Journal: Journal of Ministry and Theology
Volume: JMAT 27:2 (Fall 2023)
Article: The Double-Edged Sword Of Dispensationalism: Destructive As Methodology, Constructive As Outcome
Author: Christopher B. Cone

JMAT 27:2 (Fall 2023) p. 31

The Double-Edged Sword Of Dispensationalism: Destructive As Methodology, Constructive As Outcome

Christopher Cone1

Key Words: Dispensationalism, Theological Method, Hermeneutics, Precommitment

*****

Introduction

Αs Charles Ryrie catalogued the three aspects of dispensationalism’s sine qua non, he prefaced the three distinctives by emphasizing a critical methodological difference between dispensational thinkers and covenant (theology) thinkers: “the covenant theologian finds biblical distinctions a necessary part of his theology even though the covenant of grace is the ruling category. … the dispensations supply the need for distinctions in the orderly progress of revelation throughout Scripture.”2 Ryrie cites the need for distinctions as the occasion for developing theological systems, and the basis of those distinctions as the covenant of grace for covenant theology and the progress of Scripture for dispensational theology.

The implication is evident: Ryrie asserts that covenant theology is primarily a theological predetermination because the theological covenant undergirding covenant theology is the ruling category, while dispensational theology is an exegetically

JMAT 27:2 (Fall 2023) p. 32

based theological outcome because it is derived by observing the progress of Scripture. Ryrie further observes, “Only dispensationalism does justice to the proper concept of the progress of revelation.”3 Ryrie further recognizes dispensationalism as an outcome when he affirms that “if plain or normal interpretation is the only valid hermeneutical principle, and if it is consistently applied, it will cause one to be a dispensationalist.”4 The primary emphasis of Ryrie’s opening chapter (entitled “Dispensationalism: Help or Heresy?”) is that dispensationalism is a help because it is a product of the Bible interpreted in a normative way.

If Ryrie is correct in his assertion that dispensationalism is helpful because of its scriptural derivation and as an outcome of exegetical work, then his firm yet gracious critique of covenant theology as a theological rather than exegetical precommitment is likewise warranted. Ryrie’s evaluation occasions examining the impact and value of the dispensational theological system when reckoned as an outcome of hermeneutics applied (as Ryrie advocates) or, by contrast, as a theological precommitment.

As Ryrie critiques theological precommitme...