There are about 60 million evangelicals in North America. A good percentage of them are part of a nineteenth-century movement known as Dispensationalism, which was founded by the English clergyman John Nelson Darby (1800–82), who was ordained in the Church of Ireland (which he left in 1831). He was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement. We might speak of original Dispensationalism (e.g., Darby), modified Dispensationalism (e.g., Lewis Sperry Chafer, 1871–1952 and Charles Ryrie 1925–2016), and also, since the 1980s, of Progressive Dispensationalism. These movements have their differences. Arguably, earliest Dispensationalists taught salvation by works under the Mosaic Dispensation, a view rejected by the the modified and Progressive Dispensationalists. They also have things in common. They all see God’s promises to national Israel as the heart of the biblical story. They look forward to a pre-tribulation rapture, a millennial kingdom (featuring a restoration of the national Israelite kingdom), and the restoration of the temple and the sacrifices. Another thing that binds most Dispensationalists together is a rejection of covenant theology. In some Dispensational schools, students are warned against the alleged dangers of covenant theology. Typically, adherents to this movement hear about covenant theology more often than they read for themselves the sources of covenant theology or hear it from its proponents. So, the journey from Dispensationalism to Reformed covenant theology is not easy since it is, for many Dispensationalists covenant theology is an undiscovered country.
Pat Abendroth is Senior Pastor of Omaha Bible Church. He was educated in Dispensationalism but he is a regular attender at the annual faculty conference and a student of Reformed theology. He wrote his DMin project on covenant theology and we sat down recently to discuss his journey from Dispensationalism toward a Reformed understanding of redemptive history.
Here is the the episode.
Here are all the Office Hours episodes.
Subscribe to Office Hours in iTunes or in some other podcast app.
If you benefit from Office Hours, please take a moment to leave a positive review on iTunes so that others will find it and benefit too.
Thanks for listening!
But seriously, Scott — this was a very helpful tool for many of us trying to engage in conversations with others. Thanks.
Scott — next time you come to CURC in Loveland, we have a Runza 🙂
a discussion most worthy of your blog. keep up the good work Scott
PS Cocceius and Darby had different theological paradigms, yes, and contrasting hermeneutics, but similar ideas of law. More on that anon.
Actually, I think they had very different ideas of the law, precisely because they had different theological paradigms and contrasting hermeneutics. From my contact with Darby Dispensationalists, it seems clear that they teach that the law is the way for salvation and earthly rewards for the Jews but that new covenant Christians have nothing to with the law, including the moral law, so that they receive heavenly rewards by grace alone. Contrasting theological paradigms and hermeneutics results in the Reformed to see the purpose of the law as the same for all people since the fall, first as a schoolmaster to drive us to Christ, and secondly as the norm for showing gratitude for salvation in Christ alone. They see unity. The Dispensationalists see two different peoples that God uses and establishes a relationship with in two different ways, the Jews through the law, for earthly rewards, and the Christians by the abrogation of the law for the sake of being the spiritual people, seeking spiritual rewards.
Hi, Angela. I’ll have to respectfully disagree. As a general rule, dispensationalists do not teach that Jews are saved by law. Those dispensationalists who do make that case are no more representative of their tradition than … I almost said … Reformed baptists are of theirs. Cocceius, on the other hand, did argue that OT saints were justified in a different way that were NT saints (Casey Carmichael’s book, p. 97), and that claim was central to the Dutch debate in the 1650s and after. There’s a lot going on here. I’m just concerned that people in this particular debate are talking past each other much of the time.
Crawford,
When you refer to “Casey Carmichael’s book” (p. 97) do you refer to Casey Carmichael, A Continental View: Johannes Cocceius’s Federal Theology of the Sabbath (V&R, 2019) or to his (marvelous) translation of Summa de foedere et testamento dei in the CRT series? I do not find Casey making any such claim in the former volume nor have I ever, in my many readings of the Summa ever seen Cocceius saying anything about OT saints being “justified in a different way tha[n] were NT saints…”. There’s some ambiguity in “different” but if “different” signals “materially different” or “by works” then I think not. In the Summa he was at pains to stress justification sola gratia, sola fide and the substantial continuity of the covenant of grace even as he traced the progressive abrogation of the covenant of works through redemptive history. Yes, there is a difference between living under types and shadows and living under the reality of the NT and his view of the Sabbath was certainly controversial and he certainly taught that Adam, under the covenant of works would have been justified by works before the fall, but under the covenant of grace after the fall, such a thing would be impossible. As I understand Cocceius, for him, the republication of the covenant of works under Moses was pedagogical not material.
Can you help me nail this down?
