Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLewis Sperry Chafer Collection: Chafer, Lewis Sperry - Dispensationalism: 1 - Introduction to Dispensationalism
TOPIC: Chafer, Lewis Sperry - Dispensationalism (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 1 - Introduction to Dispensationalism
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Chapter 1
Author's Note: (a) The title of this thesis has been chosen reluctantly. It is not intended by it to imply that those who hold what are here set forth as dispensational beliefs are abnormal or disproportionate in doctrine. This thesis purports to demonstrate that so-called dispensationalists find the specific meaning of the Scriptures which God intended to impart and are therefore, by the most exacting proofs, found to be both reasonable and normal in their interpretations. This title is used only that this discussion may be identified in its relation to various articles others have written on this theme. (b) Much Scripture is cited. Usually the citation is not exhaustive, but serves only to provide one proof text out of the many. For want of space, the Scriptures could not be quoted. The sincere reader is requested to look up each passage. Otherwise, the value of this thesis, such as it is, will not be gained. This is the second reprint of an article published in Bibliotheca Sacra (XCIII, 390449.)
1.1
A controversy among orthodox theologians over dispensational distinctions is not new. Jonathan Edwards (17031758) wrote: "There is, perhaps, no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ" (Edward's Works, I, 100). But this discussion, as is often the case, has suffered much for want of definition.
The word dispensation is twofold in its import: (1) It may refer to a dispensing or an administration or (2) to an abrogation of standards or existing laws such are the dispensations practiced by the Church of Rome. It is obvious that the controversy among theologians is concerned only with the former. The word dispensation is Latin in its origin, being derived from dispensation economical management or superintendence and has its equivalent in the Greek oikonomia, (G3622) meaning, in this specific usage, 'stewardship' or 'economy' as to special features of divine government in the various ages. To quote the Century Dictionary bearing on the theological import of the word: "(a) The method or scheme by which God has at different times developed his purpose, and revealed himself to man; or the body of privileges bestowed, and duties and responsibilities enjoined, in connection with that scheme or method of revelation: as the Old or Jewish dispensation; the New Gospel dispensation. (b) A period marked by a particular development of the divine purpose and revelation: as the patriarchal dispensation (lasting from Adam to Moses); the Mosaic dispensation (from Moses to Christ); the Christian dispensation." The Century Dictionary also quotes one pertinent sentence from Bibliotheca Sacra of sixty-two years ago: "The limits of certain dispensational periods were revealed in Scripture" (XLV, 237). In the light of this material, the definition advanced by the late Dr. C.I. Scofield (Scofield Reference Bible, p. 5), namely, "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God," is hardly entitled to the criticism which is aimed against it.
What men, then, according to these definitions, should be classed as dispensationalists? The answer to this question might be stated in a variety of ways. Three of these may suffice: (1) Any person is a dispensationalist who trusts the blood of Christ rather than bringing an animal sacrifice. (2) Any person is a dispensationalist who disclaims any right or title to the land which God covenanted to Israel for an everlasting inheritance. And (3) any person is a dispensationalist who observes the first day of the week rather than the seventh. To all this it would be replied that every Christian does these things, which is obviously true; and it is equally true that, to a very considerable degree, all Christians are dispensationalists. However, not all Christians, though sincere, are as well instructed in the spiritual content of the Scriptures as others, nor have they seen the necessity of recognizing other and deeper distinctions which do confront the careful student of the Word of God. It should be observed, however, that, apart from extremists who are not now under consideration and mere echo men who appear on either side of a controversy and who have not thought through the problems of interpretation, the instructed dispensationalists of all generations have had as good reason for the distinctions they have made as any Christian might present for trusting only in the blood of Christ apart from all Jewish sacrifices. The worthy dispensationalist does not create problems of interpretation; he rather seeks to solve the problems which penetrating study of the text of Scripture imposes. Naturally, to the person who has confronted no problems, the work of the advanced student seems divisive and superimposed. Such misunderstandings obtain in every field of human investigation.
1.2
Four misleading apprehensions have been expressed recently by partial dispensationalists. A brief consideration of these statements will be made before turning to the constructive message of this thesis.
1. The term modern dispensationalism implies that dispensationalism is modern. In the recovery of vital truth in the Reformation dispensational distinctions, like various other doctrines, were not emphasized. The truths thus neglected in the Reformation have since been set forth by devout Bible students, but against the opposition of those who assume that the Reformation secured all that is germane to Systematic Theology. The testimony, already cited, of Jonathan Edwards (17031758) that in his day dispensational distinctions were a living topic of theological discussion indicates the fact that these themes were dominant nearly three hundred years ago. Similarly, a worthy and scholarly research of the Bible with dispensational distinctions in view was made during the last century in England by J.N. Darby, Charles H. Mackintosh, William Kelly, F.W. Grant, and others who developed what is known as the Plymouth Brethren movement. These men created an extensive literature of surpassing value which is strictly Biblical and dispensational, though this literature has been strangely neglected by many conservative theologians. The term anno Domini is intensely dispensational in itself and the familiar dictum attributed to Augustine (354430, A.D.), "Distinguish the ages and the Scriptures harmonize," could hardly be considered modern. Until the distortive spiritualizing method of interpretation was introduced by the scholars of the Alexandrian School there was no formulated opposition to the simple belief in and understanding of all that the Sacred Text implies. Abundant evidence for this statement may be drawn from the works of the early fathers, even going back to the Didache, which evidence establishes the fact that Chiliasm, with those dispensational divisions which belong to it, was the orthodox faith of the early church and was far from the heresy that some writers represent it to have been.
