Posted on 10/31/2010 3:08:05 PM PDT by dartuser
As one evaluates the current debate between dispensationalism and nondispensationalism, the pervading notion seems to be that dispensationalism is in the midst of an identity crisis. While as a whole the evangelical community is seeking for some common ground in eschatology, certainly a worthy aim, this paper seeks to contribute some understanding to the essence of dispensationalism in a day when the very term has been brought into question by those within dispensational circles.
In particular this paper will attempt to articulate the essence of dispensationalism in hermeneutical terms. Earl Radmacher noted that "literal interpretation is the 'bottom-line' of dispensationalism." This "bottom-line" expresses itself in its consistent application to prophetic portions of scripture. Thus, the essence of dispensationalism for Radmacher is the literal interpretation of prophecy. Eschatology must be derived from such an approach to the Bible. What follows is a defense of this position with the goal of added precision. The added precision will come by viewing literal hermeneutics through the eyes of sound theological method.
(Excerpt) Read more at pre-trib.org ...
This is a scholarly article (though very readable) for those with the patience to read a long one ... and desirous to understand the role of theological method when comparing dispensational and nondispensational systems.
I know Dr. Stallard ... and I can say this article pin-points what the disputed issues are in evangelical interpretion. It is a fair treatment of the subject and will help bring to light why dispensational and nondispensational systems are often in violent disagrement. Perhaps just understanding where the difference lies will help us all tone down the family feuding.
I once attended a conference at which Earl Radmacher was the main speaker. His most memorable quote at that conference was "The Word of God is not a nose that you can twist to suit your face!"
“...Literal Hermeneutics, Theological Method, and the Essense of Dispensationalism...”
-
Wut?
I see the essence of Dispensationalism as a kind of dualism:
Two chosen peoples of God, or two elect bodies of the elect (whereas Eph. 4:4 says one body),
two hopes (whereas Eph. 4:4 says one hope),
two second comings,
two last trumps,
two first resurrections,
two valid covenants, the old and the new, like two railroad tracks separate and distinct yet coexisting in this age together.
The New Testament does not support this kind of dualism.
lol ... I had lunch with Earl just before release of the NKJV. He is a gentleman and a scholar who has a passion for teaching the word of God.
the literal interpretation of prophecy.
Where's the gap?
"If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the Grace of God which IS GIVEN ME YOU-WARD: how that BY REVELATION HE MADE KNOWN UNTO ME, THE MYSTERY...which IN OTHER AGES was NOT MADE KNOWN unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto His Holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body and partakers of His promise in Christ BY THE GOSPEL...and to make all men see what is the fellowship OF THE MYSTERY, which FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD HATH BEEN HID IN GOD who created all things by Jesus Christ." Eph.3:2,3,5,6,9.
The essense of Dispensationalism is Prophecy and Mystery. Those things made known in prophesy, and those things kept SECRET until revealed by revelation of Jesus Christ to the Apostle Paul. Prophesy, concerns a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Peter and the 11. The mystery Paul reveals concerns a BODY OF BELIEVERS.
For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that “drives home Christ.” As he once expressed it, “He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the center.” To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the center.The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered
The dispensationalist claim regarding a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is really the product of its insistence upon a radical separation between Israel, God’s earthly people, and the church, God’s spiritual people. Without this undergirding assumption — that God has these two distinct peoples — there is no reason to deny the fulfilment of old covenant promises in the new covenant realities. Nor is there any longer reason to avoid the implications of biblical typology for the dispensationalist system.Perhaps the most telling evidence against the dispensationalist hermeneutic is to be found in the book of Hebrews. The message of the book of Hebrews is, if I may speak anachronistically, a compelling rebuttal of Dispensationalism. Whereas the book of Hebrews is one sustained argument for the finality, richness and completion of all of the Lord’s covenant words and works in the new covenant that is in Christ, Dispensationalism wants to preserve the old arrangements intact for Israel, arrangements which will be reinstituted in the period of the millennial kingdom. However, this would be tantamount to going back to what has been surpassed in the new covenant in Christ, reverting to arrangements that have been rendered obsolete and superfluous because their reality has been realised in the provisions of the new covenant. The Mediator of this new covenant, Christ, is the fulfilment of all the promises of the Lord to his people. Thus, to the writer to the Hebrews, any reversion to the old covenant types and ceremonies would be an unacceptable departure from the realities of the new covenant in preference for the shadows of the old.
