Historic Documents in
American Presbyterian History
1944 PCUS REPORT ON DISPENSATIONALISM
[Excerpted from the Minutes of the Eighty-Fourth
General Assembly (1944) of the Presbyterian Church, US, pages 123-127.]
|
APPENDIX |
123 |
. |
III.
REPORTS OF AD INTERIM COMMITTEES |
. |
1.
Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Changes in the Confession
of Faith and Catechisms
THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE TYPE OF BIBLE INTERPRETATION
KNOWN AS DISPENSATIONALISM IS IN HARMONY WITH THE CONFESSION OF
FAITH
The Ad Interim
Committee appointed by the Assembly to consider this question (Minutes,
1941, p. 60; 1943, p. 46) presents the following report.
Before calling
attention to certain doctrines which we believe to be out of accord
with the Standards of our Church, we desire to define the terms
DISPENSATION and DISPENSATIONALISM.
The word Dispensation
is used by both the Confession of Faith and by Dispensationalism.
Both systems use it in the sense of an administration
of some purpose or plan of God, but they differ on the question
of what is administered.
That which
is administered is made very plain in the Confession
of Faith (Ch. VII, Sec. 5-6), where, speaking of the Covenant of
Grace, we read, This covenant was differently administered
in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the
law it was administered by promises, prophecies, . . . Under the gospel, when Christ the substance, was exhibited,
the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching
of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism
and the Lords Supper; .
. . There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing
in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
Here it will
be seen that the administration of Gods purpose under the
law (the 0. T. dispensation) is stated to be different in form, as we know it was in organization and ceremony, from the administration
under the gospel (our own dispensation), but the point which the
Confession of Faith emphasizes is that these two dispensations do
not differ in substance, but there is only one and the
same Covenant of Grace to be administered under the various
dispensations. Students of the Reformed Faith |
. |
124 |
APPENDIX |
|
have
differed as to the number of dispensations into which we may properly
divide the dealing of God with man since the fall; but they have
all agreed, in accordance with our Confession of Faith, that these
various dispensations are all administrations of one and the
same Covenant of Grace.
The opposing viewpoint, on the other hand,
as presented by Dr. L. S. Chafer, is as follows: Since there
is so much in the Confession of Faith which is in no way related
to this discussion and which is the common belief of all, the issue
should yet be narrowed to the difference which obtains between Dispensationalism
and Covenantism. The latter is that form of theological speculation
which attempts to unify Gods entire program from Genesis to
Revelation under one supposed Covenant of Grace. That no such covenant
is either named or exhibited in the Bible and that the covenants
which are set forth in the Bible are so varied and diverse that
they preclude a one-covenant idea, evidently does not deter many
sincere men from adherence to the one-covenant theory. (Chafer, Bibliotheca Sacra, editorial on Dispensational Distinctions
Challenged, Vol. 100, No. 399, p. 338.)
Thus the various and diverse covenants are set over
against the one Covenant of Grace, i. e., one plan of
salvation, which is central to our Churchs view of the teaching
of the Bible. All acquainted with dispensational thought know what
Dispensationalists mean by their rejection of the Covenant of Grace;
they do not hold that God has one plan of salvation for all men,
but that He has had various and diverse plans for different groups.
(Chafer, Grace, p. 135.) Some of the chief points of divergence
will be pointed out below.
DISPENSATIONALISM, therefore, as shown
above, rejects the doctrine that God has, since the fall, but one
plan of salvation for all mankind and affirms that God
has been through the ages administering various and
diverse plans of salvation for various groups.
Such dispensational teaching is expounded by many in our day,
but we shall limit our quotations to the writings of two outstanding
exponents of Dispensationalism: Dr. C. I. Scofield (especially
as found in certain notes in the Scofield Reference Bible) and
Dr. L. S. Chafer, who has written extensively on this subject. They
both teach a dispensational view of Gods various and divergent
plans of salvation for various groups in different ages, although
they do not agree on all inferences which may be drawn from this
fundamental starting point. |
. |
I |
. |
THIS FUNDAMENTAL DIVERGENCE OF DISPENSATIONALISM
FROM THE COVENANT THEOLOGY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MANIFESTS
ITSELF IN MANY WAYS, SOME OF WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING:
A. The
Rejection of the Unity of Gods people.
