Recommended Reading in Dispensationalism

James, perhaps it is that you don’t understand the difference between the essence of something and the more peripheral issues. What you are describing as A not equaling B are of the more peripheral issues, which is precisely why someone can consider them the same. Calling into question their ability to assess their own movement is, well, strange. If Ryrie doesn’t see the differences you mention, then he is considerably blinder than the most vitriolic covenantalist would consider him to be. And whatever else one might say about him, one cannot say that. It is more reasonable to consider that Ryrie had a fairly significant understanding of the essence of dispensationalism, and when he said something was the same, it was because it was of the same essence, though not of the same peripherals.

Given your qualifications, it is hard to imagine that there are two people anywhere, much less two groups, that believe the same thing.

Larry, there are those of the Chafer/Scofield brand argue that dispensationalism IS what they are teaching. This includes the extras I have mentioned. Then, those of the Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost brand come along and introduce major and minor changes. The later group have argued for an essence of DT that is more limited than the trailblazers. A figurehead like Ryrie declares it is really the same though. It is almost like they are offering a bit of a…oh what is the word…a revision of sort to DT.

Take someone like John MacArthur, who is a Dispensationalist because he believes in a future, national, political Israel. There are some who question his DT credibility. Maybe he is simply revising Ryrie to the true essence of DT. Maybe some think DT set in stone when Ryrie declared it to be?

To your first point though, you are calling things peripheral simply because you seem to have adopted Ryrie’s revision. Were they really peripheral at the time?

James said,

Take someone like John MacArthur, who is a Dispensationalist because he believes in a future, national, political Israel.

James, I am a PD, but consider myself a dispensationalist precisely because of your statement about MacArthur. The belief in a future, national, political Israel is what makes one a dispensationalist, in my book. I know my “book” is not very influential, but I suspect others would agree with that viewpoint. Whether people roll out charts or not, it is this end result — a hermeneutic that values the integrity of God’s promises to the descendants of Jacob — no slight of hand, no redefining of terms — that is really crucial to traditional dispensationalism and all its tweaks.

[Ed Vasicek]

James said,

Take someone like John MacArthur, who is a Dispensationalist because he believes in a future, national, political Israel.

James, I am a PD, but consider myself a dispensationalist precisely because of your statement about MacArthur. The belief in a future, national, political Israel is what makes one a dispensationalist, in my book. I know my “book” is not very influential, but I suspect others would agree with that viewpoint. Whether people roll out charts or not, it is this end result — a hermeneutic that values the integrity of God’s promises to the descendants of Jacob — no slight of hand, no redefining of terms — that is really crucial to traditional dispensationalism and all its tweaks.

I think that is close to an accurate summary, but I believe in addition to that, the popularity of dispensationalism was a result of Darby emphasizing a difference between God’s plan for the church as distinct from Israel. So I would say the summary would be a belief in a future, national, political Israel and and emphasis on the distinct and separate schemes between Israel and the church.

Thanks for the list! I have several but some of the books listed I did not even know about.