Too many Reformed folk are ignorant of the prominent place afforded to the future of the Jews in their own Reformed history and confessions, I hope to demonstrate that, while Mr. Lindsey raises legitimate concerns, he has laid the causes on the wrong theological doorstep. . . . However, it seems to me that some Reconstructionists may have asked for this sort of abuse by their own employment of similar tactics.1

– Steve Schlissel (Dominionist/Reconstructionist)

Long before Hal Lindsey wrote The Road To Holocaust2, he was the favorite whipping boy of Dominionist/Reconstructionists in their never ending attacks on the system of theology they most love to hate- Dispensationalism. When Lindsey answered back in The Road To Holocaust, the temperature of the debate boiled over into heated response. In spite of all of the huffing and puffing and cry that Lindsey struck a low blow in his characterization of Dominion/Reconstruction theology, I want to state why I believe that Hal is correct.

ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSYDavid Rausch

The first charge that Dominion/Reconstructionists advocate views that have in the past engendered anti-Semitism which I have found were made in 1985 by evangelical scholar David Rausch in Moody Monthly.3 Rausch’ s scholarly credentials (a PhD, professor of church history and Judaic studies at Ashland College and Seminary, Ashland, Ohio, published over 200 articles on Jewish/Christian relations, and has written 12 books, many on this very subject) would lead one to believe that he is one of the leading experts, if notthe expert on such matters. This equips him to evaluate this issue. His PhD dissertation from Kent State University in 1979 was ” Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism, 1878-1918″ which chronicled the support of primarily Dispensationalists for the Jews and their efforts to found the modern state of Israel. His books which relate to Jewish studies and anti-Semitism include Messianic Judaism: Its History, Theology, and Polity (1982);Eminent Hebrew Christians of the Nineteenth Century (1983); A Legacy of Hatred: Why Christians Must Not Forget the Holocaust (1984, 1990); Building Bridges: Understanding Jews and Judaism (1988); The Middle East Maze: Israel and Her Neighbors (1991).

Perhaps because of Rausch’ s expertise in these matters he was the first to voice his concern about the direction of Dominion/Reconstruction theology.

New movements that take their cue from Calvin’ s Geneva or the Puritan experiment in the Massachusetts Bay Colony are advocating a ” Christian” nation that lacks pluralism. Forgetting the lessons of Germany, they naively insist that what the decadent United States needs is more ” Christian” law practiced by more ” Christian” lawyers to bring in a ” Christian” society with ” Christian” economics to reach the world and make it ” Christian.” 4

Rausch goes on to say that Dominion/Reconstructionists are those who are

Despising premillennialists who believe that only the return of Jesus Christ will initiate the Millennium, these leaders [Reconstructionists] use a broader based evangelical movement to achieve their agenda. Coupled with dangerous socialist and fascist movements that have their own hidden agendas, these ” reconstructionists” signal the calamity that could encompass our nation if we give in to their high-sounding logic.5

Thomas Ice

In our 1988 book, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?6, I wrote appendix B, ” Is Christian Reconstructionism Anti-Semitic?” I noted, similar to Rausch, that there was potential for anti-Semitism because of a few statements, but mainly because of their ” replacement theology.”

The danger lies in their misunderstanding of God’ s plan concerning the future of the nation Israel. Reconstructionists advocate the replacement of Old Testament Israel with the church, often called the ” New Israel.” They believe that Israel does not have a future different from any other nation.7

I then quoted Reconstructionist David Chilton as an example of that belief. ” Although Israel will someday be restored to the true faith, the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation.” 8

Richard Pierard, a history professor at Indiana State reviewed our bookDominion Theology in Christianity Today (Sept. 22, 1989). Pierard thought that we did ” not take seriously enough the anti-Semitic character behind some of the beliefs of Reconstrutionism (especially its hostility to Judaism and the State of Israel).” No doubt he would agree with Rausch and Lindsey who detect anti-Semitic problems with Dominion theology.

Hal Lindsey

Hal Lindsey’ s remarks and subsequent book followed by the Dominionist response are the ingredients which have really stirred the pot of controversy. In 1987, after listening to tapes and reading a book by David Chilton, Lindsey preached a sermon at his church entitled ” The Dominion Theology Heresy.” Lindsey remarked that, ” This is the most anti-Semitic movement I’ ve seen since Adolph Hitler.” Hal has since apologized on more than one occasion on national radio for his over reaction. It was an overstatement. (I have yet to ever hear of a Reconstructionist apologize for any of their endless errors about their opponents.) He has told me that he was just beginning to learn of the movement and had listened to hours of tapes by Chilton and a number of Charismatic Dominionists who had repeatedly attacked Hal personally which upset him before his sermon.

Lindsey’ s book The Road to Holocaust was released in June 1989 with his warning of concern as to where recent trends of Dominion/Reconstruction theology could lead the church.

LINDSEY’ S CONCERNSLindsey does not say that Reconstructionists are full-blown anti-Semites. He does say that Dominion/Reconstructionists engage in ” the same sort of rhetoric that in the past formed the basis of contempt for the Jews that later developed into outright anti-Semitism.” He then warns Christians to ” not sit idly by while a system of prophetic interpretation that historically furnished the philosophical basis for anti-Semitism infects the Church again.” 9

What is the basis upon which Lindsey makes such claims? His basis is that historically replacement theology (the church replaces the Jews as the new or true Israel, and Israel has no future as a distinct nation within God’ s plan) has been the theological foundation upon which anti-Semitism has been built within the confines of Christianity. Therefore, Lindsey has seen in the 1980s a revival of replacement theology (the historic cause of anti-Semitism) spearheaded by Dominionist leadership. His concern is that for the first time in our lifetime, there is a decline of those who believe in the Pretrib Rapture and a future for national Israel, often known as Dispensationalism, and a dramatic shift towards replacement theology. Finally, since Lindsey believes that we are near the time of the Second Coming and therefore the Rapture, he knows that the yet future seven-year Tribulation will see a time of the greatest anti-Semitism in the history of the world. This is why he believes that a warning needs to be issued concerning Dominion/Reconstructionist’ s ” prophetic views and the dangers they pose to the Church in general and the Jewish people in particular.”

RECONSTRUCTIONIST RESPONSEThe usual response by Reconstructionists is that they do not think replacement theology has been or is capable of producing anti-Semitism. The fact of the matter is, however, that replacement theology has historically, not always, but often, led to what Hebrew, Christian scholar, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a dispensationalist, has called ” theological anti-Semitism.” 10

Steve Schlissel

Reconstructionist Steve Schlissel, a Hebrew Christian, wrote an article in the July 1988 issue of The Counsel of Chalcedon entitled ” To Those Who Wonder If Reconstructionism Is Anti-Semitic.” It was most likely generated by Lindsey’ s sermon and his discussion of the issue on his nationwide, weekly, Saturday radio program, Week In Review. ” Why would anyone,” asks Schlissel, ” aware of the hopes, let alone the principles, that guide and motivate reconstructionists regard them as anti-Semitic?” The answer is because of the attraction by most Reconstructionists to some form of replacement theology. Note a few examples from their writings.

While Reconstructionists do believe that individual Jews will be converted to Christ in mass in the future, almost none of them believe that national Israel has a future and thus the Church has completely taken over the promises of national Israel. In contrast to the eventual faithfulness and empowerment by the Holy Spirit of the Church, Reconstructionist David Chilton said that ” ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’ s Kingdom.” 11 Chilton says again, ” the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation.” 12 Reconstructionists believe that the Church is now that new nation which is why Christ destroyed the Jewish state. Reconstructionists DeMar and Leithart have said, ” In destroying Israel, Christ transferred the blessings of the kingdom from Israel to a new people, the church.” 13 Reconstructionist Ray Sutton teaches that God permanently divorced Israel.14 In explaining the parables of Matthew 21 and 22, he says, ” For the next several chapters, one section after another pronounces judgment and total discontinuity between God and Israel . . . total disinheritance.” 15 The father of Reconstructionism, R. J. Rushdoony, uses some of the harshest language in making clear his form of replacement theology.

