Death of Dispensationalism
October 20, 2009 at 3:41 pm | In Eschatology | 6 CommentsI have noted at times in this blog my journey from a Dispensational, pre-Millennium, pre-Tribulation theology of the end times to a Historical, pre-Millennium, post-Tribulation theology. You can read those articles by clicking the Eschatology link here or in the right column. In this article I have simply listed one of the key reasons I am not a Dispensationalist any longer. For Dispensational theology to work, one must believe a radical separation between Israel and the church as distinct peoples of God. However, I don’t believe the scriptures make that distinction.
The death of Dispensational theology is found in these words of Paul: “Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (Galatians 3:6-9) And “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29)
I don’t think it could be more clear. Those who believe are children of Abraham. If you believe you are Abraham’s seed. In fact, Abraham “is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.” (Romans 4:11) We who believe in Jesus are Israel.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
And the parallel passage in Romans 4. I believe that either passage is the death of Dispensationalism. There is ONE people of God, not two.
Comment by Stephen Pegler — October 20, 2009 #
I find it odd that the natural implication from your post is that untold numbers of dispensational theologians have never seen these passages? – including not a few recognized scholars such as Lewis S. Chafer, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Stan Toussaint, Roy Zuck, John Walvoord, Mark Bailey, Tom Constable, John Whitcomb, John Davis, Homer Kent, Alva J. McClain, Robert Lightner, Elliott Johnson, John Master, Rod Decker, and on and on.
And isn’t it at least a bit condescending to present a very well-known passage as the death knell for dispensationalism and use that passage to dismiss thousands of pages of scholarly biblical exegesis?
Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
Comment by Dave James — October 20, 2009 #
Dave thanks for reading and for your comment. I never have intended anything to be condescending. Nor have I intended this short statement to be the final word on this matter. I have, you would have noticed if you’d read all I’ve written about this, been recording, occasionally over a period of months, my own theological journey. This statement is my experience and thought in this matter and not an answer to what you call “untold numbers of dispensational theologians” and their scholarly biblical exegesis.
I have read some of the very ones you mention, but I no longer find their basis of interpretation an accurate one. Passages like the ones mentioned here are just some of the reasons why. For me they were one of the deciding factors in my journey away from Dispensationalism; the final one for that matter – thus the death of it in my own theology. This is in no way condescending.
You should know as much as anyone that I could put up far more theologians, and their scholarly exegesis, on the other side of the argument, theologians in the Covenant and Kingdom schools of thought whose traditions go back much longer than the recent belief in Dispensational theology.
Your own website, states “We believe that the consistent application of a biblical hermeneutic necessarily leads to a classic dispensational view of the outworking of God’s program in history.” I appreciate the earlier part of your statement on biblical authority and am in full agreement. I also appreciate your honest upfront presentation as to where you stand on this matter. However, one must wonder why, if that statement is true, it took so many centuries to discover it. That could also be considered condescending to such great theologians as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, etc. etc.
I won’t take it as such. I’ll just appreciate your statement as to where you stand and choose to disagree. I invite you to do the same with me.
Comment by Pastor Glenn — October 21, 2009 #
Glenn,
I apologize for making it sound as if I thought you were intending to be condescending. I guess it is a question as to whether something can actually be condescending if that isn’t the intent – and probably not – so I should withdraw that.
And my intent was only to comment on the matter of this passage being noted as “the death knell” for dispensationalism – and I think we would both agree that this is neither the only nor final word on the matter. Apart from your personal journey, which I appreciate and respect, I guess I would suggest that it is at least an unfortunate choice of words and out-of-context (which I know you didn’t intend) is arguably somewhat misleading.
I do find it interesting that one of the first cards that is inevitably played by almost everyone is the one concerning the relative “youth” of dispensationalism. That is a two-edged sword that has no inherent validity and worse, puts Covenant, Amil and even Protestant theology as a whole on its own chopping block – for there was a time when they were younger than dispensational theology is now. One could ask why it took so long to discover it. If this were a valid argument, then the youth of the doctrine of justification by faith alone doctrine could certainly have been legitimately used at the Council of Trent. However, in this case, a doctrine that had been largely lost for centuries was “rediscovered” and found to be biblical – even though it was formally condemned as heretical by the older, established church.
Of all the arguments, this historical / philosophical one is most assuredly among the weakest.
Whether or not one agrees with the conclusions, at the very least it should be conceded that there is a biblical case to be made for pre-millennialism – which would mean then that dispensational theology was not really young theology, but rather rejuvenated theology.
Comment by Dave James — October 21, 2009 #
Thanks again.
I must agree that the title of this post is misleading. I apologize for that.
I will stand by my argument for the age of Dispensationalism. I distinguish Dispensational theology from pre-Mil theology, because they are different. There have been many who take the thousand-year period of Revelation 20 literally, yet are not Dispensational in their understanding. I am one of those. That is why I call myself “Historical pre-Mil” as oppopsed to “Dispensational pre-Mil.”
By the way, those names are not mine. I first found them in Clouse’s popular book, The Meaning of the Millennium, where they were pressented as differing theologies, even though they have very similar views of the Millennium period.
Thanks for your stand on bibilcal inerrancy and absolute truth.
Blessings!
Comment by Pastor Glenn — October 21, 2009 #
I understand those distinctions in views – and read Clouse’s book years ago (it may still be on my bookshelf).
Even though Historical Pre-Mil is not the same as Dispensational Pre-Mil, the “age argument” issue still stands. It still seems that can’t be used unless one is willing to abandon Protestant soteriology on the same grounds.
I think as theologians who strive to be biblicists (in the best sense of the term) I don’t think historical theology (which the age argument is) should serve as anything more than as a reference point and sometimes predict trajectories – but can never be considered to inform or even confirm biblical theology.
Food for thought.
Dave
Comment by Dave James — October 21, 2009 #