How heretical is dispensationalism?

[Sherwin L.]

I'm still learning my way through the great theological dichotomy that is covenant theology vs. dispensationalism and I've scoured the PB forums only to find many varied opinions. I grew up in a Dispensational arminian church heavily influenced by Darby and Keswick teachings. There was a lot of teaching on the free will, OT ceremonial law, and premillennial eschatology.

My first real exposure to reformed theology (at least from a soteriology/grace perspective) was through MacArthur. I know there's a lot of consternation on PB over his Dispensational teachings (mostly the eschatology), but from my observation, there are still leaps and bounds separating MacArthur from the classic Dispensationalists like Ryrie and Scofield. I've read a few comments on previous posts suggesting that even MacArthur's brand of dispensationalism is dangerous. My question is: how so? And to what degree is dispensationalism as a whole even heretical?

Thanks for helping a new learner.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'm still learning my way through the great theological dichotomy that is covenant theology vs. dispensationalism and I've scoured the PB forums only to find many varied opinions. I grew up in a Dispensational arminian church heavily influenced by Darby and Keswick teachings. There was a lot of teaching on the free will, OT ceremonial law, and premillennial eschatology.

My first real exposure to reformed theology (at least from a soteriology/grace perspective) was through MacArthur. I know there's a lot of consternation on PB over his Dispensational teachings (mostly the eschatology), but from my observation, there are still leaps and bounds separating MacArthur from the classic Dispensationalists like Ryrie and Scofield. I've read a few comments on previous posts suggesting that even MacArthur's brand of dispensationalism is dangerous. My question is: how so? And to what degree is dispensationalism as a whole even heretical?

Thanks for helping a new learner.

Old school dispensationalism is awful, positing that some of the New Testament is for Christians and others for Jews. They say that there are different ways to salvation in different times. Some even suggest two covenants that Jews are saved y the law and Gentiles aren't.Messianic Judaism can be an out growth where the Jews are to keep the law and Christians don't, some even say Gentiles have to keep the law as well. That is down right heresy. It depends on the factions.
As for the things common to all forms of dispensationalism, they teach a rapture where Christians don't endure persecution. It is a rather spoiled American Christianity that promises a false hope using interpretive gymnastics and assumptions that church is not a fulfillment of Israel. They also believe Jews are more favored than Christians and it will be shown during the milennial reign of Christ. They are Zionist, for unbelieving Jews even if some of the Palestinians are Christian. The term is usually equated with antinomianism as well, denying any third use of the law. Many believe jn carnal Christians, ones that believe in Jesus (merely believe that he is historical like Alexander the Great but has no bearing on their lives) but pursue sin and will be barely saved but with no rewards in heaven. I am sure there is more...

For all its flaws when i was a Dispensational, I was introduced to the idea of a new heavens and new earth, something that I think is emphasized due to their premilennialism contra Wright and all his blabbering in his book that most Christians (in America) believe in some sort of disembodied existence for eternity.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There have been dispensationalists on this Board from time to time, some who came on in its infancy. I wouldn't want to challenge the Christian testimony of such people, or propose that they manged (somehow!) to avoid catastrophic error that was a "natural" outcome of their hermeneutical stance. By this logic, Presbyterians and Baptists could hardly speak peaceably to one another. That we can do so and to our mutual spiritual profit indicates that even those with incompatible interpretive paradigms (speaking of wholes) must be careful not to assume an inevitable slide by the other side. Even if we believe there is danger inherent to a particular mistaken way of thinking about our Faith, the weight of the good thinking should be allowed its propensity to compensate.

So, I would not want to assign any but the most radicalized forms of dispensational thought--the kind that foist righteousness-by-works schemes upon eras prior to the present (Eden's excepted)--to the realm of heresy.

It also helps to distinguish between a millennial interpretation, and a commitment for or against dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is an interpretive stance, whereas chilliasm (millenialism) is an interpretation --of particular passages, and of eschatology generally.

Consistent Dispensational Theology will not mesh especially well with the single-covenant-of-grace perspective of classic Covenant Theology. The question of how-far the present divinely-approved Religion is essentially the same as what was formerly approved (ever since the fall and the proto-evangelium, Gen.3:15) is one that sparks controversy. Core tenets agreed upon by more than one side tend to be claimed by this or that side as their exclusive property, and that which distinguishes them is made the touchstone of orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, the sectarianism is often more blameworthy than the alleged reading error.

 

[Scott1]

There was a lot of teaching on the free will, OT ceremonial law, and premillennial eschatology.

"Free will," is usually meant to be a man centered view of salvation, serious biblical error indeed. There is a case that Arminianism (man centered) salvation, affecting the whole of the Christian life and practice facilitates the error of a dispensational hermeneutic. See, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, by John Gerstner for a compelling case for that.

but from my observation, there are still leaps and bounds separating MacArthur from the classic Dispensationalists like Ryrie and Scofield.

