John S. Fe<strong>in</strong>berg, “<strong>Salvation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong>” Tradition and <strong>Testament</strong>. Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Charles LeeFe<strong>in</strong>berg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.Consequently, we can say that ei<strong>the</strong>r figures of speech or nonfigurative language may be<strong>in</strong>terpreted figuratively or literally. Recogniz<strong>in</strong>g that language conta<strong>in</strong>s figures of speech does not<strong>in</strong>dicate that an exegete <strong>in</strong>terprets figuratively.The keys to determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g whe<strong>the</strong>r or not one is a dispensationalist rest <strong>in</strong> hermeneutical,ecclesiological, and eschatological issues, not soteriology. Obviously, <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction betweenIsrael and <strong>the</strong> church is of crucial import for both eschatology and ecclesiology. I do not,however, see any soteriological position that is <strong>in</strong>herent to and thus necessitated bydispensationalism. Thus, <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r dispensationalism necessitates a multiplemethods of salvation view, or a s<strong>in</strong>gle way of salvation position is irrelevant. Soteriology is not<strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ative area for dispensationalism. For example, if one consistently dist<strong>in</strong>guishesbetween Israel and <strong>the</strong> church and applies that dist<strong>in</strong>ction throughout his ecclesiology andeschatology, will he be forced to hold any particular view on <strong>the</strong> methods of salvation issue? Itwould seem that dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g between Israel and <strong>the</strong> church could fit ei<strong>the</strong>r a s<strong>in</strong>gle or multiplemethod view. One could, without contradict<strong>in</strong>g his system, claim that God has <strong>in</strong> general twoseparate programs for <strong>the</strong> two dist<strong>in</strong>ct groups. But He saves both groups by one method ofsalvation. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, one could also claim, without contradict<strong>in</strong>g his own position, thatGod not only works with two separate groups, but that He saves <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> different ways.Concern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> glory of God issue, it would seem that <strong>the</strong> notion of God’s purpose ultimatelybe<strong>in</strong>g His glory fits with ei<strong>the</strong>r view. One way of salvation for all will br<strong>in</strong>g glory to God. But<strong>the</strong>n multiple ways would not have to br<strong>in</strong>g God disgrace.Notice that at this po<strong>in</strong>t I am not speak<strong>in</strong>g about what Scripture actually teaches. My concern isto focus on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic ideas of dispensationalism and to ask what a dispensationalist could holdwithout contradict<strong>in</strong>g his position, even if Scripture does not teach someth<strong>in</strong>g that he could hold.As for <strong>the</strong> matter of hermeneutics, it should also be obvious that literal hermeneutics, as I havedescribed <strong>the</strong>m, would lead one to hold multiple ways of salvation, if Scripture, <strong>in</strong>terpretedliterally, demanded such. Such hermeneutics would lead one to hold a s<strong>in</strong>gle way of salvation, ifScripture, <strong>in</strong>terpreted literally, demanded such. As a result, I must reiterate that <strong>the</strong>re is noth<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic to dispensationalism’s hermeneutics that necessitates ei<strong>the</strong>r a s<strong>in</strong>gle or multiple methodsview. I know <strong>the</strong>re are critics of dispensationalism who would disagree, but I th<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong>y arereact<strong>in</strong>g to what <strong>the</strong>y th<strong>in</strong>k dispensationalists hold, ra<strong>the</strong>r than to <strong>the</strong> logic of <strong>the</strong> system itself.The po<strong>in</strong>t is that nei<strong>the</strong>r a dis-[p.49]pensationalist’s hermeneutics nor any doctr<strong>in</strong>al views he has ga<strong>in</strong>ed from exegesis of Scripturecommit him to hold<strong>in</strong>g a multiple or s<strong>in</strong>gle method view of salvation. Before <strong>the</strong>dispensationalist does a detailed study of <strong>the</strong> text of Scripture, it is not <strong>in</strong>evitable that he willcome to any particular view on <strong>the</strong> method of salvation.In <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g discussion, we demonstrated to be <strong>in</strong>valid <strong>the</strong> charge that a dispensationalistmust hold one or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r view regard<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>in</strong>gle or multiple methods of salvation. However, thatdoes not answer <strong>the</strong> question of what a dispensationalist should hold. Obviously, what he shouldhold is whatever Scripture actually teaches, regardless of what positions could be made to fit withhis system. That be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> case, what should he hold? Given what Scripture actually says, it
