III.
(Continued from page 446.)
THERE is a school of pre-millennarians which has arisen in comparatively recent times which will demand our attention in this article. This school may for our purpose be termed Modern Dispensationalism. It had its rise among the Plymouth Brethren though the best known men among them, such as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, and Mueller of Bristol never went the length of the exponents of this teaching in recent times. The new doctrine, as far as can be ascertained, was brought to the vicinity of New York by Mr. Malachi Taylor (one of the “Brethren”). Among those who were captivated by it was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield. Dr. Scofield was so taken up with the new teaching that he brought out a new edition of the Bible setting forth the peculiar doctrines of the new Dispensationalism. By notes, headings, sub-headings and summaries the new teaching is proclaimed in no unmistakable way in this edition. This much advertised Bible has had an extraordinary influence in spreading the teaching of Modern Dispensationalism. And, though we cannot say definitely, yet we hazard the opinion that it has been accepted by the great majority of Pre-millennarians. It certainly has captured the minds of most of the American Pre-millennarians judging from their books issued from the press and from their periodical literature. What do Modern Dispensationalists teach? They begin by laying great stress on the words “rightly dividing the word of truth”—and by rightly dividing the word of truth they mean “that system of doctrine which divides the history of God’s dealings with the world into periods of time called ‘dispensations.'” The present era is the era of Grace which was preceded by the dispensation of the Law. In the dispensation of the law there was no grace and in the dispensation of grace there is no law. Modern Dispensationalists may say that this generalization of their teaching fails like most generalizations in being definite enough but anyone acquainted with their writings, for instance Dr. Chafer’s Grace (Philadelphia, U.S.A.), will admit that it is a fair statement of their position. According to Modern Dispensationalists there are seven dispensations—(1) Innocence, man in Eden; (2) Conscience, this dispensation began when Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden and extends to the flood; (3) Human Government—this dispensation embraces the period extending from the flood to the call of Abraham; (4) Promise—it extended from call of Abraham to the giving of the Law at Sinai; (5) Law—this dispensation extends from Sinai to Calvary; (6) Grace—this dispensation extends from Calvary to the Millennium; (7) Millennium—this is the seventh and last dispensation. Before we proceed to a criticism of these novel views a short reference must be made to what is sometimes called “Bullingerism.” The term is derived from the name of Dr. Bullinger who was Secretary for many years to the Trinitarian Bible Society and the author of some useful works and others that were tainted with error. Dr. Bullinger’s position has been termed Ultra-Dispensationalism by Modern Dispensationalists. According to Dr. Bullinger there are six dispensations: (1) Divine—Jehovah Himself, apart from human agency spoke to Adam (Gen. i. 28) until the call of Moses (Ex. iii. 10). (2) Human Agency—God spoke by the prophets (Heb. i. 1) from the call of Moses (Ex. iii. 10) to the death of John the Baptist (Matt. iii. 12: xiv. 10-12). To these “times” belong the Four Gospels. (4) Human Agency—God spoke “by them that heard” the Son (Heb. ii. 3, 4). To these “times” belong the Acts of the Apostles, the General Epistles and the Pauline Epistles written during these “times”. (5) Divine—God spoke by “the Spirit of Truth” (John xvi. 12-15) through “Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ” (Eph. iii. 1-12; II. Tim. i. 8). To these times belong the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians), I., or at least, II. Timothy, and Titus. (6) Human Agency—God spoke by “His servant John” (Rev. i. 1, 2). To this “time” belongs the Book of Revelation (Bullinger’s Foundations of Dispensational Truth, p. 12).
As already stated Modern Dispensationalists regard this so-called “rightly dividing the Word of truth” of Dr. Bullinger as Ultra-Dispensationalism and reject it as unscriptural. Dr. Bullinger’s views have supporters in America and in this country. The British advocates have been described as “definitely Annihilationist,” while the American are Universalist in their teaching. We have spent sufficient space on these peculiar views without further entering more minutely into the doctrines of Bullingerism or Ultra-Dispensationalism. But as we were dealing with the teaching of Modern Dispensationalism it was necessary to make some reference to the views held by Dr. Bullinger as to his method in “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” For the purpose of criticism both systems may be taken together. We shall now notice some objectionable features of this teaching.
1.
It seems exceedingly strange that the key to “rightly dividing the Word of truth” should never have been discovered until the twentieth century of the Christian era. Have all the saints from apostolic times to the present day missed the great truth which the Dispensationalists profess to have discovered and upon which they lay such tremendous stress? It is only now after two thousand years that the light is pouring into the minds of God’s people? There is no possibility of shirking the fact that Dispensationalism as expounded by Dr. Scofield or by Dr. Bullinger is one of the most recent “isms” of the age.
2.
The dividing of the Word of truth into seven or six dispensations is purely arbitrary. In a note in Dr. Scofield’s Bible a dispensation is defined as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect to some specific revelation of the will of God.” Why then limit the dispensations to six or seven? The plain fact of the matter is there are no such dispensations distinguished in the Scripture. The Bible recognizes but two dispensations—the Old and the New—this division is not artificial for it is clearly marked in the structure of the Bible itself, which is composed of two great divisions, the Old Testament and the New Testament.
3.
The teaching of Modern Dispensationalism leads us into serious error in connection with the Law and Grace. While professing to clear the marches between Law and Grace it is leading us into a bog from which it is difficult to extricate ourselves if we wish to “rightly divide the Word of truth.” The liberty it takes with Scripture in holding that the dispensation of law extended to Calvary and then ceased is a serious error and Dispensationalists would find themselves hard pressed to give Scripture authority for such an arbitrary division.
4.
The gulf between Modern Dispensationalism and Post-millennarianism is very much wider than that between the latter and the older pre-millennarianism. One of the most serious differences between Modern Dispensationalism and Post-Millennarianism is the conception of the Kingdom. The Kingdom, according to this view, has not begun; it has yet to be established at the end. The Church and Kingdom are two separate domains. “The phrase ‘Kingdom of heaven,'” says a note in the Scofield Bible, “signifies the Messianic earth rule of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. It is the Kingdom covenanted to David’s seed, described in the prophets.” This brings us right up against that remarkable series of parables in which the Kingdom figures so prominently. These parables describe in a striking way God’s work and His spiritual Kingdom during this present age. Our Lord said the Kingdom was at hand and He told what it would be like and its likeness was precisely what He said it would be. As one writer puts it: “The case is very strong; and to realize this we have only to remember that in the days of Christ the Jews were occupying their own land and were enjoying a sort of national existence and a measure of independence. Yet at that time ‘the Kingdom of heaven’ (whatever it was) had not yet come. Neither was the earthly kingdom then in existence; nor has it come, up to the present time. But ‘the Kingdom of heaven’ did come immediately, even as Christ said it would come; and moreover, it took precisely the form and likeness predicted by the Lord.”
Some of our readers may ask for what purpose are we taking up space with views of which they are ignorant and which, in all likelihood, will never trouble them. Our answer to these, if there be such, is that our young people in coming to the great centres of population are bound in some way or other either in reading or by personal contact with their fellows to come face to face with such views as are now so widely prevalent in many religious circles even of the sounder type. While it would be incorrect to say that all Pre-millennarians are Modern Dispensationalists yet it is true that all Dispensationalists are Pre-millennarians.
In next article we intend dealing with Post-millennarianism and hope to produce evidence for its scripturalness.