I'm a reformed Baptist, so, while my theology is basically Presbyterian/Reformed/Calvinistic, as developed very early in church history,
back in Augustine's time and before, but most fully developed by John Calvin and other Reformers who followed, so-called covenant
theology, with its emphasis on infant baptism, is not critical to my understanding of scripture, except in the fundamental sense that God
has consistently promised in the scripture (history of redemption) to redeem a people for himself, with the first promise being found in
Gen 3:15, where God promises that Satan will bruise the woman's Seed (Christ), the Seed will crush his (Satan's) head. This may be called
a simplistic view of covenant theology; so be it. Theologians often over-complicate what, though deep or even paradoxical, is nevertheless
straightforward. I agree with all who insist that salvation, in every historical epoch, is all of Grace and entirely through faith in Christ
(whether the promissed Messiah or the risen Christ). This fundamental understanding of God's economy of salvation is thus one that was
articulated early on in church history.
Not so dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is a radical departure from orthodoxy, one that had its origins in mid-19th century England with a man named John
Nelson Darby. (It is interesting to me that it is during this same general period out of which so many modern heresies emerged, in
addition to Darwinism and Marxism, but that will be called "guilt by association," so I don't press the point. Just interesting.)
There is little doubt in my mind that dispensationalism (or chiliasm) would never have gotten such a dominating foothold in the
fundamentalist churches of America had it not been for the Schofield Bible, an unfortunate wedding of scripture with (at the time) novel
interpretations. When I was a young Christian, long long ago, almost EVERYBODY had a Schofield Bible.
I will not attempt any critique of dispensationalism here; there are plenty of sites on the web, easily found, which I believe thoroughly
dismantle and debunk dispensationalism. I merely offer the following observations, which the serious student of scripture may seek to
substantiate or disprove.
Dispensationalism, despite disclaimers to the contrary, destroys all semblance of unity in God's revelation in scripture.
While context is always important in interpreting scripture, the reasonably well taught Christian should be able to turn to any passage of
scripture and read/meditate with profit, taking its warnings, promises, and other teachings to heart, but this the Dispensationalist cannot
do without referencing, at least in his mind, some diagram or chart of sub-categorization of scripture, for most of it is not seen as directly
applicable to the Christian living between the cross and the second coming.
Dispensationalists, in general, are overly fixated on prophecy, on the last things, and tend to think they can run a golden thread back
and forth through the testaments, from Ezekiel to Revelation to Daniel to the Epistles, round and round, thinking they have made a great
interlocking chain of proof texts. To me, with all due apologies, this is a queer way to "handle the word of life."
Prophecy is important, and is given, in general, to warn the ungodly and encourage the faithful. But it is not a detailed blueprint of
future history. Concerning prophecy, especially as seen in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation, of one thing I am absolutely certain: No
human now or ever has understood it in any comprehensive way. But futuristic prophecy is, to many, exciting. It is popular, and it sells
books and videos.
None of this is to say that Dispensationalists cannot be devout believers, and I hope to meet masses of them in heaven. But the theory is not one that arises from scripture; it is rather an odd and complex mold into which scripture must be pressed and reshaped.
