Dispensational Divisions and Dissention

Charles C. Ryrie, a "mainstream" dispensationalist and author of the recently revised and expanded Dispensationalism, [1995, Moody Press] devouts a chapter to dissecting ultra-dispensationalists, also known as hyper-dispensationalists:

[I]t is necessary to distinguish the mainstream of dispensationalism from ultra-dispensationalism... [They] are related in some ways, but [the primary distinction] is the difference over when the church, the Body of Christ, began historically... this difference... affects the important matter of the ordinances, the relevance of the epistles, and the interpretation of the Gospels.

Virtually all ultradispensationalists, of whatever school, agree that [the Church] did not begin at Pentecost. All dispensationalists agree that it did.

In terms of church ordinances, for example, all ultradispensationalists agree that water baptism is not for this age. The mid-Acts dispensationalists hold that the Lord's supper is a proper observance, while the end-of-Acts dispensationalists do not (since it's not referenced in Paul's prison epistles).

In attempting to refute ultra-dispensationalism, Ryrie makes much of the fact that revelation was not to Paul alone; but since Acts 10 and 11 makes it clear that Peter and others were bluntly informed, I can only agree with Ryrie (who's quoting Sauer) that Paul was "the chief herald of the gospel to the peoples of the world". Ryrie also finds mentions of "the church" and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in early Acts compelling; I find these important to the Jewish, Law-abiding church beginning to fulfil the prophesies of Joel (e.g., Acts 2:16), but not relevant until Acts 10 and 13 show how the Holy Spirit adds me as a non-Jew unto the church through faith. In summary, the various dispensational arguments for when Church Age started are:

Matthew 27
because of the Cross (proponent: Peter Ruckman)
Acts 2
because the Holy Spirit was manifested, and began to add "unto the church" in Acts 2:47 (proponent: Ryrie)
Acts 9
because of Paul's conversion (proponent: Cornelius Stam)
Acts 13
because Paul says "we turn to the Gentiles" in Acts 13:46 (proponent: J.C. O'Hair)
Acts 28
because (presumably) Israel is wholely set aside (proponent: Ethelbert W. Bullinger, 1837-1913)
Clearly, I agree with Acts 13, because that's when Paul addresses Jew and Gentiles, and proclaims that the Law of Moses cannot justify (both pretty nervy in the middle of a synagogue), but faith in Christ does (tying neatly in with the "Roman Road" of Salvation.) It is Paul who reveals the Cross and Blood of Christ as our rallying point of our salvation; the Cross was, before Paul, a railing accusation against the Jews for crucifying their Messiah. This distinctive is recognized even by theologians such as William Barclay, although he does little beyond remarking on it.

The Book Back to the Bible rootpage.

Updated May 13, 1997