1. The Confession of Faith clearly teaches
that God has one people who were brought into saving relation with
Him, some under the law, others under the gospel dispensation. The
Confession of Faith calls this one people of God The Church. (Confession of Faith, Ch. XXV, Sec. 2.) Whatever may be
the national destiny of the Jewish people, according to the Confession
of Faith their becoming a spiritual blessing to the world and to
the Church will be contingent upon their acceptance of Jesus as
the Messiah and thereby becoming a part of the Church.
2. Dispensationalism teaches that God has at least two distinct
peoples, namely, the Jewish Nation and the Christian Church. He
has distinctly different purposes for them, and each of these two
peoples is united to Him by various and diverse covenants quite
different in character. (Dispensationalism reprinted from Bibliotheca Sacra, No. 372, Vol. 93, p. 396 ff., esp. p.
448.) |
a |
|
APPENDIX |
125 |
a |
B.
The Rejection of One Way of Salvation.
1. The Confession of Faith teaches that
there is but one plan of salvationthat men are saved only
in Christ, by grace through faith. (Confession of Faith, Ch.
III, Sec. 5; VII, Sec. 3; VIII, Sec. 6; X, Sec. 1, 2, 4.)
2. Dispensationalism, magnifying the
distinction which is made between law and grace (which dispensationalists
hold to be mutually exclusiveChafer, Grace, p.
231 ff.), agrees that men are NOW saved by grace through faith,
but teaches that in other dispensations men have been saved by legal
obedience. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience
as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ . . . (Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1115; also
see Chafer, Dispensationalism, pp. 415-16; Grace, pp.
123, 124-126.) It also holds that after the present age of grace,
there will be a reversion in the kingdom age to an extreme system
of meritorious obligation. (Chafer, Dispensationalism, pp.
416, 440, 441, 443; Grace, p. 223.)
C. The Rejection of One Destiny for All
of Gods People.
1. The Confession of Faith teaches that
Gods people, the righteous, go into everlasting life (Confession of Faith, Ch. XXXIII, Sec. 2) which is also
spoken of as an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of
heaven. (Confession of Faith, Ch. VIII, Sec. 5.) The
wicked shall be cast into everlasting torment. Such is the final
destiny of the saved and the lost, and the Confession of Faith
nowhere suggests that the saved are divided into different and distinct
groups which will enjoy different blessings according to the purpose
of God.
2. Dispensationalism teaches that the
two groups of Gods people, the Jewish Nation and the Christian
Church, are entirely distinct bodies, and in the millennial kingdom
will enjoy different blessings, the Jews enjoying earthly and material
blessings, and the Church spiritual and heavenly blessings. Some
Dispensationalists, like Dr. Chafer, continue this distinction in
destiny into eternity, holding that in eternity there are three
groups: the lost in hell, the earthly people of God on earth forever,
and the Church, the heavenly people of God in heaven forever. (Dispensationalism, p. 448.)
D. The Rejection of the Bible as Gods
one Revelation to His One People.
1. The writers of the Confession of Faith
had not heard of the Dispensational method of rightly dividing
the word of truth for it was not taught in their day. However,
all acquainted with the view of the Reformed Church know that the
Church has held that God, who at sundry times and in divers
manners spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last
days spoken unto us by His Son. (Hebrews 1:12) The Confession
of Faith states that God has given His people (which the Confession
of Faith calls the Church) a unified and progressive revelation,
culminating in the revelation in Christ, and most clearly expressed
in the New Testament which was written under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit who led the Apostles to see the purpose of God in Christ. (Confession of Faith, Ch. I, Sec. 1, 2; VII, Sec. 6.)
2. Dispensationalism rejects both the
unity of Gods revelation and the fact that Gods purpose
is held forth with more fullness (Confession of Faith, Ch. VII, Sec. 6) in the New Testament than it is in the Old.
Dispensationalism holds that large portions even of the New Testament
are for the Jewish Nation, not for the Church. In speaking of the
Scriptures for the Church, Dr. Chafer says, The Scriptures
addressed specifically to this company are the Gospel by Johnespecially
the upper room discourse,the Acts and the Epistles. (Dispensationalism, pp. 406-07.) Dispensationalism declares
that the Sermon on the Mount is for the Jews of the Kingdom period,
and is law not grace. Scofield Reference Bible, pp.
