Understanding Dispensationalism
September 11th, 2008
(By Matt Waymeyer)
I want to recommend to you a fantastic book that I just read on the subject of dispensationalism. But first a little personal history: Back in 1994 I was attending a Presbyterian church in Orlando, taking a Greek class at Reformed Theological Seminary, and beginning to appreciate all things reformed. At the time, I was also thinking seriously about going to seminary full time. I had narrowed it down to either Westminster Theological Seminary or The Master’s Seminary, and I was having a difficult time deciding between the two.
The main problem is that I had never studied the issue of covenant theology vs. dispensationalism. To get me started, one of my covenantal friends suggested two books, one to help me understand covenant theology and the other to help me understand dispensationalism. The first book was O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants, which is widely regarded as a classic presentation of covenant theology. A very good recommendation. The other book, unfortunately, was John Gerstner’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a diatribe against dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. Not such a good recommendation. [For an excellent review of Gerstner’s book, see Dr. Richard Mayhue’s article in The Master’s Seminary Journal.]
As I began reading Gerstner, I realized pretty quickly that the dispensationalism he was critiquing was certainly not the kind of dispensationalism that TMS president John MacArthur advocated. Gerstner seemed to equate dispensationalism with Arminianism and easy-believism, and since MacArthur was the one who had grounded me in a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God and the Lordship of Christ, I was pretty sure this book wasn’t going to help me decide where to go to seminary. In fact, Gerstner’s book did more to confuse my understanding of dispensationalism than to clarify it. Eventually I found books and articles that were more helpful, but the process was a long and difficult one, and Gerstner was definitely an ill-advised place for me to start my theological journey.
Why am I telling you this? Because I just finished a book I wish I could have read 14 years ago when I was first studying this issue. That book is Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by Dr. Michael J. Vlach (Theological Studies Press, 2008), and it is unsurpassed in terms of clearly setting forth the core elements of dispensational theology. In this book, Vlach, an Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master’s Seminary, brings a rare level of simplicity and clarity to a very difficult and complex subject. If you are seeking to understand dispensationalism, this is absolutely the place to begin.
The format of the book is simple enough. In the introduction, Vlach describes how common misrepresentations of dispensationalism have created the need to define clearly the essential beliefs of this theological system. As Vlach explains, his goal in writing was to meet this need:
This book is not an attempt to delve deeply into every issue related to dispensationalism. Nor is it written to iron out in detail all the points of difference between variations within dispensationalism . . . . Instead, I am looking to give the reader a basic introduction to the foundational beliefs of dispensational theology so a better understanding of this theology can occur (p. 4).
In the first chapter, Vlach provides a brief history of the theology of dispensationalism, focusing on three key periods: (1) Classical Dispensationalism (1800s to 1940s), (2) Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (1950-1985), and Progressive Dispensationalism (1986 to the present). This is a helpful overview of the development of dispensationalism over the past 150 years, and unfortunately one that is often missing from these kinds of discussions. As Vlach observes later in the book, “when reading some critiques of dispensationalism, one gets the impression that dspensational thought was frozen by 1950” (p. 53).
The nucleus of the book is found in chapter 3, where Vlach sets forth six essential beliefs that are at the heart of dispensationalism. As Vlach explains:
By “essential” I mean foundational beliefs of dispensationalism that are central and unique to the system, beliefs upon which the system stands or falls. These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a nondispensationalist (p. 18).
The primary strength of this chapter is how Vlach is able to distinguish clearly between core essentials of dispensationalism and possible applications of the system. In contrast, most critiques of dispensational theology focus on the latter to the virtual exclusion of the former. To whet your appetite, the first essential belief concerns the nature and implications of progressive revelation: “Progressive revelation from the New Testament does not interpret or reinterpret Old Testament passages in a way that changes or cancels the original meaning of the Old Testament writers as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics” (p. 18).
In chapter 3 Vlach exposes five common myths about dispensational theology which are often promoted by non-dispensationalists, a breath of fresh air for those of us who have grown weary from all the caricatures and straw men. As Vlach explains, many of these myths flow out of the erroneous assumption that dispensationalism is inherently linked to soteriology. Put simply, being dispensational doesn’t mean you believe in multiple ways of salvation; it doesn’t mean that you are Arminian, antinomian, or non-lordship in your theology; and it doesn’t require that you affirm the seven dispensations often associated with classical dispensationalism. According to Vlach, “Those studying dispensationalism should focus on the real issues and avoid such myths” (p. 49).