The fall of Jerusalem, and the public rejection of physical Israel as the chosen people of God, meant also the deliverance of the true people of God, the church of Christ, the elect, out of the bondage to Israel and Jerusalem, . . .16

A further heresy clouds premillennial interpretations of Scripture- their exaltation of racism into a divine principle. Every attempt to bring the Jew back into prophecy as a Jew is to give race and works (for racial descent is a human work) a priority over grace and Christ’ s work and is nothing more or less than paganism. . . . There can be no compromise with this vicious heresy.17

These statements are clearly replacement theology and thus theological anti-Semitism, which has historically been the foundation for overt anti-Semitism within Christendom.

Shortly after his article appeared, I called Schlissel on the phone and discussed the matter with him. I pointed out to him that while he was undoubtedly a Reconstructionist yet he believed in a future for Israel as a nation. I did not know of any other Reconstructionist leader who shared his views on that matter. In other words, Schlissel did not believe in a totalreplacement of Israel with the church. Schlissel believes that national Israel does have a future. Schlissel’ s milder form of covenant theology holds that while the Church does take over some of Israel’ s blessings, they do not take over all of them. Therefore, his so-called ” defense” of Reconstructionists was no defense since he “defended” them by advocating a view they did not believe. In fact, Schlissel’ s view on this matter is closer to Hal Lindsey and Dispensationalism. What was his response? He did not have much to say.

In 1990, Schlissel expanded the thrust of his arguments against Lindsey in a 45 page essay ” The Reformed Faith and the Jews.” It was combined with Postmillennialist David Brown’ s essay ” The Restoration of The Jews” originally published in 1861 to make a new book Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews. Because of the cover design, which could make one think that the book is authored by Lindsey, Bantam’ s legal department recommended to Lindsey that he could sue and win against the publishers because of the misleading nature of the cover. In deference to Christian charity, he did not.

Gary DeMar & Peter Leithart

In July 1989 Reconstructionists Gary DeMar & Peter Leithart rushed into print with a booklet rebuttal to The Road to Holocaust called The Legacy of Hatred Continues.18 They believed Lindsey’ s book to ” border on slander and would be filled with numerous inaccuracies, both biblical and historic.” (10) Their booklet said that Lindsey’ s book ” is filled with a great number of deceptions, falsehoods, and outright lies regarding Christian Reconstruction.” (9) Quite frankly what Reconstructionists often cite as ” deceptions, falsehoods, and outright lies” are almost always differences in interpretative opinions and conclusions about the Bible and history. Therefore, if someone attempts to evaluate Reconstructionists in terms of their own theology, then they are characterized as dishonest and unethical by ” misrepresenting” them. But the real issue is whether or not Lindsey is right in his views of the Bible and interpretations of history that in turn make him and the Reconstructionists right or wrong. While other Reconstructionists have commented on Holocaust,19 Schlissel, and DeMar/Leithart (DeMar from this point on) have come forward with the major responses. Therefore, I will mainly interact with their treatments in the rest of this article.

LIVING IN GLASS HOUSESAn approach used by most Reconstructionists to answer, not only Lindsey but many of their critics, is to attack their character at the beginning of their response. One of the items cited is the fact that Holocaust reverses Rousas John Rushdoony’ s name, not in the text of the book, but in the footnotes, so that it reads John Rousas Rushdoony. This was a mistake made by the publisher, Bantam. I have a copy of Lindsey’ s prepublished manuscript and he had the name correct when he turned in the manuscript to the publisher. DeMar questions whether ” Lindsey actually read the books.” 20 DeMar goes on to say that if Lindsey ” can’ t get easily documented facts correct, readers have a right to question Lindsey’ s interpretation of data . . .” 21

” People who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” is a well known saying relating to hypocrisy. DeMar has smashed a number of his own windows, since he is guilty of the very ” sin” he accuses Lindsey of in his booklet. DeMar quoted from theologian, Bruce Demarest’ s book22 General Revelation.23 A problem is that he cited Demarest’ s name as William, not Bruce. This he did both in the text of the booklet and in the footnote as well. His name is Bruce A. Demarest. There is no William to be found. At least Lindsey’ s publisher only reversed Rushdoony’ s first and middle names. DeMar completely manufactured the name William from thin air. According to the ” DeMar standard” we can question whether or not he ” actually read the book” and we certainly ” have a right to question [DeMar’ s] interpretation of data.”

ESCHATOLOGY AND ETHICS

DeMar believes that eschatology has been improperly made an issue by Lindsey. ” We believe that Hal Lindsey is wrong in making eschatology the test of orthodoxy. . . . the problem is not eschatology but ethics.” 24 He concludes, ” ‘ Anti-Semitism’ is not a simple deduction of eschatology.” 25

First, Lindsey does not make eschatology the test of orthodoxy! Lindsey thinks that certain eschatological views do nurture theological anti-Semitism. If eschatology is so insignificant, as DeMar implies, then why is he so preoccupied in rebutting opposing views of eschatology? We all believe eschatology is important and like every area of theology impacts the way people think and behave. I believe eschatology, in the case of the anti-Semitism issue impacts one’ s ethics.

Second, DeMar and most Reconstructionists do not think that eschatology is as important as do Dispensationalists since most of what Dispensationalists see as events that will occur in the future (the Tribulation, rebuilding of the Temple, Antichrist, anti-Semitism during the Tribulation, events of Revelation), they believe has already happened by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. Therefore, it certainly is not a matter of eschatology for them, it could only be an ethical issue. This is one of the concerns that Lindsey has, if Israel does not have a future AS A NATION, then such a viewpoint has historically been the major ground for theological anti-Semitism in the Church.

DeMar quotes from Peter Toon’ s book, Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology 1600-1660, an excellent source, on page 46 of his booklet. This same book makes it clear that eschatology was the basis for the decline of anti-Semitism among Puritans in the 1600s. Toon’ s essay, ” The Latter-day Glory,” about the rise of Postmillennialism shows that Thomas Goodwin in the 1630s taught ” the conversion of Jews to Christ and their restoration to Palestine.” 26 Toon adds that it was Jewish influence which led to this new teaching. ” First, they [Puritans] held that when the words ‘ Israel’ , ‘ Judah’ , ‘ Zion’ and ‘ Jerusalem’ are used in the Bible they always related to the fleshly descendants of Abraham or the places where they lived.” 27 This is not a view held by most Reconstructionists. In fact this is the view of their theological opposites- dispensationalists. ” Therefore,” continues Toon, ” passages which speak of a return of these people to their own land, their conquest of enemies and their rule of the nations are to be taken literally, not allegorically as of the Church.” 28 This is a clear denial of the replacement theology held by most modern day Reconstructionists. While many Puritans were Postmillennial (just as many if not more were Premillennial) they did hold to a different kind than do most Reconstructionists of our day.

July 18, 1290 was the day in which Jews were expelled from England because they were viewed as dangerous people who were considered a threat to ” Christian” England. Once again theological anti-Semitism within the Church resulted in persecution of the Jews. In the 1650s, they were readmitted to England. Why? It was because of eschatology. Due to Puritan influence many English Christians began to see a future for the Jews and national Israel. It was as the ” Hebraic and Judicial tendencies in England thought and theology reached their zenith by 1650 and it is in this ‘ prophetical’ context” 29 notes Toon that led to the readmission of the Jews. Some Puritans even ” believed that the tribulations that had come upon England in the Civil War were, in part God’ s judgment upon the nation for its maltreatment of Jews in the past.” 30 The arguments that won the day, according to Toon, were eschatological. He summarizes, ” the more common ground of advocating readmission, amongst theologians and preachers, seems to have been based on eschatological considerations.” 31

Reconstructionists like DeMar do not like to admit it, but one’ s eschatologydoes play a major role in the anti-Semitism issue within the Church. We shall see more reasons why replacement theology has usually been the ground upon which anti-Semitism was peddled within Christendom.

