Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic developed in the 19th century by the late John Nelson Darby. It is a way of interpreting the Scriptures that was innovative in the history of biblical interpretation and has no basis in the Anglican tradition, which is rooted in a reformed covenantal approach to interpreting the Scriptures.
Dispensationalism emphasizes the differences in the old and new Testaments and the various "dispensations" throughout salvation history. Reformed covenant theology on the other hand emphasizes the continuity between the two Testaments of the Bible.
The biggest error is the view that there is a difference between the people of Israel and the church, which has led to an emphasis upon zionism and the desire by some dispensationalists to see the temple rebuilt and the old covenant sacrificial system being restored. Dispensationalists teach that there is one way of salvation for the jews (the keeping of Torah and the sacrificial system restored) and another for gentiles (the church).
This in direct conflict with the teaching of scripture in regards to the once and for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross and lends itself to the old error of judiazing which was clearly confronted by the apostle Paul in several of his Epistles especially his Epistle to the galatians.
In Galatians 3 verse 29 St. Paul says, "And if you (gentile believers) are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring (covenant people), heirs according to the promise..." what promise is he speaking of? The Abrahamic promise made in Genesis 12, "And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great." The Church then, according to St. Paul, is the fulfillment of this promise through the person and work of Jesus Christ and by faith in Him.
Furthermore, he makes it abundantly clear in Romans 9 that it is not the children of the flesh (Jews) who are accounted as the children of the promise, but those who believe (the church) who are to be accounted as Children of the promise. He writes, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." That's not to say that believing Jews i.e. children of the flesh aren't children of the promise, but rather that they, by virtue of their faith in Christ are members of the Church. It's absolutely crucial to remember that the early church was a Jewish church with gentiles grafted in.
Since Anglicanism holds scripture up as its highest authority and the Scriptures teach this in direct opposition to what dispensationalism teaches then it is only logical to conclude that dispensationalism is incompatible with Anglicanism for that reason alone.
But we must also look to the formularies themselves. Since dispensationalism is an innovation with no basis in the recieved witness of the Church Catholic there is no place in which dispensationalism is specifically condemned by the formularies. But given the emphasis that the formularies place upon baptism and the inclusion of infants in the covenant, something dispensationalism rejects outright, we fail to see how one can reconcile dispensationalism with the prayer book or the 39 articles.
But dispensationalism tends towards historical revision in many was so try they will. However, it seems pretty obvious, given the fact that dispensationalism is a departure from reformed orthodoxy, despite what some of our baptist Brethren might suggest, there is no way that the formularies can be read in anyway but through a covenantal framework.
Having said that, though, I don't wish to be perceived as uncharitable towards those who hold to such errors in their hermeneutics. I am a good reformed catholic and am unwilling to unchurch anyone who is baptized in the triune name of God apart from the condemnation of ecumenical council. There are many God fearing dispensationalists in our midst. The problem is that by virtue of their doctrine they have placed themselves outside of the orthodox teaching of the church. Therefore, we must encourage them to rethink the errors of their hermeneutics and to embrace the correct reading of the biblical text.
My perception is, despite the odd Anglican theologian teaching dispensationalism here and there, that this error has only made inroads to Anglicanism in the more recent past due to the notion that Anglicanism has no theology of its own. That it is a less restrictive tradition theologically speaking than say Presbyterianisn or Lutheranism and we can pick and choose what we believe at a whim. But that idea itself is a theological innovation sometimes blamed on the Anglo-Catholics, but it's more so the fault of the revisionist of the 20th century like Bishops Pike and Spong hiding behind the modern Anglo-Catholic tendency to avoid subscription to the formularies.
The end result of that departure from the recieved doctrine of the church of course was a desire by many Anglicans to get "sound biblical teaching" anywhere they could despite the fact that that biblical teaching might not have been all the sound to start with.
For those of us rooted in the history of the church (despite our chasubles, genuflecting and kissing of gospel books) dispensationalism is simply not a fit. Of course more can and should be said about this, but that might be a good place to start a necessary conversation at the very least.
No comments:
Post a Comment