Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths: Revised and Updated

by Michael J. Vlach

salvific equality does not rule out functional distinctions is seen in other examples in Scripture. For example, according to Galatians 3:28 men and women share equally in salvation blessings but the Bible still teaches that men and women have different roles (see 1 Tim. 2:9–15). Thus, in the case of men and women, salvific unity does not nullify functional distinctions. The same is true for elders and non-elders in a church. Both are equal in essence and share the same spiritual blessings, but elders have a distinct role in the plan of God (see Heb. 13:17). The same distinction could be made between parents and children or even the Trinity itself in which there is equality of essence among the three members of the Godhead yet functional distinctions within this oneness. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, yet they are distinct in person and function. Thus, equality in essence and spiritual blessings does not nullify all distinctions.

functional distinctions for Israel are related to the future and not the present. It is only when God saves and restores national Israel and Jesus begins to rule the nations at His second coming (see Rev. 19:15) that Israel will have a special role of leadership and service to the nations that also are the people of God (see Amos 9:11–12).

So the modern state of Israel is not functionally distinct from other nations today?

The nation Israel will be both saved and restored with a unique functional role in a future earthly millennial kingdom. This point has not often been clarified well by dispensationalists,

a fair number of non-dispensationalists, including many postmillennialists and some amillennialists, believe in a literal salvation of many ethnic Israelites based on Paul’s words in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel will be saved.”

What distinguishes all dispensationalists, however, is belief in a restoration of Israel. The concept of restoration certainly includes the idea of salvation for Israel, but it goes beyond that. “Restoration” involves the idea of Israel being reinstalled as a nation, in her land, with a specific identity and role of service to the nations.

there is a difference between saying Israel will be saved into the church, and saying the nation Israel will saved and restored with a unique identity and role to other nations in an earthly millennium. Dispensationalists affirm the latter.

Part of the reason for a restoration of national Israel is because Jesus the Messiah is going to rule over literal nations at His return (Rev. 19:15).

Israel will be one of these nations.

According to Isaiah 49:3–6 Jesus is the ultimate Servant of Israel who restores the nation Israel and brings blessings to Gentiles. Many non-dispensationalists think Jesus’ identity as true Israel means the end of national Israel’s significance in God’s purposes, but the opposite is the case. Jesus is the corporate head of Israel who saves and restores the nation Israel.

There are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham,” thus the church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to the believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.”

Some non-dispensationalists have argued that since Gentiles are “sons” and “descendants” (or “seed”) of Abraham they must also be spiritual Jews.76 Dispensationalists, however, have contested this understanding. They have done so by challenging the idea that being a “son” or “seed” of Abraham automatically makes one a Jew. Saucy, for example, asserts that Abraham’s fatherhood goes beyond being the father of ethnic Israel since the patriarch trusted God before he was circumcised:

the intent of the Abrahamic covenant was to bless the Gentiles through Abraham and Israel. Its goal was never to make believing Gentiles part of Israel.

Dispensationalists point out that the concept of “seed of Abraham” is used in several different ways in the New Testament, and that context determines which meaning is in mind. Fruchtenbaum, for example, lists four senses of “seed of Abraham.” First, he says it can refer to those who are biological descendants of Abraham.79 Second, it can refer to the Messiah, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). 80 Third, Fruchtenbaum says it can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Isa 41:8 with Rom 9:6). 81 Fourth, it can be used in a spiritual sense for believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:29). 82 It is in this last sense—the spiritual sense—that believing Gentiles are the seed of Abraham.

Dispensationalism is primarily concerned with the doctrines ecclesiology (church) and eschatology (end times).

A distinction, though, must be made between what individual dispensationalists hold to and what dispensationalism as a system is based upon. Not heeding this distinction is the fundamental error of those who link dispensationalism with certain soteriological views. They are, as Feinberg puts it, “reacting to what they think dispensationalists hold rather than to the logic of the system itself.”92

Myth 1: Dispensationalism Teaches Multiple Ways of Salvation

Ryrie asserted that earlier dispensationalists, including Scofield, did not teach multiple ways of salvation. They made “unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today’s debate.”100

This sounds like a cover for the reality that some Dispensationalists, even prominent ones, implied or even taught multiple ways of salvation. Scofield’s note in question was not a mistake.

Both Mathison and Gerstner deny a connection between dispensationalism and Calvinism, but they do not logically show why.