SCHLISSEL’ S DEFENSELESS DEFENSEReconstructionist Steve Schlissel has written the most extensive defense to date in support of Dominion/Reconstructionist Postmillennialism in regards to the anti-Semitism issue. As we have already noted above, Schlissel supposedly defends his fellow Reconstructionists by setting forth a different position than that of his accused brethren. Let me explain further what I mean.

In 1987-88 when Hal Lindsey was writing Holocaust, virtually all of the books and material being produced by Reconstructionists were from the Preterist perspective of prophetic interpretation. Therefore, Reconstructionists were clearly presenting the image that their brand of postmillennialism was linked to the Preterist view. This is why one of the first issues of Biblical Perspectiveswas an article I wrote entitled ” New, Improved Postmillennialism” (Mar-Apr 1988). Preterist Postmillennialism had not had much support previously within the American Postmillennial tradition. I cannot think of one Old Princeton professor or Westminster professor who was a PreteristPostmillennialist. Perhaps there has been one, but it has never been very popular. Perhaps Reconstructionists have generally been attracted to the Preterist view since it is the perfect antithesis of Dispensationalism. Nevertheless, the Preterist viewpoint is probably the most extreme form of replacement theology possible.

Four Interpretative Approaches

Some of you may be asking what is a Preterist? Let me explain the four basis approaches to the interpretation of biblical prophecy. They are simple to remember since they all relate to time. There are the only four possibilities that are related to time: past, present, future, and timeless. The time references relate to when Bible prophecy will be/has been fulfilled in terms of our present time in history.

First, the Preterist (Latin for ” past” ) approach believes that prophecy, in relation to our current time in history has already been fulfilled in the past. They believe that prophetic sections like Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, and Matthew 24 have already been fulfilled in the past, usually related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. For example, the ” coming” passages of Matthew 24 and Revelation 19 do not refer to the Second Coming, instead they refer to God’ s coming in judgment upon the nation of Israel, through the Roman army in the A.D. 70 event. They do believe in the Second Coming (some extreme Preterists do not believe in the Second Coming at all, but I do not know of any Reconstructionists who go that far yet) and usually take passages like 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 to refer to that. Preterists are found among Amillennialists and Postmillennialists.

Second, the Historicist approach generally believes that the current Church Age is the time period covered in the book of Revelation. Therefore, prophecy is being fulfilled in the time period in which we live. They usually take momentous events from the time in which they live and argue that it is a fulfillment of some prediction of Bible prophecy. For example, the French Revolution was said to refer to an event in Revelation 13. Some historicists today have said that the recent Gulf War fulfilled some Bible prophecy. Usually related to the Historicist view is what is called the ” day/year” theory. This means that number of days in the Bible refer to years. Historicists have always been the champion date-setters of prophetic interpretation because they try to develop a year for day scheme to set the time for the Second Coming. This was the most widely held view from the 1600s through the 1800s. Today, almost no one holds this view. Premillennialists, Amillennialists, and Postmillennialists have all been Historicists.

Third, the Futurist approach generally believes that much of the Bible’ s prophecy lies in the future from our current time in history. Futurists believe that Revelation 4-22 is future, as are many of the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets and other parts of the New Testament. Therefore, things like the seven-year Tribulation, the Antichrist, and the Two Witnesses, etc., are yet future. Futurists take the Bible more literally than other systems of interpretation. All Dispensationalists are Futurists. Futurism has been followed by Premillennialists, Amillennialists, and Postmillennialists, although it is almost exclusively found among Premillennialists in our day.

Fourth, the Idealist approach is one that takes the prophetic Scriptures, like the book of Revelation, as atemporal (timeless) lessons applicable to anyone down through the history of the Church. They do not believe that prophecy, such as Revelation, is concerned with timing. While all three millennial positions can use this interpretive approach, I have only found it among Amillennialists and Postmillennialists.

Schlissel’ s Problem

Since almost all of the prophecy teachers among the Reconstructionists are Preterist and were in 1987-88 (Gary North, Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, David Chilton, Greg Bahnsen, Ray Sutton, Mike Gilstrap, James Jordan, and probably George Grant), how can an observer be justly criticized for concluding that Reconstructionists are Preterist Postmillennialists? They cannot. There are a few that are not Preterist. One of them is Steve Schlissel. Steve is of all things a Futurist, just like Hal Lindsey and other Dispensationalists. Yet he is the one who has been defending Reconstructionists against the charge of theological anti-Semitism by stating views consistent with a Futurist viewpoint, but things denied by Preterists.

One cannot be a Preterist and believe that Israel has a national future. Prophecy relating to that issue has already happened and God’ s plan for Israel is already completed. Sure they believe in individual conversions of many Jews, but not a national future. Remember what Reconstructionist spokesman David Chilton has said?

Ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’ s Kingdom. . . .

The Great Tribulation took place in the Fall of Israel. . . .

the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation. . . .

The ” Harlot” symbolized apostate Jerusalem, which had ceased to be the City of God. . . .32

What once had been true of Israel, Peter says, is now and forever true of the Church.33

Because Israel committed the supreme act of covenant-breaking when she rejected Christ, Israel herself was rejected by God. The awesome curses pronounced by Jesus, Moses, and the prophets were fulfilled in the terrible destruction of Jerusalem, with the desolation of the Temple and the obliteration of the covenant nation in A.D. 70.34

Now lets compare it with what Steve Schlissel believes as he approvingly quotes writers from the 1800s.

” Will the Jews, as a Nation, be Restored to their own Land?” This question was answered affirmatively; the (unsigned) article concluded that Scripture taught that the Jews must be restored to their land if certain prophecies would be fulfilled.

As early as 1847 the Great Dr. David Brown . . . wrote of his conviction that the Jews would one day again possess the Land of Israel.35

I am also sympathetic with his [Hal Lindsey] frustrations in getting some Reformed brothers [includes Reconstructionists] to even consider whether the modern State of Israel may, in fact, be prophetically significant. Their reluctance is interpreted by Mr. Lindsey as stemming from anti-Semitism. Whether or not that is so, it is disturbing to see the hedging, hemming and hawing- disturbing and unnecessary. After all, the question of interest among the Reformed regarding the Jews in the mid-nineteenth century, as was shown, was not their spiritual restoration- that was a given. Rather, it was whether the prophecies regarding their future required their restoration to the land. This question is answered by Dr. Brown in the affirmative, and in a manner that requires serious consideration. Since God in His providence has answered part of that old controversy by bringing Jews back to the land, it hardly seems fair for the Reformed to ignore or dismiss the possibility, a priori, of that return having any prophetic significance.36

We as Dispensationalists can say a hearty AMEN to Schlissel’ s views on this point. However, as the reader can observe, there is a world of difference between Schlissel’ s Futurist Postmillennial viewpoint and that of the normal Preterist Postmillennialist as noted from Chilton’ s remarks.

ALL POSTMILLENNIALISM IS NOT THE SAMESchlissel and DeMar, when defending against Lindsey’ s book love to go back into history, especially to the Puritans, and find Postmillennialists who said glowing things about the Jews and Israel. They then conclude that Postmillennialists cannot be theological anti-Semites because Postmillennialists have always believed a certain way. However, what they fail to tell their readers is that there are different kinds of Postmillennialists, as we have just seen in the differences between Chilton and Schlissel. Gary DeMar is concerned when Dispensationalists do not point out differences among Premillennialists. When writing about a debate involving DeMar and myself, DeMar noted:

Throughout the debate, Tommy Ice gave the impression that dispensational premillennialism is the historic Christian position and that dispensationalpremillennialism is little different from historic premillennialism. This is a favorite tactic of dispensationalists.37

I wish DeMar would apply that same standard he wants for Dispensationalism on Postmillennialism.