Though it may seem too severe to some, no other judgement is permitted us respecting the system of biblical interpretation known as Dispensationalism: it represents a continued attachment to the shadows and ceremonies of the old covenant dispensation and also a failure to appreciate properly the finality of the new covenant. Its doctrine of a literal hermeneutic proves not to be literal in the proper sense of the term. Rather than reading the New Testament ‘according to the letter’, Dispensationalism reads the New Testament through the lens of its insistence upon a radical separation between Israel and the church.
Indeed, the so-called literal hermeneutics of dispensationalism is a necessity that flows from the presupposition of two distinct peoples of God; Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly). The secret to dispensationalism is in knowing which verses to apply to which people. Only when one accepts their distinction is one forced into relying on the ill-defined peep stone of "literal hermeneutics" for authenticating the rest of the system.
Ryrie’s EoD was the radical distinction between Israel and the Church. He is faithful in this regard to his dispensationalist forefathers, Darby and Scofield. Yet Darby admitted that he did not come to this distinctive by careful study of the Word of God, but rather by direct revelation from God Himself, “… because it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will concerning it throughout.” (J. N. Darby, ‘Reflections Upon the Prophetic Inquiry, and the Views Advanced in It,’ The Collected Writings of John Nelson Darby, Prophetic I, II. Pp 6-7.)
Thus we are left with the apparent understanding that dispensationalism and its driving hermeneutics is not based first and foremost on the Word of God, but the ideas of men and justification for following those ideas.
Like Stallard said ... the covenant theologian would rather spend his time criticizing the imperfections of early dispensationalists (which are acknowledged) rather than interact or admit their own shortcomings ... which Stallard nails to the wall in this article.
The covenant insistance on reading the NT back into the Old is the foundation of their theological method. Stallard lays out this difference in clear and understandable terms and provides evidence from covenantalists themselves that this IS their method.
There should be no offense from this article ... it is clarifying the issues between the two camps.
Now, whether you think one camp is correct is another argument.
Actually I read it some time ago and found it quite interesting. He is (or was) a teacher in my hometown.
Like Stallard said ... the covenant theologian would rather spend his time criticizing the imperfections of early dispensationalists (which are acknowledged) rather than interact or admit their own shortcomings ... which Stallard nails to the wall in this article.
Hardly. He only thinks he does. Which covenant theologians has Mr. Stallard debated in public? It's easy to hide behind a paper (Prov. 18:17).
The covenant insistance on reading the NT back into the Old is the foundation of their theological method.
This is nonsense. He gives no evidence of what he is claiming at all. Perhaps he has a grasp of the things of which he speaks, but it's not clearly evident in his presentation.
But which dispensationalists are we supposed to be interacting with? Classics, like Ironside and Chafer who taught that there were absolutely no signs prior to the rapture (including the reconstitution of Israel as a nation), the neo-classics, like Walvoord and Lindsey who looked for signs in the middle east as proof the rapture generation was upon us, or the progressives, who are moving in the right direction towards covenant theology.
Personally, the progressives are the only ones that make any sense biblically, but the classics and neo-classics are certainly consistent with their own system. They just need to stop whining about being misunderstood.
In your opinion, what is the essence of dispensationalism?
Are you a MacArthur-style “leaky dispensationalist?” Isn’t “leaky dispensationalism” just a step on the road to progressive dispensationalism? And eventually to covenant theology (aka consistent, biblical dispensationalism)?
The covenant insistance on reading the NT back into the Old is the foundation of their theological method.
The notion that any Christian would not do that is loopy. Paul has nothing to say about how we interpret the OT?
Literal interpretation tied to correct theological method.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.