A controversy among orthodox theologians over dispensational distinctions is not new. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) "There is, perhaps, no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ" (Edward's Works, I, 100). But this discussion, as is often the case, has suffered much for want of definition.The word dispensation is twofold in its (1) It may refer to a dispensing or an administration or (2) to an abrogation of standards or existing laws -- such are the dispensations practiced by the Church of Rome. It is obvious that the controversy among theologians is concerned only with the former. The word dispensation is Latin in its origin, being derived from dispensation -- economical management or superintendence -- and has its equivalent in the Greek _oikonomia, meaning, in this specific usage, 'stewardship' or 'economy' as to special features of divine government in the various ages. To quote the Century Dictionary bearing on the theological import of the "(a) The method or scheme by which God has at different times developed his purpose, and revealed himself to man; or the body of privileges bestowed, and duties and responsibilities enjoined, in connection with that scheme or method of as the Old or Jewish dispensation; the New Gospel dispensation. (b) A period marked by a particular development of the divine purpose and as the patriarchal dispensation (lasting from Adam to Moses); the Mosaic dispensation (from Moses to Christ); the Christian dispensation." The Century Dictionary also quotes one pertinent sentence from Bibliotheca Sacra of sixty-two years "The limits of certain dispensational periods were revealed in Scripture" (XLV, 237). In the light of this material, the definition advanced by the late Dr. C.I. Scofield (Scofield Reference Bible, p. 5), namely, "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God," is hardly entitled to the criticism which is aimed against it.
Lewis Sperry Chafer was an evangelist and educator, founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary (originally Evangelical Theological College), and an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism and vehement opponent of covenant theology.
I went back and forth on my star rating for this book. Although it is a concise and accessible description of what Dispensationalists believe, the author almost acts like he doesn’t understand any of the opposing side. The 22 questions posed in the second to last chapter had me throwing my hands up in frustration. They seemed presented as if in hopes that the reader wouldn’t know any better and wouldn’t look for a second opinion. All quotes from opposing viewpoints are from one author and often dismissed quickly.
I went into this study as a nondispensationalist and can honestly say that I am no closer to holding to it than I was before. That is the sign that his position was stated clearly. Some of the material legitimately made me angry. I did not like it. I wanted to travel back in time to Chafer’s day and say, “Listen here buddy…,” but I can’t do that. Some material made me wish I was at the end so I could go ahead and slap my big, fat finger down on that 1 star as fast as I could. And if you’ll notice, I didn’t do that.
Why would I? I actually found myself several times thinking, “Amen!” I found myself with more excitement about the gospel because of the words of Chafer. After all, he was a brother. He was a brother with a different view than me. And it isn’t like that is just “okay” or that it doesn’t matter. It just means that we do need to bring our disagreements back to the most important thing: Christ.
Really enjoyed all the scripture to verify his views on dispensation and covenants in the Bible. I read as much work as I can of Chafer and this is another good read.
Though I adhere to the view of dispensational premillennialism, I really wasn't impressed by this title. Perhaps it was just the dated nature of the work.