In a chapter ” Postmillennialism and the Salvation of the Jews” DeMar says that ” historic postmillennialism gives the Jews a very prominent place in prophecies of the latter-day glory of the church.” 38 Throughout the chapter, DeMar gives the impression that his Reconstructionist view of Preterist Postmillennialism is the historic Postmillennial position and that there is little difference in the Reconstructionist brand of Postmillennialism. This is a favorite tactic of Reconstructionists.

There are a number of problems with this tactic. First, not one example was cited in the chapter of the views of a Preterist Postmillennialist. Second, he did not identify that his and most Reconstructionist views are different from those cited at many points that are at issue on the anti-Semitism debate. Third, a significant number of names cited in the section were not even Postmillennialists. I was not able to identify every name cited, but I was able to identify four Amillennialists and one Premillennialist from whom he quoted. There could be more. Finally, DeMar refers to the Westminster Larger Catechism as if it was Postmillennial.39 Peter Toon, one of the experts from which DeMar cites in the chapter has this to say about the Westminster Assembly:

In closing, it is perhaps worth mentioning that nowhere in the symbols produced by the Assembly is there any attempt to speak of a latter-day glory of the type found in the writings of Bright man, Finch, Gouge and Cotton [Postmil]. Though neither this doctrine nor millenarianism [Premil] is outlawed or called heretical, the whole teaching of the symbols is Augustinian [Amil].40

Schlissel follows the same tactic in his book, not identifying the many whom he implies are Postmillennial, but are really something else.

The point I wish to make it that just because Postmillennialists in the past did believe a certain way, does not mean that modern day Reconstructionists believe the same way. The fact of the matter is that they do not believe the same. They are Preterist Postmillennialists who believe strongly in replacement theology, which is the theology that has historically led to anti-Semitism within Christendom. Why don’ t Reconstructionists abandon their Preterist views and adopt the beliefs of Steve Schlissel and older Postmillennialists like David Brown? Until they do, their theology is suspect on this matter.

ANTI-ZIONISMIn a recent phone conversation (Feb. 27, 1992), Steve Schlissel admitted to me that he is troubled by fellow Reconstructionist, James Jordan’ s teaching that Jews really are not Jews (i.e., descendants of Abraham), the Khazar theory. Jordan wrote of this in an essay ” Christian Zionism and Messianic Judaism” 41 which I cited in my book Dominion Theology (406) as an example of anti-Semitic literature from the Reconstructionist camp. Schlissel is concerned because Jordan has recently renewed his advocacy of the Khazar theory. (I wonder if the six million Jews who died in he Holocaust knew that they died for nothing since they were not really Jews, if Jordan and his kind are right?) Jordan said, ” Modern apostate Jews have absolutely no theological, and therefore no historical and legal right to the land of Palestine.” 42 Jordan continues, ” Christian Zionism is blasphemy. It is heresy. Christians have no theological stake whatsoever in the modern State of Israel. It is an anti-God, anti-Christ nation.” 43

Some Reconstructionists say that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism.44 This is true. But in our day, it is almost the same because of the close identity of all Jews with Israel. Rausch has stated that ” anti-Zionism could become anti-Semitism.” 45 Rausch expressed further concern when he noted an interview conducted with G. Douglas Young in Israel.

Dr. Young expressed deep concern about the ugliness of the anti-Israel teaching that was being spread through evangelical liberal arts colleges and seminaries by an ever-growing, hostile force of academicians.46

Catholic scholar, Father Edward Flannery, who has written a great deal on this subject has said, ” To the question Is anti-Zionism in its various degrees and forms anti-Semitic? . . . Not necessarily, but almost always.” 47

However, many Reconstructionists seem unwilling to admit that one’ s view of eschatology makes a difference on this matter, as noted above. They think that Hal Lindsey has simply no credibility on this matter. Rausch has points out:

Contrary to popular opinion, this prophetic viewpoint [dispensationalism] combated anti-Semitism and sought to reinstate the biblical promises that God had made to the Jewish people through Abraham- biblical promises that postmillennial Christendom had determined were null and void.48

TRUE CONFESSIONSSteve Schlissel in the process of supposedly refuting Hal Lindsey’ s Holocaustmakes some interesting admissions, which I think supports Lindsey’ s contention that historically replacement theology has been the ground for theological anti-Semitism within Christendom.

A Frightening Departure

Schlissel notes a departure among his Reformed brethren (Reconstructionists would be included in this group) in more recent times from earlier views of Israel.

As we have said, and will say again, just a century ago all classes of Reformed interpreters held to the certainty of the future conversion of Israel as a nation. How they have come, to a frightening extent, to depart from their historic positions regarding the certainty of Israel future conversion is not our subject here.49

Schlissel answers his question in part by saying, ” the hope of the future conversion of the Jews became closely linked, at the turn of the century and beyond, with Premillennial Dispensationalism, an eschatological heresy.” 50 Amazing logic. Dispensationalists get blamed for the departure of one group from the truth, because they believe the truth. So that must mean that the more we believe the truth, the more it makes people like Reconstructionists depart from the truth.

Historical Roots of Anti-Semitism

Schlissel seems to share Lindsey’ s basic view on the rise and development of anti-Semitism within the history of the church. [For a survey of the history of anti-Semitism in the Church see David Rausch, Building Bridges: Understanding Jews and Judaism (Moody Press, 1988):87-171).] After giving his readers an overview of the history of anti-Semitism through Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome, Schlissel then quotes approvingly Raul Hilberg’ s famous quote from Lindsey’ s Holocaust.

Viewing the plight of the Jews in Christian lands from the fourth century to the recent holocaust, one Jew observed, ” First we were told ‘ You’ re not good enough to live among us as Jews.’ Then we were told, ‘ You’ re not good enough to live among us.’ Finally we were told, ‘ You’ re not good enough to live.’ ” 51

Schlissel then comments upon Hilberg’ s statement by saying something that Hal Lindsey could have said,

This devastatingly accurate historical analysis was the fruit of an error, a building of prejudice and hate erected upon a false theological foundation. The blindness of the church regarding the place of the Jew in redemptive history is, I believe, directly responsible for the wicked sins and attitudes described above. What the church believes about the Jews has always made a difference. But the church has not always believed a lie.52

AMEN, brother Steve! Preach it!

What Schlissel has pointed out as true is what his other Reconstructionist brethren deny. What Schlissel has called a lie is what his Preterist Reconstructionist brethren advocate. Their form of replacement theology is the problem. Therefore, Lindsey’ s thesis in Holocaust about the historical origins of anti-Semitism within Christendom springing from replacement theology are true and admitted by Schlissel.

CONCLUSIONI hope that you have come to realize that Hal Lindsey’ s claims in The Road to Holocaust are not something that should be apologized or repented for, nor are they false accusations, and neither should ” the book [be] pulled from the market,” as suggested by Gary DeMar.53 Instead, as one of their own (Schlissel) suggests, it is those who hold to replacement theology, such as Dominionist/Reconstructionist that should repent.

 

Endnotes
1 Steve Schlissel & David Brown, Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews (Still Waters Revival Books, 1990):17, 18.

2 Hal Lindsey, The Road To Holocaust (Bantam, 1989).

3 David A. Rausch, ” Forty Years After the Holocaust,” Moody Monthly (April 1985). 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.

6 Wayne House & Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionism (Multnomah Press, 1988):397-406. 7Ibid:397.

8 David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Reconstruction Press, 1985):224.

9 Holocaust :25.

10 Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology(Ariel Ministries, 1989):51. 11 Chilton, Paradise:224. 12 Ibid.

13 Gary DeMar & Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity (Dominion Press, 1988):213.

14 Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (Institute for Christian Economics, 1987):242. 15 Ibid:243.

16 Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Thoburn Press, 1970):82. 17 Ibid.:134.

18 Gary DeMar & Peter Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’ s The Road to Holocaust (Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).

19 Other responses are found in Greg Bahnsen & Ken Gentry, House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology (Institute for Christian Economics, 1989). Gary North & Gary DeMar, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn’ t (Institute for Christian Economics, 1991). Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).

