GenX
03-11-2008, 05:17 PM
The weakness of doctrine in mainline Protestant churches allowed dispensationalism to become non-denominational, and it spread rapidly throughout America. A series of Bible studies developed in New York state and eventually gave rise to the Niagara Conferences, which convened between 1883 and 1897. These conferences were attended by people from a variety of denominations who came to study the Scripture, particularly biblical prophecy. American and British leaders of the loosely knit dispensational viewpoint presented their respective views about biblical prophecy, the dispensations, and the Gospel.
Dispensationalism at the end of the nineteenth century still possessed a variety of viewpoints, with many key issues still unresolved and heavily debated. Cyrus I. Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer, would change that by cementing the way dispensationalism would be understood for the next few decades. Having gained a reputation as a speaker during the Niagara Conferences, Scofield (who had no formal theological training) decided he would create a "study Bible" containing extensive notes, cross-references and commentary so that the "scientific" nature of the dispensations and biblical prophecy would be evident to the average layman.
After several year's labor and with the assistance of a group of editors, the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published in 1909. Presented in a neatly organized and systematic manner, its dispensational premises regarding key passages of Scripture-especially books like Daniel and Revelation-entered into the mainstream of conservative American Protestantism. In the first thirty years following its publication, Scofield's reference Bible sold about two million copies. It is still used widely today, along with the updated version, the New Scofield Reference Bible.
Scofield largely followed Darby's teaching in outlining his seven dispensations: Innocence (Adam), Conscience (to the Flood), Human Government (Gentiles after flood), Promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (Church), and the future Kingdom.
Scofield taught that Scripture contains passages meant for each respective time period and therefore that many passages had nothing to do with present day Christians in the "Church age." This meant that most of Christ's teachings, including the Sermon on the Mount, were for the future Kingdom age, not for the Church. This was another radical break from nineteen hundred years of Christian teaching. For the dispensationalist, the writings of Paul became normative for the "Church age." (In this regard, Scofield's teachings bear a strong resemblance to those of Marcion, the third-century heretic who insisted on an absolute break between the Old and New Testaments and who held Paul's writings to be the central works of Christianity.)
After Scofield's death in 1921, his pupil and colleague Lewis Sperry Chafer took up the dispensational torch. Like Scofield, Chafer had no formal theological training, a fact he took apparent pride in. He also was a popular speaker and was tireless in his efforts to spread dispensational beliefs throughout America. In 1924 he helped found what would become Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas, which, along with Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, was to be a major center of dispensational teaching.
Chafer's eight-volume Systematic Theology was an attempt to relate every area of theology to the dispensational understanding of such distinctions. He believed this was imperative if the Gospel was to be preached correctly. Chafer insisted that unless a person held dispensationalist beliefs he was doomed to teach a false Gospel: "How many even sincere men can preach an uncomplicated Gospel sermon? No man can be trusted to do this until he is dispensationally instructed. . . . The great expositors of this and past generations are such because they are thoroughly established in these essential distinctions" ("Gospel Preaching," Bibliotheca Sacra 95, July 1938, 343). This provided the basis for a consistent anti-Catholic perspective which ran through Chafer's writings, as indicated by his references to "Romanism" and "Romish" beliefs.
After Chafer's death in 1951 Charles Ryrie, a popular professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, became the leading dispensationalist voice in America. Ryrie wrote several books on a variety of topics, but the most important was his 1965 apologetic for the dispensational movement, titled Dispensationalism Today. In large part it was a response to some severe attacks on dispensationalism by various Protestant writers. Ryrie stressed the distinct interpretative method of dispensationalism. He popularized the unique method of biblical interpretation Scofield had outlined in his writings.
Defending his stance regarding the Church and Israel, Ryrie wrote: "This distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. . . . The word 'literal' is perhaps not so good as either the word 'normal' or 'plain', but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does" (Dispensationalism Today, 45-46).
