertions... but some are real doosies).

All the significant gains (and, yes, all the worst heresies, too) have arisen from somebody thinking "Maybe I can get at some answers others have gotten wrong."

If we believe in the sola scriptura principle, then the only thing that justifies departing from the historical theology--on pretty much any point--is the conviction that the Scriptures have been widely neglected or misunderstood.
As for those who don't believe in sola, there is just about nowhere good for them to go. They either cling to the developments in theology so far and go no further, or they go further on the basis of some other authority, such as philosophy or science. History is clear where that road usually leads.

I would disagree with the way you have framed this entire discussion. Your idea that gains in theology come from correcting past errors is only half right. This is a Hegelian way to view the problem, with competing thesis and antithesis. Rather, I think that most theologians prior to modern criticism have tried very hard to labor by addition and deepening rather than correction. The Middle Ages were unduly concerned with this, often grossly reinterpreting earlier theologians in order to show how they were "correct" even when the newer theologian was espousing different ideas. Luther never thought of himself as discovering a new gospel, but rather recovering an ancient that had been temporarily obscured by the Pope. The Reformed Church developed not so much by correction but by broadening the approaches to theology. Witsius, for example, was one of the first to employ the "biblical theological" method of treating the Bible chronologically. However, he often goes out of his way to show how such a reading is in line with existent Protestant dogmatics. Really, the idea of progress involving leaving behind outdated ideas is a relatively recent phenomenon caused by Enlightenment thinking. So, it seems that there is a difference between saying that a person has developed an idea more deeply (Reformed confessionalism) and saying that every previous framework of theology was essentially wrong in its hermeneutics, ethics, and conception of the nature of the Church (Dispensationalism).

As far as your second point, that you can't advance orthodoxy without believing that you can understand the Bible, I agree with you in word only. This is one of the cruxes of disagreement. Just because I think I have the capability to understand the Bible, or parts of the Bible, does not mean that I believe that other people have the same level of ability. In Catholicism, ontology decides who gets to interpret the Bible. To simplify some, the Pope is closer to God in the hierarchy of being, so he makes the rules regardless of his intellectual or moral state. In Charismatism and pietism, spirituality decides who gets to interpret the Bible. Whoever is most "gifted" by or "yielded" to the Holy Spirit can interpret the Bible. In populist movements, the everyman is the best interpreter of the Bible. Just use common sense, Joe. In Protestant orthodoxy, we generally award the prize to our most intellectually gifted and academically devoted members. So, it seems that we need to establish what the prerequisites are for someone interpreting the Bible before we know who we can trust.

Brent,
Wouldn't disagree with much there. I think progress is often, as you say, going beyond or finding something better. Occasionally, it has involved something closer to perpendicular and still less often something antithetical. Some would describe Luther and the other Reformers as simply going beyond, but they look a good bit more rebellious than that to me. Their departures were seen as outrageous at the time and it was not uncommon to accuse them of the worst sort of arrogance for maintaining that they were reading something in Scripture contrary to the accepted doctrine of the day. The Diet of Worms comes to mind.

I'm emphasizing that era and those men in particular because (warning: a couple of you will find the association I'm about to make shocking and offensive... that really isn't my goal, but it can't be helped) those who have labored to systematize dispensational thought are often characterized as arrogantly and brashly tossing aside the beloved historical theology.
In reality, dispensationalism is not even perpendicular, much less antithetical, to most of orthodox historical theology.

So I argue that if Luther & co. can go theologically ballistic, why can't Darby, Chafer, et. al., go at least a little punchy?
We've heard in this discussion that they can't do that because they were not well enough trained and/or did not have the high esteem of enough of their peers (or that they weren't even the peers of any theologians worthy of the name in their time).
All of that may or may not be. Doesn't matter a whole lot to me. Either a man can stand up and say so when he believes the Scriptures teach something against the flow of historical theology (and be right) or he cannot. I have no doubt at all that he can.

RE: Aaron Blumer, “Perspicuity and Sola Scriptura”

Thank you, Aaron. At last the discussion has come down to the very basics, and they are relatively simple. I trust that the readers of this SI thread appreciate what just developed before their own eyes. The lesson taught is not far removed from the tale of “The Emperor’s Clothes.” The issue in the development of dispensationalism, or any of the other biblical teachings, is one of ultimate authority. Is it the testimony of the sovereign God in Scripture itself, or the scholastic quest of would-be autonomous man? In short, is it Sola Scriptura or historical theology? All of us as readers have been forced to come to grips with the age-old question at the bottom of all systematics and biblical studies—Is one’s authority divine or human; God or man? Its that simple, and one can’t have it both ways.

