What is Dispensationalism?

Quite often here on the BB my dispensational beliefs have been mocked and ridiculed and viciously attacked. We are called "dispy" and other names, and mocked as being unscriptural. Here is one example from Iconoclast's most recent thread:

This is in spite of the fact that Iconoclast cannot even define "dispensation" correctly, thinking it is an age. So I feel it necessary to more fully explain what dispensationalism is on this thread. To do so I will try to ignore attempts to undermine and destroy my efforts.

I believe strongly that in order to criticize you must first understand. Thus, I am hoping that this thread will help those of you who are critical speak more rationally, from understanding rather than ignorance.

 

First of all, let me explain the definition of "dispensation" more thoroughly. Charles Ryrie wrote, “There is no more primary problem in the whole matter of dispensationalism than that of definition. By this is meant not simply arriving at a single sentence definition of the word but also formulating a definition/description of the concept” (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995, 2007). 27).

Those of you who think it is an age, a period of time, go along with the error of none other than Scofield himself, who wrote that a dispensation is “period of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”[1] However, this is problematic in that the lexical meaning of the word does not include the concept of a time period. (C. I. Scofield, ed., Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1945), 5.)

Dispensationalism as revised by some great scholars since Scofield follow the lexical definition of the Greek word oikonomia, used in the NT 7 times. I quoted this definition on another thread:
“(1) literally, relating to the task of an oikonomos (steward) in household administration stewardship, management (LU 16.2); (2) figuratively; (a) of the apostolic office in God's redemptive work task, responsibility, trusteeship (CO 1.25 ); (b) of God's arrangements for mankind's redemption plan, arrangement, purpose (EP 3.9); 1T 1.4 may mean (divine) training, but (divine) plan is also possible.” (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, accessed through BibleWorks software.) So the lexical definition of the word as used in the NT does not include a time period.

To avoid making this post too long (a pet peeve) I'll finish the definition with another post.

 

One Bible encyclopedia defines it as “a stewardship, the management or disposition of affairs entrusted to one.” [1] The revised version of that work defines it: “The term refers to the action of giving out, specifically referring to God’s dealings with men. In 2 Cor. 3 Paul contrasts the brightness of Moses’ face in the giving of the OT law (v. 5) which brought death (v. 7) with the ‘greater splendor’ (v. 8) of the giving of the Spirit which brought righteousness (v. 9).”[2]
[1] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition), accessed through e-Sword software.
[2] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev., Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 962.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the great systematic theologian, gives a better definition: “A dispensation is a specific, divine economy, a commitment from God to man of a responsibility to discharge that which God has appointed him.” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. VII (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 122.)

Again, Charles Ryrie in the usual textbook for courses on the subject, gives this concise definition: “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.” (Ryrie, op cit, 33).

This brings us my own concise definition: A dispensation is a stewardship from God in which mankind is given a task to fulfill. Therefore, dispensationalism is a theology in which the dispensations of the Bible are carefully delineated.

Now, if you align yourself as saying that a dispensation is any kind of period of time, you are misrepresenting modern dispensationalism. Therefore, in my mind you have no right to criticize the system, since you can't even get the basics right, and I will ignore you on this thread as being irrelevant.

 

Yes, that is basically correct. The ages and how long they take are basically irrelevant to the theology except when that age is prophesied, as in the millennium. Even in the millennium, the most important thing is the dispensation itself, meaning that mankind fails in its God-given task during that time, and rebels against Christ at the end of the 1000 years. God is always glorified in dispensational theology, and man is always fallen and depraved, except when redeemed.

 

Scofield is not the authority for 21st century dispensationalism, but only one source, often flawed. Why should it be surprising that the theology has been fine tuned and better developed in the 100 some years since Scofield?

Things to Come by Dwight Pentecost is a good resource, but not strictly on dispensationalsim. And it is somewhat passe. My own brilliant son advised me not to use it as the textbook for my seminary class in eschatology.

 

Thank you.

 

I really like Chafer's definition, and you'll notice that my concise one is similar to his.

To the learner: the word "economy" in these definitions does not mean a monetary system, but more of a system of government or society. I don't much like the term myself, since it is somewhat ambiguous.

 

Now, as I have said elsewhere, the glory of God is foundational to the system. In other words, it is not just that the system makes the glory of God important to it, as some theologies do (any theology that fails here is flawed), but that every single dispensation is handed down to mankind to the glory of God. When mankind fails in its fulfillment of the dispensation (as has always happened), God is shown to be always right and all wise. This truth has been a great blessing and guide for me in my Christ walk. We must each carry out what God gives us to do (our dispensation) and glorify God in the process by answers to prayer, miracles in the ministry, people saved, and lives changed.

Thus, the fevered and very vocal opposition to dispensationalism always mystifies me. Why should we not glorify God? Why should not every dispensation show God to be true and every man a liar? Should we not respect anything and anybody who wants to glorify God?

My next post will be from my lecture notes, explaining more about how we as individuals can glorify God.

 

Applying the Concept of a Dispensation Personally:

A. We should live every single moment for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

B. Tests will come into our lives. At such times we must look for how the glory of God is advanced through our testing. It is also important at such times to examine our own lives to see if the testing is because of our own backslidden condition (Heb. 12:4-13).

C. God will send nothing into our lives that will be too much for us to handle (1 Cor. 10:13).

D. God will often give an individual believer a task to perform.

1. That task might be something as basic as witnessing to a single individual. Whether the person saved is the next D. L. Moody, or simply a needy child, such a task has great meaning.

2. God’s will for a person, His dispensation to that individual, may be for that person to faithfully preach the Gospel for a period of many years in an out-of-the-way location.

3. God’s will for an individual may be to be faithful to God even while becoming famous or rich. This may be the most difficult task of all for a Christian.

4. God’s task for every individual believer is to live a holy life (1 Thess. 4:3), and participate in reaching the world for Christ as commanded in the Great Commission.

 

This is an excellent post, adding to the discussion. One thing that attracts me to dispensationalism is that it is a good, Biblical philosophy of history as well as a system of theology. I share this with my students.

 

Now, one strange thing about the opposition to dispensationalism is that the opponents often do not realize that other theologies admit to there being dispensations. They just don't systematize their dispensations into a complete theology.

Covenant theologian Berkhof defines "dispensation" very much as I have in his Systematic Theology (p. 290). He then gives a scheme of three dispensations (p. 292 on).

So to me, most opposition to dispensationalism is strange and uninformed. What actually happens is that the opponents are not really opposing dispensationalism as a system of theology--Internet opponents rarely think that far. What they are opposing is only one facet of dispensationalism: dispensational premillennialism. So they mock us, call us "dispys," and attack us in various nasty ways, whereas they are not really opposed to teaching dispensations per se, but to premillennialism, which is not exclusively dispensational but is held to by anyone who interprets the Bible literally, including the early church fathers, my grandfather, and many others who were or are not dispensationalists.