7 Beliefs that Don't Define Dispensationalism

Readers of this blog may be curious as to what makes someone a dispensationalist. Simply put, dispensationalism is a set of doctrinal beliefs that deal with hermeneutics (how to read Scripture), ecclesiology (how the church operates), and eschatology (what the end times look like). Hence, a dispensationalist holds a distinctive set of beliefs about understanding Scripture, the role and function of the church, and about the end times.

I have written elsewhere about how one can define dispensationalism, but in this post I want to highlight seven fundamentally errant beliefs that are sometimes associated with dispensationalism. These are charges that are often leveled against dispensationalism in a variety of circles. I have listed them in their accusatory forms.

Dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation.

Unfortunately, this myth is often repeated, but has no basis in reality. Some people accuse dispensationalists of believing OT saints were saved by keeping the Law while NT saints are saved by grace through faith. I am actually unaware of any dispensationalists that teach this. John Feinberg, a dispensationalist, wrote an excellent article about this issue, illustrating that belief in multiple ways of salvation is not a dispensational tenet.

Dispensationalism teaches a different view of regeneration.

Interestingly, R.C. Sproul is one individual who has used this accusation (see 44–45 min into this video). This is surprising since he is good friends with John MacArthur, a dispensationalist who definitely does not hold to a different view of regeneration. Further, although Sproul says that dispensationalists think that the Holy Spirit can come into someone’s life without changing it, MacArthur (and many other dispensationalists) do not teach that. This is actually an example of what I noted at the beginning of this post—dispensationalism is a system of hermeneutics which leads to a set of beliefs about the church and the end times. Hence, those are the main issues which are inherent to dispensationalism. As far as I’m aware of, most of my dispensational friends hold to reformed views of regeneration.

Dispensationalism is inherently antinomian.

In the same video clip cited above, Sproul mentions this critique of dispensationalism (see at 45 min). Although some dispensationalists may indeed be antinomian, that does not mean the system inherently embraces that position because—as stated before—dispensationalism is concerned about hermeneutics, the church, and the end times. Many of my dispensational friends even hold to the Reformed tripartite view (moral, civil, ceremonial) of the Law, although I personally disagree with the three fold division of the Law.

Dispensationalism teaches trichotomy.

In an audio clip (which I was unable to find), I remember listening to R. C. Sproul talk about the problems he had with dispensationalism. He said one of the major problems he had with dispensationalists is that they teach the viewpoint called trichotomy, the view that humans are comprised of three parts—body, soul, and spirit (most people hold to dichotomy, that the body is comprised of two parts—body, and soul/spirit). Although it may be possible that some dispensationalists teach trichotomy, I am not aware of any, and neither is it integral to the dispensational system.

Side note: although I was unable to find the recording, I was able to find Vlach’s comments on the same recording here.

Dispensationalism is inherently Arminian.

You are no doubt sick of me saying this, but dispensationalism is not a system which has integral views of soteriology. In light of this, a dispensationalist could hypothetically be either a Calvinist or an Arminian with regard to the doctrines of salvation. That doesn’t mean dispensationalists don’t care about the issue (most are quite passionate about soteriology). It just means that when someone says they are dispensational, that is not addressing their view of soteriology.

Dispensationalism teaches non-lordship salvation.

Lordship salvation is somewhat related to the previous complaint about regeneration. Although there are dispensationalists who do reject lordship salvation, again, it is not inherent to the system. John MacArthur, a noted dispensationalist, has written books clarifying his view of lordship salvation.

Dispensationalism inherently consists of seven dispensations.

I actually was taught seven dispensations in a Sunday School class while I was growing up, but as I got older I read more dispensationalists and realized that many didn’t even mention seven dispensations. Hence, the only thing that is inherently dispensational is the belief that God works in different ways in different times (but don’t all Christians believe that?).

