New Testament scholar Rodney J. Decker presented a thoughtful paper yesterday at the second annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics:

“The Law, the New Covenant, and the Christian: Studies in Hebrew 7–10” (32-page PDF)

HT: Rod Decker

Related:

1. “Second Dispensational Conference Meets” (a report by GARB’s Regular Baptist Press in The Baptist Bulletin)
2. Photo gallery

It seems fashionable in at least some pockets of academia to marginalize and ridicule dispensationalists. Before one criticizes dispensationalism, however, one must accurately understand what it is. (Perhaps the best test of whether one has represented another view accurately is when a leading proponent of that view agrees that their view has been represented accurately.) The following 73-page paperback is a primer on dispensationalism that may serve non-dispensationalists in this regard:

Michael J. Vlach [personal website]. Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2008.

• Review by Matt Waymeyer
• Review by Dennis M. Swanson
• Vlach wrote his 252-page dissertation on supersessionism: “The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism” (PhD dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, May 2004).

Vlach highlights five common myths about dispensationalism (pp. 32–49):

• Myth 1: Dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation.
• Myth 2: Dispensationalism is inherently linked with Arminianism.
• Myth 3: Dispensationalism is inherently antinomian.
• Myth 4: Dispensationalism leads to non-Lordship salvation.
• Myth 5: Dispensationalism is primarily about believing in seven dispensations.

Ergo, critiques of dispensationalism (particularly of leading contemporary dispensationalists, whether they are traditional, revised, or progressive) should not perpetuate these myths.

Just to be clear: I am not arguing here that dispensationalism is correct. I am arguing that evaluations of it should accurately represent it.