Paedobaptists who are also dispensationalists

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Puritan Board Senior
I was reading A Comparison of Three Systems and in the last example at the bottom of the page the author mentions...

[DISP] Most do not embrace infant baptism. Usually believer's baptism is the norm, although those Dispensationalists that are Presbyterian are paedobaptists.

Now I am looking for examples. Anyone?
 
I think it was one of the distinctives of the Bible Presbyterian Church, if I am not mistaken.
 
Slightly OT: While most Reformed, paedo and credo, are not dispensational it is amazing to see just how often dispensationalism has affected folks' view of Scripture; and not just in eschatology. Dispensationalism has become a part of the woof and warp of our western Church world and flavours almost everything, even for those who disagree with it.
 

Yes, really. I think there were changes made to the WCF to allow for a dispensational slant. That's one of the reasons they pulled out of the OPC in 38 (?).

I believe I've been taught that it was over the premillenialism and not dispensationalism that the split happened. Leaving aside eschatology, if that's actually possible in an amil/postmil's estimation of whether us bible-Presbyterians are/were dispensationalist, could you give some evidence showing that the bible-Presbyterians discarded CT in favour of a dispensational framework altogether?
 
I believe I've been taught that it was over the premillenialism and not dispensationalism that the split happened. Leaving aside eschatology, if that's actually possible in an amil/postmil's estimation of whether us bible-Presbyterians are/were dispensationalist, could you give some evidence showing that the bible-Presbyterians discarded CT in favour of a dispensational framework altogether?

There are historic premil's in PCA, ARP, and OPC; it wasn't merely premillennialism that did it. As for evidence, it is easy enough to google or look through minutes; I don't have the time right now, or I might consider it. I didn't say all BPs discarded it; I said they allowed for it.
 
It's interesting, but the early Plymouth Brethren who came up with dispensationalism held to paedobaptism. I believe the exclusive brethren, who followed Darby rather than B.W. Newton and George Mueller were more connectional and paedobaptistic. Also, one big break that took place between the Exclusive and Open Brethren was the rapture seven years before Christ's second return. Mueller and Newton, while both dispensationalists, believed there would be no rapture seven years beforehand, but that during the seven year tribulation period there would a union of Jew and Gentile into one body. So, the baptistic Open Brethren were actually closer in their timeline of events to historic or covenantal premillennialism than their counterparts who also practiced paedobaptism.

This issue is quite interesting to me because of the statement by some paedobaptists that the credobaptist position is inherently dispensational because of our insistence of the baptism of professing people only. However, dispensationalism as we know it came about in paedobaptistic circles, especially Presbyterianism. So, historically speaking, it was not the credobaptists who gave us dispensationalism, but paedobaptism, especially as found in Presbyterianism. The Scofield Study Bible was written by a Southern Presbyterian and Dallas Theological Seminary was founded by a Southern Presbyterian minister.

Here's an interesting chart, which attempts to bring Isaac Watts in as a precursor to dispensationalism. http://withchrist.org/JND.pdf
 
Some consider that Johannes Cocceius in his readings of redemptive history, Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei (1648).

not only made a major contribution to Covenantal Theology, but also produced some kind of proto-dispensationalism, exemplified for instance in his view of the Sabbath.
 
Okay, someone please help me to understand what I'm missing here... to be dispensational is to reject Covenant theology. To be paedobaptist is to embrace covenant theology. CT is either detrimental or crucial to either position, so how is it possible someone could be Dispensational and paedobaptist? If I met a person who told me they were Dispensational and paedobaptist, it would lead me to believe they really didn't know what one or both of those terms meant/stood for.
 
It would be interesting to find out how long Dispensational congregations remained paedobaptist. It makes sense that the first generation of Dispensationalists would apply it more narrowly, leaving a second generation to work out the ramifications.

---------- Post added at 10:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

Also, we won't get far if we assume that covenant theology and dispensationalism are the only options. Lutherans and Catholics, for instance, aren't "covenant theologians," but they aren't Dispensationalists, and they practice paedobaptism, though not for the same reasons we Reformed do.
 
I had typed a much longer response but lost it when the system logged me out, which it tends to do if I don't click "remember me."

I don't have time to replicate that effort now, unfortunately, but perhaps can do so later. But my point was that the early popularizers of dispensationalism and indeed, the architects of classic dispensationalism in the USA were overwhelmingly paedobaptist. (Basically all of my comments here relate to North America and particularly the USA.)

The genesis of that was the conversion of the St. Louis Presbyterian pastor James Hall Brookes to Darby's views. Brookes became a close associate of Darby, who visited St.L. many times. Brookes was Scofield's mentor. Scofield mentored Chafer. Chafer started Dallas Seminary. (W.H. Griffith Thomas was to be alongside Chafer but went to be with the Lord before the school commenced.) The rest is history.

Brookes' Niagara Bible Conference was key to both popularizing dispensationalism as well as giving voice to the nascent interdenominational fundamentalist movement that coalesced around the turn of the 20th Century.

Chafer defended paedobaptism in his Systematic Theology and as I understand it was influenced by James W. Dale's work on baptism.

100 years ago, paedobaptism was much more prevalent in North America than it is today. Evangelicalism in the best and broadest sense of that term had a much higher proportion of paedobaptists in those days, with many more Presbyterians, Episcopalians and even Congregationalists on the scene.

With regard to Baptists, for a number of reasons historical and theological, they didn't tend to play well with others 100-150 years ago. This was particularly the case with Southern Baptists, who were in the midst of a controversy over Landmarkism at that time, with even non-Landmarkists holding to views that many would consider essentially Landmark today. Some were early adopters of dispensationalism, but it seems to me that they did not tend to have much influence outside of their circles.