This so-called "literal" approach to Scripture is still appealing to many people. The complexity of Scripture is apparently simplified by the dispensational method. Each portion of Scripture is matched with its corresponding dispensation, allowing the reader to focus on those passages meant for them as Christians in the current dispensation of grace. And the events of the "end times" are supposedly made clear and understandable for everyone, if only they will listen.
One night our youth group watched a movie titled The Thief In The Night. It was about a man who hadn't been saved when the Rapture came, but after the disappearance of several friends he realizes his mistake and sees the horrible truth: He is experiencing the Tribulation. Because of this realization he becomes a Christian. But Christianity has been outlawed and is punishable by death. Everyone is supposed to receive the Mark of the Beast on their forehead, otherwise they cease to exist as far as the government is concerned. They are unable to have bank accounts, be employed, or buy food. The man is chased and persecuted for his belief in Christ.
After the movie we talk about how the Mark of the Beast will change people's lives. "It's coming soon," the youth leader said. "I know the Lord will be returning in my lifetime because the Bible says so."
Anticipation of the Rapture and the beginning of the end grew in the 1940s and fifties. And the upheaval of the late sixties and early seventies presented a ripe opportunity for someone with a skill for popular writing and a background in dispensationalism to focus on "end times." That someone was Hal Lindsey, a former Dallas Theological Seminary student. Beginning in the early seventies Lindsey published a series of books, including The Late Great Planet Earth, Satan is Alive and Well, and There's a New World Coming. These books contained his version of soon-to-occur apocalyptic events as seen through the lens of a popularized dispensationalism. Although some dispensationalists were not entirely supportive of Lindsey, his were among the best-selling books of the decade (35 million copies) and also among the most influential.
Lindsey used a canny mix of paranoia, current events, selective use of Scripture, and a science-fiction style to convey his vision of impending doom. Lindsey claimed that many biblical prophecies were being fulfilled right before our eyes: the restoration of Israel as a nation, the "apostasy" of mainline churches, the collapse of morality, and the frightening realities of the Cold War. He interpreted the destructive images of Revelation as scenes of nuclear war. Unlike dispensationalists of the past, Lindsey did not locate the [censored] of Babylon in the Catholic Church (he largely ignores it); the [censored] of Babylon was instead a global network of New Age religions consolidated under the Antichrist.
Lindsey stayed true to the Darbyite view of the Church and emphasized the non-denominational "real" Christianity. He claimed that the word "church" referred to a "group of people that is called together for some special purpose. . . . Sometimes it refers to all true believers in Jesus Christ. It doesn't make any difference what religious 'brand' they're under as long as they're in a living union with Christ through a personal faith in him as their Savior" (There's a New World Coming, 41). Any understanding of the Church as having a visible presence and structure is ignored or rejected, replaced instead with the individualistic and subjective stance so common in Fundamentalism.
The seventies and eighties witnessed a proliferation of books and tapes presenting elaborate explanations of current events in light of biblical prophecy. Intricate and convoluted arguments were used to locate the true Antichrist and to diagram the involved military actions leading up to Armageddon. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union and with the global politics rapidly changing, people like Lindsey had to revise their futuristic blueprints. The changes brought on by a computerized world linked through Internet technology have become their focus for calculating possible end-time events. Lindsey continues to put out books and has a regular television program which focuses on the Y2K bug as the most likely trigger for his end-times scenarios. His subjective and dramatic style has been copied by numerous writers and speakers, such as Pat Robertson in his early days and current-day Dave Hunt, each claiming to have the key insight into the final days of the world.
In the last few years sharp attacks on dispensationalism by reformed Protestants and a variety of Evangelicals have put the movement on the defensive. One common response by dispensationalist leaders over the past century has been that the early Church was dispensationalist, although in a "seed" form. They appeal to the fact that certain early Church Fathers were premillennialists, believing in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ.
