# Limited Atonement and Traditional Dispensationalism



## ChristGraceText (Aug 8, 2012)

I met a young man who says he holds to a traditional "literal" dispensational hermeneutic, yet believes that Christ only died for the elect. This seems contrary to what other traditional dispensationalists have told me. Others would go to John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 and use their literal hermeneutic to say that the atonement encompasses the entire world. 

Helps/Thoughts?

Is it possible for a traditional dispensationlist with their literal hermeneutic to come to this conclusion, if they maintain true to their hermeneutic?

Could anyone provide examples?

Thanks in advance.


Grace and Peace


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 8, 2012)

I am no longer really sure what is a "traditional" dispensationalist, other than Scofield or Chafer. However, see lots of material from John MacAurther, a 5-pointer and so called "leaky" dispensationalist. Grace to You


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 8, 2012)

This scratches some of the issues: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur


----------



## earl40 (Aug 8, 2012)

Traditions change, and sometimes for the worse.


----------



## ChristGraceText (Aug 8, 2012)

I apologize, when I say traditional dispensationalist I am referring to Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, etc...


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 8, 2012)

In the case of Dispensationalism, it is getting better (if you can say such a thing), in that, the Progressive movement ( Robert L. Saucy, et al.) have mostly abandoned the old way in favor of a *more* or semi-covenantal view. I like the analogy of the Edsel; don't bother trying to fix up a flawed design, just trade it for some real American muscle!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 8, 2012)

The unfortunate thing is that people eat end time stuff right up. They love this stuff. The Left Behind series have made this position the "orthodox" view. When I speak to unbelievers about Christ and Christianity, they automatically assume I hold to this view because they don't know anything else. I came out of dispensationalism, and I felt the light coming from scripture ever since. I have this personal conviction that the heart of disoensationalism preaches another gospel. If you look at it systematically, it teaches two ways of redemption for two different people. I think Dr. Riddlebarger did and does an excellent job defending a truly historic (and biblical) position.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 8, 2012)

_"Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth,_ by John Gerstner will be helpful in answering this question. It was overpowering when I first read it, but upon reflection, can now say that dispensationalism is at least in some sense inconsistent with the doctrines of grace (Calvinism). It may take a while to see that.

The more I consider how God operated through covenant, the more odd a dispensational framework seems as a construct through which to interpret Scripture.

Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: Dr. John Gerstner - Book - Christian Living, Controversies in the Church, Dispensationalism | Ligonier Ministries Store


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 8, 2012)

Vern Poythress book: Understanding Dispensationalists can be helpful, as well. Or it was to me.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 8, 2012)

The dispensational call for a literal hermeneutic, as I understand it, relates to treating prophetic literature in the same way as you would treat didactic literature wherever that is possible: 'Temple" means a particular physical structure every time it occurs, or nearly every time. So there isn't necessarily a difference in the approach to didactic literature (where the putatively universalist texts are found). I think the question of a literal hermeneutic for prophecy is formally distinct from the question of bad reading.

Deducing universal atonement from 2 Peter 3:9, etc., is bad reading, not a literal hermeneutic.

With regard to prophetic literature, a literal reading can be opposed to a symbolic or a typological reading. For a dispensationalist, "Jerusalem" equals a city in Palestine, whether you find it in Acts or in Ezekiel. A city coming down from God out of heaven is actually and physically a giant golden cube. 

But if "literal" means according to the letter, and the letter is placed within the scope of the text as a whole and considered in light of the conventions of the genre, then I think a symbolic or typological reading has a better claim to be a literal interpretation than the "literal" ("physical" might be more accurate) interpretation used by many dispensationalists. Reading a satire as though it were a factual report misses the point, even if each word is understood in its most basic and common use. Taking a prophecy about the Temple as though it related primarily to a physical structure _when the physical structure was itself meant to be symbolic_, seems like a similar hermeneutical mistake to me, and not really one that deserves to claim without challenge the literal label.


----------



## Beau Michel (Aug 8, 2012)

William Cox has a couple of helpful volumes as well as Riddlebarger whos has already been mentioned.Cox's An Examination of Dispensationalism was what brought me out of the dispensational camp and his Amillenialism Today confirmed my departure from this camp


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 9, 2012)

If "Traditional" were to be taken as original, then the original dispensationalists were believers in Particular Redemption as that view was evidently well nigh universal among the early Plymouth Brethren, both those who followed Darby and those who rejected pretribulationism and left the movement like B.W. Newton and George Muller. It wasn't until around the turn of the 20th Century that a decided turn away from Calvinism was discernible. However, a lack of emphasis on Sovereign Grace in redemption came before that with writers like MacIntosh. See here for more: Early Brethren Leaders the Question of Calvinism by Mark R. Stevenson

In the USA, it appears that dispensationalism first took hold among Presbyterians, most likely those of a New School mindset. Whether or not men like James Hall Brookes affirmed limited atonement, I can't say. But their progeny like Scofield and Chafer did not. But even they were quite a bit more Calvinistic than the average admirer of theirs today. 