I suspect that even if a few of the early Dispensationalists had baptistic leanings, that they remained aloof from Baptists due to other issues related to polity. Baptists in general tended to be much more sectarian than they are today, especially in the South where Landmarkism was a huge influence at that time. (My guess is that dispensational theology, with its emphasis on the universal church, contributed to the decline of this sectarianism among most Baptists since the mid 20th Century, with most now practicing open communion. Some Baptists even today tend to reject or at least downplay the idea of the church universal.) Most Dispensationalists were also strongly committed to plural elders, which is taught in the Scofield Bible. That was foreign to Baptist thought then and it remains highly controversial today, even with some Calvinistic Baptists.

That positing a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel would tend toward baptistic views seems rather obvious to us today. Evidently that wasn't so clear to the early "classic" dispensationalists.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting Chris. Thanks for posting. If you get a chance I'd love to read more along the lines of your original post.
 
Very interesting Chris. Thanks for posting. If you get a chance I'd love to read more along the lines of your original post.

I think most of the post that I lost that wasn't in the second one had to do with speculation or educated guesses on my part about the independent Bible church movement, especially the ones that were strongly influenced by Dallas Seminary, some of which is off topic.

If I recall correctly one of Chafer's aims was to send his graduates into denominations like the PCUS and stem the tide of liberalism. I'm sure a lot of them came from that kind of background. I think the 1944 decision by the PCUS that dispensationalism was unconfessional put a damper on that somewhat. (But I don't know if any ministers were actually brought up on charges following that decision, and Chafer himself remained in the PCUS until his death. I understand there were even some Dispensationalists in the early days of the PCA, which came out of the PCUS in 1973.)

I know of one church in TX that until recently was called an Independent Presbyterian Church, with the name meaning that they were independent and ruled by elders. But in the 2010's a name like that is much more confusing that it would have been in the 50's. (There are other Independent Pres. churches that are quite Reformed, on the other hand.) Apparently they did baptize some infants early on. Churches like that eventually tended to go over to a more or less credo stance but don't divide over the issue when it comes to membership.

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

Slightly OT: While most Reformed, paedo and credo, are not dispensational it is amazing to see just how often dispensationalism has affected folks' view of Scripture; and not just in eschatology. Dispensationalism has become a part of the woof and warp of our western Church world and flavours almost everything, even for those who disagree with it.

I have noticed this as well. Perhaps the two most obvious examples are views on the Sabbath and tithing.

I find it ironic that many in the SBC in particular will dogmatically uphold the party line on tithing (even "storehouse" tithing) yet have no understanding whatsoever what the historic view of the Lord's Day was, often thinking it meant nothing more than not forsaking assembling together. The same hermeneutic gets you to both places, but in this case, what is being upheld is traditionalism, albeit one that only goes back to about the middle of the last century. Every SBC confession until the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message set forth the Reformed view of the Lord's Day. That article was one of the few that was changed other than the statement on scripture.

Many of the YRR's had "Left Behind" and similar things shoved down their throats when they were growing up. The vast majority abhor dispensationalism, with many noting that it is of recent origin. But their essentially NCTish views don't have much historical attestation either, except maybe with some anabaptist teachers and perhaps some "Sovereign Grace" Baptists, most of whom came out dispensationalism themselves.

Another is the view of culture and related issues by some. I have known some amils that are every bit as retreatist as the classic Dispensationalists that said that you shouldn't polish brass on a sinking ship.

Can you think of any more examples?

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

It's interesting, but the early Plymouth Brethren who came up with dispensationalism held to paedobaptism. I believe the exclusive brethren, who followed Darby rather than B.W. Newton and George Mueller were more connectional and paedobaptistic. Also, one big break that took place between the Exclusive and Open Brethren was the rapture seven years before Christ's second return. Mueller and Newton, while both dispensationalists, believed there would be no rapture seven years beforehand, but that during the seven year tribulation period there would a union of Jew and Gentile into one body. So, the baptistic Open Brethren were actually closer in their timeline of events to historic or covenantal premillennialism than their counterparts who also practiced paedobaptism.

I usually see Mueller and Newton listed in the ranks of historic premils, which is usually synonymous with covenant premil, although many nondispensational premils today are not covenantal. Maybe this is just these Brethren were post-trib. Did they hold to anything like Darby's seven dispensations? Or did they simply reject covenantalism in favor of some other view? Spurgeon admired many of the Open Brethren like Muller, Newton and Chapman. But he was a sharp critic of Darby, as much for the sectarianism of the Exclusive Brethren as for their prophetic speculation.

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

Some consider that Johannes Cocceius in his readings of redemptive history, Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei (1648).

not only made a major contribution to Covenantal Theology, but also produced some kind of proto-dispensationalism, exemplified for instance in his view of the Sabbath.

I think the various proto-dispensational schemes were largely attempts to summarize the flow of Biblical history. I doubt that any of them proposed that each dispensation contained a "test" the way that classic and normative dispensationalism does. (I understand that some of the Progressive Dispensationalists have abandoned that idea.)

What was really innovative in dispensationalism was the sharp dichotomy between the church and Israel, with the church age being a parenthesis and having to be taken out of the world so God can go back to dealing with Israel.

I think this overemphasis on Israel by dispensationalists has really discredited the idea of a restoration and conversion of Israel, which many classic premils and postmils had held to for at least a few centuries. (Whether that idea is biblical or not is a different question.) The other day, I came across a comment by an 18th Century postmil, a well known Reformed theologian, (evidently a favorite of one of our mods) which if I were to post without attestation people would swear it was dispensational.

The word dispensation itself is a perfectly good word that appears several times in the KJV and NKJV (I think) and perhaps other translations. You find it frequently employed by older commentators. But usage of it today is likely only going to cause confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top