Sola Scriptura comes wrapped in a whole parcel of truths, such as divine propositional revelation, the idea of miracles, the regeneration of the human personality, the inspiration, inerrancy, and perspicuity of the Bible, the use (and univocality) of the biblical languages and all human language, the soul liberty of each believer and the privilege and duty to come personally and directly to Scripture via the indwelling triune God, the faculty of an illumined, renewed mind, and the sufficiency of Scripture, among others. In other words, with this moral, spiritual, and intellectual propaedeutic we are confronted with a self-attesting Bible, a self-referential God, and a self-identifying Christ, all from Scripture itself.

The historical theological methodology we have been encouraged by some in this blog to adopt, which includes its philosophical assumptions and theological presuppositions antithetical to Sola Scriptura, has admittedly led to a blind alley with regard to the most elementary, basic and load-bearing question in doing theology—How does biblical doctrine develop? Conversely, Sola Scriptura leads us to the Bible as the Word of God in order to see our need for the Bible and everything Christian, not least Christian theology.

Harnack, Troelstch, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl with their “classical liberal theology” that “was very impressive theologically and historically,” along with Gerrish, Pauck, and a SI blogger or two have no answer worthy of acceptance. Joseph, for example, said, “I myself am nowhere close to have resolution on the question of doctrinal development,” a problem he intends “to study for a long time.” Speaking for himself (and actually for the list of scholars “mainly trained in the German tradition” he outlines) in answer to the question of how doctrine develops, he gives a self-confessed lame answer, “I don’t know, and when I do ....”

Dear Christian friends and Bible-believers, in the kindest candor I can muster, that conclusion is at least 20,000 leagues under being pathetic. And we are to accept that kind of finding in refutation of dispensationalism? But it is an honest answer, given in remarkably transparent candor—the only answer possible in that methodology for doctrinal studies. Aaron is patently kind, clear and correct, if not studiously understated: “As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere for them to go.... History [ironically!] is clear where that road usually leads.”

Arguing for or against dispensationalism (or any biblical teaching) on the basis of historical theology, or with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically normative to any degree, is a dead end. Nearly any doctrine, true or crackpot, can be supported by history, probably the most unreliable sources are the Fathers, along with rabbinic studies and others with even worse presuppositions.

Rolland D. McCune

Thanks, Dr. McCune. I think you have expressed it well, as you usually do.

I think some people misunderstand the nature and role of historical theology. Historical theology, to my way of thinking, is simply a chronicle of what people have believed. It is in no way a statement of what people must believe. As you, Dr. McCune, point out, historical theology is notoriously unreliable for authority because it is so broad.

Who hasn't seen John Calvin appealed to for both sides of any given issue? Some people can't even agree on how to spell his name. The church fathers can be appealed to for support for just about everything except whether or not fried chicken and pimento cheese sandwich quarters (with the crusts cut off) are required at church potlucks for true Christian churches.

Furthermore, much of historical theology is the work of rank unbelievers, men who have no part in the atoning work of Christ. It is the work of men who denied some of the most foundational and fundamental elements of the Christian faith. These are men with keen philosophical insights that seem devoid of the work of the Spirit. While these keen philosophical insights may be true by virtue of God's common grace, and his intent to bring about his glory in his church, they do not validate the assertion of untrue theological tenets.

I also find the charge that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old and therefore suspect less than satisfying. It seems to me that many have argued cogently that while the systematization of dispensationalism may date to 1830ish, the tenets of dispensationalism go back much farther. I, in half-jest, trace it to the Garden of Eden, where Adam understood that "Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" was not a command to not drive a car. He understood the words to mean exactly what they said. He knew what the referent was and he didn't try to make it something else. Now, I realize that's somewhat simplistic, and intentionally so. But to me it emphasizes that words have meaning and we don't get to change those. I find unconvincing the idea that NT authors somehow gave new meaning to OT ideas. I think that has some severe consequences for our doctrine of bibliology.

I am a dispensationalist because my conscience, as I study Scripture, gives me no other option. I find unconvincing the arguments that I have seen put forth against dispensationalism and in favor of one of the alternatives.

The issue is not about the normativity of history, but about history (historical theology) being the medium in which theologians work. Is theology a discipline, or is it not? I say it is. How do advancements come in any discipline? They come by people climbing upon the shoulders of those who came before, and from that vantage point offering their contribution. They do not come by people on the outside leaping into the sky by themselves.

So there are two things to consider in any discipline. First, the subject matter. In this case, it is the Bible. Second, the current body of knowledge already available about the subject matter. In this case, historical theology. New breakthroughs in physics come by physicists who know current physics theory laboring to correct, modify, add, develop, etc. They do not come by non-physicists deciding to ignore all that has been said about physics before and think of something on their own based on "common sense," since God obviously wanted us to understand nature and wouldn't have made it hard or require intensive study.