2. It has been claimed that dispensationalism is in some respects "illogical" and "leads to disastrous consequences." No argument against this claim need be advanced here other than to point out that dispensationalism has now become one of the most firmly established features of Christian education and is the acknowledged source of untold blessings as well as the inspiration to sacrificial service to uncounted multitudes who testify that the Bible became a new and transforming message to them when dispensational distinctions were observed. Like the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism wherein a very great company have been won from Arminianism to Calvinism and few if any from Calvinism to Arminianism, so of the vast company who have turned to dispensationalism very few are known to have ever abandoned the new ground they have taken. It is the dispensationalists who are promoting Bible study movements over the whole land and they are the major factor in all evangelistic and missionary activity today. Dispensationalism has always been disastrous to theological dicta that cannot stand the acid test of Biblical proof.
3. Another claim has been made in recent discussions: "I am a premillennialist, but not a dispensationalist." This statement evidently supposes that premillennialism is a belief in an event which is isolated from all that precedes and all that follows it. The term premillennial conveys the thought that Christ comes before the millennium. In reality premillennialism becomes a dominating feature of interpretation since it bears on the whole divine program from its beginning to its end. As well might it be argued that though the sun rises in the morning it will neither be preceded by darkness nor accompanied by light as to contend that Christ will come to the earth again, as the Scriptures relate that coming to all that precedes it and all that follows, without causing the most stupendous dispensational changes.
4. And, finally, it has been contended of late that dispensationalism is a modern heretical departure from sound interpretation of the Scriptures, and that the scholarly research of dispensationalists (who of all men are most faithful defenders of every cardinal doctrine of the Word of God) should be classified as a form of Higher Criticism. To quote: "Dispensationalism shares with Higher Criticism its fundamental error." And, again, "In a word, despite all their differences, Higher Criticism and Dispensationalism are in this one respect strikingly similar. Higher Criticism divides the Scriptures up into Documents which differ from or contradict one another. Dispensationalists divide the Bible up into dispensations which differ from and even contradict one another; and so radical is this difference as viewed by the extremist that the Christian of today who accepts the Dispensational views finds his Bible (the part directly intended for him) shrunk to the compass of the Imprisonment Epistles" ("Modern Dispensationalism," by Oswald T. Allis, former professor of Hebrew in Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Evangelical Quarterly, Edinburgh, Scotland, Vol. VIII, No. 1, p. 24).
Though somewhat involved in his expression at the end of this quotation, the author believes Dr. Allis is referring only to extreme dispensationalists of which class there are but very few today. He must know that the great expositors of this and past generations are and were dispensationalists, and that the above description could in no case apply to them. However, the object in view in bringing forward this quotation is the more serious and intended assertion that "Dispensationalism shares with Higher Criticism its fundamental error." What, then, is this fundamental error to which Dr. Allis refers? It consists, evidently, in the recognition of certain divisions of truth. But Dr. Allis, in common with all Bible students, recognizes some divisions in the Word of God. Thus this "fundamental error" consists in the recognition of distinctions which go beyond Dr. Allis' own conceptions. This point is not stressed to embarrass Dr. Allis, but only that this problem may be reduced to its actual dimensions. We believe that a partial dispensationalist has a valid reason for the divisions he accepts, and so has the dispensationalist. And the latter will contend that his reasons for these distinctions which go beyond the range of those of the partial dispensationalist are, to him, just as impelling as are the reasons which support the distinctions which he holds in common with the partial dispensationalist. The dispensationalist's larger view of the structure of the Bible is not due to ignorance, lack of logic, or lack of devotion to the integrity of the Scriptures. To hold to the precise character of the Davidic Covenant is no more "divisive" or akin to Higher Criticism than to hold to the precise character of any other covenant. The instructed dispensationalist holds to both.
Beyond this extended introductory word, it is not the purpose of this article to be negatively controversial, though some opposing statements must be considered. In the limited space available it is purposed to make a constructive statement bearing on conservative dispensationalism. In presenting an outline of dispensational fundamentals, proof for statements made will be drawn from the Word of God. Believing the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice, no appeal is to be made to the creeds, confessions, or doctrinal standards which men have formed.
Recent articles published in defense of sound doctrine have quoted the Westminster Confession for authoritative evidence as much as or more than the Word of God. Men are branded as heterodox who disagree at any point with this Confession. Having declared in ordination vows that he believes the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice, how can a minister go on to assign infallibility to the Westminster Confession? And if the Westminster Confession is accepted as fallible, could that acceptance be interpreted as being any more than one of general agreement? Even the drafters of the Westminster Confession did not expect their statement to supplant the Scriptures. They wrote: "The authority of the Holy Scriptures; for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author, and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God." Indeed, it is not a long step from the Protestant claim that a man is heretical who does not accept in toto some dictum of the Protestant Church to the imposition of Rome which is to the effect that the dogmas of the church are equal in authority with the Scriptures. The theologian who draws his proof as much from the standards of his church as from the Bible is slipping from the true Protestant position. To a student whose conception of doctrine is gained from firsthand searching of the Scriptures, the confessions or creeds, though appreciated for what they contain, are nevertheless characterized by what they do not contain. An overweening devotion to creedal statements may easily lead to a neglect of much important truth which is outside the range of those creeds.
When good men disagree about doctrine it is usually due to a fundamental difference in premise. Perfect logic, when built on divergent premises, will usually result in irreconcilable conclusions. The controversy between partial dispensationalists and dispensationalists is due to a wide difference in premise. This difference cannot be stated apart from an extended preliminary analysis.