Dr. Sam Waldron, Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology, for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies has been blogging at the school's site on Barry Horner's recent publication, Future Israel (Broadman Academic Press, 2007).
In the last two entries Waldron has expanded his interaction to include a paper I wrote in 1999 entitled, Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration. This was a paper I presented at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. This work was really an extension of my earlier work on Spurgeon's view of the millennium looking at his millennial views from a slightly different angle. In this paper I attempt to demonstrate that Spurgeon was a premillennialist, who; while clearly not dispensational in his theology, none the less believed and taught that Israel as a national entity would be restored to their historic lands. In this position, Spurgeon was following in the line of the Puritan "Restoration Movement" which had begun in England in the 1600's.
Waldron believes that Spurgeon's view represents something of a "mediating position" between Dispensationalism and Amillennialism. But ultimately he states that, "Historically speaking, the eschatology of Spurgeon [including Bonar and J. C. Ryle] and company is a failed position, a failed eschatology."
Waldon's posts have too many points to deal with each one here, but there are a few observations that can be made here and perhaps more in subsequent posts over the next week. To start at the end and work backwards, Waldron makes the statement:
The long debate between Amillennialism and Dispensationalism has led also to the splintering of Dispensationalism. The current state of terminology used to distinguish the varying Dispensational positions is illustrative of this splintering. Leaving aside here the Bullingerites with their Hyper-Dispensationalism which denies that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for today, you still have a number of varieties today of Dispensationalism. You have the Classic Dispensationalism of the Old Scofield Bible. There is the Modified Dispensationalism of the New Scofield and Ryrie. There is the yet more modified Dispensationalism of John MacArthur. Finally, there is the Progressive Dispensationalism of Blaising and Bock. A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath. These different positions are the result of the aggressive onslaught of Amillenialism on Dispensationalism over the last century and a half.
Well, the "long debate" has not really been between "Amillennialism" and "Dispensationalism." Amillennialism is simply a category of belief within the larger study of eschatology. The debate is more correctly between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology; those are the antithetical systems. To say that the "splintering" of Dispensationalism into the groups he mentions was caused by amillennialism or amillennial scholars is simply incorrect.
At The Master's Seminary we have the complete set of transcripts of the discussions by the editorial committee that produced the New Scofield Reference Bible and nothing there would suggest any validity to Waldron's claim in terms of the revisions to the Scofield. The movement from what has been called "Classic" Dispensationalism to the "Modified" honestly, upon examination had little to do with the eschatology of the system. There is no real change in the premillennial view from Scofield to Ryrie.
Progressive Dispensationalism was not born out of any battering from amillennialists either; it traces its roots to the "Dispensational Study Group" at the Evangelical Theological Society. That group was early on led by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising; and to a lesser degree Robert Saucy. As an attendee of most of those early meetings, the main issue really was an attempt to interact with the works of George Eldon Ladd, F. F. Bruce (both premillennialists, and Bruce was actually Plymouth Brethren) and to a lesser degree, I. Howard Marshall. Here as well, there is no real difference in the eschatological distinctives from the earlier "forms" of Dispensationalism to the Progressive stance. This discussion was really about hermeneutics and Ryrie's sina qua non position.
As far as MacArthur is concerned, his dispensational views are, in my opinion, more influenced by Alva Mclain's Greatness of the Kingdom than perhaps L. S. Chafer, and thus is more consistently Calvinistic in his theology. I'm also not sure where MacArthur would be so distinct as to deserve his own category of Dispensationalism vis a vis, for instance, those of the Progressive group. In terms of his eschatological position, where, we would ask, is there any essential difference?
There was no "aggressive onslaught of Amillennialism" driving any of the distincive views within these positions.
Waldron also confuses the issue with the statement: "A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath." We will assume that the professor of systematic theology simply flubbed here mistaking the "Second Coming" which all Dispensationalists understand by definition to be premillennial; and the "rapture of the church," on which there is a variety of opinion. There has hardly been "fierce debate" on this subject and since the initial splash of the Pre-Wrath position of the late Robert Van Kampen nearly two decades ago, there has been almost no real debate on the timing of the rapture; the positions, implications, and proofs for all of the options being fairly well settled. It should also be noted that while Dispensationalists have been traditionally "Pre-Trib" in their view on the timing of the Rapture; it really is not a foundational issue. I think the Pre-Trib position is clearly the best supported from an exegetical view and is the most logically consistent with the overall system; but Dispensationalism does not rise nor fall on one's view of the rapture.
Frankly, Waldron's posturing about the splintering of Dispensationalism is little more than idle rhetoric mixed together with some wishful thinking perhaps. Debates and discussions among those who hold a particular theological construct is more often than not a sign of health and vigor rather than signaling its soon demise. It is also not as if amillennialism itself is monolithic in its expression; there are variations and nuances that have developed since the time of Augustine. It is also interesting that for Waldron the "modification," "emerging emphasis," "more careful hermeneutic," and recent works that have "brought out more satisfactorily," the particular nuances of amillennialism he favors is presented in the most glowing of expressions; while any changes or new expressions within Dispensationalism is a sign of "splintering" or the responses to an "aggressive onslaught."
Waldron also stated:
The splintering of Dispensationalism has also led to the attempt of Horner, Swanson, and others to revitalize the mediating position of Spurgeon and company. I doubt if this project can be successful. As I have said, it seems inherently self-contradictory to me. It must lead back to Dispensationalism (Horner) or onward to something else (Swanson?).
I'm actually just not sure what Waldron is thinking here. As already noted this paper is now nine years old and no where do I give any indication that I am trying to "revitalize" Spurgeon's position. I don't see Barry Horner trying to revitalize anything either. What I would point out is that amillennialism is not nor has been the exclusive eschatological option within Reformed (Baptist and otherwise) groups. Charles Spurgeon, the Bonar's (Andrew and Horatius), J. C. Ryle, among many others, were formidible Biblical scholars and theologians and held to a premillennial view as well as one that held to a return of national Israel to their land. Added to this group as well would be those of the Plymouth Brethren who were premillennial, but not dispensational such as B. W. Newton, George Mueller, and the noted New Testament scholar Samuel Tregelles. Mueller and Newton were also friends with Spurgeon and stayed with him in Mentone France on several occasions.
Waldron also seems to be asking if I am going to somewhere in terms of my eschatological beliefs. The answer simply is no. I am a dispensationalist, probably more in keeping with the Progressive position and unreservedly affirm (as I do in writing each year) the doctrinal statement of The Master's Seminary.
Lastly Waldron, was thankful that I (and Horner) had called attention to the "the peculiar eschatological views of Spurgeon and company." He believes them to be peculiar because you have a non-dispensationalist affirming a future for Israel in their land. Well, even among Historic Premillennialists, this view is not all that peculiar and is probably the most common view; which careful research would soon demonstrate.
There will be more on this in the next week or so as time permits since seminary business will occupy much of our time as we conclude another academic year at The Master's Seminary.
Dennis,
I agree. For two decades now we have been hearing about the "breakdown" or "dissolution" of Dispensationalism. You are right that this is mostly wishful thinking on the part of some non-dispensationalists who want this to be true. As one who teaches at a dispensational school, I can confidently state that Dispensationalism is alive and well. I believe in its basic beliefs of a future salvation/restoration of Israel and the importance of holding to historical-grammatical hermeneutics in regard to the Old Testament. Many continue to hold these beliefs.