There are also plenty of dispensationalists of the MacArthur type who say they arrive at Particular Redemption and Dispensationalism via the same hermeneutic. Dan Phillips (of the Pyro blog) is but one example among many. He has repeatedly written that he's a dispensationalist for the same reason that he is a Calvinist. 

After much reading, the only "leaky" thing I can discern with regard to MacArthur's dispensationalism is that he doesn't emphasize Scofield's seven dispensations and he doesn't accept the Chaferian view of sanctification i.e. the "Carnal Christian" and all that entails. When he was embroiled in the Lordship controversy, many thought that both of those things, especially the latter, were part and parcel of the system and that rejection of them was tantamount to rejection of dispensationalism as a whole. Obviously that's not the case. At best Mac is somewhere between Traditional and progressive.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2012)

Chris, I wonder if you've at all looked into the influences on Chafer's doctrine of sanctification? I'm wondering by what route a leaven of error in this connection snuck into Reformed churches - Horatius Bonar does not seem entirely free of some Keswick-flavored ideas, for instance.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 9, 2012)

Horatius Bonar and J.C. Ryle were premils; I don't know if they were influenced in their eschatology by the development of dispensationalism in that era.


----------



## Beau Michel (Aug 9, 2012)

I had read that Ryle was premil but I have not read any of his writings that appear to be tinged with dispensationalism.I knew Spurgeon was premil though he was not dispensational and at times even mocked dispensationalism.I was surprised that Bonar was premil.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 9, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Chris, I wonder if you've at all looked into the influences on Chafer's doctrine of sanctification? I'm wondering by what route a leaven of error in this connection snuck into Reformed churches - Horatius Bonar does not seem entirely free of some Keswick-flavored ideas, for instance.



Ruben,

I'm no Chafer expert by any means and really haven't read read much of his work. What I have read has little directly to do with this subject. But Chafer was probably influenced by Keswick here and maybe other sources. Both Ryle and Bonar (and surely others) criticized these kinds of errors in _Holiness_ and _God's Way of Holiness_ respectively and that was decades before there was even such a thing as what Boice would later refer to as the "Dallas teaching" on sanctification. (I think those works may actually date prior to the beginning of the Keswick Convention or else published around the time of its infancy. Of course, the "Higher Life" didn't suddenly appear overnight.) I'm referring to the idea of having the old man and the new man warring inside of the believer as two separate natures, an incipient "Carnal Christian" view, their view of Rom. 7, etc., basically the kinds of things that MacArthur denounced 20-25 years ago. (However, my guess is that the "classic dispensational" view of the Sermon on the Mount was probably more or less original given the methodology by which they arrived at it.) 

My best guess is that Chafer imbibed these views during his time spent as an evangelist and conference speaker. I think that his time spent doing that basically coincided with the time that these views were starting to circulate in the USA. He was also originally a Congregationalist but eventually both he and Scofield became ministers in the PCUS. Warfield notes the mix of Reformed and Keswick/Higher Life type views in his famous critical review of Chafer's _He That is Spiritual_. At the risk of getting banned, I'll say that even _some_ of the material in the Scofield Bible is ok as far as it goes. Many of its sharpest critics admitted that. But of course, there can likewise be a lot of truth in works and teachings that are a lot worse than Scofieldism. 

With regard to Bonar, do you have any particular writing that looks Keswickian to you? I probably haven't read enough of him to come across that kind of thing. Even though it's a small book, I haven't read all of _God's Way of Holiness_, only cherry-picking the parts that were of most interest to me at the time.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 9, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Horatius Bonar and J.C. Ryle were premils; I don't know if they were influenced in their eschatology by the development of dispensationalism in that era.



It seems that a good many other Free Church ministers of that era were also premil, including A. Bonar, M'Cheyne, and perhaps most notably (in addition to H. Bonar), Alexander Keith. Many of these historic/covenant premils were noted by Oswald T. Allis in his _Prophecy and the Church_. Keith's book_ Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion derived from the Literal Fulfilment of Prophecy_ was very popular in the late 19th Century and went through many printings. Allis notes Keith's literalism with regard to the interpretation of OT prophecy and complains that not even that is literal enough for the dispensationalists. So Allis (who was decidedly amillennial) contrasts the two in his book which denounced dispensationalism. 

I don't know to what extent the Plymouth Brethren's dispensationalism had on those outside of their camp. During the 19th century in Britain my understanding is that dispensational teaching was largely confined to the Brethren. And it seems that the Brethren were largely a despised sect at that time. I think most of this was due to Darby's exclusivism, etc. Spurgeon's denunciation of the Brethren is perhaps representative of this negative view of them by other evangelicals, if I may use that term. But Spurgeon himself was decidedly premillennial. 

It seems that Darby's most fruitful field was in the USA, perhaps most of all in St. Louis. As I understand it, the St. Louis Presbyterian pastor, James H. Brookes, was among the first to adopt Darby's eschatological views. (Darby's eschatology was obviously much more popular with Presbyterians like Brookes than were his teachings on local church polity.) Then dispensationalism was spread through venues like the famous Niagara Bible Conference. Brooks was mentor to C.I. Scofield. 