The final chapter contains a series of questions that Vlach is often asked about the issue and the debate surrounding it. My favorite part of this chapter was his response to the charge that dispensationalism should be rejected since it is a relatively new theological system which was not formalized until the 18th century. According to Vlach, several key elements of dispensational thought were held by the early church, and therefore the early church was closer to dispensationalism than it was to covenant theology. Furthermore, says Vlach, if someone rejects dispensationalism simply because it is new, then he should also reject covenant theology which did not start to take recognizable form until the 17th century (and therefore is not that much older than dispensationalism). As Vlach notes, the better approach is to “focus on whether any system of theology is biblical or not and no so much on when it started” (p. 55).
In the end, regardless of where you land on the spectrum of continuity vs. discontinuity—and regardless of whether you consider yourself a dispensationalist, a covenant theologian, or something in between—if you have a desire to understand the core essentials of what dispensationalism is all about, this book is a must-read. If only Dr. Vlach had written it 14 years ago!
I enjoyed your review and the enthusiasm with which you so thoroughly described the essential points. It definately makes me want to read the book.
Thank you.
It sounds like a good book to put on my reading list. However, MacArthur and Master’s hardly reflect typical dispensational theology, as JM himself admits.
I have been waiting for a book that would define the essentials from my brethren at TMS. Being a layman who has little access if any to Elders or Theologicaly minded men, this I will put on my future shopping list.
I find myself trapped between Covenant and dispensational theologies and see errors on both extreme sides but have found much similarity when stickimng strictly to Scripture as that which defines true theology.
I just so happen to agree with John MacArthur and I also agree with men like R.C Sproul… I do not know that is possible, but I do…with one exclusion of course and that is the role of Church traditions…therefore I am more Johnny Mac minded.
That said I have heard many of my Reformed Baptist brethren seem to indicate that any lean toward dispensationalism could be seen as a herectical view… This is quite difficult for me as I find myslf agreeing with R.C Sproul on much what he teaches in “What is Reformed Theology?” regarding Covenants…
Either way, when I ask the questions of what is Covenant theology v Dispensational theology’s differences, it seems most Elders are rather reserved about saying anything further to help clarify the other system in relation to the one they ascribe to…
Therefore I look forward to obtaining this book in the future… I just hope that it will be widely available, as here in the UK it is hard to come by what is “made in America”.
Thank you for raising the topic and recommeding this resource from a brother at TMS.
Still a 5 point Doctrine of Graces, Lordship of Christ, Cessationist… Sola Scriptura! Sola Gratia!
;-)
Oh before I foget: On Bible Bullitin Board there is a good short Q&A answer from Pastor MacArthur as to where he stand RE: Dispensationalism and it’s extent:
If there is any concerns about Dispensationalism that flows out of this, I link this conversation with Pastor John MacArthur who describes himself as “a leaky dispensationlist”. I would fall into that same category of a BIBLICALLY VERY LIMITED dispensational view, albeit that I am Covenantal and Reformed for the greater part:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm
I hope this makes sense…
I know it seems yet another Paradox in action
Thanks. Another book I feel compelled to purchase.
Great review of what looks to be a very interesting book. Thanks for sharing your journey.
Matt,
You have certainly roused my interest! But, I am wondering, since there are other books that have covered similar ground (There Really Is A Difference by Renald Showers or Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded by Charles Ryrie) what sets this book apart from them?
I know MacArthur/Vlach and Ryrie are at opposite ends of the Lordship issue. But Ryrie, like MacArthur and Vlach, understands that dispensationalism doesn’t link to soteriology either.
I would appreciate your comments.
Jon Denney
Jon,
Great question. I’m short on time, but let me just say briefly that Vlach’s book sets aside the possible applications of the system and gets at the core essentials of dispensationalism in way that Ryrie and Showers fail to do. In this way, it is very similar to John Feinberg’s chapter “Systems of Discontinuity” in the book Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Crossway, 1988). I love Feinberg’s chapter, but I think Vlach brings even more clarity to the issue.
Shortly after I read Gerstner in 1994, I read Renald Showers’ book, There Really Is a Difference, which you alluded to above. In the main chapters in which Showers defines dispensational theology, he presents the seven dispensations and explains how each of them involves the test, failure, and judgment of mankind. His whole discussion leaves the impression that this framework is an essential of dispensationalism, but Vlach explains in his book that it is not. The one who rejects Showers’ framework (I remember thinking it was more than a bit forced at places when I first read it) may conclude that he is therefore rejecting dispensationalism itself, but that is not necessarily the case.