You see where I'm going with this. Theology is a discipline concerned with the investigation of propositional truths. There is a longstanding body of thought devoted to expounding those truths. I believe that new advancements are more likely to come from people intimately acquainted with that body of knowledge than with someone who thinks they can dismiss it. My whole point in this conversation with Aaron was not to prove that Dispensationalism is false, but to show why some people more readily accept Luther's "innovations" than Darby/Scofield/Chafer's. Luther was more like the trained physicist, whereas the others seemed to champion an epistemology that actually encourages jumping into the sky.

Really, all I have been trying to do is explain to Aaron the seeming inconsistency between accepting Luther and rejecting Darby. I do, though, believe that historical theology is the formal principle of systematic theology whereas the Bible is its material principle. I also find it hard to believe that one (such as Chafer) can argue that theology is "common sense" while all the while knowing that the massive weight of history is against you. How can you explain the total absence of "common sense" among every branch of Christendom over the last 1800 years? I think the early Dispensational platform would actually have been stronger by using an appeal to superior scholarship than to common sense.

You are protesting people reading more "historicism" into your method than is accurate, and your clarification is fair, yet you isolate a general comment by a Dispensationalist and exaggerate it to the point of claiming it is the the basis of an entire theological movement so that you can conveniently argue against its value. If you want people to fairly read your approach it stands to reason you are obligated to be a bit more fair of Chafer's theological perspicacity.

Dispensationalism appears to be a theological perspective uniquely emerging from a Bible only ism (Sola Scriptura) approach to scripture.

1. The Japhetic (European) tradition of theology was inseparably entangled with Greek philosophy with the influence of Plato, Aristotle, and others being conveyed via Plotinus and emerging in Augustine. There is agreed consensus that the Reformers, especially Calvin, were influenced by Augustine. Yet Augustine was terribly wrong on Justification, sacraments, the church, and the Kingdom. He became the primary influence that resulted in replacement of Israel and the kingdom with the blessings and ceremonies reformed and transferred to the Gentile church. This centuries old European theology needed to be purged in order for theology to become sola scriptura.

2. The Puritans brought the entanglements of European theology to the new land of north America. Their devotion and exaltation of Christ is to be appreciated. However, their attempts to bring the European concept of the church in the state initially sought to suppress any emerging theology that saw sola scriptura leading to different perspectives. The great awakenings eventually over powered the old lights and new theological ideas emerged. Subsequent events in Revivalism, emerging denominations, and a desire for Bible truth without complicated philosophical ideas. European influences waned and sola scriptura prospered.

3. Approaching the Bible with minimal influences from the flow of Gentilized European Christian history resulted in the emergence of a true sola scriptura approach that rose above old historical prejudices. The attempt to approach scripture without old influences resulted in seeing the Bible through Shemitic eyes rather than Japhetic eyes. The Hebraic nature of scripture, including the N.T., brought a better understanding of the plan of God. Jesus came as Israels Messiah. God's intent of blessing the Gentiles comes only through Israel. Dispensationalism finally systematized theology within the unique election of God for Israel.

4. Historical theology must be studied to understand our errors and appreciate our truth. However, it must not be considered as normative for truth or as an aid to truth. The reality of history must warn us. Why do we embrace a man's ideas yet find it constantly necessary to excuse the life style and actions of some whose ideas we embrace? It is because they are terribly flawed men who can easily teach error. This should lead us to pursue sola scriptura with passion. We certainly must learn from men who also do so, but recognize our obligation to compare their guidance with that which alone has the authority a Holy God.

5. Dispensationalism seeks to take scripture in a normal literary manner (literal, historical, grammatical). This endeavor is made by flawed men but most with a sincere effort to honor the scriptures as the sole authoritative word from God. This is the sole issue involved. To bring in academics, tradition, and history is interesting but not relevant to the final truth of scripture. Many seek to obfuscate the issues with a pseudo intellectualism 9involving philosophy and/ or history. This is not the issue here.

Practically everything that has been said here about Dispensationalism has been illustrated through the performative elements present in the defences of Dispensationalism on this thread.

To the question of doctrinal development, the need for continuity, and the importance of tradition, and the accusation that Dispensationalists have not taken these things seriously, Dr. McCune claims that that past should have no authority, that such approaches are a "dead end," that the Church Fathers, to whom Christians owe so much, are probably our "most unreliable" sources.

To the question of authority of the past, Dr. McCune perpetuates a dichotomy between Scripture and tradition. Great students of Scripture, like the Reformers, knew such a dichotomy, rendered absolute, was false, and that to set it up was always to really elevate the self as the final authority. To those who do not have deference and respect for tradition, they self is the final court of appeals, but they mediate their own interpretations through statements like "sola Scriptura" and "perspicuity," when of course these function to obscure the fact that they provide no means, in themselves, for resolving interpretive differences that arise between individuals.