Dispensationalism of the Schofield popularization had as a key tenet that redemption was established accomplished by a substantially different means in the Old Testament than the new. That is, it implied strongly that salvation was by works in the Old Testament (not true). It's hard to overestimate how serious that error is, and how it misrepresents God.

But today, to their credit, dispensationalists have almost completely abandoned that tenet. Today, like the esteemed Pastor you mention, they argue primarily a separate plan of redemption for "Israel" and "the church." Serious error enough, but less comprehensive error than the earlier, long unchallenged, Bible notes of Mr. Schofield. And, the esteemed Pastor you mention is on a trajectory toward reformed theology such that he calls himself now a "leaky" dispensationalist. He also has shown a pattern of admitting, and correcting when he is wrong. I'm hopeful this will continue, and there is reason to believe it will for this faithful and earnest Bible teacher.

And to what degree is dispensationalism as a whole even heretical?

I would not overuse the word "heresy," but reserve it for the most base forms of corruption of the Word and truth of God. It is serious error, varies in degree based on its assumptions and presentation. Misrepresenting God is sin, whether by ignorance or deliberation. Teacher of it will be held to a higher standard (see James 4:1).

And, all to say, there are many fellow believers, sincere in holding this errant view and the casual theology born of the imagination of man that flow from it.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It is worth pointing out that dispensationalists such as John MacArthur have been influenced by Reformed Theology thus do not show the excesses of dispensationalism of some others.

 

[Scott1]

It is worth pointing out that dispensationalists such as John MacArthur have been influenced by Reformed Theology thus do not show the excesses of dispensationalism of some others.

It's not the "excesses of dispensationalism." The hermeneutic of it is fundamentally wrong, and reads a presumed intention into Scripture which does not fit it. To that extent, it is not a fair reading of Scripture.

The esteemed Pastor has been and is on a trajectory away from dispensationalism. More deeply, this flows from his mainly right understanding of the doctrines of grace. And there is reason to believe he knows this. He doesn't offer a third way, or a more modest way, he is simply confused and inconsistent, in this part of systematic biblical theology, but is moving away from that.

 

[RamistThomist]

Depends which branch. There is an excellent lecture floating around by a dispensationalist on the many varieties. It does a great deal to stop a lot of straw men. Even Anthony Hoekema realized that most Dispensationalists aren't advocating sacrificing the red heifer. Further, the Ryrie Dispensationalists say that the Progr Dispensationalists aren't really Dispensationalists.

And I hold to premillennial eschatology, so I hope I am not heretical, though if someone calls me that I probably won't lose much sleep.

And I am not dispensationalist of any stripe, though I really respect Blaising.

 

[Andres]

Depends on how you define heresy. In a looser sense, while erroneous, dispensationalism doesn't normally deny the basic tenets of the Christian faith. In a stricter sense, dispensationalism isn't biblical and does cause quite a bit of problems with skewed views of Israel, the Church, Covenant Theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc.

 

[lynnie]

I would say that the ones who are looking forward to the rebuilding of the third Temple on the Temple Mount and animal sacrifices to take away sin cross into clear heresy. I know a person who believes in the coming third temple, but only animal sacrifices as thank offerings, because Jesus alone was the blood sacrifice for sin. I don't know exactly what divides deception and really bad error in believers, from heresy ( which I assume means unsaved and on the way to hell, correct?)

Back in my early charismatic single days (late 70s) there were a lot of double covenant people around in the churches we went to, and they sure seemed to have had dramatic conversions, but at the time some honestly thought the Jews got to heaven one way and gentile Christians another. I would label that heresy- justification by works- but God was hopefully merciful and brought them out of it quickly. But to persist in saying that there is another way to eternal life besides faith in Jesus is heretical.

 

[au5t1n]

I don't know exactly what divides deception and really bad error in believers, from heresy ( which I assume means unsaved and on the way to hell, correct?)

Regrettably, the word heresy has come to be used this way, as a statement about individual salvation. This has made the word unpopular, partly because we rightly want to exercise caution in what we say about the souls of professing believers. In my opinion, its historical meaning is better. Heresy comes from a Greek word that means something like "faction." Historically, a heresy is an error of such a nature that it necessitates schism. It has been redefined in a manner that reflects the individualism of our age.

 

[bookslover]

It also helps to distinguish between a millennial interpretation, and a commitment for or against dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is an interpretive stance, whereas chilliasm (millenialism) is an interpretation --of particular passages, and of eschatology generally.

Exactly! Unfortunately, in the 20th century, premillennialism was tied so closely to dispensationalism that premillennialism became guilty, by those engaged in sloppy thinking, of guilt by association. Premillennialism was around for many centuries before dispensationalism showed up!

Also, it's my sense of things that dispensationalism, at the academic level, is more or less dead (except for a few small pockets here and there). At the popular level, however, it still thrives, to a degree. We probably have the "Left Behind" books to thank for that.