I began to question the dispensational system during my fifth year as a student in the Th.M. program at Dallas Theological Seminary. Up until that time, I had had a somewhat unquestioning faith in the teaching of my Dallas professors. I knew so little and they were so knowledgeable and respected that questioning their teaching seemed presumptuous. Then, through the influence of my seminary friend Herb Swanson, who had then recently graduated from Dallas, I began reading Reformed literature on Calvinism. Thank you, Herb! Through this reading, I came to disagree with a good bit of what I had been taught at Dallas regarding salvation. Although I continued to value much of the instruction I had received at Dallas, I came to view some of the theological instruction as shallow and inaccurate. I then, naturally enough, came to the point where I wanted to reevaluate my commitment to dispensationalism. What was discouraging was the great difficulty in finding anyone who could show me Biblical passages that related to the basic issues at stake. I finally found the help I then needed in a dissertation by William Everett Bell, Jr. entitled "A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology." This work is a much broader criticism of dispensationalism than the title would suggest. Dr. Bell, a Dallas graduate, wrote this while pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at New York University. Thank you, Dr. Bell! Ironically, the summer before my last year at Dallas, I had publicly challenged Dr. Bell at a Southern Baptist Sunday school class when Dr. Bell had criticized Dr. Ryrie's teachings on "Savior only" salvation.
I hope this book that has grown out of my own continuing study will help the Reformed pastor when someone comes to him and says, "Show me from Scripture why I should not be a dispensationalist. Show me from Scripture why I should accept Reformed or covenant theology."
I offer the following suggestions on dealing with the open-minded inquirer with a dispensational background:
- Center your arguments on the teachings of specific Scriptures. Dispensationalists are sometimes taught that Reformed interpreters superimpose a rationalistic theological system onto Scripture that distorts its true message. Dispensationalists will probably be more open to arguments taken directly from the exegesis of specific passages than to general theological arguments.
- Deal with the foundational issues of the unity of God's people in Christ and the continuity of God's program. Don't get sidetracked on peripheral issues such as the definition of a dispensation or the pre-tribulation rapture.
- Be content with arguing against dispensationalism in general and for Reformed theology in general. Don't feel that you also need immediately to convince the inquirer of your particular convictions on secondary prophetic issues.
- Don't begin with arguments about the proper interpretation of genuinely difficult passages such as Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy, or Ezekiel's temple vision, or the man of sin passage, or the book of Revelation. I do not believe anyone could have convinced me to reject the dispensational interpretation of Daniel's seventy weeks vision until I had first begun to doubt the dispensational system in general and the parenthesis theory in particular. I had been well drilled in the dispensational understanding of Daniel 9 but had never really noticed or given thought to most of the clear New Testament passages on unity and continuity.
- Be careful not to overstate your case. Acknowledge that there is a real newness to the New Testament church, that the word Israel does often refer to the physical Jews in the New Testament, that the prophets in Ephesians 2:20 are New Testament prophets, and so on.
- State your case with prayerful compassion and patience. Don't present your case with arrogance and emotion or with an "I'm right and your position is ridiculous" attitude. Sow the seeds of truth and leave the rest to the Lord of the harvest.
- Know the basics of the dispensational system well and be able to document them if necessary. Some who today call themselves dispensationalists are very emotionally attached to that system but have done little actual research on the basics of the system. They would prefer not to believe the facts about what traditional dispensational teachers have taught.
I also would like to list what I consider to be the really objectionable teachings associated with dispensationalism. There are other dispensational teachings with which I disagree, but I do not view them as foundational and basic. The following are the dispensational teachings that I personally regard as especially objectionable:
The purpose of this list is not to stereotype all dispensationalists. These are objectionable beliefs from the perspective of Reformed theology, and these are beliefs that have been taught by leading dispensational theologians as basic elements in that system. If there are Christians today who think of themselves as dispensationalists and who disagree with some of the above listed beliefs, then I am thankful that they do disagree with at least some of these. What a person actually believes is more important than how he classifies himself theologically. Such people, however, should be challenged to think through their total theological systems. A person should accept with consistency all the implications of the basic dispensational presuppositions or else reject the basic dispensational presuppositions as invalid impositions upon Scripture.