John S. Fe<strong>in</strong>berg, “<strong>Salvation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong>” Tradition and <strong>Testament</strong>. Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Charles LeeFe<strong>in</strong>berg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.would seem that a dispensationalist should hold to multiple methods of salvation if and only ifScripture, when <strong>in</strong>terpreted accord<strong>in</strong>g to literal hermeneutics as <strong>the</strong> dispensationalist understandssuch, teaches such a view. In view of <strong>the</strong> comments <strong>in</strong> Galatians 3:11 about <strong>the</strong> law, and <strong>in</strong> viewof Hebrews 11, which teaches that <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> sa<strong>in</strong>ts were saved by faith, it would seem that adispensationalist should not hold that more than one method of salvation is taught <strong>in</strong> Scripture.Of course, <strong>the</strong> dispensationalist may be <strong>in</strong>consistent <strong>in</strong> his hermeneutics, and <strong>in</strong> that case amultiple methods view would be understandable (but wrong). However, if he <strong>in</strong>terprets Scriptureby <strong>the</strong> method his system tells him to use, <strong>the</strong>n he will not <strong>in</strong> fact hold to multiple methods ofsalvation. Happily, most dispensationalists, for whatever reason, do hold that only one way ofsalvation is taught <strong>in</strong> Scripture. To that view I also subscribe.Hav<strong>in</strong>g come to this po<strong>in</strong>t, we have <strong>in</strong>deed accomplished much. We have established that (1) it is<strong>the</strong> consensus of both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists that Scripture teaches only onemethod of salvation, that (2) dispensationalism as a system, contrary to <strong>the</strong> views of some, doesnot necessitate multiple methods of salvation, even though it could fit such a position, that (3)dispensationalism also fits with a s<strong>in</strong>gle method of salvation view, and that (4) adispensationalist, to be consistent with his foundational pr<strong>in</strong>ciple, should hold that only onemethod of salvation is taught <strong>in</strong> Scripture.But what is that one method of salvation? There are many differ<strong>in</strong>g op<strong>in</strong>ions on that subject. Thedisagreement does not lie <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> matter of whe<strong>the</strong>r salvation is by faith or works.Dispensationalists and nondispensationalists agree that it is by faith. Hebrews 11 lists <strong>the</strong> great<strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong> heroes of <strong>the</strong> faith and <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>the</strong>y were saved by faith. Moreover, as onestudies <strong>the</strong> list, it becomes obvious that those <strong>in</strong>cluded represent different stages <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> progressof God’s revelation concern<strong>in</strong>g himself and His plan of salvation. Both dispensational andnondispensa-[p.50]tional <strong>in</strong>terpreters agree that <strong>in</strong> all ages God had graciously required of man faith, not works.Oehler states <strong>the</strong> matter nicely when he writes:The law, by always po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g back to God’s elect<strong>in</strong>g grace, and onward to God’s justretribution, as <strong>the</strong> foundation of <strong>the</strong> righteousness of <strong>the</strong> law, presupposes faith, i.e. such atrust<strong>in</strong>g submission to <strong>the</strong> covenant God as was exhibited <strong>in</strong> Abraham’s believ<strong>in</strong>g adherenceto <strong>the</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e promise. This is <strong>in</strong> conformity with that fundamental declaration, Gen. xv. 6,“He believed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness”.... Accord<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>the</strong>requirement of faith runs through <strong>the</strong> entire <strong>Old</strong> <strong>Testament</strong>. The lead<strong>in</strong>g of Israel, from <strong>the</strong>time of its deliverance out of Egypt, Ex. iv. 31, xiv. 31, comp. especially Deut. i. 32, ix. 23,and many o<strong>the</strong>r passages, rests entirely on faith. But <strong>in</strong> proportion as its Div<strong>in</strong>e electionseemed to human apprehension thwarted, and <strong>the</strong> promise of redemption forfeited, by <strong>the</strong>apostasy of <strong>the</strong> nation and <strong>the</strong> judgments <strong>the</strong>reby <strong>in</strong>curred, <strong>the</strong> more emphatically is it assertedhow all-important faith was, as <strong>the</strong> root of all righteousness, and <strong>the</strong> condition on which <strong>the</strong>bless<strong>in</strong>g was to be obta<strong>in</strong>ed. 13Faith, <strong>the</strong>n, is recognized by all as requisite for salvation. But faith <strong>in</strong> what or whom? At thispo<strong>in</strong>t op<strong>in</strong>ions diverge. That divergence does not fall neatly along <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es of dispensationalism
- Page 3: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 6: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 11 and 12: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 13 and 14: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 15 and 16: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 17 and 18: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 19 and 20: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 21 and 22: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 23 and 24: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 25 and 26: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 27 and 28: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 29 and 30: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t
- Page 31 and 32: John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in t