Though it is true that some of the Church Fathers were premillennialists, including Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, they were not dispensationalists. They viewed the Catholic Church as the New Israel. Perhaps most importantly, they did not understand the Church to be an invisible, spiritual entity that would be taken secretly from the earth before the final events of the world. The idea of this kind of Rapture would have been completely foreign to them. In addition, premillennialism was never a universal teaching of the Catholic Church, and by the fifth century it was no longer held by any of the Fathers.
A rift has developed in dispensationalism. Its academic element pursues a more moderate and traditional understanding of end-time events and biblical interpretation. But most non-academic dispensationalists, consciously or not, view the Catholic Church and Protestant mainline churches just as Darby did. Darby's distrust of organized Christianity struck a deep chord with Americans that continues to resonate. Because Darby's "true" Church was spiritual, it had no need for creeds, organization, or ritual. This worked very well in a young country where tradition and ecclesial roots were shaky or nonexistent. It especially appealed, and still does today, to people who wished to be separated from institutions they believed corrupt or unsuited to their tastes. The Rapture was a logical step in Darby's pessimistic outlook and it remains an enticing promise: escape from earthly troubles for the few who are true and spiritual while the unrepentant and unsaved suffer terribly.
"Why aren't Catholics and Lutherans saved?" I asked my mother.
"There are many reasons," she replied. " But one is that they don't believe in the book of Revelation. They deny it is the Word of God."
"What do you mean?"
"They say that it isn't true," she said. "They believe it is only symbolic and has nothing to do with the end-times."
"But don't they have the same Bible we do?" I asked.
"Maybe," she shrugged. "But they don't believe in it."
The dispensationalist idea that the Church is a temporary insert in the flow of history is contrary to Catholic teaching. The Catechism of Catholic Church states that "God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the 'convocation' of men in Christ, and this convocation is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things" (CCC 760).
Catholics believe the Church is not just invisible, but also very visible, active in the world: "The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only 'with the eyes of faith' that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life" (CCC 770). She must be visible on earth in order for her unity to be seen by humanity. Men and women, who are both physical and spiritual in nature, are called to enter the Catholic Church, which is earthly and whose members are sinful, but which is also heavenly and whose members are saints. The Church is at one and the same time a pilgrim Church, in exile on earth, and also the "spotless bride of the spotless Lamb" (CCC 769, 796; see Rev. 22:17; Eph. 1:4; 5:27).
Dispensationalists often criticize the Catholic Church for claiming to be the Kingdom of God. But Catholic doctrine is more nuanced than that. The seed of the Kingdom exists in the Church, but is not yet realized here on earth: " Now the Father's will is 'to raise up men to share in his own divine life.' He does this by gathering men around his Son Jesus Christ. This gathering is the Church, 'on earth the seed and beginning of that kingdom'" (CCC 541). The Kingdom has begun, but has not been fully revealed. It is a mystery which has yet to be completely known: "The Church 'is the reign of Christ already present in mystery'" (CCC 763).
In breaking away from the Anglican Church and forming his mistaken doctrines, Darby was merely following the centuries-old tradition of separatist sects like the Montanists and the Anabaptists who could find good only in themselves and their own teachings. He was also following the general pattern of men like Luther and Calvin in the sixteenth century who declared themselves final arbiters of Scripture and Tradition. The culmination of this attitude can be seen in this statement by Ryrie: "The fact that the church taught something in the first century does not make it true, and likewise if the church did not teach something until the twentieth century, it is not necessarily false" (Dispensationalism Today, 14).
Ryrie's assertion fails to explain how it is that we can accurately interpret the Bible in a way totally different from the previous eighteen hundred years of the Church's understanding of it. He ignores the fact that Scripture calls the true Church "the household of God" and "the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the church cannot be counted on for correct teaching, who can? The individuals who make up the church? In responding to the criticism that dispensationalism is a recent theological innovation, Ryrie writes, "Some who use this device to discredit dispensationalism are honest enough to admit that history is never the test of truth-the Bible and only the Bible is" (Dispensationalism Today, 13).
