Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four     Part Five

History

One of the biggest criticisms aimed at dispensationalism is the scant historical evidence for this system of interpretation.  Opponents call John Nelson Darby, 19th century Anglican clergy member from Ireland, the founder of dispensationalism. They say then the early 20th century evangelical Bible teacher, C. I. Scofield, popularized it in the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible.

If dispensationalism originated in the 19th century, I would find that troublesome.  Yet, it’s not how I explain the history of dispensationalism.  God intended literal interpretation of the Bible, which is premillennial.  You can read that in the Bible itself.  For that reason, I say that premillennialism started with the apostles.  From there, you can read their influence on several early patristic writers.  Irenaeus reports that Papias (AD 60-130) said that “there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.”

Systematization of Interpretation

Darby among others systematized premillennialism and a literal interpretation of scripture.  Scofield and others picked up his mantle with their explanation. This could easily have been a counter to the systematization of amillennialism by covenant theology.  The system of covenant theology preceded the system of dispensationalism, but premillennialism precedes amillennialism.  Scripture doesn’t provide a system.   However it is premillennial.

In the first century, no one spiritualized the Bible as a type of interpretation.  A literal interpretation was the intention of Jesus and the Apostles.  That’s what they did.  Spiritualization, the warp and woof of covenant theology, didn’t occur until Roman Catholicism said that the church fulfilled Old Testament Israel.

Seven Dispensations?

Scofield introduced seven dispensations.  I can agree with his seven divisions of the Bible and history.  However, I would not characterize, explain, or label them the same as he did.  One might add a few more divisions for clarity.  As I wrote earlier, dispensations indicate the continuity and discontinuity of the workings of God in His world.

God Himself doesn’t change.  That is continuity.  Both out of His love and justice, He works in different manners during different periods.  That is discontinuity.

As a description, I don’t like “age of grace,” speaking of the era in which we now live.  Salvation always came and comes by grace.  What Scofield called the age of grace, like others, I would call, the church age.  God worked through Israel in the Old Testament age and in the church in the New Testament one, the latter from Christ to the rapture.

Bad Dispensationalism

Just because someone is a dispensationalist does not guarantee correct belief and practice or even right exegesis of passages.  Dallas Theological Seminary probably did more to spread the system of dispensationalism than any other institution.  It also though disseminated a weak or false gospel and doctrine of sanctification.

Dallas for the most part produced the free grace crowd that cheapens and distorts grace.  This poses as a dispensationalist view because of its source.  Cheap grace bled into independent fundamental Baptists and their anti-repentance and non-lordship teaching.  They became more enamored with the soteriology of the free-gracers than historic Baptists.  This fit nicely with their pragmatic church growth philosophy, pretending to be revival and the power of God.

Longtime president of Dallas, Lewis Sperry Chafer affected many with his eight volume Systematic Theology.  He took his dispensationalism to an extreme, perhaps in reaction to covenant theology.  He pushed his discontinuity too far.  Chafer presented salvation by works in the Old Testament and by grace through faith in the New.  He took Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and applied it to Jews in the Millennial Kingdom.

Holding and Teaching a Right Interpretation of Scripture

Whatever bad influence Dallas had with classic dispensationalism, it does worse in recent many years.  It doesn’t require dispensationalism of its faculty.  Instead, it uses its clout to sway people away from inerrancy.  Dallas once pumped out serious eschatology to build a pretribulational, premillennial belief in church leaders and their churches.  Now it doesn’t care if you’re premill, amill, or postmill, promoting unity with any aberrant position of eschatology.

Biblical churches and pastors must preach and train in a literal interpretation of scripture.  Spiritualization and allegorization are easy ways to conform the Bible to whatever someone wants it to say.  Easily, the woke churches use the Bible to teach their critical race theory, employing these means.  The Words are God’s Words, but what comes out in the teaching are man’s words.  Satan was fine using the Word of God to teach his will (Genesis 3, Matthew 4).

Churches need evangelization, preaching a true gospel.  They also must make disciples, teaching new converts to rightly divide the Word of Truth.  This requires teaching them a literal, grammatical-historical, dispensational interpretation of scripture.  God and the Bible are dispensational.