Is Dispensationalism Heresy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Sophomore
If we define heresy as a soul-destroying erroneous doctrine, and error as an incorrect doctrine (but not soul-destroying), as I think Durham does in Concerning Scandal (though I can't find the reference right now), which category would Dispensationalism fall under?

I know that Dispensationalism is a system of bible interpretation rather than a doctrine per se, but it has distinctive, characteristic doctrines, so that is essentially what I am asking about.

I know also that some doctrines can properly be called heresy within the definition above, and yet not all who believe those doctrines are necessarily unconverted (I believe for example that there are converted Arminians who still hold Arminian doctrine). So I'm not looking for quibbles about the definitions given in paragraph 1, though if anyone can point me to Durham's definition it'll save me reading all of Part 3 again.
 
Not wntirely on topic, but I was listening to a White Horse Inn episode this morning and the topic was heresy. One of the guys commented that the church deems something heretical and not any individual. They also suggested three categories of error: 1) that which is a direct attack on a central doctrine (ie. Jesus not homoousious with the Father), something, 2) that which "erodes the foundation" of Christianity (Arminianism was used as an example, since, if taken to its logical conclusion <Arminians didn't go that far>, would be Pelagianism), and 3) for lack of memory, "foolish grumblings" (those matters that are foolish to argue, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin).

Dispensationalism seems to fall into category 2, generally.
 
Last edited:
Dispensationalism covers a wide range of thought and teaching. I'd classify most as grave error; the most innocuous as error, and the most extreme (that the Jews can be saved apart from a faith in Christ) as heresy.
 
Below is Durham who doesn't divide error so much as distinguish it and the types of schism and division (which he treats as distinct from schism).

What heresy is
And, first, Heresy, is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental
doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavor to propagate the same.
What schism is, and the kinds thereof
Again, Schism may be where no heresy in doctrine is, but is a breaking of
the union of the church, and that communion which ought to be among
the members thereof, and is either in government, or worship.
...
What is here meant by the word division
The third word is Division, which does not at the first view differ from
schism; yet we take it here as different, and to agree to such divisions and
dissensions in the church as are consistent with communion both in
government and worship, and have not a divided government or worship
following them, as in the former case. Of such there are many instances
in scripture and church history,...
See Concerning Scandal, part four, chapter 1​
 
I was raised a dispensationalist. I am now looking into covenant theology, partially due to the influence of this board. But currently I am still a dispensationalist. If I were wrong about this, then I would consider myself to be in error.

And no, I don't believe that Jews can be saved apart from faith in Christ. That would be heresy.
 
I was raised a dispensationalist. I am now looking into covenant theology, partially due to the influence of this board. But currently I am still a dispensationalist. If I were wrong about this, then I would consider myself to be in error.

And no, I don't believe that Jews can be saved apart from faith in Christ. That would be heresy.
Chris, I was raised Roman Catholic but became a Christian in 1979. From 1979 to about 1999 I was a Dispensationalist. I became a Calvinist a few years before that but Dispensationalism was a lot harder for me to let go of. It took time but I eventually adopted a covenantal view of scripture. There has been a lot of recent scholarship on Baptist covenant theology, which is a good thing.
 
Don't call it "heresy" unless it has been condemned by broad church councils. If every serious error gets labeled "heresy," we lose a valuable distinction that's helpful in identifying true cults and more dangerous sects.

Plus, in most cases the word "heresy" is unnecessarily inflammatory (literally, as people used to be burned for it) and shuts down conversation with believers who otherwise would listen to us and might learn the truth. Keep in mind that when you say "heretic" many people will take that to mean "should be burned at the stake."
 
I see it as another system attempting to explain the framework of Scripture doctrines/theology to Christians, and see it as one having some problematic errors in regards to rightly dividing the Bible. It as some mistaken views, but not to the point of heresy, as those holding to it still would agree with us on the Gospel, Trinity, plan of salvation, the scriptures being very word of God etc.
 
I was saved in the Gospel Hall Assemblies, which are very strong dispensationalists. That being said, their gospel, for the most part, is spot on. Though they believe in free will (sort of), and they are about 4 pointers on the TULIP acronym, I wouldn't discount their salvation.

All that being said, their interpretation of end times, would fall more on the erroneous side of things. My parents still to go the same hall they were saved 20+ years ago, and I thank God for their salvation through this group. This is what led to my salvation, as well as my wife's.

However, since studying more along the lines of Paul Washer, Voddie Baucham and a few more reformed preachers, I now see the convenant theology perspective. Makes more sense, and we can may less biblical gymnastics to connect the dots.

But back to the first point, their gospel message is solid (at least the hall I went to). Their eschatology, not quite so much.

If their eschatology completely undermined their gospel, I would then categorize them as heretics.
 
I was raised a dispensationalist. I am now looking into covenant theology, partially due to the influence of this board. But currently I am still a dispensationalist. If I were wrong about this, then I would consider myself to be in error.

And no, I don't believe that Jews can be saved apart from faith in Christ. That would be heresy.
I also explored and migrated over to the CT viewpoint regarding salvation, and that was due to the factors of no longer seeing a separate rapture in the Bible, nor God having a salvation for Israel and the Church on differing plans.
 
Don't call it "heresy" unless it has been condemned by broad church councils. If every serious error gets labeled "heresy," we lose a valuable distinction that's helpful in identifying true cults and more dangerous sects.

Plus, in most cases the word "heresy" is unnecessarily inflammatory (literally, as people used to be burned for it) and shuts down conversation with believers who otherwise would listen to us and might learn the truth. Keep in mind that when you say "heretic" many people will take that to mean "should be burned at the stake."
I was once involved in varying degrees with 3 different aspects of theology, and each one of them have ben called by some in Reformed as being heresy. They were Pentecostal, Free will Gospel, and Dispensational.
 
Chris, I was raised Roman Catholic but became a Christian in 1979. From 1979 to about 1999 I was a Dispensationalist. I became a Calvinist a few years before that but Dispensationalism was a lot harder for me to let go of. It took time but I eventually adopted a covenantal view of scripture. There has been a lot of recent scholarship on Baptist covenant theology, which is a good thing.

Could you recommend a couple of introductory-level books on the subject?

Many thanks!
 
Given that his request was in response to this, and that he particularly boldfaced the Baptist comment when quoting that post, I assume he intended Baptist, no?
Yes, but his background appears to similar to my own, so might also be interested into reading both groups viewpoints on this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top