20 Gary DeMar & Peter Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’ s The Road to Holocaust (Institute for Christian Economics, 1989):2. 21 Ibid.:4. 22 Ibid.:20.

23 Bruce A. Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Zondervan, 1982). 24 Legacy of Hatred :xi. 25 Ibid.:55.

26 Peter Toon, ” The Latter-day Glory,” in Peter Toon editor, Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology 1600-1660, (James Clarke & Co., 1970):32. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.

29 Toon, ” The Question of Jewish Immigration” in Puritan Eschatology:115. 30Ibid.:116. 31 Ibid.:117.

32 Chilton, Paradise Restored:224-25. 33 Ibid.:79. 34 Ibid.:82.

35 Steve Schlissel, ” To Those Who Wonder If Reconstructionism Is Anti-Semitic,” The Counsel of Chalcedon, July 1988:13.

36 Schlissel, Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews :26-27.

37 Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (Dominion Press, 1988):107. 38 The Legacy of Hatred Continues:45. 39 Ibid.:49.

40 Toon:114.

41 Originally found in James Jordan, The Sociology of the Church (Geneva Ministries, 1986):175-86. Reprinted in David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance(Dominion Press, 1987):612-21.

42 Jordan, Sociology:183. 43 Ibid.:184.

44 Schlissel, ” To Those Who Wonder If Reconstructionism Is Anti-Semitic,”The Counsel of Chalcedon, July 1988:13.

45 David Rausch, The Middle East Maze: Israel and Her Neighbors (Moody Press, 1991):85.

46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.:88. 48 Ibid.:64.

49 Schlissel, Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews :39. 50 Ibid.

Two Dallas Theological Seminary professors have edited a major new book calling into question previous formulations of dispensationalism, while at the same time attempting to develop a new kind of dispensationalism. This new approach has been labeled by its advocates ” Progressive Dispensationalism” (PD) in 1991. PD is often critical of older dispensationalism while incorporating elements from theological systems which in the past have been in opposition to traditional dispensational understandings of the Bible.

Dr. Craig Blaising teaches Systematic Theology at Dallas and Dr. Darrell Bock is in the New Testament Greek Department. Their new book isDispensationalism, Israel and The Church: The Search For Definition, (DIC) (Zondervan, 1992), which was released in late September 1992. It will not take those attempting to read this new book long to find that this book is difficult to read because of it’ s erudite and technical style. This is a marked change from a previous generation of dispensationalists, often typified by Dr. Charles Ryrie, who were known for their clear, direct, and concise brand of scholarship. In DIC it is sometimes hard to get a grip on what is being said, even after reading a passage several times.

CHANGES IN DISPENSATIONALISM

No one can debate that some are proposing radical changes within the dispensational camp. The questions that arises relates to the nature and virtue of the change. While I do not agree with most of the changes being put forward by the advocates of PD, I do want my disagreement to be irenic, since I know through personal discussion with many who are proposing these changes believe that they are doing the right thing. Also, I do not believe that their writings, nor my personal discussions evidence a personal dislike for dispensationalism as is often evident in many of the attacks by ” outsiders.” However, at the same time I believe that these men are in the process of destroying dispensationalism. In personal discussions with many of the older dispensationalists their either believe that they have gone as far as one could go and still be said to be a dispensationalist (if they good any further then they will have left dispensationalism, they say), or some believe that they have already gone too far and should not be viewed as a true dispensationalist.

I am not opposed in any way to scholars attempting to discuss and sharpen a system of theology, or even suggesting changes. As Craig Blaising has argued, change has always occurred within dispensationalism. However, I also reserve the right to say that I believe someone has gone too far. I believe that to be the case with PD. There is a need for the changeless truths of the theology of the Bible to be articulated to each new generation, taking into account the particular ethos and questions produced by successive age groups.

My experience within the dispensational movement has paralleled Stan Gundry’ s statement of self-examination from the book’ s Foreword.

At its best, within dispensationalism has always been a dynamic that drives it to be constantly correcting itself in the light of Scripture. . . .

Critics of dispensationalism have always found it easier to identify the simplistic approaches of Scofield, to criticize the excesses of Lewis Sperry Chafer, and to poke fun at the charts of Clarence Larkin than to understand and appreciate the self-critical and self-corrective drive that has characterized dispensationalism at a deeper level.[1]

However, just because dispensationalism does have a history of development, does not mean that all proposals for change are necessarily correct or necessarily wrong. I know PD would agree. So in the same spirit in which those within the PD camp felt free to voice their criticism of older dispensationalists, I want to interact with these newer ideas.

My goal in this article will be to give some of the background leading up to the development of the PD movement; to explain PD in contrast with what older dispensationalists have believed; and to interact with specific PD viewpoints. Since I will not have enough space in this article, I hope to continue interaction in future articles in the coming year.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEWIf a father of the PD movement can be identified, it would most likely be Dr. Robert Saucy of the Talbot Graduate School of Theology in Southern California. Dr. Saucy wrote a number of articles throughout the 1980′ s (beginning in 1984), dealing with dispensational themes. In some of these articles Dr. Saucy began to moderate a few of his dispensational views. At the same time (during the 80′ s), other dispensationalists wrote articles in books and journals often disagreeing with older dispensational interpretations of Scripture or theology. Yet these writers still considered themselves to be dispensationalists.

Within this environment of flux and redefinition, it is not surprising that an organization arose meeting in conjunction with the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) convention in 1985, held at Talbot Seminary in California. (These yearly conventions usually meet in late October.) The ” dispensational study group” (DSG) grew out of this informal meeting at Talbot for the purpose of discussing ” current trends and ideas relating to the topic of dispensationalism.” [2] It is the DSG which has been a leading forum for PD.

The first public gathering of the DSG was in conjunction with the ETS gathering in Atlanta in 1986. Format of the meetings have revolved around a major presentation followed by discussion. Craig Blaising made the first presentation of a paper in Atlanta,[3] in which he argued that dispensationalism has changed over the years. This is the foundational apologetic used to justify many of the major changes being suggested for dispensationalism.

The DSG meet at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts in 1987. Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary presented his ground-breaking paper entitled ” The Reign of Christ.” [4] Bock’ s suggestion that Christ is now reigning (spiritually but not yet physically) on David’ s throne, which constitutes an inaugural fulfillment of the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 is a tenet of PD which presents the greatest difficulty for older dispensationalists to agree with. Traditionally dispensationalists have distinguished between Christ’ s ascension to the right hand of the Father’ s throne and the future time when He will descend from heaven, thus leaving the right hand of the Father’ s throne, and reign literally from David’ s throne in Jerusalem during the millennium. However, Bock has admittedly borrowed the ” already/not yet” dialectic from the late George E. Ladd (and other European theologians) to support his view of the reign of Christ.

In 1988 the meeting was held in Wheaton, Illinois. Mark Bailey, who teaches Bible Exposition at Dallas Seminary, presented a paper entitled ” Dispensational Definitions of the Kingdom.” Bailey is not a PD, but instead fits into the older dispensational mode. Dr. John Master of Philadelphia College of the Bible (also not a PD) notes[5] that during the discussion period varying views were presented in attempts to define the essentials of dispensationalism. Dr. Charles Ryrie’ s three-part ” sine qua non” was discussed,[6] since his definition has dominated discussion since 1965. Master noted that it did not appear that the audience could agree on the importance of these items in defining dispensationalism. In fact, at the conclusion of the meeting, there was no agreed upon definition of dispensationalism.

Dr. Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary, an millennial covenant theologian, presented material from his book Understanding Dispensationalists[7] at the 1989 meeting in San Diego. This meeting signaled a desire to open a dialogue with nondispensationalists, yet without coming to a consensus within dispensationalism regarding the matter of essentials.

New Orleans was the site of the 1990 meetings. Dialogue with amillennial covenant theologians continued as Dr. Tremper Longman of Westminster, presented a paper, as did Dr. Elliot E. Johnson of Dallas, both dealing with hermeneutics. Both men, from differing theological perspectives, claimed to be using a grammatical, historical, and contextual approach to the Scriptures. This is important in light of the fact that dispensationalists have long boasted of using a consistently literal hermeneutic, while accusing others of spiritualizing things like Israel and the church. This has lead to a belief by PD that there is not really a hermeneutical distinction between dispensationalists and nondispensationalists as Ryrie had declared in his sine qua non. ” As evangelicals have worked together exploring these developments,” said Blaising, ” the old divisions of spiritual versus literal interpretation have been left behind” (DIC:32).

In 1991 they meet in Kansas City. Dr. Doug Oss presented a paper on dispensationalism from the perspective of one committed to the Pentecostal/charismatic movement. A major focus of the paper dealt with the question of the cessation of gifts in the present dispensation. This meeting did not appear to have produce noticeable development of PD. However, the term ” progressive dispensationalism” surfaced as a term which many following the PD agenda began using to describe their new position. I will provide a description/definition later in this paper.

At the time of this writing, the most recent engagement (1992) took place in San Francisco. This meeting involved a presentation by Bock and Blaising of their new book DIC. I attended this meeting and the significance seemed to be that this new formulation called PD finally has a written expression. It was also interesting to informally observe that while PD have dominated the agenda surrounding the DSG, there is far from overwhelming support from the rank and file at the meeting. Many questions and concerns remain to be discussed in the days to come. Further development of PD surely seems to be in the works with Robert Saucy coming out with a book on the subject scheduled for a 1993 release date. Bock and Blaising also plan a follow up book for late 1993 or 1994.

Blaising and Bock have been the major forces behind the discussions of the DSG and in formulating PD. Their material has provided the framework for the discussions that have taken place over the last few years. I have spent many hours in personal discussion during these years with them (mainly with Blaising) in an effort to understand what they are saying. I appreciate the time spent discussing these issues and do not want to misrepresent their views. However, it is difficult at times to understand just what they are really saying. I have made every effort to properly present their views. Now I will attempt to describe PD.

WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM?It is hard to define exactly what PD is for a number of reasons. First, it is still in the development stage. Second, it is easier to say what they don’ t believe and how they are different than older dispensationalists, than what they actually believe since it appears that some of their thought is tentative. Third, even though the final chapter of DIC includes a section called ” Progressive Dispensationalism” (380-85) there is not really a definition or a list of things that are essential to this new brand of dispensationalism. There is only a listing of ” patterns” (379) of those who claim to be dispensationalists.

Even though DIC is said to be ” The Search for Definition,” apparently the journey has not yet reached its destination. Blaising does not think that anyone can isolate essentials of dispensationalism, instead they can only observe patterns which those calling themselves ” dispensationalists” have put forth (379). By avoiding essentials and providing only descriptive patterns, Blaising has in effect made it impossible (using his terms) to evaluate whether or not one is truly a dispensationalist. (How can a definition be formulated if their are no discernible essentials?) Therefore, an issue becomes whether or not to accept Blaising’ s terms for the discussion or not. If one uses an older form of dispensationalism as a standard, then there would be a reasonable basis to question whether or not PD is really a modified form of dispensationalism or whether or not it is closer to a modified form of Covenant Theology, thus not really dispensationalism at all. One current professor at Dallas Seminary who is strongly opposed to this new formulation of dispensationalism has described the issue to me as follows: One has to decide whether or not PD is merely rearranging the furniture in the room (i.e., development of dispensationalism), or whether or not they are removing key pieces of furniture from the room (i.e.,abandonment of dispensationalism).

A Description of Progressive

PD’ s tell us they are using the word ” progressive” to refer to a progressive fulfillment of God’ s plan in history (380-82). They see a progressive relationship of past and present dispensations as well as between the present and future dispensations. PD sees a greater continuity than did older forms of dispensationalism. This continuity is viewed as progress between the dispensations, thus the term PD. ” It is continuity through progress: the progress of promissory fulfillment.” ” This continuity is variously expressed in terms of one (new) covenant that unifies both dispensations” (381). Blaising and Bock give the following explanation:

The label progressive dispensationalism is being suggested because of the way in which this dispensationalism views the interrelationship of divine dispensations in history, their overall orientation to the eternal kingdom of God (which is the final, eternal dispensation embracing God and humanity), and the reflection of these historical and eschatological relations in the literary features of Scripture. (380)

Features of Progressive Dispensationalism

Hermeneutics: Blaising is clear in his rejection of Ryrie’ s insistence that an essential element of ” dispensationalism claims to employ principles of literal, plain or normal, interpretation consistently.” ,[8] Blaising says of Ryrie:

He is quite insistent that the difference between a dispensational and a nondispensational hermeneutic is that the former is consistent in the employment of literal or normal interpretation. The presence of spiritual or allegorical interpretation to any extent ” in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.” (26)

Blaising and Bock do not believe that dispensationalists practice a unique approach to hermeneutics.

The issue is not a distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we share that we share. The question most simply put is, How does ” new” revelation impact ” old” revelation and expression? (392)

Blaising and Bock want to put forth what they call a ” complementary hermeneutic.” Complementary hermeneutics appears to be a synthesis of the two older approaches which have battled each other for years- the spiritual and literal approaches- in their handling of how the New Testament uses the Old Testament.

Third,does the New Testament complement Old Testament revelation? According to this approach, the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise. (392-3)

This hermeneutical approach is used to support their ” already/not yet” interpretation of the Davidic Covenant.

Davidic Covenant: Bock’ s contribution to PD is the notion that there is an unanticipated inauguration of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant with Christ currently reigning on David’ s throne spiritually. Bock uses a dialectical phrase ” already/not yet” (46) to support his form of realized eschatology. In the past, dispensationalists have seen the current Church Age as distinct in purpose and administration from the future Kingdom Age or Millennium. Dispensationalists have made a distinction between Christ’ s current reign at the right hand of the Father (Rev. 3:21) and His future reign on earth in Jerusalem during the Millennium upon David’ s Throne, thus fulfilling the blessings of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7). In the past, nondispensationalists have seen the present Church Age as a realized form of the Kingdom. They do not make a distinction between Christ’ s present session at the Father’ s right hand and the rule of Christ on David’ s throne. Thus, creating a conflict between dispensationalists and nondispensationalists over the timing of the Kingdom.

Bock has attempted to merge the two views by creating out of thin air (in my opinion), an artificial view that the Kingdom is both present and future at the same time. Thus, the current Church Age is not distinct from the future Kingdom. Instead Bock views our current age as ” the ‘ already,’ the ‘ sneak preview,’ or the ‘ invisible’ kingdom rule of Jesus” (65). Bock explains:

Thus the new community, the church, is the showcase of God’ s present reign through Messiah Jesus, who inaugurates the fulfillment of God’ s promises. . . . Jesus reigns from heaven invisibly but powerfully, transforming people through his Spirit. . . . He invites all into God’ s kingdom, where promises are beginning to be realized, a kingdom that functions distinct from and in the midst of the kingdoms of earth. The current phase of the kingdom has continuity with the kingdom to come, because it shares the call to reflect the activity and presence of God’ s righteousness in the world. (65-6)

Rather than following traditional logic that reasons if the church is currently in the Messianic Kingdom, then it is present and not future. Instead Bock says that there is also a future phase of the Kingdom, yet to be fulfilled. Bock explains:

In the second stage, the promise moves to ultimate consummation. . . . When Jesus returns, he will do all that the prophets of the Old Testament promised. The language chosen specifically ties itself to the concept of Israel’ s restoration, which is an element that is totally absent in the current activity of Jesus. . . . There is no indication that earthly and Israelitic elements in Old Testament promises have been lost in the activity of the two stages. In the ” not yet,” visible, consummative kingdom, Jesus will rule on earth. He will rule before and over all. (66)

In a future issue I hope to deal more in depth with Bock’ s views, but some problems with his view include: 1) His use of an invalid spiritual hermeneutic at key points to support his ” already” view of the Kingdom. 2) After reading the presentation of his view I do not see where Bock gets from the Bible the dialectic of ” already/not yet.” This is simply an arbitrary device to allow him to support a realized kingdom and at the same time hold to a premillennial futurism. I think a dialectical approach is employed by both theologians when they attempt to blend elements of contradictory ideas. Bock and others like him simply need to make up their minds. 3) As John Master pointed out at ETS this year, how can something be both fulfilled and yet not fulfilled? This is an amazing use of a word that has a clear sense of finality to it. 4) If Bock’ s exegetical approach can be used to support a current spiritual Davidic fulfillment (even though partial) then why can’ t the same approach be used to apply an ” already” fulfillment to Israel’ s land promises found in the Palestinian Covenant? Put another way, why stop where PD has stopped thus far in breaking down distinctions? Why not apply this wonderful new development of dispensationalism across the board?

