The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry holds unabashedly to Dispensationalism—the theological system, derived from a consistent application of literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics to the text of Scripture, which holds that Israel and the church are distinct programs in God’s overarching plan for the ages. Dispensationalists don’t believe that God’s promises to Israel should be spiritualized and transferred to the church, and they tend to emphasize the conviction that God still has a future plan in store for His ancient covenant people (Israel).

Although Dispensationalism has been a great blessing to many Christians, it has also attracted its share of critics and detractors. Over the years, I’ve noticed that many of the criticisms most frequently and loudly leveled against Dispensationalism are really reactions against misconceptions or misrepresentations of Dispensationalism. This article will explore just a few of the misconceptions of Dispensationalism that I have most commonly encountered.

Dispensationalists don’t believe that God’s promises to Israel should be spiritualized and transferred to the church, and they tend to emphasize the conviction that God still has a future plan in store for His ancient covenant people (Israel).

‘Dispensationalism Teaches Two Ways of Salvation’

Because dispensationalists distinguish Israel and the church, many going so far as to label Old Testament Israel as the “dispensation of Law” and the New Testament church as the “dispensation of grace,” some have concluded that Dispensationalism teaches two different ways of salvation—with Old Testament Israelites being saved by works, and New Testament Christians being saved by grace through faith. In fairness, it should be noted that some older dispensational writers inadvertently encouraged this misconception by using imprecise or badly worded language to describe the Law/grace distinction. (The footnote on John 1:16 in the original Scofield Reference Bible is a noteworthy case in point.)

But despite the existence of a few poorly worded statements by older writers, Dispensationalism has never actually taught two ways of salvation. On the contrary, from the time of theologian John Nelson Darby (who is credited with systematizing and spreading Dispensationalism in the 1800s) until today, dispensationalists have overwhelmingly taught that salvation can only be received by grace through faith, and that that has been true in every dispensation. Dr. Charles Ryrie’s explanation is a good representation of the dispensationalist perspective on this question: “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”¹

Dispensationalists have overwhelmingly taught that salvation can only be received by grace through faith, and that that has been true in every dispensation.

‘Dispensationalism Is Too New to Be True’

Critics of Dispensationalism often point to the system’s relative recency to undermine its legitimacy. After all, the system was not formulated until Darby arrived on the scene in the 19th century. This objection assumes that any theological system of such comparatively recent vintage must surely be suspect.

In responding to this misconception, it should first be mentioned that the argument is usually made very selectively. I’ve noticed that those who object to Dispensationalism on the grounds of recency are themselves oftentimes advocates of theological viewpoints scarcely any older than Dispensationalism (such as Reformed Theology, which did not begin to be formulated until the 16th century), and sometimes of viewpoints even younger (such as Van Tillian Presuppositionalism, a 20th-century theological development). Furthermore, the argument’s major premise is flawed: Theological systems and viewpoints shouldn’t be judged based on the recency of their formal development, but rather on the extent to which they are rooted in a sound exegesis of Scripture.

But having said that, it’s also worth asking the question, Is dispensational thinking really as recent a novelty as this objection claims? Recent work in this area has fruitfully demonstrated that, although Dispensationalism as a system was not formally developed until the 19th century, nevertheless the basic concepts of dispensational thinking can be found all throughout church history.

The misconception that Dispensationalism is too new to be true is, therefore, flawed on multiple counts: selective and inconsistent in its deployment; problematic in its basic premise; and simply wrong on the merits.

‘Dispensationalism Is Extremely Convoluted’

A few years ago, I heard a critic of Dispensationalism claim that the system “rivals medieval Thomistic thought in its complexity.” The idea here seems to be that, since dispensationalists distinguish between multiple “dispensations” (or “economies”) in God’s unfolding plan (most dispensationalists identifying seven distinguishable economies, but some pegging the number slightly higher or lower than that), the system itself must be staggeringly complex to the point of unwieldiness.

This objection commits the error of confusing specific interpretative conclusions that dispensationalists have drawn with the essence of Dispensationalism itself. Granted, dispensationalists have sometimes presented the panorama of God’s plan for the ages in a way that may strike some people as overly belabored (Clarence Larkin’s elaborate prophecy charts come to mind). But does that really mean that Dispensationalism itself is extremely convoluted?

I would argue that it does not. At its core, the dispensational system operates on two or three relatively basic principles, which are simple to enumerate and easy to grasp: (1) that the Bible should be interpreted in a straightforward way, using the literal-grammatical-historical method consistently; (2) that there is a programmatic distinction between Israel and the church; and (3) that the unifying theme in the Bible and in the history of God’s dealings with mankind is primarily doxological (pertaining to God’s glory) rather than soteriological (pertaining to humanity’s salvation). Charles Ryrie presented this summary of the dispensational system in just four pages!2 Convoluted? Hardly.

Dispensationalism has been, and will doubtless continue to be, misrepresented and misunderstood by many. But I am grateful for the system. It has done much to instill a familiarity with and love for the Scriptures in the hearts of many believers. At its center is the conviction that, in His written Word, God has said what He meant and meant what He said. That’s a conviction I believe in deeply, and it’s the main reason I’m happy to call myself a dispensationalist.

Endnotes
¹ Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 134.
² Ibid, 45–48.

Photo Credit: Adobe Stock

About the Author

David Gunn

David is the assistant director of Media Ministries for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry.