Why I am a dispensationalist with a small "d"

1. Handling the truth and others. A high commitment to Scripture is both a gift and a responsibility. The gift comes in having access to the truth and a precious revelation from God, for which the Church is a custodian. The pressure on theologians of all persuasions is great to remain faithful to that truth and reflect it in what we teach. Because dispensationalism is committed to the truth of the Word it has always had a strong desire to be careful about how doctrine is articulated.

But being committed to Scripture also bears a responsibility. Having access to the truth in an inspired text and knowing the truth are two different things. They can easily be confused. Faithfulness to the truth is important, but so is how we interact with others. Our responsibility is to be faithful to the Word and be fair about what we really know.

2. Handling the future. Dispensationalism's commitment to what God will do in his grace in the future is an important element of the tradition. But if all of us were honest, we know of many instances within our tradition where the desire to know the future has gone too far. In our zeal and certitude about what Scripture teaches about the rapture and return we have painted scenarios over the last few centuries that have turned out to be wrong. It is possible that Jesus could come today. But we must be careful to remember the history of the Church at this point. People within our tradition have attempted to argue in each generation that theirs is the last generation. Yet that generation has now extended many generations. The danger in the desire to date and in the temptation to all but date is that we will make identifications that have nothing to do with the divinely determined end plan. In doing so, we risk constructing a worldview that is false because the wrong identification is made.

One final point needs to be made about Jesus' return. The "blessed hope" for me involves a pretribulational rapture. But that is a deduction, and I treat it as such. I give it what I believe is the appropriate emphasis in light of the totality of Scripture's teaching about the future.

For me the blessed hope is not as tied to the timing of the event that kicks it off as to what is represents. I look forward to the coming and completion of our transformation and redemption as our glorious God fully manifests his power and executes his judgment. It is no accident that Titus 2:13, a text so loved and cited by dispensationalists, occurs in an ethical context where we are being exhorted to reflect the ethical character of our faith until Jesus comes

3. Handling the issue of promise in the Word. My final concern is that in our search for distinctions we risk separating our Lord Jesus too much from the theology of his bondservant Paul. It is no accident that two of the Biblical books discussing the relationship between the gospel and OT promise begin by asserting in the strongest and clearest terms the continuity of the message the Church brings with that hope of old. Romans 1:1-4 and Heb 1:1-2 affirm that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of OT hope. Romans discusses the topic at the level of promise, law, soteriology, and the relationship between Jew and Gentile. Romans 9-11 is not a parenthesis in the book but an essential part of the argument. Hebrews considers the theme from the standpoint of the superiority of Christ based on his current activity. It also considers the cessation of a need for repeated sacrifice, picturing substitution as an expression of new-covenant inauguration, something the Lord's table also commemorates. I believe that too great a separation of Paul from Jesus is not healthy for theology.