This raises an important question: If Scripture can be read "plainly" and is for all people, why did it take eighteen hundred years for someone to figure out what it really means? In this claim dispensationalists resemble the Latter-Day Saints, who believe that the truth was lost for eighteen centuries.
Catholics should recognize the irony of this position. We agree that the Bible is the source of inspired, inerrant truth. But where did the Bible come from? And who defined the canon of Scripture? And who interprets what Scripture means, especially books like Daniel and Revelation, which are among the most difficult? The dispensationalist relies upon his interpretive method, which is based on a tradition not even two centuries old.
This extreme form of sola scriptura, coupled with a dislike for the examination of history, is a telling weakness in the dispensational approach to truth. The Catholic rests on the assurance of Christ that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" over the Church founded upon Peter and the Apostles. Our view of the Incarnation and our trust in Christ's words show us that God works infallibly through the Church in interpreting Scripture and in guiding believers on earth.
The Incarnation also shows us that creation is good and that the logical study of the created order is healthy. While God reveals himself in a unique and singular way in Scripture, the truth about God is also shown through the use of reason and the study of history (see Romans 1). Catholics are not bound to a fatalistic and pessimistic view of history. Rather we have hope for the future, just as Pope John Paul II continually says: "Be not afraid!" But this attitude is rare among dispensationalism, which possesses a kind of neo-Gnostic view of history and the created order.
Recognizing the language of dispensationalism when talking with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists will help you understand what they likely believe about the future, the Church, and the interpretation of Scripture. If they profess belief in the Rapture, you know they probably have a low view of the Church and are pessimistic about the future of humanity. Ask them if they know where that belief came from. Question them about where the term "Rapture" appears in Scripture or when it first appeared. Share with them the vision of the Catholic Church for the world and mankind, especially as we prepare for the third millennium and the Pope's call for renewal.
We agree with dispensationalists that our final hope is Christ. But we can help them see that the Church, as the Body of Christ, will not fail or be "removed," but shall one day be revealed as the Kingdom.
Carl Olson writes from Eugene, Oregon.
Dispensationalism at the end of the nineteenth century still possessed a variety of viewpoints, with many key issues still unresolved and heavily debated. Cyrus I. Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer, would change that by cementing the way dispensationalism would be understood for the next few decades. Having gained a reputation as a speaker during the Niagara Conferences, Scofield (who had no formal theological training) decided he would create a "study Bible" containing extensive notes, cross-references and commentary so that the "scientific" nature of the dispensations and biblical prophecy would be evident to the average layman.
After several year's labor and with the assistance of a group of editors, the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published in 1909. Presented in a neatly organized and systematic manner, its dispensational premises regarding key passages of Scripture-especially books like Daniel and Revelation-entered into the mainstream of conservative American Protestantism. In the first thirty years following its publication, Scofield's reference Bible sold about two million copies. It is still used widely today, along with the updated version, the New Scofield Reference Bible.
Scofield largely followed Darby's teaching in outlining his seven dispensations: Innocence (Adam), Conscience (to the Flood), Human Government (Gentiles after flood), Promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (Church), and the future Kingdom.
Scofield taught that Scripture contains passages meant for each respective time period and therefore that many passages had nothing to do with present day Christians in the "Church age." This meant that most of Christ's teachings, including the Sermon on the Mount, were for the future Kingdom age, not for the Church. This was another radical break from nineteen hundred years of Christian teaching. For the dispensationalist, the writings of Paul became normative for the "Church age." (In this regard, Scofield's teachings bear a strong resemblance to those of Marcion, the third-century heretic who insisted on an absolute break between the Old and New Testaments and who held Paul's writings to be the central works of Christianity.)
