Dispensationalism
I did not grow up in the Baptist church and can't claim to know what goes on in those arcane halls, but a number of my post-Baptist friends often bring up the idea of dispensationalism. Apparently it is taught as "God had Plan A (the law), but that didn't work, so He had to come up with Plan B (the cross)." This presupposes the idea that man could, and was expected to, earn his salvation under the law. Any serious OT student knows that doesn't ring true. This confused me, because most of my Christian life I've studied out of the Scofield Reference Bible, C.I. Scofield being one of the early proponents of dispensationalism, but never did I come across the Plan A/Plan B idea. So I have to conclude that dispensationalism has been corrupted by the people teaching it now.
My further comment would be that I don't think dispensationalism should be considered a doctrine. To me it's no more than a useful roadmap to the revelation of the cross. It's noteworthy that at each of the seven dispensations that Scofield identifies, a major type of Christ is revealed, until you get to the sixth dispensation, the Church, at which point the antitype has already appeared. Anyway, just so you know, here is the footnote that the Scofield Bible places at Gen. 1:28.
"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.
"Three important concepts are implied in this definition: 1) a deposit of divine revelation concerning God's will, embodying what God requires of man as to his conduct; 2) man's stewardship of this divine revelation, in which he is responsible to obey it; and 3) a time period, often called an "age," during which this divine revelation is dominant in the testing of man's obedience to God.
"The dispensations are a progressive and connected revelation of God's dealings with man, given sometimes to the whole race and at other times to a particular people, Israel. These different dispensations are not separate ways of salvation. During each of them man is reconciled to God in only one way, i.e. by God's grace through the work of Christ that was accomplished on the cross and vindicated in His resurrection. Before the cross man was saved in prospect of Christ's atoning sacrifice, through believing the revelation thus far given him. Since the cross man has been saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in whom revelation and redemption are consummated.
"On man's part the continuing requirement is obedience to the revelation of God. This obedience is a stewardship of faith. Although the divine revelation unfolds progressively, the deposit of truth in the earlier time periods is not discarded; rather it is cumulative. Thus conscience (moral responsibility) is an abiding truth in human life, although it does not continue as a dispensation. Similarly, the saved of this present dispensation are "not under law" as a specific test of obedience to divine revelation, yet the law remains an integral part of the Holy Scriptures which, to the redeemed, are profitable for 'instruction in righteousness.'
"The purpose of each dispensation, then, is to place man under a specific rule of conduct, but such stewardship is not a condition of salvation. In every past dispensation unregenerate man has failed, and he has failed in this present dispensation and will in the future. But salvation has been and will continue to be available to him by God's grace through faith.
"Seven dispensations are distinguished by Scofield: Innocence (Gen. 1:28); Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3:7); Human Government (Gen. 8:15); Promise (Gen. 12:1); Law (Ex. 19:1); Church (Acts 2:1); Kingdom (Rev. 20:4)."
© 1967 Oxford University Press, Inc.
My further comment would be that I don't think dispensationalism should be considered a doctrine. To me it's no more than a useful roadmap to the revelation of the cross. It's noteworthy that at each of the seven dispensations that Scofield identifies, a major type of Christ is revealed, until you get to the sixth dispensation, the Church, at which point the antitype has already appeared. Anyway, just so you know, here is the footnote that the Scofield Bible places at Gen. 1:28.
"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.
"Three important concepts are implied in this definition: 1) a deposit of divine revelation concerning God's will, embodying what God requires of man as to his conduct; 2) man's stewardship of this divine revelation, in which he is responsible to obey it; and 3) a time period, often called an "age," during which this divine revelation is dominant in the testing of man's obedience to God.
"The dispensations are a progressive and connected revelation of God's dealings with man, given sometimes to the whole race and at other times to a particular people, Israel. These different dispensations are not separate ways of salvation. During each of them man is reconciled to God in only one way, i.e. by God's grace through the work of Christ that was accomplished on the cross and vindicated in His resurrection. Before the cross man was saved in prospect of Christ's atoning sacrifice, through believing the revelation thus far given him. Since the cross man has been saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in whom revelation and redemption are consummated.
"On man's part the continuing requirement is obedience to the revelation of God. This obedience is a stewardship of faith. Although the divine revelation unfolds progressively, the deposit of truth in the earlier time periods is not discarded; rather it is cumulative. Thus conscience (moral responsibility) is an abiding truth in human life, although it does not continue as a dispensation. Similarly, the saved of this present dispensation are "not under law" as a specific test of obedience to divine revelation, yet the law remains an integral part of the Holy Scriptures which, to the redeemed, are profitable for 'instruction in righteousness.'
"The purpose of each dispensation, then, is to place man under a specific rule of conduct, but such stewardship is not a condition of salvation. In every past dispensation unregenerate man has failed, and he has failed in this present dispensation and will in the future. But salvation has been and will continue to be available to him by God's grace through faith.
"Seven dispensations are distinguished by Scofield: Innocence (Gen. 1:28); Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3:7); Human Government (Gen. 8:15); Promise (Gen. 12:1); Law (Ex. 19:1); Church (Acts 2:1); Kingdom (Rev. 20:4)."
