Page 5

Dr. Mike Stallard, mstallard@bbc.edu

Dispensational Study Group

Baptist Bible Seminary, faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard

Evangelical Theological Society

Toronto, November 2002

history once the dispensational structure is recognized. This may be played out in Bible
interpretation as nothing more than the willingness to let distinctions stand in the light of the
progress of revelation without any forced theological unity. I think that was Ryrie's concern
although it was voiced in the context of apprehension over Reformed theology's forced
soteriological unity via the covenant of grace.

I do not think the Dispensational Study Group has exhausted all the necessary debate on

many of the important issues that have consumed us such as the nature of typology, the use of
the OT in the NT, the nature of metaphor (as John discusses), and others. I hope we will not
come to the place any time soon when we believe that we have said all there is to say and move
on to something else. Dispensationalists can make some strong contributions to current debates
that go beyond our own traditional-progressive back and forth (although we still need to continue
that dialog). For example, has anyone noticed that the open view of God is utterly incompatible
with a dispensational understanding of Scripture? Has anyone noticed preterism in some of the
open theists? Has anyone noticed that the belief that God can change his mind, so that some
prophecies were wrong when spoken to the original audience, not only undermines the doctrine
of inerrancy, but also makes dispensationalism utterly impossible? I've heard precious little
dispensational response to the open view of God that is not mainstream evangelical. What about
those traits that are unique to dispensationalism that might force all evangelicals to pause and
think about some things?

I will say this about the Dispensational Study Group. The two topics that have drawn me

back to it with the greatest excitement are hermeneutics and social action. I want to continue to
deal with the first because it is where we live and struggle the most (it is also where we have the
most fun, in my opinion). It is the heart and soul of present discussions. That topic will more
than any other determine the future of dispensationalism in particular and evangelicalism in
general. Although we may need a temporary break from such things from time to time, I think
we all see the need for further discussion. On the other hand, the level of interest in social action
as a topic has been somewhat disappointing. I say this as a traditional dispensationalist. Should
there not be a practical theology that flows out of our dispensational theological system that
makes a difference for the whole person, including the preaching of the gospel of eternal life and
the recognition that to love others requires involvement in their lives at several points? Perhaps
the group needs to address more aggressively Darrell Bock's proposal for purpose-directed
theology, bouncing his ideas off of all strands of dispensationalism as well as other
evangelicals.

I for one will not be inclined to stay interested in the Dispensational Study Group

if it becomes ethereal and does not address everyday issues of life that really matter.

Finally, as we look ahead, let's also look over our shoulders. The main contribution of

the dispensational movement within the history of Christianity seems to me to be the revival of
belief in God's promises to national Israel, which has fed the diversity side of the debate.

In the

Darrell Bock, "The Purpose Driven ETS: Where Should We Go? A Look at Jesus Studies and Other

Example Cases" JETS 45 (March 2002): 3-33 and Purpose-Directed Theology: Getting Our Priorities Right in
Evangelical Conversations (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002).

Some traditionalists have criticized progressives too strongly by calling them amillennialists. I have

publicly defended progressives against that charge on numerous occasions although I have certainly been critical of
them on many other points. One of my students accused me of being a progressive dispensationalist because I was
unclear (?) and was too irenic with progressives. Unlike some of my traditionalist brothers, I still refer to
progressives as dispensationalists and will continue to do so as long as they have a national, political, ethnic future
for Israel on earth in God's coming kingdom. However, we all have the right to ask questions about where
theological systems will lead. It is not pejorative to wonder out loud if progressives are on a slippery slope on their