Israel and the Church: PD blunts distinctions between Israel and the Church, while the older forms of dispensationalism highlight distinctions. Even though some distinctions are maintained by PD I wonder how long it will be before this new form of ” dispensationalism” will become the highway leading one totally away from most, if not all, of the distinctions of dispensationalism? Blaising explains that their search for a new dispensationalism

has led many dispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of heavenly verse earthly peoples in favor of a historical distinction in the divine purpose. The unity of divine revelation, of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the kingdom of God. (33)

One of the few distinctions which PD has maintained from older dispensationalism is their rejection of replacement theology. If a full replacement of Israel for the church were to start to happen, then no one could successfully argue that this could be a valid form of dispensationalism. PD current commitment to a futurist eschatology keeps them from totally commingling the church and Israel. But their is no question about their overall tendency to stress unity of the dispensations at the expense of diversity when compared to older dispensationalism.

Some of the problems created by PD’ s de emphasis on distinctions between God’ s plan for Israel and His plan for the church include: 1) The church loses its distinctiveness as a special work of God apart from Israel. Thus, the church is reduced to a second rate expression of the Kingdom lacking the fullness of God’ s power that will accompany the future ” phase” of the Kingdom. 2) Since much of the theological support for the pretribulational rapture is based upon the exegetical conclusion that God’s plan for the church is totally distinct from His plan for Israel, then this change will only undermine support for the pretrib position.

BLAISING’ S HISTORICAL JUSTIFICATIONDIC begins with a historical polemic in the Introduction by Craig Blaising in an apparent attempt to justify the need for their new brand of dispensationalism and most likely to lay a groundwork for those who might suggest that PD has gone too far and is no longer a valid form of dispensationalism. In the final chapter of the book Blaising and Bock deny that an essential of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the church (they still hold to distinctions, they just do not believe that they areessential) and conclude that if this were the case ” then any change or modification of that view is departure” (377). They then show why they interpret the history of dispensationalism as a futile attempt to locate essentials when they declare:

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that essentialistdispensationalism that which found its dispensational identity in the sine qua non) was only one form of a tradition in which other forms preceded it. This in itself raised the possibility that other forms may also follow. . . . It leads us to search for a new definition of dispensationalism, one that embraces the various historical manifestations of the tradition and that places the emergence of this postessentialist form of dispensationalism in perspective. (377-8)

Their search did not lead them to find a new sine qua non for dispensationalism, instead they only observed ” patterns” of what dispensationalists in the past have believed. This agnostic conclusion serves their purpose. If essentials cannot be clarified then their new PD cannot be viewed as a departure from dispensationalism. So the matter of dispensationalism’ s history is of central importance in evaluating their case for PD.

At least two items are important to Blaising’ s interpretation of American dispensationalism. First, is his classification and interpretation of the stages of American dispensationalism. Second, his conclusion that Ryrie has been wrong to see historic essentials that have given definition to dispensationalism. Instead he believes that dispensationalism has always been in flux and void of true universal characteristics. These two items, if true, would lend support to Blaising’ s claim that PD is simply another turn of the wheel in the development of dispensationalism, instead of a departure from dispensationalism as some have charged. It should also be pointed out that Blaising’ s historical interpretation is an attack upon Ryrie’ s brand of dispensationalism and his view of the history of dispensationalism. If Ryrie’ s dispensationalism or view of dispensationalism’ s history is correct, then PD would have to be judged from that framework to be a departure form dispensationalism. Thus, Blaising’ s historical arguments are crucial to making the case for PD as a new development in dispensationalism and not a departure.

Overview of American Dispensationalism

Blaising begins his historical argument by dividing the development of American dispensationalism into four stages of development: 1) Niagara premillennialism, 2) Scofieldism, 3) essentialist dispensationalism of Charles Ryrie, and 4) progressive dispensationalism or postessentialist dispensationalism. I do not have any particular problem with these categories, other than with the title essentialist dispensationalism. The essentialist label implies that Ryrie invented the sine qua non late in the game, instead of observing and distilling the essence of historic dispensationalism. Since Blaising’ s interpretation of the history of dispensationalism is used by him to put a spin upon the development of dispensationalism that allows advocates of PD to justify their radical changes, I will interact with key elements of each era of American dispensationalism.

Niagara

The annual gathering of the Niagara Bible Conference (1883-1897) was spearheaded by the father of American dispensationalism- James H. Brookes- with the aid of A.J. Gordon. Niagara grew out of earlier Bible Study conferences that were being held as early as 1878 in Clifton Springs, New York.[9] Blaising correctly notes that these conferences were ” the forum for introducing and developing American dispensationalism.” ” Two features of the conference,” continues Blaising, ” especially lent themselves to the development of dispensationalism” (16). The first feature ” a view of the church that went beyond local churches and denominations” (16). ” The second feature of the Niagara Conference that lent itself to the development of dispensationalism was its emphasis on the Bible” (17).

The first point Blaising makes regards the ecumenical nature of the Niagara Bible Studies. ” Niagara sought a visible experience of unity among those who belonged to and continued in different churches and denominations,” notes Blaising. DIC gives the impression that PD is restoring dispensationalism to the ecumenical unity of Niagara that was fractured by the narrow dogmatism of essentialist dispensationalism. While it is true that Niagara dispensationalism featured a certain kind of ecumenical unity, I think that there are significant differences between the ” community of scholars” (385) assembled around PD in our day and the dynamics responsible for earlier dispensationalism.

The differences between the unity of Niagara and that of the modern movement is more like two high-speed trains, on separate tracks, passing each other, going in opposite directions. Further explanation of this first point moves us into discussion of Blaising’ s second feature, the emphasis on the Bible. Niagara was a Bible Study conference that met together to inductively study the Bible with an eye on answering attacks on the Bible coming from a growing modernist movement. Ryrie’ s disagreement with Kraus’ understanding of the purpose behind Niagara supports this point:

His [Kraus] attempt to link the prophetic conferences with dispensationalism is in reverse gear. He tries to show that since there was some dispensational teaching in the conferences this was the cause of their being convened. The truth is that the calling of prophetic conferences as a protest to modernism was the cause, and a gradual understanding of dispensationalism was the effect. The conferences led to dispensationalism, not vice versa. To be sure there was an inevitable and eventual link between the conferences and dispensationalism, but dispensationalism grew out of the independent study which resulted from the interest in prophecy.[10]

Niagara’ s unity was the product of those from within liberal denominations who meet together for Bible Study to counter the lack of biblical input they were not receiving from their mainline churches. The result was that they saw in dispensationalism an answer to modernism’ s approach to tearing down the biblical faith. PD is not made up of those who are dissatisfied with liberal denominations, instead they are Evangelicals who are dissatisfied with the dispensationalism of their forefathers and have met together to change it. Our Niagara fathers were premillennialists and they did not include amillennialists and postmillennialists (for the main part) in their formulations. Today, however, PD’ s are including nonpremillennialists in their ” community” which helps explain why they are arriving at a synthesis between premillennialism and ” an inaugurated eschatology” [11] (i.e., an amillennial or postmillennial view that the current age is the Davidic kingdom or millennium) as stated in their ” already/not yet” dialectic. The Niagara fathers meet for inductive Bible Study and the result was the formulation of dispensationalism. However, today, PD has been the product, in my opinion, of ideas that need to be supported by study of the Bible. Niagara stressed distinctions found in Bible Study, while PD stresses continuity and unity in the Bible. Niagara used as its standard for resolving differences an appeal to the Bible, while PD seems to place great weight up theological dialogue between opposing theological systems.

