Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

You are here: Home / Systematic Theology / Five Myths About Dispensationalism

Five Myths About Dispensationalism

by

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.

The New Logos

Follow Me

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Thank you for noting Dr. Vlach’s primer, Andy.

    As a revised/progressive (or “leaky”) dispensationalist myself, I have been shocked about how often my hermeneutical convictions are dismissed out-of-hand by those who do not even understand them!

    I am still waiting to speak to (or read!) someone who actually understands dispensationalism enough to intelligently rebut it. The straw men are getting old.

    Thanks, again!

  4. I grew up dispensational, with the Scofield study Bible and everything, so I lived it too. It took a while to move out of it for fear of rejection and the like. I haven’t read the primer, but myth 1 needs to be modified:

    Myth 1: Dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation.

    He needs to make the language more like #2 & #3 with the “inherently” terminology. Certain types of old-school dispensationalism certainly teach different views of salvation in relation to the Old Covenant. I have heard it taught at schools, from pulpits, and from the Scofield study Bible. Laypeople all across the country, who grew up with the Scofield Study Bible, believe that people were saved through the law with Moses and through grace with Jesus. This is not a misrepresentation.

  5. I will add that I think Ryrie clarified this for the benefit of dispensationalism and its opponents with the publication of Dispensationalism Today in 1965, and we have to move beyond the criticism because of how well dispensationalists have addressed it, but it is not a myth. It was really taught and preached, and that due to the confusing statement of the popular Scofield study Bible.

  6. Thanks for mentioning that, James. I almost expanded on that in the original blog post, but I decided to keep it short so that more people would read it!

    FWIW, after Vlach states myth #1, he recounts the misunderstanding bred by the note in the Scofield Reference Bible, etc.

  7. James, I wrote my reply before I saw your second comment.

    I think Vlach’s point is that this is indeed a myth re leading contemporary dispensationalists, whether they are traditional, revised, or progressive.

  8. Thanks, Andy. So are you now going to provide us with a summary of his positive arguments for the validity of dispensationalism? :)

  10. Dan Phillips,

    Thanks for linking to that… as a non-(well, similar to Progressive) Dispensationalist, I can nevertheless say that it’s hilarious!

    Unfortunately, there’s alot of misinformation all around… there just aren’t many people out there who can actually discuss this intelligently!

    On the other side of the misinformed controversy are most Trad. and Rev. Dispies, who are too hung up on an us-vs-them mentality regarding hermeneutics to even carry on the conversation. They refuse to realize that all conservatives interpret 90% of the Bible in exactly the same way, that they treat some NT texts with as much disrespect as many Covenantalists treat some OT texts, and that grammatical-historical interpretation undergone some significant sophistication is the last 30 years.
    To these folks, I recommend Reggie Kimbrough’s The Gospel According to Dispensationalism, as well as Bock’s work (2 chapters in Progressive Disp, 2 part Bib-Sac article, and section in Zondervan’s recent OT/NT offering).

Trackbacks