3
Summary
Our survey has demonstrated that several dispensationalists and
nondispensationalists have made the connection between dispensationalism and a
particular model of sanctification. In every case we have seen the name of Lewis Sperry
Chafer attached to this "dispensational sanctification." In fact, Charles Ryrie has chosen
to label his own view of sanctification as "Chaferian";
12
he does so in order to distinguish
it from the Keswick and Reformed models.
13
Ryrie's chosen title for his view of sanctification is significant not only because of
what it says about its origin but also because of what it does not say about its connection.
Ryrie does not label his view as "dispensational."
14
Coming from one who has authored
the book considered by many as the standard work on dispensationalism (Dispensation-
alism Today
15
), this fact is quite important. For if someone who has worked so much on
the essence and meaning of dispensationalism does not connect dispensationalism to his
personal view of sanctification, further evaluation of this issue is necessary. This leads us
to discuss the issue of definition to see whether or not the connection made by Walvoord,
Witmer, Gerstner and Crenshaw can be sustained.
Dispensationalism Defined
Definition
As with any theological system dispensationalism has experienced
"systematization and development"
16
during its relatively short history. For this reason
we will primarily concentrate on more recent efforts made in the area of definition.
Lewis Sperry Chafer summarizes dispensationalism in this way: "Throughout the
ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people
and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven
with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity."
17
Charles Ryrie boils down dispensationalism into three essential distinctives which
he calls the sine qua non: 1) a distinction between national Israel and the church; 2) a
hermeneutical method of literal interpretation; and 3) a doxological purpose of God in
His dealings with man.
18
12
Ryrie, "Contrasting Views," 191.
13
We will provide more information on each of the sanctification models below.
14
At this point we should say that the majority of authors who have supported or criticized
dispensationalism through the years mirror Ryrie's perspective. We did find some significant scholars,
particularly Walvoord and Gerstner, who link dispensationalism with a particular model of sanctification.
But the majority of authors consulted for the present paper mention no connection at all. One will notice
that Ryrie's discussion of sanctification appears in an article about that subject ("Contrasting Views")
rather than in the books he has written about dispensationalism (see note 9).
15
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966). We should also
mention Ryrie's later work: Dispensationalism, revised and expanded ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995).
16
Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 9. This fact is widely acknowledged by nearly every student of
dispensationalism. See Robert Saucy, "The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational
Systems," Criswell Theological Review 1 (Fall 1986): 149, and Craig A. Blaising, "Developing
Dispensationalism Part 2 (of 2 parts): Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary
Dispensationalists," BSac 145 (July-September 1988): 254-55.
17
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1936), 107.
18
Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44-47.