After Scofield's death in 1921, his pupil and colleague Lewis Sperry Chafer took up the dispensational torch. Like Scofield, Chafer had no formal theological training, a fact he took apparent pride in. He also was a popular speaker and was tireless in his efforts to spread dispensational beliefs throughout America. In 1924 he helped found what would become Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas, which, along with Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, was to be a major center of dispensational teaching.
Chafer's eight-volume Systematic Theology was an attempt to relate every area of theology to the dispensational understanding of such distinctions. He believed this was imperative if the Gospel was to be preached correctly. Chafer insisted that unless a person held dispensationalist beliefs he was doomed to teach a false Gospel: "How many even sincere men can preach an uncomplicated Gospel sermon? No man can be trusted to do this until he is dispensationally instructed. . . . The great expositors of this and past generations are such because they are thoroughly established in these essential distinctions" ("Gospel Preaching," Bibliotheca Sacra 95, July 1938, 343). This provided the basis for a consistent anti-Catholic perspective which ran through Chafer's writings, as indicated by his references to "Romanism" and "Romish" beliefs.
After Chafer's death in 1951 Charles Ryrie, a popular professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, became the leading dispensationalist voice in America. Ryrie wrote several books on a variety of topics, but the most important was his 1965 apologetic for the dispensational movement, titled Dispensationalism Today. In large part it was a response to some severe attacks on dispensationalism by various Protestant writers. Ryrie stressed the distinct interpretative method of dispensationalism. He popularized the unique method of biblical interpretation Scofield had outlined in his writings.
Defending his stance regarding the Church and Israel, Ryrie wrote: "This distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. . . . The word 'literal' is perhaps not so good as either the word 'normal' or 'plain', but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does" (Dispensationalism Today, 45-46).
This so-called "literal" approach to Scripture is still appealing to many people. The complexity of Scripture is apparently simplified by the dispensational method. Each portion of Scripture is matched with its corresponding dispensation, allowing the reader to focus on those passages meant for them as Christians in the current dispensation of grace. And the events of the "end times" are supposedly made clear and understandable for everyone, if only they will listen.
One night our youth group watched a movie titled The Thief In The Night. It was about a man who hadn't been saved when the Rapture came, but after the disappearance of several friends he realizes his mistake and sees the horrible truth: He is experiencing the Tribulation. Because of this realization he becomes a Christian. But Christianity has been outlawed and is punishable by death. Everyone is supposed to receive the Mark of the Beast on their forehead, otherwise they cease to exist as far as the government is concerned. They are unable to have bank accounts, be employed, or buy food. The man is chased and persecuted for his belief in Christ.
After the movie we talk about how the Mark of the Beast will change people's lives. "It's coming soon," the youth leader said. "I know the Lord will be returning in my lifetime because the Bible says so."
Anticipation of the Rapture and the beginning of the end grew in the 1940s and fifties. And the upheaval of the late sixties and early seventies presented a ripe opportunity for someone with a skill for popular writing and a background in dispensationalism to focus on "end times." That someone was Hal Lindsey, a former Dallas Theological Seminary student. Beginning in the early seventies Lindsey published a series of books, including The Late Great Planet Earth, Satan is Alive and Well, and There's a New World Coming. These books contained his version of soon-to-occur apocalyptic events as seen through the lens of a popularized dispensationalism. Although some dispensationalists were not entirely supportive of Lindsey, his were among the best-selling books of the decade (35 million copies) and also among the most influential.
Lindsey used a canny mix of paranoia, current events, selective use of Scripture, and a science-fiction style to convey his vision of impending doom. Lindsey claimed that many biblical prophecies were being fulfilled right before our eyes: the restoration of Israel as a nation, the "apostasy" of mainline churches, the collapse of morality, and the frightening realities of the Cold War. He interpreted the destructive images of Revelation as scenes of nuclear war. Unlike dispensationalists of the past, Lindsey did not locate the [censored] of Babylon in the Catholic Church (he largely ignores it); the [censored] of Babylon was instead a global network of New Age religions consolidated under the Antichrist.
