I do not wish to model my practice of history after the practice of science by theistic evolutionists. The newly appointed Director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, essentially subsumes Scripture beneath science. Whenever the two appear to conflict he is quick to back the interpretation of the mainstream scientific community.

So I feel stuck between a rock (an essentially secular approach to history) and a hard place (simplistic, Whiggish Christian narratives). I suppose I would be more likely to integrate Scripture into history when explaining historical actions rather than in judging historical causes. For example, a Christian historian can adopt a condemnatory tone toward the lies of Richard Nixon without using historical events to judge the man. I do not believe that the lesson to be learned from Watergate is that “Nixon reaped what he sowed.” He sinned, and we can point that out, but his punishment is in God’s hands, not ours. We should not interpret (or twist!) historic events to punish vice and reward virtue.

If we (Christians) cannot integrate faith and learning, then we’ve failed in the dominion mandate (from Creation). That’s my short answer to the that question. I am working on a longer answer. That, though, is the start of my answer to the other questions as well. (Austin’s first sentence is exactly right. Well said!!)

I don’t mean to “define” a fundamentalist philosophy of history as dispensational, just to “describe” it as dispensational. In this post I’m attempting to describe generally the fundamentalist philosophy of history, not to say that fundamentalists necessarily were (or necessarily must be) dispensationalist.

I make several generalizations in this post, and of course some are more certain than others. For example, I generalize that fundamentalists make a large role for the supernatural in their philosophy of history. I think that’s a generalization that’s virtually certain. On the other hand, I generalize that fundamentalists are premillennial and dispensationalist. This is a generalization that can only be made with big caveats. As Paul and I have both remarked, there were (and are) many fundamentalists who are postmillennial. And even among premillennial fundamentalists, there are many who are not dispensationalists.

So why, then, did I choose to generalize that fundamentalists are dispensationalists? From a purely academic perspective, premillennialism is a very strong influence on fundamentalism. I daresay that the majority of fundamentalists have been premillennialists. Certainly the BJU creed is deliberately ambiguous on this point. However, that creed was written in the 1920s. Since that point, most fundamentalists have become more definitive in their adherence to dispensationalism. Again, that’s a generalization, and not a particularly nuanced one.

But my second reason for describing fundamentalists as dispensationalist is more personal. That is the strain of fundamentalism that has particularly influenced me. So, since the aim of this post is lay the groundwork for describing my own philosophy of history, I choose to focus on that part of fundamentalism.

In short, this post is descriptive, not normative. I’m describing what fundamentalists (in general) are like, not what they should be like. Over the next couple weeks as we lay out our personal philosophies of history, I suspect that you and I will mostly agree. We look forward to interacting with you about that as well.

As a believer in “The Fundamentals” I can certainly ascribe to the first point of supernaturalism. I would add to that God’s sovereignty in history. My personal philosophy of history would also include both redemptive and covenantal aspects of God’s dealing with man.