Before we outline a development in the classical dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and others, I invite readers to look at Charles C Ryrie (b.1925) in a 7-minute You Tube interview explaining dispensationalism.
Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form.
Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism1 in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially1, the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation).
But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in traditional dispensationalism, a sharp dualism was believed to exist between the Church ('heavenly' destination and rewards) and Israel ('earthly', land of Palestine, ruling on earth, material prosperity), in 'revised' dispensationalism, this radical difference became an 'earthly' difference.
That is to say, the differences between the Church and Israel though still marked and basic were not as radical and far-reaching as they had been in traditional dispensationalism.
1. I should repeat a good point that Ryrie makes on You Tube that: all Bible students acknowledge various 'dispensations' to some extent. Just to recognise that living under the Mosaic Law for Israel is different from living in New Testament times is to do that. Hence, dispensationalism is greatly focussed on change and variety in God's administration across history while those opposed focus more on the continuity and unity found across the whole of scriptural revelation.
2. My reason for saying that this criterion is more controversial is that surely Ryrie was clearly misinformed to have thought that only dispensationalists hold firmly to such a belief. Famed Calvinist Jonathan Edwards taught this understanding which, in our time, has been taken over by John Piper.
Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form.
Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism1 in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially1, the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation).
But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in traditional dispensationalism, a sharp dualism was believed to exist between the Church ('heavenly' destination and rewards) and Israel ('earthly', land of Palestine, ruling on earth, material prosperity), in 'revised' dispensationalism, this radical difference became an 'earthly' difference.
That is to say, the differences between the Church and Israel though still marked and basic were not as radical and far-reaching as they had been in traditional dispensationalism.
1. I should repeat a good point that Ryrie makes on You Tube that: all Bible students acknowledge various 'dispensations' to some extent. Just to recognise that living under the Mosaic Law for Israel is different from living in New Testament times is to do that. Hence, dispensationalism is greatly focussed on change and variety in God's administration across history while those opposed focus more on the continuity and unity found across the whole of scriptural revelation.
2. My reason for saying that this criterion is more controversial is that surely Ryrie was clearly misinformed to have thought that only dispensationalists hold firmly to such a belief. Famed Calvinist Jonathan Edwards taught this understanding which, in our time, has been taken over by John Piper.
No comments:
Post a Comment