Myth 3: Dispensationalism Is Inherently Tied to Antinomianism

Gerstner is correct that some dispensationalists have separated justification from sanctification. And this is unfortunate.

we are not denying that some dispensationalists may have antinomian tendencies (although we know of no dispensationalist who actually advocates lawless living). We deny, though, that dispensationalism itself is inherently antinomian. A system that is primarily concerned with ecclesiology and eschatology cannot necessarily lead to antinomianism.

although most dispensationalists claim that Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law, they do not assert that Christians are without any law.

Many dispensationalists believe that Christians today are under a new law—the Law of Christ, in which the moral laws of God are communicated.

Myth 4: Dispensationalism Leads to Non-lordship Salvation

Clearly, some dispensationalists hold to a non-lordship view of salvation or have non-lordship tendencies.

Dispensationalists even challenge whether the more extreme non-lordship view of some dispensationalists is even historically related to dispensationalism. Saucy, for example, claims, “The radical non-lordship position of some contemporary dispensationalists, denying the need in salvation of a ‘faith that works’ based on James 2:14–26, has never been a part of traditional or classical dispensationalism.”149

How can such a claim be sustained when such a leading proponent of Dispensationalism as Chafer held to the non-Lordship view? Is such a view necessarily held by Dispensationalists? No, clearly not. But, there is something in the system that can lend itself to non-Lordship views. This cannot be wished away.

Myth 5: Dispensationalism Is Primarily about Seven Dispensations

While affirming that salvation is always by grace through faith alone, dispensationalists have often tried to identify the various ways God has worked in history, noting that there are several dispensations in redemptive history. One explicit example is the Mosaic dispensation between Moses and Jesus when the Mosaic Law was operative for the people of Israel. This was followed by the era of the church in Christ, characterized by Holy Spirit indwelling and freedom from the Mosaic Law. The difference between the two eras is seen in John 1:17: “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” With Ephesians 1:10 Paul speaks of a future kingdom era when he says, “with a view to an administration [oikonomia] suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth.” So there are different and identifiable eras in the unfolding of history. Four are clearly evident although more than four certainly exist—(1) Adam to Moses; (2) Moses to Christ (i.e. Law); (3) Christ’s first coming to His second coming (i.e. the church), and (4) Jesus’ kingdom after His second coming.

Dispensationalism is not primarily about believing in dispensations or believing in seven dispensations.

I get that not all Dispensationalists hold to seven dispensations, but how can belief in the concept of dispensations not be essential to Dispensationalism?!? It’s in the very name!!

believing in dispensations cannot be a distinguishing characteristic of dispensationalism since all Christians believe in dispensations, and Christians before the rise of dispensationalism affirmed various dispensations in God’s purposes. What Christian does not believe there is a dispensational difference between the pre-fall and post-fall world? Who does not acknowledge that the present age is different from the coming new heaven and new earth?

Feinberg is also correct that, “Defining the term ‘dispensation’ no more defines the essence of Dispensationalism than defining the term ‘covenant’ explains the essence of Covenant Theology.”

I do not affirm a strict “test-failure-judgment” criteria for determining a dispensation, which was often a part of earlier dispensationalism. This seems too narrow and overly focused on man’s failures in history without properly taking into account the progress God is making in history.

a dispensation is a noticeable era when God administers and deals with His creation in a unique way.

Definition of dispensation

A distinction needs to be made between what certain dispensationalists believe and what is inherent to the system.

This is one of the biggest contentions of this book

“One of the greatest misunderstandings is an assumption that there is a single ‘dispensational interpretation’ of every passage.”

“Continuity,” in this context, refers to a connection or carryover of an Old Testament idea or concept into the New Testament.

“Discontinuity” refers to a change or disconnect between the Old Testament and New Testament.

Most theologians acknowledge that God’s purposes include various elements of continuity and discontinuity. How much of each is heavily debated.

the very important and helpful book, Continuity and Discontinuity, edited by John S. Feinberg,

While the New Testament adds details to the Bible’s storyline it does not change the story. It does not alter the trajectory of what came before. Dispensationalists believe the covenants, promises, and prophecies of the Old Testament are and will be fulfilled literally through the two comings of Jesus.

While affirming the importance of spiritual realities such as salvation, forgiveness, new heart, and indwelling Holy Spirit, dispensationalists do not believe physical realities are spiritualized or transcended with the coming of Jesus and the New Testament era. This contrasts with non-dispensational systems which often see the New Testament as transcending, transforming, transposing, or spiritualizing the message of the Old Testament.