© 1967 Oxford University Press, Inc.
posted by Crrrrrrraig | 11:10 AM
4 Comments:
The quote below comes from Wilkipedia and I think may shed some light on why so many of us former Baptist have a problem with dispensationalism. It is not so much the seven steps of revealation that are disturbing as the four basic tenets of how one should understand the seven dispensations. Keep in mind that dispensationalism was first introduced in the early 1800's (a fertile time for cultism). Scofield was dealing with a theology that was virtually unheard in the USA and considered heresy to many when he wrote his politically correct treatment of dispensationalism that I suspect he hoped would calm the reformed churches opposition to him (ie. his emphesis on grace in salvation).
"In addition to these seven dispensations, the real theological significance can be seen in Four Basic Tenets which underlie classic dispensational teaching. Dispensationalism maintains:
(1) A fundamental distinction between Israel and the present Body of Christ; that is, there are two peoples of God with two different destinies, earthly Israel (teaching the law and the Gospel of the Kingdom) and the heavenly Body of Christ (teaching the Gospel of the Grace of God).
(2) A fundamental distinction between the Law and Grace; that is, they are mutually exclusive ideas.
(3)The view that the Body of Christ and the Dispensation of Grace is a parenthesis in God's plan which was not foreseen by the Old Testament. The idea of the parenthesis does not indicate a failure in God's plan, but claims the "church" was not anticipated (or in view) in the prophecies of the Old Testament (this is why it is referred to as the "mystery" in Paul's Epistles).
(4)A distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ; that is, the rapture of the church at Christ's coming "in the air" (1 Thess 4:17) precedes the "official" second coming by seven years of tribulation.
The various viewpoints within dispensationalism each have different levels to which the above four tenets are held. Classic and Traditional (or Revised) Dispensationalism are fairly firm in adherence to the above noted tenets. The Progressive branch of the theology loosens some of the above noted distinctions while the Hyper-Dispensational model would create a greater set of distinctives. In fact, most dispensationalists would consider both Progressive Dispensationalism and Hyper-Dispensationalism to be separate branches of theology from Dispensationalism, although Progressive Dispensationalism has become the main mode of teaching in virtually all of the traditionally Dispensational seminaries."
In these tenets I think you can see how we come up with the "Plan A/Plan B" salvation idea. (1) Israel and the "Body of Christ" are separate, but equal? (2) Law and grace are exculsive of each other? (3) The Church was not anticipated in the OT??? (4) The Rapture happens before the 2nd Coming instead of simultaniously?
If dispensationalism concluded with the idea that God's design from the beginning of time was the salvation of the world through the Christ. And that God's revelation has come in stages that was finalized (or completed) with the coming of Christ I don't think we would have a problem. But, then we would not have dispensationalism or the Scofield Study Bible either.
(What, you expected me to comment on this post in one sentence?) :)
Hey, Pat, is Wikipedia reliable? I really don't know, but I'll take your word for it. I note that this quote is filled with jargon, which usually means someone is trying to protect his secret knowledge.
Here's what I'll say off the top of my head about the four tenets:
1. I would say there is a distinction between Israel and the Church, but that there has always been an Israel of God, which always included only those whom God chose under grace, and always included gentiles to some extent (Job, Rahab, Ruth, &c.) Physical Israel's role included producing and preserving the word, and being the conduit of the Messiah; the Church's role includes representing Christ through the Holy Spirit, preach the gospel and making disciples. The Scofield editors do talk a lot about the return of the kingdom of Israel, which I'm skeptical of, but I don't claim to have prophecy all sorted out (as they do, which I'm also skeptical of).
2. This clearly is Plan A/Plan B.
3. The OT speaks obviously about the salvation of gentile nations. Whether the prophets saw through this "mystery" is anybody's guess, but certainly it was no mystery to God. The gospel was first preached before Adam and Eve had produced one child, much less a nation or two. 'Nuff said.
4. It's a minute later and I still don't have prophecy sorted out well enough to say what's going to happen, but I would not call either interpretation a heresy.
So I think scripture clearly disagrees with 3 tenets, and I shrug at the fourth. I don't wish to defend dispensationalism or persuade those who reject it, because my exposure to it has been very limited. Whether the idea of it was corrupted over time or started out bad and Scofield tried to clean it up, I think the division of history can be helpful in a limited way. I'm not sure I understand your penultimate paragraph, but if you mean that some consider dispensationalism itself a revelation, then I would disagree with them.
How's that missions article coming?
FYI, following is a website that offers a concise explanation and rebuttal of classic dispensationalism:
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/disp2.html
Many of the ideas of dispensationalism exposed here I find bizarre. But neither do I accept all of this author's assertions, either, i.e., although I agree with his analysis, I'm not comfortable saying anyone who believes in a pre-tribulation translation of the Church is denying the gospel. But at least now I know a little bit more about what I'm talking about.
I also should mention that the Scofield bible footnote I quoted originally was added in 1967 after a major overhaul. So my original assertion that dispensationalism must have been corrupted over the years is essential backwards; apparently it started in error and some of its proponents are trying to weed out the problems they perceive.
Same thing happening to Mormons. They started out clearly as a cult and now they are trying to be just another Christian denomination. I have even heard of "Reformed Mormons" Still enough stuff in mormonism to give one the hebegebees, but a kinder gentler cult. In the end the Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor the leopard his spots.
BTW - When dispensationalism came about (and even today) they were all too eager to proclaim unsaved anyone who did not agree with the pre-trib rapture. So, this guy saying that they are the heretics (for teaching, as he put it, two ways of salvation - being a Jew or "plan B" being a Christian) may be reaping what has been sewn.
Kind of a spiritual, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Post a Comment
<< Home