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.
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.