- The belief that Old Testament salvation was not through faith in the coming Christ. The Reformed position is not, as it has been misrepresented on occasion, that the Old Testament saints understood as much about Christ and the Gospel as we do today. The Reformed position is that the object of saving faith in the Old Testament was the same as the object of saving faith in the New Testament, although admittedly the Old Testament saint had much less knowledge of Christ. He saw dimly through the Messianic prophecies and types. The object of faith has not changed through the dispensations; the degree of knowledge of the object has.
- The belief that the Old Testament saint had a salvation that did not include union with Christ and that the Old Testament saints in eternity will not be members of the Body and Bride of Christ. Reformed theology does recognize that the New Testament era is an era of greater grace and spiritual fullness to the point that Scripture can contrast the New and Old Testament ages as light compared to darkness. This is not to say that the Old Testament was so lacking in grace that Old Testament salvation did not involve covenant union with Christ and the covenant headship of Christ.
- The belief that there is a strong dichotomy of nature between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant in that one is unconditional and the other conditional. Related to this would be the dispensational teaching that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer are legal ground and thus not directly applicable to the Christian. Reformed theology views the Mosaic covenant as basically a nationally expanded version of the Abrahamic covenant, and its moral law elements are regarded as still valid. Since moral law is merely the expression of God's holiness as it relates to created reality, God's moral law can no more be invalidated than can God's holiness (cf. Matthew 5:17-20). There can be, and are, adjustments in the realm of case law and ceremonial law since case law is a time-bound, situation-specific application of moral law and ceremonial law is positive law.
- The belief that the New Testament era is a parenthesis in the prophetic program for Israel to the point that no Old Testament prophecy can directly refer to the church age.
- The conviction that the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 are primarily Jewish covenants that can relate to the Christian only in a secondary and indirect sense at most.
- The belief that Christ's present reign at the right hand of the Father has no direct relationship to the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and the Messianic kingdom prophecies.
- The belief that there is no organic relationship of continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. Reformed interpreters believe that the Christian church, and not the theological heirs of Phariseeism, are the true present heirs of the Old Testament covenants and kingdom promises.
I would like to conclude with some suggestions as to why dispensationalism has been so popular among Bible believing American Christians in modern times. I know that I was a sincere student of God's Word when I was a dispensationalist, and I have no reason to doubt that this is true of dispensationalists in general. And yet dispensationalism so plainly contradicts the teachings of Scripture. Why do they continue to adhere to this system? I would suggest the following possible reasons.
First, many dispensationalists have never been exposed to the weaknesses of their system. I attended a dispensational seminary for four years without becoming aware that there were any significant weaknesses in the dispensational system. I was so confident in dispensationalism that I saw no need for wasting my time reading any unsympathetic critiques of the system. When I finally was exposed to some of these weaknesses, I had no answers.
Second, many dispensationalists have not consistently thought through the implications of their system's foundational assumptions. How many who accept the dispensational dichotomy theory realize that this theory, if applied consistently, excludes the Old Testament saints from the Body and Bride of Christ? How many realize the implications of this theory concerning the federal headship of Christ in Old Testament salvation? How many who accept the parenthesis theory realize that this theory, if applied consistently, denies any direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in the church age?
Third, many have been attracted to dispensationalism because some dispensational predictions have seemingly materialized in the modern world. The rise of Russia, the establishment of the Israeli state, the formation of the European Common Market, the development of the World Council of Churches, and the growth of apostasy in the mainline denominations all fit in well with the dispensational end time scenario. This apparent spectacular modern day confirmation of the ancient Biblical prophecies is attractive to many sincere Christians because of its apparent apologetic value.
