Millennialism – Ch 3, Dispensationalism

As ought to be expected, a book dealing with premillennial eschatology is going to at some point take up the criticism of Dispensationalism, and that is exactly what Dr. Feinberg does here. Feinberg had earlier in the book freely admitted his bias for the dispensational system, and it certainly played out in his career, in part as a member of the Scofield Reference Bible Revision Committee.

The chapter is not a primer on Dispensationalism. He touches on a bit of the basics, but leaves the discussion of what Dispensationalism actually is to men like Chafer, Scofield, and Ryrie. Instead, the chapter is a defense against the numerous critics of Dispensationalism.

To this extent, much of this chapter reads like insider baseball…if you know the players & statistics, it’s a lot easier to follow along. For the rest of us, we’ve no choice but to rely on the reporting in the chapter, trusting the accounts are accurate and fair (and from what I’ve heard of Dr. Feinberg, I’ve no doubts to the contrary).

Feinberg covers a lot of ground here in a short amount of time. He shows that roots of Dispensationalism go much further back in history beyond Darby & the Brethren, but to some of the earliest theologians in the church (ppg. 68, 80). He demonstrates (quoting LS Chafer in the process) that ALL Christians adhere to at least some aspects of dispnsationalism (pg. 69). He destroys the accusation that Dispensationalists have wrought great havoc and division upon the church:

“Let us turn to specifics: Can anyone compute how many men and women have been challenged in prophetic conferences to trust Christ for salvation, to make their Bible study more meaningful, to answer the call of God to the mission fields of the world, to live lives honoring to the Lord? Let Bass or any other nondispensationalist name one study Bible with as much blessing spread to the people of God as the Scofield Reference Bible. As for divisions in the Christian church, have the divisions in the Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, and independent denominations been caused by adherence to dispensational theology? The controversies have been over personalities, polities, practices, liberalism versus orthodoxy, rather than over dispensationalism. In the heat of controversy, let no one overstep the bounds of truth.” (pg. 76)

From here, Feinberg spends a bit of time on a few of the distinctions between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism, quoting Ryrie as the main difference. For Covenant theology, the main “unifying principle…is soteriological.” For Dispensationalism, the main unifying principle is what Feinberg calls:

“theological or perhaps better eschatological, for the differing dispensations reveal the glory of God as He shows off His character in the differing stewardships culminating in history with the millennial glory.” (pg. 77)

The chapter is much shorter than the preceding one, and (again) is addressed more at the critics of dispensationalism rather than putting forth a positive argument for it. With Feinberg’s high regard for Scofield, Chafer, and Ryrie, it seems that he allows them to make those arguments, whereas his focus was more directed at defending the use of the system to help us look at the Scriptures regarding the Millennium.

Chapter 4 takes up the flip side of this argument and is entitled, “Covenantism.” Hopefully I’ll pick up there sometime later this week.