Anti-Dispy?

It is very rare to find two dispensationalists that agree on every detail. Heck, even Darby and Scofield differed in their breakdown of the "dispensations". I think Larkin is a fairly typical dispensationalist. Where do you think he's off base?

 

BrianT, in your understanding, what are the nonnegotiables regarding dispensationalism? Your answer might better help me answer your questions.

 

That's a hard question to answer for a non-dispensationalist, because you could ask several dispensationalists that question, and get different answers.

I think the concept of "dispensations" in general is Biblical, but the word means different things to different people.

How is Larkin "a bad picture" of dispensationalism? He basically follows Darby's breakdown of the "dispensations", and fits it into 7 periods like Scofield. He is pretrib, and premill. He sees Revelation as futuristic and basically as literal as possible. He sees a formalized scheme in which the "Church" is separate from all other saints, in redemption, purpose, and destiny. Are these things not what modern "dispensationalists" stand on?

[ October 21, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

As it is with covenantalists. Monolithic systems are very uncommon. In fact, the disparity in covenantal theology is probably greater than it is in dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not determined by how many dispensations or by the particular breakdown of understanding but by adherence to the sine qua non: 1) The glory of God as the purpose human history; 2) Consistent use of normal interpretation; 3) Fundamental dichotomy between the church and Israel.

As for Larkin, he spiritualizes much historical narrative. His overall view is one that we would agree with. His particulars, such as the seven day human history stuff, his differing ways of salvation in the OT, etc are things that are not typical. Many dispensationalists believe those things but they are not dispensationalism. As I say, it is important to make that distinction. I have not read a great deal of Larkin (and I don't intend to). I would recommend Ryrie Dispensationalism and Renald Showers There Really Is A Difference as two good works to understand basic dispensationalism. Larkin is dated and much improved on as well as much refuted by other dispensationalists.

 

There is an interesting movement towards "progressive dispensationalism" in certain areas. http://www.lasttrumpet.com has some interesting stuff, even a formal debate with pretribber/dispensationalist Dr. Mal Couch, the president of Tyndale Theological Seminary & Biblical Institute. Have you look at progressive dispensationalism at all? I haven't looked at it in too much detail, but from a few skims, it looks closer to what I believe than Ryrie, Walvoord, etc.

 

PD is trying to chart a middle ground. Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, I think Saucy, some of these guys are proponents of it. I have not studied it in depth. I have read some of their work. To some degree, I am uncomfortable with their hermeneutic. I think they give away too much. Some traditional dispensationalists think they have given up the sine qua non and are not far removed from historic premillennialism. I hope to give it some more study in the near future, as time allows.