Blaising says ” Niagara dispensationalism was inclusive; it had no distinct identity as ‘ dispensationalism.’ But dispensations and dispensational ideas were present in the study of premillennialism” (20, f.n.). This is an interesting statement. How could ” Niagara dispensationalism” be classified as dispensationalism and yet not be considered dispensationalism? I believe a better understanding of Niagara dispensationalism would see their view of dispensations (the early term for dispensationalism) as more dispensational than Blaising would admit. Like the perspective of many modern television shows and movies, Blaising wants to project the modern ethos upon a previous generation that viewed their concerns from a different perspective. About half of Kraus’ book Dispensationalism In America covers the Niagara period in which he believes that their views of dispensations clearly constituted dispensationalism. There was just as much talk during the Niagara period about learning to distinguish the dispensations as there has been since Ryrie’ s day where similar interests have been expressed in term of distinguishing between Israel and the Church.

Blaising’ s desire to have his readers view Niagara as a time of strong ecumenical sentiment, I believe, is to overrate and misinterpret the true place of unity at the conference. It was a feature of Niagara, but to emphasize it as one of the two or three key elements at Niagara goes to far. Instead, it appears that Blaising is stressing this feature because he wants it to be an aspect of the current dialogue on dispensationalism. This would cast PD in a better light if he can compare today’ s noble efforts with those of our natal past. An ecumenical impulse such as this could be one of the hidden motives explaining the rise of PD.

The leadership of Niagara developed a detailed doctrinal statement of essentials (clearly an essentialist mentality which Blaising opposes) that served to narrow and eliminate those who did not want to unite under such a restrictive banner. The attitude at Niagara, while opposing harsh and inflammatory rhetoric, was that they would stand for what they believed the Bible taught regardless of the impact upon the ” community of scholars.” On the other hand, PD’ s unity is based upon an inclusive, ” don’ t-let-doctrinal-differences-stand-in-our-way” kind of unity. Blaising and Bock have concluded that, ” this is the nature of theological dialogue in the context of community” (394). The following statement clearly indicates that they place unity, at least on this matter, above Biblical conviction.

This work indicates where many dispensationalists are today, while recognizing that it is part of a larger theological community that is the body of Christ. Our discussion should continue, but not at the expense of our unity. (394)

Niagara’ s ” promotion of a nonpartisan method of Bible study” (18) often known today as the inductive approach, consisted of three features, according to Blaising. They are 1) Christocentricity, 2) piety, and 3) an inductive or scientific approach to Bible Study (18).

Christocentricity is said by Blaising to mean that ” [a]ll Scripture points to Christ and is interpreted correctly only with respect to Christ” (18). Contrary to Blaising this is a feature that has been an emphasis universally recognized by all dispensationalists (Luke 24:27, 44). Yet Blaising and Bock want to give the impression that PD has returned to the Christocentricity of Niagara and that the Scofield and Ryrie (essentialist) eras had abandoned this principle with their alleged ” anthropologically centered” (383) and ” doxological unity” (27).

What is needed today is a new approach to defining dispensationalism. . . . one that may rehabilitate and revise features that were central to an earlier dispensationalism but may have been eclipsed by the concerns of an intervening generation [such as Scofield and Ryrie- TDI] (such as the factors of exclusivity and Christocentricity, which present-day dispensationalists share more closely with the Niagara dispensationalists than they do with their immediate predecessors). (30)

Scofield and Ryrie demonstrate that they are just as Christocentric as Niagara:

The Central Theme of the Bible is Christ. It is this manifestation of Jesus Christ, his Person as ” God manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16), his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, which constitute the Gospel. Unto this all preceding Scripture leads, from this all following Scripture proceeds. . . . etc. (The Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 edition: vi; 1967 edition: xi)

The outstanding theme that ties those sixty-six books together is God’ s provision of a Savior in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament predicts His coming, and the New Testament announces the good news of His coming. Not every verse, of course, directly mentions Him, but He is the theme that ties the Bible together. (Ryrie’ s Concise Guide to the Bible Here’ s Life Publishers, 1983:13)

Blaising and Bock use this point about Christocentricity as their integrating principle between Old and New Testament theology. (382)

The dispensationalism of this book distinguishes itself from the immediately preceding dispensationalism [i.e., Ryrie- TDI] and Scofieldism by the fact that instead of being anthropologically centered on two peoples, it is Christologically centered. (383)

It appears to me that Blaising and Bock are using Christocentricity in a different way than Niagara and other dispensationalists. They seem to be using it as a mechanism to break down dispensational distinctives (hardly the same direction that those of the Niagara era were moving). They seem to be using Christocentricity in the same way that a Covenant Theologian uses the covenant to argue against distinctions seen by dispensationalists. Christocentricity is one of the devices they use to argue for a present form of a Davidic rule for Christ.

The movement from the past to the present and then to the future dispensations is not due to a plan for two different kinds of people but rather is due to the history of Christ’ s fulfilling the plan of holistic redemption in phases (dispensations). (383)

For Blaising to describe PD as Christocentric, as set against the characterization that Scofield’s dispensationalism is anthropologically centered or Ryrie’s is defectively theocentric is an arbitrary judgment. I could just as likely say (I am not saying this, just illustrating) that Blaising and Bock’s dispensationalism is influenced by Karl Barth, since Barth often is described as having a Christocentric theology. It would be better to see each brand of dispensationalism as having a certain view of each aspect of theology. Each view has an anthropological dimension. Each view has a Christological position, etc. So it does not make one form of dispensationalism any better or more heroic (better able to explain the Bible) to say that PD is Christocentric, as set against other forms of dispensationalism.

In the next issue I want to deal with Blaising’s attempt to cast a bad light upon inductive Bible study and literal hermeneutics. I am not saying that Blaising rejects inductive Bible study and a form of literal hermeneutics, but that he wants to taint older systems of dispensationalism as having been influenced for the bad by secular thought from the culture. With all the current discussion of preunderstanding and the need to be aware of cultural influences upon how we view the Bible, I did not see a self-examination in this area by Blaising. Has the existential idealism of modern America influenced their hermeneutics and theology causing them to devalueconsistent literal interpretation for an element of spiritualization? These matters will have to wait until next issue, since as finite creatures we are limited by boundaries such as space and time.

NOTE: This was the first in a series of articles on PD, but no other articles were ever produced.

 

Endnotes
[1] Stanley N. Gundry, Foreword to Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Editors Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition(Zondervan Publishing House, 1992):11-12.

[2] Ronald T. Clutter, ” Dispensational Study Group: An Introduction,” Grace Theological Journal, 10:2 (1989):123.

[3] Blaising paper, while later published in Dallas Seminary’ s Bibliotheca Sacra(145, 1988), his introductory chapter in DIC is a later edition of his paper.

[4] The essence of this paper can be found in DIC, chapter 1 ” The Reign of the Lord Christ.”

[5] John Master in a private discussion with Thomas Ice, December 1992.

[6] Ryrie’ s much quoted statement is as follows: ” The essence of dispensationalism, then, is [1] the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’ s consistent employment of [2] normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of [3] the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.” Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press, 1965):47.

[7] Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Zondervan Publishing House, 1987).

[8] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today :20.

[9] For one of the most extensive, though not always reliable, accounts of Niagara and the development of the Bible Study movement see C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (John Knox Press, 1958):71-110.

[10] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today :81, f.n. 28.

[11] Kenneth L. Barker’ s statement in DIC:295.