Dispensationalism vs. Biblicism

Yes, it is arguably incongruent to be both a biblicist (in the sense of insisting that if a word or explicit command is not in the Bible, then the concept cannot be affirmed) and a dispensationalist (in the sense of insisting that all Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally, despite the Bible not explicitly mandating such a hermeneutical principle).

Here’s why these positions can conflict:

---

The Biblicist Approach

Biblicism, as defined here, insists on strict adherence to the explicit wording of Scripture, rejecting concepts, terms, or theological frameworks that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. A biblicist might reject doctrines such as the Trinity or the hypostatic union if taken to the extreme, because these terms and their precise formulations are not explicitly found in Scripture, even though the concepts are clearly taught through careful exegesis.

---

Dispensationalism’s Hermeneutical Assumptions

Dispensationalism relies on a set of hermeneutical principles that are not explicitly taught in Scripture, such as:

• A Literal Hermeneutic: Dispensationalists assert that all prophecies, particularly those related to Israel, must be interpreted literally unless the text explicitly indicates otherwise.
• A Distinction Between Israel and the Church: This key dispensational principle is not explicitly taught in the Bible but is derived from their interpretation of various texts.
• A Future, Literal Fulfillment of Promises to Israel: Dispensationalists insist that Old Testament promises to Israel (e.g., the land, the Davidic throne) must be fulfilled physically and nationally, even though the New Testament often reinterprets these promises as fulfilled spiritually in Christ and the Church (e.g., Acts 2:29-36, Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 11:10-16).

These principles are developed through an interpretive framework that is inferred rather than directly commanded or described in Scripture.

---

The Incongruence

The tension arises because a biblicist framework rejects inferences that go beyond what is explicitly stated in Scripture, yet dispensationalism itself depends heavily on inferred principles. For example:

• Literal Hermeneutic: The Bible nowhere states that all Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally. Dispensationalists infer this based on examples of prophecies that were literally fulfilled (e.g., Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9). However, the New Testament often shows a typological or spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15, Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17), undermining the universal applicability of a strictly literal approach.
• Distinction Between Israel and the Church: The Bible never explicitly teaches that Israel and the Church are separate peoples of God with distinct destinies. In fact, passages like Romans 11, Galatians 3:28-29, and Ephesians 2:11-22 emphasize the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ.

---

Reformed Perspective on the Issue

From a Reformed theological perspective, the Bible itself provides the framework for interpreting prophecy. The New Testament reveals how Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in Christ, often in a way that transcends their immediate historical or literal context. For example:

• Jesus and the Law: Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets, not by merely adhering to their literal terms but by embodying their ultimate purpose (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27).
• The Davidic Throne: Peter interprets God’s promise to David (2 Samuel 7:12-13) as fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation to God’s right hand (Acts 2:29-36).
• The Land Promise: Hebrews 11:10-16 indicates that the patriarchs understood the land promise as pointing to a heavenly country, not merely an earthly territory.

This Christ-centered, typological approach contrasts with the dispensational insistence on strict literalism, which the Bible itself does not mandate.

---

Conclusion

While dispensationalism and biblicism both claim a commitment to Scripture, their principles can conflict. Dispensationalism requires adopting interpretive assumptions that are not explicitly taught in the Bible, which is inconsistent with a strict biblicist stance. This incongruence highlights the need for a hermeneutic that aligns with the Bible’s own interpretive methods, as demonstrated by Jesus and the apostles. Reformed theology provides such a framework, emphasizing the unity of Scripture and its fulfillment in Christ.