Lindsey stayed true to the Darbyite view of the Church and emphasized the non-denominational "real" Christianity. He claimed that the word "church" referred to a "group of people that is called together for some special purpose. . . . Sometimes it refers to all true believers in Jesus Christ. It doesn't make any difference what religious 'brand' they're under as long as they're in a living union with Christ through a personal faith in him as their Savior" (There's a New World Coming, 41). Any understanding of the Church as having a visible presence and structure is ignored or rejected, replaced instead with the individualistic and subjective stance so common in Fundamentalism.
The seventies and eighties witnessed a proliferation of books and tapes presenting elaborate explanations of current events in light of biblical prophecy. Intricate and convoluted arguments were used to locate the true Antichrist and to diagram the involved military actions leading up to Armageddon. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union and with the global politics rapidly changing, people like Lindsey had to revise their futuristic blueprints. The changes brought on by a computerized world linked through Internet technology have become their focus for calculating possible end-time events. Lindsey continues to put out books and has a regular television program which focuses on the Y2K bug as the most likely trigger for his end-times scenarios. His subjective and dramatic style has been copied by numerous writers and speakers, such as Pat Robertson in his early days and current-day Dave Hunt, each claiming to have the key insight into the final days of the world.
In the last few years sharp attacks on dispensationalism by reformed Protestants and a variety of Evangelicals have put the movement on the defensive. One common response by dispensationalist leaders over the past century has been that the early Church was dispensationalist, although in a "seed" form. They appeal to the fact that certain early Church Fathers were premillennialists, believing in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ.
Though it is true that some of the Church Fathers were premillennialists, including Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, they were not dispensationalists. They viewed the Catholic Church as the New Israel. Perhaps most importantly, they did not understand the Church to be an invisible, spiritual entity that would be taken secretly from the earth before the final events of the world. The idea of this kind of Rapture would have been completely foreign to them. In addition, premillennialism was never a universal teaching of the Catholic Church, and by the fifth century it was no longer held by any of the Fathers.
A rift has developed in dispensationalism. Its academic element pursues a more moderate and traditional understanding of end-time events and biblical interpretation. But most non-academic dispensationalists, consciously or not, view the Catholic Church and Protestant mainline churches just as Darby did. Darby's distrust of organized Christianity struck a deep chord with Americans that continues to resonate. Because Darby's "true" Church was spiritual, it had no need for creeds, organization, or ritual. This worked very well in a young country where tradition and ecclesial roots were shaky or nonexistent. It especially appealed, and still does today, to people who wished to be separated from institutions they believed corrupt or unsuited to their tastes. The Rapture was a logical step in Darby's pessimistic outlook and it remains an enticing promise: escape from earthly troubles for the few who are true and spiritual while the unrepentant and unsaved suffer terribly.
"Why aren't Catholics and Lutherans saved?" I asked my mother.
"There are many reasons," she replied. " But one is that they don't believe in the book of Revelation. They deny it is the Word of God."
"What do you mean?"
"They say that it isn't true," she said. "They believe it is only symbolic and has nothing to do with the end-times."
"But don't they have the same Bible we do?" I asked.
"Maybe," she shrugged. "But they don't believe in it."
The dispensationalist idea that the Church is a temporary insert in the flow of history is contrary to Catholic teaching. The Catechism of Catholic Church states that "God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the 'convocation' of men in Christ, and this convocation is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things" (CCC 760).
Catholics believe the Church is not just invisible, but also very visible, active in the world: "The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only 'with the eyes of faith' that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life" (CCC 770). She must be visible on earth in order for her unity to be seen by humanity. Men and women, who are both physical and spiritual in nature, are called to enter the Catholic Church, which is earthly and whose members are sinful, but which is also heavenly and whose members are saints. The Church is at one and the same time a pilgrim Church, in exile on earth, and also the "spotless bride of the spotless Lamb" (CCC 769, 796; see Rev. 22:17; Eph. 1:4; 5:27).
