Book Reviews -- By: Anonymous

Journal: Masters Seminary Journal
Volume: TMSJ 11:1 (Spring 2000)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous


Book Reviews

Herbert W. Bateman IV (ed.). Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. 345 pp. $15.99 (paper). Reviewed by Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament.

A number of factors contribute to make Bateman’s work quite interesting. Two are that Charles R. Swindoll, the President of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the Foreword of the book and that all four contributors are present or former members of the Dallas Seminary faculty: Darrell L. Bock, J. Lanier Burns, Elliott E. Johnson, and Stanley D. Toussaint. Bock and Burns represent the progressive dispensational position, and Johnson and Toussaint the dispensational (called “traditional dispensational” by Bateman and others throughout the book). The airing out of this difference of opinion represents a sort of public description of a division regarding dispensationalism that has existed among the Dallas faculty for at least the last decade and a half. The General Editor, Herbert W. Bateman IV, is currently associate professor of New Testament Studies at Grace Theological Seminary and a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary.

Johnson contributed essays on “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic” and “Covenants in Traditional Dispensationalism,” and responded to Bock’s essays on “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism” and “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism.” Bock also has responses to Johnson’s two essays. Toussaint’s essay is “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,” and the one by Burns is “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist.” Toussaint and Burns also wrote responses to each other’s essay.

In Chapter 1, Bateman introduces the dialogue with his summary of “Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today.” His progressive dispensational bias is evident when he refers to “changes” rather than “refinements” in dispensationalism through the years (23). Rather than referring to “changes,” dispensationalists would refer to “refinements” stemming from a closer application of grammatical-historical principles of interpretation during dispensationalism’s years of development. The editor also emphasizes the rejection of Ryrie’s sine qua non of dispensationalism, particularly Ryrie’s principle of literal interpretation (35–42), as a defining feature of dispensationalism.

In their dialogue about hermeneutics, Johnson and Bock agree in regard to the correctness in using grammatical-historical principles, but they disagree about what those principles are. This reviewer would suggest that progressives have

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe

visitor : : uid: ()