As for Ryle, I recently acquired his _Are You Ready for the End of Time? (_originally published as _Coming Events and Present Duties_). In the beginning he notes several different views, including the timing of the rapture. He notes his abstention from giving an opinion on many things on which premillennialists differ (then and now) and his purpose to avoid conjecture:



> The student of prophecy will see at a glance that there are many subjects on which I abstain from giving an opinion. About the precise time when the present dispensation will end,about the manner in which the heathen will be converted, about the mode in which the Jews will be restored to their own land, about the burning up of the earth,about the first resurrection,about the rapture of the saints,about the distinction between the appearing and the coming of Christ,about the future siege
> of Jerusalem and the last tribulation of the Jews,about the binding of Satan before the millennium begins,about the duration of the millennium,about the loosing of Satan at the end of the thousand years,about the destruction of Gog and Magog,about the precise nature and position of the new Jerusalem,about all these things I purposely decline expressing any opinion. I could say something about them all, but it would be little better than conjecture. I am thankful that others have more light about them than I have. For myself, I feel unable at present to speak positively. If I have learned anything in studying prophecy, I think I have learned the wisdom of not "making haste" to decide what is true.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2012)

Chris, I had a little book of devotional selections from Horatius Bonar (no longer in my possession) some of which rubbed me the wrong way. Then I read Dabney on the theology of the Plymouth Brethren, and some of the reasons for that became more apparent. Bonar undoubtedly wrote some magnificent things, but I wonder (and that's all it is, just a wondering) if he didn't leave open a door by which worse views entered.

I don't think there's any rational ground for doubt that there was a lot of piety and some profit in the Plymouth Brethren - I think some board members, as well as some of my family members, have reason to be grateful for them. I find Scofield himself a little thin when he's right, quite off-putting when he's wrong, and not very engaging at the best of times.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 9, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Chris, I had a little book of devotional selections from Horatius Bonar (no longer in my possession) some of which rubbed me the wrong way. Then I read Dabney on the theology of the Plymouth Brethren, and some of the reasons for that became more apparent. Bonar undoubtedly wrote some magnificent things, but I wonder (and that's all it is, just a wondering) if he didn't leave open a door by which worse views entered.



So this means I don't need to cast Bonar's writings into the flames for this reason (not to mention his and Spurgeon's defense of Moody) and reckon him _outside the camp_? If you catch my drift...  




py3ak said:


> I don't think there's any rational ground for doubt that there was a lot of piety and some profit in the Plymouth Brethren - I think some board members, as well as some of my family members, have reason to be grateful for them. I find Scofield himself a little thin when he's right, quite off-putting when he's wrong, and not very engaging at the best of times.



I haven't much Brethren material, at least not early Brethren like Darby, William Kelly, F.W. Grant, C.H.M. and so on. (I did however once have William MacDonald's _Believer's Bible Commentary_, which to my recollection is not a bad one volume commentary if you take its orientation into account.) What you state with regard to the spirituality of the (Open) Brethren is often acknowledged by many of their detractors like Ladd and others. 

I have read a lot more of the men who differed with and separated from Darby, Benjamin Wills Newton in particular. He was such a voluminous writer that I've only scratched the surface. But what I have read has been worthwhile for the most part.

Your characterization of Scofield looks about right from what little I've read of him. Most of what is correct in the Scofield is, to my recollection, brief or thin as you say. For what it's worth he does not seem to have been prone to the worst extremes of his disciples with regard to sanctification being optional and so on. 

More to the point of this thread, I'll have to check the "Old Scofield". But the New Scofield has a series of notes on election, predestination and foreknowledge. While certainly not Calvinist, I would characterize the overall tenor as more Calvinistic than Arminian. (They are also confusing.) That being said, most non-Calvinists in my experience state that election is on the basis of foreknowledge. Yet the notes in that work assert that election cannot simply be dismissed in favor of foreknowledge. 

I'll also add that as a *system* the Scofield Bible might still be unsurpassed.  By system I don't mean system of doctrine of course. What I'm referring to is the helpful indices, the way the marginal notes interface with the study notes, making it easy to look up notes on various topics, etc. My guess is that this user-friendly aspect may well have been a considerable factor in its wide popularity early on. (On the other hand, it perhaps facilitates superficial study that might lead the uninitiated to accept the teaching uncritically. But there's that tendency with such works no matter how it is put together.) The other extreme is the MacArthur Study Bible, which I like in general. But apparently it was produced with the intention that the reader read every jot and tittle to learn what he has to say on any given subject. The first edition doesn't even have a concordance and no edition to my recollection has an index to the study notes. Perhaps size considerations were a factor in those pre-ESV Study Bible days.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2012)

I found great profit in some things Bonar said: I'd just recommend him with a caution, as with Dabney himself (though the cautions would be different, obviously).

I'm failing hard enough as it is in developing an acquaintance with the first 1700 years of Christian theology that I don't dare tackle too much else; but if you find any interesting connections in your dips into these areas I'd be glad to hear about them.


----------