Conclusion

Dispensationalism may not be popular in certain Reformed circles, but we need to make sure the record is clear—these issues are not to be leveled against dispensationalists. The issues listed above have nothing inherently to do with dispensationalism. Next post we will look at what issues are inherently linked with dispensationalism.

photo credit: Leo Reynolds number 7 via photopin (license)

andrew troyer

July 17, 2022 at 5:57 pm Reply

Unfortunately with Dispensationalism there are many flavors and what Classical Dispensationalism teaches is in many ways not what either Revised or Progressive Dispensationalism hold to. So it can be hard to pin down it’s teaching. Referring to Ryrie would obviously ignore many of the ideas from Classical or Progressive Dispensationalism. As an example… in the first Scofield Bible it is taught in John 1 that people are saved in different ways when referring to Old Covenant vs New Covenant believers. Later in the “new” Scofield Bible this was completely removed and revised. Some dispensationalists (many classical I’ve talked to) hold to the idea of 2 people of God (earthly OT/Millennial believers) who will reside in a “new earth” physical kingdom while new covenant believers will be a “heavenly people of God” in a way the division between these 2 different groups and purposes are fundamental. Many in this group have clearly told me that during the Millennium 1000 earthly kingdom where the Old Covenant and the Jews will “pick things back up” will have a 1) physical Temple 2) back to the Aaron priesthood 3) animal sacrifices again that are viewed as mere types/shadows of the true lamb of God in the new covenant, etc. Does this group represent Revised or new Progressive Dispensationism we find at the moment… I would say they do not. But to completely dismiss these “original ideas” as if they never represented Dispensationalism is not honest either. We dare not hold to a more recent version of this group and pretend no other groups exist within Dispensationalism. I do agree with your comments where men such as Sproul tends to “generalize” and make all groups say the same thing. Yes there are Dispensationalists who hold to 7 dispensations but not all do. So I think we need to say 1) there is a plethora of ideas within Dispensationalism 2) Just because certain ideas are not popular at the moment we dare not minimize them as if Dispensationalism never believed them. But again I understand your frustration with Sproul on this… unfortunately (though I love the guy) he does tend to use straw men at times to demonize an alternative position.

2 Comments

andrew troyer

July 17, 2022 at 5:57 pm Reply

Unfortunately with Dispensationalism there are many flavors and what Classical Dispensationalism teaches is in many ways not what either Revised or Progressive Dispensationalism hold to. So it can be hard to pin down it’s teaching. Referring to Ryrie would obviously ignore many of the ideas from Classical or Progressive Dispensationalism. As an example… in the first Scofield Bible it is taught in John 1 that people are saved in different ways when referring to Old Covenant vs New Covenant believers. Later in the “new” Scofield Bible this was completely removed and revised. Some dispensationalists (many classical I’ve talked to) hold to the idea of 2 people of God (earthly OT/Millennial believers) who will reside in a “new earth” physical kingdom while new covenant believers will be a “heavenly people of God” in a way the division between these 2 different groups and purposes are fundamental. Many in this group have clearly told me that during the Millennium 1000 earthly kingdom where the Old Covenant and the Jews will “pick things back up” will have a 1) physical Temple 2) back to the Aaron priesthood 3) animal sacrifices again that are viewed as mere types/shadows of the true lamb of God in the new covenant, etc. Does this group represent Revised or new Progressive Dispensationism we find at the moment… I would say they do not. But to completely dismiss these “original ideas” as if they never represented Dispensationalism is not honest either. We dare not hold to a more recent version of this group and pretend no other groups exist within Dispensationalism. I do agree with your comments where men such as Sproul tends to “generalize” and make all groups say the same thing. Yes there are Dispensationalists who hold to 7 dispensations but not all do. So I think we need to say 1) there is a plethora of ideas within Dispensationalism 2) Just because certain ideas are not popular at the moment we dare not minimize them as if Dispensationalism never believed them. But again I understand your frustration with Sproul on this… unfortunately (though I love the guy) he does tend to use straw men at times to demonize an alternative position.
Peter Goeman

May 11, 2017 at 3:48 pm Reply

After writing this article, I became aware of a post that illustrates the necessity of people being clear about this: https://calvarychapel.com/resources/article/view/pitfalls-of-dispensationalism/

Notice that the author of this article uses straw man arguments that are not part of dispensationalism.

7 Beliefs that Don’t Define Dispensationalism