989, 1230; Dispensationalism, p. 443.) The Lords Prayer
and the Great Commission are assigned by some to the Jews of the
tribulation period, and not to the Church. (Grace, pp. 174, 176, 179, 181.) |
a |
126 |
APPENDIX |
|
a |
II a |
THERE ARE ALSO DISPENSATIONAL DIVERGENCIES
FROM THE CONFESSIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE WORK OF THE EXALTED
CHRIST
A. The Confession of Faith speaks of the
kingly work of Christ and what is included in the exaltation of
Christ. A study, for example, of answers 26 and 28 of the Shorter
Catechism will show that Christ, sitting on the right
hand of God the Father, is now exercising His kingly function,
in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and
in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies. (It
should be noted that the Larger Gatechism, in answer to question
45, devotes twice as much space to His kingly as to the prophetic
and priestly work.)
The second function of the Exalted Christ taught by our Confession
of Faith is His coming to judge the world at the last day. This
judgment naturally is the climax of his victorious activity
in subduing all his and our enemies. All that then remains
will be the pronouncement of the final verdict.
B. Dispensationalism
rejects or minimizes the present kingly office of Christ, and deviates
from the conception of the Resurrection and Judgment, as set forth
in our Standards.
1. Dispensationalism
teaches that Christ is not now exercising His kingly power, but
is only Head of the Church. It reserves the kingly work of subduing
his and our enemies exclusively to the kingdom dispensation
which will follow his second advent. (Scofleld Reference Bible, note on p. 990.)
2. The
Confession of Faith speaks of the Resurrection as follows: At
the last day, such as are found alive shall not dies but be changed;
and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, .
. . (Confession
of Faith, Ch. XXXII,
paragraph II.) The Larger Catechism, in answer to question
88, states that Immediately after the resurrection shall follow
the general and final judgment of angels and men, . . . In dealing with the Judgment, the Confession of Faith
says, God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the
world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment
is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels
shall be judged; but likewise all persons, that have lived upon
the earth, shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an
account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according
to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. (Confession of Faith, Ch. XXXIII, paragraph I. See answers
to questions 85, 86, 87, 88 of Larger Catechism.)
Dispensationalism
teaches a series of resurrections and judgments, spaced over more
than a thousand years. It is the opinion of your Committee that
the above statement of the Confession of Faith does not admit of
a multiplicity of resurrections and judgments as taught by many
Dispensationalists.
CONCLUSION:
It is
the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism as
defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of
the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily
or simply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the
very heart of the Theology of our Church, which is unquestionably
a Theology of one Covenant of Grace. As Dr. Chafer clearly recognizes,
there are two schools of interpretation represented here, which
he rightly designates as Covenantism as over against
Dispensationalism. (Bibliotheca Sctcra, Vol.
100, No. 399, p. 338.)
In fact,
the divergence of Dispensationalism from the Covenant Theology of
our Church is so obvious to Dr. Chafer that he suggests a revision
of the Standards of the Church so as to make room for those who
no longer hold to the Reformed tradition of a Covenant Theology. (ibid., p. 345.) |
a |
|
APPENDIX |
127 |
a |
Inasmuch
as there is some difference of opinion concerning the status and
use of such a report, your Committee desires to state that it does
not understand that the Assembly instructed it to provide a statement
of doctrine which shall be a substitute for, or an amendment to,
any doctrinal statements contained in the Constitution of the Church
or any part thereof. Nor does it understand that this report, if
approved by the Assembly, is to be regarded as an amendment to ordination
vows of ministers, ruling elders, or deacons. It is simply an interpretative
statement which may be used by the Presbyteries as they deem wise.
Your
Committee wishes also to make the following statement of clarification:
Most,
if not all, adherents to the type of Dispensationalism dealt with
in this report hold the Premillennial view of our Lords return;
but not all Premillennialists accept this form of Dispensationalism.
Therefore, the Committee wishes to make it clear that it has endeavored
solely to consider the particular type of Biblical interpretation
defined above, and known as Dispensationalism and that it understood
the assignment of the Assembly to limit it to this task. In view
of this fact, this report should not be considered as in any sense
a criticism of Premillennialism as such. |
a |
|
Respectfully
submitted,
F. B. GEAR, Chairman
J. E. BEAR
L. NELSON BELL
J. B. GREEN
J. P. MCCALLIE
E. W. MCLAURIN
SAMUEL H. SIBLEY |
|
|
Back to the Table of Contents of Documents of Synod
©PCA Historical Center, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO, 2018. All Rights Reserved. |