Ryrie, as you know, sets forth three essentials of dispensationalism—(1) a belief in the distinction between Israel and the church, (2) a literal approach to hermeneutics, and (3) the belief that God ultimate purpose in this world is His own glory. Although the No. 1 is certainly an essential of dispensationalism, Vlach points out that Nos. 2 and 3 are overly simplistic and fail to get at the real differences between dispsensationalism and covenant theology. Regarding No. 2, the hermeneutical difference between dispensationalists and covenantalists is not simply a matter of “literal” versus “spiritual” interpretation, but has more to with how one views the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (and specifically which, if either, is given priority over the other in the hermeneutical process). Regarding No. 3, what covenant theologian would deny that God’s ultimate purpose in this world is to display His glory? As Vlach explains, the real issue is that dispensationalists are more holistic in their understanding of God’s kingdom purposes than non-dispensationalists because they emphasize the full fulfillment of both the spiritual and physical promises of the biblical covenants.
In the end, Vlach’s discussion of the issues is much more carefully nuanced and therefore much more helpful to those who are trying to get to the heart of the matter.
Is it possible that neither Covenantalism nor Dispensationalism is completely correct?
Unfortunately, I don’t find many adherents willing to reform their system, most seem to spend their time defending and/or critiquing the other. By ‘reform’ I mean that the person is willing to look at their system, even the basic assumptions, if needed, to determine if it is really in line with Scripture. I have read many books by both Covenantal and Dispensational authors, and have found points, where at least to my understanding, the author had to ‘force’ Scripture to fit his/her system. It appeared, to me that instead of letting Scripture reform his/her understanding (i.e. system) on this point Scripture was molded to fit the system.
Lest you think that I am coming from some strange background, (since I mention problems with both systems) let me give you a brief history. I’ve attended Southern Baptist churches until about 6 years ago. These would have been predominately Dispensationalist. Most of the teaching/preaching, along with the books I read, would have come from a Dispensational perspective. As I studied Scripture over the years, usually from a Dispensational perspective, I still found points where the teaching of Scripture did not seem to support the traditional Dispensational understanding. However, I found that if you questioned some of these assumptions, then you might as well declare yourself to be lost or backslidden.
From my study of Scripture, I long ago began to hold to the doctrines of grace, even without knowing about ‘Reformed’ theology. About 13 years ago, I ‘discovered’ Reformed writers and began to read books by people such as Sproul, Hodges, Hoekema and others. The ‘doctrines of grace’ (i.e. Calvinism) was, and is, not widely held or looked on with favor in most Southern Baptist churches, so, although I still had some points with Covenantal Theology (and the 1689 Baptist Confession), with which I didn’t agree, (and also driven by the advent of the seeker-sensitive church paradigm) I attended an independent Reformed Baptist church for several years. I found that the ‘Reformed’ are not willing to reform either. Why reform when you have it all right, seems to be the attitude. You either agree with the particular Confession (and inherent Covenantalism) or you are, at the least, in error, or as William said, ‘leaning toward a heretical view’ (antinomian!).
Although there are points in both Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies with which I agree, I have come to the firm conviction that neither is totally biblical (supported by the over-all teaching of Scripture). We must all continue to strive to allow Scripture to reform our understanding and theology.
Michael C.
I agree with much of what you said. We need not be system driven in our approach to Scripture, but rather we need to let Scripture shape our theology. With that said, I think that what you will find within dispensationalism and progression of doctrine as Scripture has become clearer. Dispensationalism of 50 years ago is different than it is today. You’ll find growth in the way various texts of Scripture are understood and integrated into a larger understanding of Scripture. I think above all, dispensationalists have shown a willingness to modify their position. Consider the presence of the three forms of dispensationalism Matt refers to above. There is Classical, Revised, and Progressive dispensationalism. In my opinion this shows a willingness to jetison that which is unbiblical, or at minimum, it shows a teachability and willingness to be Bible-driven and not system driven.
On the other hand, as Vlach points out in his book, there is a set of issues that all dispensationalists would agree with, not because they are precommitted to their system, but because of the teaching of Scripture.
I think you are right in your observation of more creed-driven denominations. It seems that too much authority is given to the creed and questioning it is frowned upon.
Whether or not dispensational or covenantal theology as a system is Biblical or not, I’ll leave to your own study. However, the non-negotiables laid out in Vlach’s book are critical issues that will cause you to land on one side of the camp more than the other. Those are the issues you must come to a firm conviction on. If you agree with Vlach, then you land more in the dispensational camp than the covenantal camp. I would recommend Vlach’s book and also Robert Saucy’s “The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism.”