As W.G.T Shedd said, in defending the Westminster Confession:

Claiming only to follow Scripture alone, much like the claim in the Enlightenment to follow Reason alone, no matter how well intentioned, entails the implicit claim to the final authority of the self, a claim that fits so well with the individualism of our culture, an individualism which fed and nurtued American Christianity and is pervasive among Dispensationalists, as this thread demonstrates beyond dispute.

The past is dishonored with positivist platitudes (e.g., "simply a chronicle of what people believed") fit for Voltaire and the philosophes, while people remain supremely confidence in their competence to correct, or not even bother correcting, for that implies studying, those who have gone before them. Even this radically individualistic attitude is the result of community and culture, but self-consiousness of that fact would undermine the attitude, and therefore awareness of shaping influences, whether history or culture, are studiously ignored or regarded as irrelevant.

This attitude toward the past is so strikingly identical to that held by most scientists and technophiles, by critics of the humanities, that it is worth noting. The same scienticism that underlaid the hermeneutic and theological assumptions of the original Dispensationalists, the same scienticism that underlies most of the scientific establishment, the same scienticism that has long been discredited in history and philosophy, is still the defining sensibility of Dispensationalists. The past is, at best, a collection of "facts," at worst (and more likely) a catalogue of errors which we have thankfully superceded. It can be studied for illustrative purposes, to find examplars or sermon illustrations, or to find out who was wrong when and when people started agreeing with and anticipating our own opinions. (All of this has been beautifully laid out in Isaiah Berlin's essay on The Divorce Between the Sciences and the Humanities). But, fundamentally, it is not necessary or very valuable for understanding our selves and our own position in the world. It has, and should have, no authority. That would be a dead end.

Note the emptiness of the claims about Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity, for is there not fundamental disagreement on this very thread? And what must the Dispensationalists say about those who disagree with them? If the Bible is so clear, apart from any eccesial and historical mediation, why do we disagree? Is it any surprise that many come close to saying things like, "They're unspiritual," or "They're blinded by x," for how else can someone who holds such a position explain disagreement? Everyone else is wrong, clearly - that is the attitude that must be adopted. For my own position, I am not surprised in the least that people disagree with it. People would need to come to recognize the value of goods, like tradition, history, rootedness, hermeneutic self-awareness, that they do not currently recognize. Absence the growing valuation of such goods, it would completely absurd for me to expect others to hold my own position.

I strive to know to what and to whom I am indebted (this is, not incidentally, part of the logic of the Fifth commandment), and I strive to honor those forces and persons that have shaped me for good, and to acknowledges those that have shaped me for ill, but I don't deny that I have been shaped, nor do I imply that, without such shaping, I can reasonably expect people to hold positions similar to mine, or that, without community, tradition, and authority, the little competence i do have as a Christian could have been cultivated. So, I do not regard Dispensationalists as blind, as unspiritual, ad fundamentally ignorant, not do I think that secretly in their hearts they are disbelievers in perspicuity or Sola Scriptura (as I suspect they often think of those who disagree with them). That is why my endeavor has been to make clear some of the fundamental forces that have shaped Dispensationalism, as well as to clarify what it means to read the Bible. That people could possibly think a position like mine is in tension much less contradiction with the Reformers' "Sola Scriptura" shows only how little they understand that principle or the principle of ecclesia sempre reformanda (the church is always needing to be reformed).
In closing, consider again (or, perhaps for the first time) MacIntyre's definition of tradition:

One positive that I just remembered, about a particular disp teacher, is the following. I do greatly appreciate the following through of the Abrahamic covenant throughout the OT. I enjoyed seeing the various passages and then moving to the Davidic covenant, which enlarges the Abrahamic covenant, I enjoyed seeing this covenant as Christ comes on the scene. When you read the passage about another prophet like Moses who will be coming on the scene, and then you read the Davidic covenant and how one will sit on the throne forever (yes, the term "forever" is taken by some as "indefinitely" and I'm not sure where to stand on that point yet), and then you read of Christ. In this sense, I do appreciate what you have already stated about the focus on Christ in dispensationalism. I did not state that I agreed with some of your comment on the portion of your opening article, so I'm doing that now. My disagreement my be exactly "how" that fulfillment takes place, and I'm still ironing that one out.

We do disagree, or at least I'm more questioning of the disp paradigm, but I do wish to be charitable about it. I appreciate the charity in your return response. Thanks!

Ripley,

Thank you very much for you comment. It is heartening to know I have had some positive impact. I did spend a considerable time writing my (especially the last two) responses, and I'm grateful to know they were somewhat beneficial.