Schools of Dispensationalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

ccravens

Puritan Board Freshman
Can anyone give me, in abbreviated form, the different schools of dispensationalism that exist and have existed? And which is more popular today?

I just read a few issues of Arthur Pink's Studies in the Scriptures (4 months in 1952) magazine where he delivers a devastating critique of Scofield/Bullinger dispensationalism, but I'm sure there are other schools of thought.

It seems that John MacArthur's form is more "moderate," if that descriptor is correct..
 
The main schools now would be progressive dispensationalism and traditional (or normative or classical) dispensationalism (Scofield and Chafer and Walvoord) . There are a few hyper-dispensationalists (or ultra-) around.
 
Adding to Edward’s list, those who follow “New Covenant Theology” would be another form of dispensationalism, but of all the forms of disp. it would be the closest to the biblical view without being biblical.
 
Adding to Edward’s list, those who follow “New Covenant Theology” would be another form of dispensationalism, but of all the forms of disp. it would be the closest to the biblical view without being biblical.
Actually, NCT is neither Dispensational, nor Covenant theology, so would be somewhere between those 2 established systems.
 
Can anyone give me, in abbreviated form, the different schools of dispensationalism that exist and have existed? And which is more popular today?

I just read a few issues of Arthur Pink's Studies in the Scriptures (4 months in 1952) magazine where he delivers a devastating critique of Scofield/Bullinger dispensationalism, but I'm sure there are other schools of thought.

It seems that John MacArthur's form is more "moderate," if that descriptor is correct..
Would see the various main theologies of theirs as being the Classical One, as explained in the Scofield Bible, where they saw a real division between Israel an the Church to such an extent that those saved in OC were by keeping the Mosaic law.
There is also the Modied View held by those such as Charles Ryrie, which would have the OT saints saved by grace, but still a distinction made between Israel and Church.
The Progressive wing still has the Israel and Church, but many seem to be drawing closer to like a Covenant premil viewpoint on theological things.
 
Actually, NCT is neither Dispensational, nor Covenant theology, so would be somewhere between those 2 established systems.

It absolutely is a form of dispensationalism, although it would seek to distance itself from it. I hope you are not defending it here.

NCT denies the moral law of Christ like dispensationalism, undermines the covenant theology in the Scriptures like dispensationalism, holds to a fundamental view of the Scripture that is contrary to the Scripture like dispensationalism, and more.

So while somewhat distinct from dispensationalism trying to separate itself from it, it is still a form of it in the most major aspects.
 
No, not defending it, but would say that its holders would tend to see themselves more as Progressive Covenant persons than Dispensational, but in their attempt to get a compromise between the 2 main views, really getting bad theology.
 
The way NCT views the Law of God is enough to push them into the Dispey camp.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
The way NCT views the Law of God is enough to push them into the Dispey camp.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
That's a bit of a stretch. I vehemently disagree w/ their views on the law. But that is not a sine quo non of dispyism. They do order the structure of Scripture on the covenants of redemptive history and even hold to a covenant of works. They aren't covenantal, but they aren't Dispensational either.
 
That's a bit of a stretch. I vehemently disagree w/ their views on the law. But that is not a sine quo non of dispyism. They do order the structure of Scripture on the covenants of redemptive history and even hold to a covenant of works. They aren't covenantal, but they aren't Dispensational either.
Their take on the Covenant would make them closer to CT then to Dispensational theology.
 
Can anyone give me, in abbreviated form, the different schools of dispensationalism that exist and have existed? And which is more popular today?

I just read a few issues of Arthur Pink's Studies in the Scriptures (4 months in 1952) magazine where he delivers a devastating critique of Scofield/Bullinger dispensationalism, but I'm sure there are other schools of thought.

It seems that John MacArthur's form is more "moderate," if that descriptor is correct..

MacArthur likes to call himself a "leaky" dispensationalist. He believes there is a distinction between Israel and the church (however he defines that) but he rejects the classic 7 dispensations.
 
MacArthur likes to call himself a "leaky" dispensationalist. He believes there is a distinction between Israel and the church (however he defines that) but he rejects the classic 7 dispensations.
He holds to the pre Trib rapture, pre Mil Second Coming, and he is reformed in his views in regards to salvation.
 
He has always been someone that I have read and listened to on the radio, and except for his take on Eschatology, seems to be well regarded in Reformed circles.
He is indeed, and I am often edified by his materials. That said, he is far afield of what is commonly known as Reformed. :)
 
He has always been someone that I have read and listened to on the radio, and except for his take on Eschatology, seems to be well regarded in Reformed circles.

MacArthur turns 79 on the 19th of June. He shares a birthday with Spurgeon, by the way.
 
Piper has been taken to ask on his charismatic stance. Has anyone taken Johnny Mac to the whipping post for his Dispensationalism?
 
The main schools now would be progressive dispensationalism and traditional (or normative or classical) dispensationalism (Scofield and Chafer and Walvoord) . There are a few hyper-dispensationalists (or ultra-) around.
I think this is a good summary. As stated above, I would add MacArthur's dispensationalism which is not quite a classical dispensational position, but neither is it progressive dispensationalism. Perhaps one could call it Calvinistic dispensationalism.
 
Piper has been taken to ask on his charismatic stance. Has anyone taken Johnny Mac to the whipping post for his Dispensationalism?

He has. I believe Dr. Sproul challenged him in their relationship, too. When I've heard Johnny Mac respond, it has been something like "I see no reason to have a different hermeneutic for different parts of Scripture". This type of response, it seems to me, works against the idea of "let the Scripture speak for itself". Additionally, he relies heavily on word definitions, but often pushes a particular definition without, seemingly, letting the text determine the meaning, which may lean to the atomistic side a little too much. Without R.C., I don't know if he is still challenged.....
 
I think this is a good summary. As stated above, I would add MacArthur's dispensationalism which is not quite a classical dispensational position, but neither is it progressive dispensationalism. Perhaps one could call it Calvinistic dispensationalism.
Particular Baptist Dispensationalism.
 
There have been some who would question if he is really reformed.

David,
John Macarthur is NOT Reformed. He is anti-covenantal, anti-confessional, and openly embraces his Dispensationalism. That doesnt mean he's a horrible person, but it destroys necessary distinctions by granting him something he, otherwise, admits he's not.......
 
David,
John Macarthur is NOT Reformed. He is anti-covenantal, anti-confessional, and openly embraces his Dispensationalism. That doesnt mean he's a horrible person, but it destroys necessary distinctions by granting him something he, otherwise, admits he's not.......
He would then be seen as being a particular, or a Calvinistic Baptist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top