Dispensationalists often criticize the Catholic Church for claiming to be the Kingdom of God. But Catholic doctrine is more nuanced than that. The seed of the Kingdom exists in the Church, but is not yet realized here on earth: " Now the Father's will is 'to raise up men to share in his own divine life.' He does this by gathering men around his Son Jesus Christ. This gathering is the Church, 'on earth the seed and beginning of that kingdom'" (CCC 541). The Kingdom has begun, but has not been fully revealed. It is a mystery which has yet to be completely known: "The Church 'is the reign of Christ already present in mystery'" (CCC 763).
In breaking away from the Anglican Church and forming his mistaken doctrines, Darby was merely following the centuries-old tradition of separatist sects like the Montanists and the Anabaptists who could find good only in themselves and their own teachings. He was also following the general pattern of men like Luther and Calvin in the sixteenth century who declared themselves final arbiters of Scripture and Tradition. The culmination of this attitude can be seen in this statement by Ryrie: "The fact that the church taught something in the first century does not make it true, and likewise if the church did not teach something until the twentieth century, it is not necessarily false" (Dispensationalism Today, 14).
Ryrie's assertion fails to explain how it is that we can accurately interpret the Bible in a way totally different from the previous eighteen hundred years of the Church's understanding of it. He ignores the fact that Scripture calls the true Church "the household of God" and "the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the church cannot be counted on for correct teaching, who can? The individuals who make up the church? In responding to the criticism that dispensationalism is a recent theological innovation, Ryrie writes, "Some who use this device to discredit dispensationalism are honest enough to admit that history is never the test of truth-the Bible and only the Bible is" (Dispensationalism Today, 13).
This raises an important question: If Scripture can be read "plainly" and is for all people, why did it take eighteen hundred years for someone to figure out what it really means? In this claim dispensationalists resemble the Latter-Day Saints, who believe that the truth was lost for eighteen centuries.
Catholics should recognize the irony of this position. We agree that the Bible is the source of inspired, inerrant truth. But where did the Bible come from? And who defined the canon of Scripture? And who interprets what Scripture means, especially books like Daniel and Revelation, which are among the most difficult? The dispensationalist relies upon his interpretive method, which is based on a tradition not even two centuries old.
This extreme form of sola scriptura, coupled with a dislike for the examination of history, is a telling weakness in the dispensational approach to truth. The Catholic rests on the assurance of Christ that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" over the Church founded upon Peter and the Apostles. Our view of the Incarnation and our trust in Christ's words show us that God works infallibly through the Church in interpreting Scripture and in guiding believers on earth.
The Incarnation also shows us that creation is good and that the logical study of the created order is healthy. While God reveals himself in a unique and singular way in Scripture, the truth about God is also shown through the use of reason and the study of history (see Romans 1). Catholics are not bound to a fatalistic and pessimistic view of history. Rather we have hope for the future, just as Pope John Paul II continually says: "Be not afraid!" But this attitude is rare among dispensationalism, which possesses a kind of neo-Gnostic view of history and the created order.
Recognizing the language of dispensationalism when talking with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists will help you understand what they likely believe about the future, the Church, and the interpretation of Scripture. If they profess belief in the Rapture, you know they probably have a low view of the Church and are pessimistic about the future of humanity. Ask them if they know where that belief came from. Question them about where the term "Rapture" appears in Scripture or when it first appeared. Share with them the vision of the Catholic Church for the world and mankind, especially as we prepare for the third millennium and the Pope's call for renewal.
We agree with dispensationalists that our final hope is Christ. But we can help them see that the Church, as the Body of Christ, will not fail or be "removed," but shall one day be revealed as the Kingdom.
Carl Olson writes from Eugene, Oregon.