UPDATE
I checked with Casey and he reminded me of Cocceius’ distinction between paresis and aphesis, passing over and forgiveness. This was indeed controversial in the period but I’ve never considered it (nor did Cocceius consider it) a substantial revision of the Reformed doctrine of salvation. In both the Sabbath dispute and in this argument, Cocceius was trying to account for the progress of redemption and revelation. The Voetians saw more continuity and Cocceius more progress but even with the distinction the substantial continuity of the covenant of grace was maintained. In Summa de foedere (§ 353) Cocceius wrote:
This passage comes under the heading of the Benefits of the New Testament. In §350 he wrote,”The saints of the Old Testament lacked display of this righteousness.” In §351 (p, 242) he argued “this wisdom revealed in the New Testament was veiled throughout the time of the Old Testament” (p. 242). He wrote, in subsection 2 (p. 245) that the OT saints “received the Spirit who sanctifies” but they didn’t receive the “disposition (affectum) that was worthy of God as Father and of them as sons.”
It’s not clear to me that Cocceius was describing objective differences between OT and NT believers as much as subjective or even affective differences.
Witsius did react to a another provocative passage in Cocceius:
I haven’t yet found him interacting directly with Cocceius, however, on Rom 3:25.
cg, very interesting that you almost said that, those Dispensationalists who say that Jews are saved by the law are no more representative of their tradition than “Reformed” Baptists are of theirs. As we see in 1689 Federalism, the framers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, saw the covenant of grace as synonymous with the new covenant, so that there was no administration of the covenant of grace until the new covenant. They see the Mosaic\Abrahamic covenants as the republication of the covenant of works, promising earthly rewards and tenure in the land for obedience, not spiritual salvation, so I probably should not have even used he word “saved.” God was using the Jews as the line from whom the Savior would come, as a descendant of Abraham. Dispensationalists teach that the Jews will have their reward in Israel, as an earthly people, which is the fulfillment of the promise of rewards on this earth, in the promised earthly Jerusalem, complete with the rebuilding of the temple and reinstitution of the Mosaic sacrifices. That is why Dispensationalists are so excited about developments in Israel, which they see as confirmation of their interpretation of prophecy. So as far as I can see, Dispensationalists and 1689 Baptists see two different people of God. One is earthly and under the covenant of works for earthly rewards and the other is spiritual and under the new covenant \covenant of grace. OT saints who were saved, could only be saved under the new covenant\covenant of grace– which didn’t exist and therefore was not yet administered! At least with Dispensationalists, the Jews are going to receive an earthly Jerusalem, while Christians will be the heavenly Bride of Christ. Under Dispensationalism, obedience to the law establishes a favorable relationship with God and his people, the Jews, for earthly rewards. The same is true under 1689 Federalism, until the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace, so that everything that comes before the new covenant is an administration of the covenant of works, for the Jews, that earthly people. Only in the new covenant is there agreement of 1689 Federalism and Reformed on the uses on the law for Christians, the spiritual people. Where the Reformed see continuity and unity of God’s purpose under the covenant of grace for one people of God throughout Scripture, Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists see two people and division of Scripture into periods of law and gospel.
Hi All,
I updated my reply to Crawford rather substantially, which I hope clarifies the issue some.
Hi Scott – apologies, the page reference in A Continental View is to p. 96, not p. 97, where Casey Carmichael states that the disputes that kept the two Dutch parties apart were “the question of whether the Sabbath applies to Christians, and … the question of whether the Old Testament saints were justified in the same manner as the New Testament saints; the Voetians answered these questions in the affirmative and the Cocceians in the negative.” On the previous page (p. 95) he introduces this thought by stating that “the divide was rooted in different understandings of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.” You nailed this down better than I could have done, and now we know you are not a Voetian! Thanks for taking the time to clarify what is at stake.
Crawford,
Vern Poythress, whose ironic book on Dispensationalism in the late 80s influenced me, writes:
FWIW, here is the 1944 PCUS report on Dispensationalism.
On Cocceius’ distinction between παρεσις and αφεσις Brian Lee (Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology [V&R 2009]) writes:
As to my personal sympathies, I’m not certain that I’m a Voetian on Rom 3:25. I’m not with Cocceius on the Sabbath (I’m with the Synod of Dort on that) but I understand his point on Romans 3:25. I’m agnostic. His account of the differences between the testaments in Summa de foedere is generally helpful. I certainly want to affirm that the types and shadows the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic administrations of the covenant of grace were genuine, typological administrations of the covenant of grace and not mere witnesses to it but we need to take Rom 3:25 seriously and account for the progress of redemption.
Nothing here, however, is Dispensational (in any version that I know about).
Hi Angela, thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly. I’m still not absolutely clear about some of the implications of 1689 federalism. I’m a slow learner…
cg, I’m not sure I have been all that clear. The point I am trying to make is that “Reformed” Baptists, such as the 1689 Federalists, who are rediscovering their Baptist distinctives in the writings of the framers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession have very different understandings from the Reformed in such important areas as, hermeneutics, redemptive history, sacraments, ecclesiology, eschatology and who the people of God are. The fact that they share similarities with Dispensationalists highlights those differences. Both see two people of God, the Jews as an earthly people seeking to obtain earthly blessings through their obedience to the law, and a spiritual, new covenant people under grace. They both see discontinuity and division in Scripture. This is very different from the Reformed who see one covenant people seeking spiritual, and heavenly salvation through grace since the fall to the end of time. The view shared by Dispensationalists and “Reformed” Baptists divides God’s people and divides Scripture into periods where God deals with his people inconsistently, some on a works basis and others on the basis of grace. Simply put, Baptists are not the same as Reformed and it is just confusing that they want to share the name.