Fourth, the pessimism of dispensationalism explains the current world problems and also effectively relieves the Christian of his responsibility to work toward discipling the nations in this age. We are today facing the repercussions of the age of reason in which man was philosophically elevated and God was dismissed as a myth. This philosophical rebellion spawned the atheistic social scientists who have gained control over much of the world. There is presently a major ideological war to the death between Christianity and atheistic humanism. At a time such as this, it is convenient for the Christian to be eschatologically pessimistic. If the church is responsible for discipling the nations for Christ, then we have an awesome task on our hands. Wouldn't it be much more convenient to believe that the church age was prophesied to be a failure and that all the Christian can hope to accomplish today is to snatch a few souls from the fire? It is convenient to think that things are inevitably going to get worse and that there is little we can do except wait to be raptured out of the situation. But we need to remember that the same Christ who commanded us to disciple the nations also assured us that He now has all authority in heaven and on earth and that He will be with us till the end of the age. Those who believe that Christ must be bodily present before the kingdom of God can have any victories ought to take a lesson from the centurion with great faith (Matthew 8:5-13). We must live by faith and not appearance. We must not despise the day of small things. The mountains before the church will be cast into the sea. The gates of hell will not prevail against the onslaught of the church. He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world. The mustard seed of God's kingdom will in this age become the greatest plant in the field of this world.
Fifth, we are approaching the year 2000. While this millennial date approaches, there will naturally be much prophetic speculation just as there was when the year 1000 approached a millennium ago. In such an atmosphere, dispensationalism, with its direct identification of prophecy with current events, will have a popular appeal.
Sixth, dispensationalism appeals to some philosophical biases. As we have noted, dispensationalism is pessimistic, and pessimism conforms to the existential spirit of our age. Also, there are some striking parallels between empirical philosophy and dispensationalism. They both prefer literal, precise language over figurative poetic expression. They both emphasize the diversity of truth, seeing each truth as a self-sufficient, encapsulated entity to the point of neglecting the organic unity of truth. British empiricism compared truths to billiard balls and rejected the concept that truths are related organically like a blossom is related to fruit. Similarly, dispensationalists reject the idea that the Old and New Testaments are related like a bud is related to a blossom. British empiricists also emphasized individual autonomous freedom, and a similar emphasis can be seen in the teaching of those dispensationalists who say that the Christian today is not under law in any sense. Dispensationalism is individualistic in its pessimistic attitude toward the organized church and in its relegation of kingdom truths, with their social implications, to a future age.
George M. Marsden has pointed out that dispensationalism developed in the nineteenth century when the empiricism of Francis Bacon was philosophically popular in America. Mr. Marsden made the following observations:
The parallels between dispensational and empirical thought are striking.To whatever degree dispensationalists consciously considered themselves Baconians (it is rare to find reflections on philosophical first principles), this closely describes the assumptions of virtually all of them. They were absolutely convinced that all they were doing was taking the hard facts of Scripture, carefully arranging and classifying them, and thus discovering the clear patterns which Scripture revealed.1
The role of the interpreter, according to the same Baconian assumptions, was not to impose hypotheses or theories, but to reach conclusions on the basis of careful classification and generalization alone. This disposition to divide and classify everything is one of the most striking and characteristic traits of dispensationalism.2
Dispensationalist leaders regarded these methods of dividing and classifying as the only scientific ones. Scofield, for example, contrasted his work to previous "unscientific systems." Similarly, Reuben Torrey regarded ideas basically as things to be sorted out and arranged. One of his major works, What the Bible Teaches (1898), is an incredibly dry five-hundred-page compilation of thousands of Biblical "propositions" supported by proof texts. The closest analogy would be to an encyclopedia or dictionary. Torrey explicitly defended this utter lack of style or elegance. "Beauty and impressiveness," he said in the preface, "must always yield to precision and clearness." As usual, his model was the scientist. Torrey depicted his work as "simply an attempt at a careful unbiased, systematic, thorough-going, inductive study and statement of Bible truth. ... The methods of modern science are applied to Bible study -- thorough analysis followed by careful synthesis."
Induction had to start with the hard facts, and dispensationalists insisted that the only proper way to interpret Scripture was in "the literal sense," unless the text or the context absolutely demanded otherwise.3
My prayer is that Bible believing dispensationalists will prayerfully reconsider their commitment to that system and prayerfully analyze the reasons for their commitment to it. I have been through the process, and I know that it is painful. Giving up familiar beliefs and seeking new answers is not easy. Our ultimate loyalty, however, should not be to any system. It should be to Jesus Christ, for He is the Truth. And the Truth will make us free.
End Notes
1 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), page 56. 2 Ibid., page 59. 3 Ibid., page 60.