My concern with Covenant Theology is that, when it is all said and done, it makes God a liar. The teaching that God replaced Israel with the church does exactly that. Why should anyone trust God today if He has proven Himself not to be trustworthy in the past? That is what Covenant Theology gives us. This is the result of a non-literal understanding of Scripture - it says “Israel” but it means “church.” Thus Replacement Theology is an assult on God’s Word.
The same is true regarding Calvinism - a non-literal understanding of Scripture - it says “all” but it doesn’t mean that, just like it says “world” but it means elect.
What does Covenant Theology and Calvinism have in common? They are two system based on the principle that God doesn’t mean what He says.
Massimo,
True, I have not read any of the works of the Progressive Dispensationalists, and you may be right, that there is more willingness to question and ‘reform’ on the Dispensational side. When and where this is true, I applaud, and I will read the books you’ve suggested.
Thanks for the review!
As someone who totally likes the writing of both covenant theologians and dispensational theologians on topics outside of eschatology, would it be alright to simply say:
“Jesus will return. I’m to live my life to glorify and honor Him. And I will obey the 2 Greatest Commandments and the Great Commission.”
I.e., I’m relegating the Doctrine of Final Things to second-order doctrinal status. Okay or not okay?
Truth unites ,
I agree. We can spend so much time on eschatology until we forget about reaching the lost and gloriying God through daily obedience to His will. Also , so much of what is being written and is taught is sensational and gets people so focused on end times until we forget the souls that are not ready for death or the return of the Lord.
Quoting Vlach: “These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a nondispensationalist (p. 18).”
Michael C: “Although there are points in both Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies with which I agree, I have come to the firm conviction that neither is totally biblical”
I’ve reached the same conclusion. I find each system lacking in its relating Israel to the church. I don’t see the church replacing Israel, nor do I see them as different peoples so that there is yet to be another Israel. I see one tree in Romans 11, Israel. The tree was Israel before Christ. Unbelieving branches were broken off, but not all of them. Wild branches (Gentile converts, like you and me!) were grafted in. Into the tree Israel. I think we are part of Israel. Future Jewish converts will be grafted back into the same tree Israel. All God’s people are Israel. That is why Gentile believers are true Jews. I see the church as simply an assembly of God’s people - a functional subset of God’s people Israel. So I think God’s promises can still be fulfilled to Israel - us.
Eschatology is a logical conclusion of one’s own beliefs. I think Dispensationalism has given us some wacky eschatology, while Covenant Theology gives us almost none at all. The next 100 years should be interesting as these theologies reform and develop, or maybe disappear.
There is too emphasis on dispensational systems without ever answering the fundamental question: What does the BIBLE say is a dispensaton? How did the Apostle Paul use the Greek word translated “dispensaton” in the KJV 1611 or “steward” in later versions? Hint: It has nothing to do with periods of time.
For all of those who are saying “neither dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology,” I also echo the sentiment. The work I’ve found that best steers a middle ground is John Reisinger’s “Abraham’s Four Seeds.”
http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Abrahams_Four_Seeds_menu.html
Reisinger is a New Covenant theologian, although I would not identify myself as a New Covenant theologian because I don’t agree with the NCT view of the law, which is what they are most known (and criticized) for.
Dr. Vlach has shown a reasonable and steady hand in his dispensational perspective. My mentor, a four point Calvinist, was asked once why he believes the Bible to be the Word of God. His reply, “The Jews.” Nothing explains their continued existence in this deeply antisemitic world. It seems that this answer is Biblical and rational. Also, it seems that dispensationalism is the most consistently literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Interpreting everything literally except for eschatological passages is inconsistent and ignores much good work the reformers did in their more solid approach to studying the Bible. God Bless Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al. They had bigger fish to fry when they battled the established church. Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Vlach have done an excellent job in merging the deep doctrines of grace and truth with a consistent literal interpretive approach to all of scripture.
God Bless,
Chris J.
I just received Dr. Vlach’s book a couple of days ago and read it the same day. I agree with Matt’s opinion of it. As someone who has recently moved from a Reformed paedobaptist position to a baptistic one, I am keenly interested in issues of continuity and discontinity between the two testaments. In my opinion this book is quite helpful in surveying the history of dispensational thought, establishing the foundational beliefs of dispensationalism as well as dispelling common myths about it.
“Continuity and Discontinuity” edited by John S. Feinberg is a book that I have been wanting for several months. Given the number of times that Dr. Vlach references it in this short book, I am more anxious than ever to obtain it.