Hi Scott – always grateful for your work. I’m writing about Darby’s soteriology over the next few years dv so will hope to be better informed at the end! Happy to resign my claim to the label “Reformed” in the meantime.
I love “The Village,” too … and it’s better than Pat suggests! Really appreciated his testimony.
I’m not a defender of dispensationalism – in fact I grew up in an environment where it was taken for granted, and the movement away from that environment was long and sometimes painful (and maybe not complete – I’m not sure).
But to make historical points, rather than theological … Darby did affirm Adam’s federal headship, and did believe that Hosea 6:7 taught that Adam broke a covenant. In fact, in his translation of this verse in his Bible, Darby highlighted this by swapping his own preference, “Adam,” for the AV’s “man.” It’s true that Darby argued that the righteousness of God generically speaking is imputed to us in justification, rather than that of Christ, and yes that’s related to his views on law.
“The earliest Dispensationalists taught salvation by works under the Mosaic Dispensation” – that’s a really big claim, and it isn’t true of Darby, and credible dispensationalists would agree with him, but it keeps getting repeated in Reformed polemic. Part of the problem here is that Scofield adapts Darby in important ways and it’s his much more abbreviated and approximated version of dispensationalism that comes to define the norm. Darby is a very comprehensive writer – 34 vols of collected writings, 7 of Bible overview, and 15 or so more of notes and comments, all of hundreds of pages each – and unpublished manuscripts remain. Scofield’s annotations don’t really compare.
We need to be careful here about claiming that Darby received new revelations. He never made that claim, as far as I know, but the cult that has organised as one branch of the exclusives has elevated his ministry out of all proportion in historical terms and now makes all kinds of claims about his experience. Brethren history writing is itself polemical and represents the conflicts between different parts of that movement, each of which wants to claim the founders, but from very different positions. Readers might find Mark Stevenson’s recent book helpful – “The doctrines of grace in an unexpected place” – it shows how brethren theologians almost without exception held to an only slightly modified Calvinism until the end of the c19th. The early brethren had much more in common with the hyper-Calvinism that predated them in Plymouth (thanks to Robert Hawker) than they did with the Arminian or low-church evangelical views by which their opinions were eventually modified in the mid-c20th. Happy to say there is a revival of Calvinism (not “Reformed theology,” RSC!) among brethren now, with several assemblies in the UK and USA teaching eg the Shorter Catechism and the 1689 confession. But sorry to say that there is also a very sharp rejection of this, and a revival of views that are similar to open theism, dressed up in its most conservative sounding form.
Also agree that progressive dispensationalists and Klineans are much closer than most people realise. But then I also think Darby and Cocceius are pretty similar in the way they divide out Scripture, but maybe not as similar as Darby and Owen …
Reading on both sides of the debate (and crossing this particular evangelical Tiber now 25 years ago) persuades me that Reformed people and dispensationalists spend a lot of talking past each other. Part of the problem here is that we have a really strong body of historical work focused on Reformed sources, but very little on dispensationalism, even though in North America and perhaps globally it dominates born-again protestantism. This means that we can have very precise views on the most important Reformed sources but our grasp of the history of dispensationalism, or changes in its theology and hermeneutic, can be quite hazy.
Thanks again for such a stimulating conversation. Sorry this is so long – a testimony to the importance of the subject.
Crawford,
Thanks for this. I’m at a disadvantage since I’m relying on others to tell me about Darby but I do know Cocceius reasonably well and I can’t imagine that Darby and Cocceius were working from the same paradigm.
My sources for my language about Darby weren’t Reformed polemicists. I relied on Dispensationalists to tell me the story so, as I say, I’m always trying to get things right.
Even Progressive Dispensationalists see Israel at the center of redemptive history and no Klinean I know (and Meredith was my professor) reads Scripture that way.
As to being Reformed, to borrow a phrase, of course we continue to disagree. The Reformed confession lives and I’m dearly hoping and praying that Dispensationalists and others will continue to find and embrace it.
It seems quite unhelpful to tell them that all that they’ve found in the Reformed confession (defined both narrowly in terms of the ecclesiastical documents) and broadly (the confessional Reformed tradition) doesn’t really exist. It most certainly does. We may not be theocrats but theocracy was never of the essence of the confession, whereas our doctrines of Scripture, God, man, Christ, salvation, church, sacraments, last things, and the Christian life certainly are. persist and find enthusiastic (in the best sense) adherents in our time.
Correction. Darby was a founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement. Brethren (without the “Plymouth”) have been a part of the Mennonite and Anabaptist tradition since the Reformation.
Thank you.