Chapter THREE 

Lordship, Nonlordship, and Dispensationalism

In chapter one  I pointed out that the lordship controversy will never be settled unless we come to grips with the theology behind nonlordship teaching. The nonlordship position is just the tip of a theological iceberg, a product of a faulty philosophical system and the literal hermeneutic of dispensationalism. 

I have noted that nonlordship is a child whose father is Arminianism and whose mother is dispensationalism. Nonlordship also has an aunt, antinomianism (who, like dispensationalism, opposes the law). There are also many cousins, some of which I will address in subsequent chapters. 

As is the nonlordship teaching, so too the larger dispensational system of theology is diametrically opposed to that theology found in the pages of the Westminster Confession, the old Baptist Confession of 1689, and the Heidelberg Catechism. Dispensationalism would have been declared erroneous by the Synod of Dort, as was her husband Arminianism. Dispensational theology is nothing less than a frontal attack on covenantal and Reformed theology.

An Autobiographical Sketch In this chapter I will address some of the doctrinal issues of dispensationalism. Perhaps a short autobiographical word may be helpful, to explain my own departure from dispensationalism. I especially want to express gratitude for the things I have learned, which have helped me on my way to the Celestial City, and to show respect to many who taught me to revere the Holy Scriptures. I want to be on record as acknowledging that the formative years of my spiritual development were under the ministry of godly men who were committed to dispensationalism. It was under such a ministry that I was taught the importance of a personal devotional life. I was taught to be missionary minded. I was taught to be a personal witness for Christ. I was taught five fundamentals of the faith: (1) the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, (2) the virgin birth of Christ, (3) the miracles of Christ, (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, (5) the bodily resurrection of Christ. 

One of the first books that had a profound effect on my methods of evangelism was True Evangelism, by Lewis Sperry Chafer. I can still recommend it as very helpful. 

I did not find my way out of dispensationalism easily. Leaving took time and tears, and it cost me fellowship with some genuinely committed Christian friends. Some of them thought I was departing from the faith or going liberal. My inward heart-struggle to embrace the historic Christian faith involved not only intellectual conflict but also emotional struggles. The many changes were not made in haste, anger, passion, or ecstasy. It did not happen in a weekend. I had spent the first ten years of my Christian life immersed in dispensational ism. I had worn out three Scofield Bibles, and the fourth was falling apart. I had heard Lewis Sperry Chafer in person. The only systematic theology I had studied was Dr. Chafer's eight-volume set. 

My theological change was the result of a serious, exhaustive search to know three things: What do the Scriptures say? What do they mean? How do I apply them to my belief and practice? 

With this little history of my own journey in mind, I now pursue the rather difficult task of critiquing the principles of dispensationalism. My prayer is that I would do that without being disrespectful or uncharitable to the many genuine Christians who sincerely hold to this view, which I now consider erroneous, unbiblical, and dangerous. 

Although I strongly differ with my dispensational brethren in their interpretation of Scripture, I would defend their right to be wrong. I do not wish to separate from their fellowship. No Christian wishes to be argumentative. 

But it is impossible to address this controversial issue without being polemic and somewhat censorious of the system. I must be very candid and say that I cannot approach dispensationalism in an unbiased or dispassionate manner. I strongly believe it to be a departure from the historic faith of our fathers. We are now reaping some of the fruit of this unbiblical and un-historic theology, especially in the work of evangelism (justification) and in teaching on the Christian life (sanctification).

Defining Dispensationalism It is impossible to give one succinct definition of dispensationalism today because of the many changes that have occurred among dispensational teachers. The old definition of "dispensation" found in the Scofield Bible will no longer suffice: "A dispensation is a period of time during which a man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" (Scofield Reference Bible, 5, note 4). 

Recently I read a review of John H. Gerstner's book Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, in which Gerstner exposes the errors and dangers of dispensationalism. The reviewer, Tom Wells, made an excellent observation that will underscore my premise that it is impossible to give a concise definition of dispensationalism. Referring to dispensationalism, the reviewer said that though the author had done his homework, he was shooting at a moving target. It is no longer possible to speak of dispensationalism as a unit. In the earlier days the system had various varieties and offshoots, but if Darby, Scofield, or even Chafer were to return today, they would be bewildered by the various stances of those still called "dispensationalists." The reviewer was correct when he referred to dispensationalism as a moving target. It certainly has been on the move. The question is, What will the next move be? 

Dispensationalism, Arminianism, and antinomianism wear many masks, and there are many degrees and shades, as well as extremes, among all three. Although the dispensational position is complex and hard to pin down, and their scholars have modified their views over time, I think I am safe in giving the following description for our purpose in this study. 

Dispensationalists divide history into a number of distinct epochs during each of which God works out a particular phase of His overall plan. Each particular phase or dispensation represents a distinctive way in which God exercises His government over the world and tests human obedience. Beyond this, dispensationalists differ on a number of issues, for example, the relationship between Israel and the church: Hyper-dispensationalism is characterized by such distinctives as the view that the church did not begin until the middle of the Book of Acts. The classical dispensationalism of C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and others of the old school held that Israel is on earth, the church is in heaven, and never the twain shall meet. The neo-dispensationalist view is promoted by such leaders as Charles C. Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, and Zane C. Hodges. They hold that the church and Israel shall come together after the millennium. Each of these views has many other distinctives, but this is not meant to be an in-depth study. The differences shown here simply illustrate that there are varieties of dispensationalism.

Distinguishing Features of Dispensationalism Charles C. Bass, in his excellent book Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), identifies some of the distinguishing features of dispensationalism (pp.13-46):

•  The nature and purpose of a dispensation 

• The literal interpretation of Scripture 

• The dichotomy between Israel and the church 

• A restricted view of the church 

• A Jewish concept of the kingdom 

• A postponed kingdom 

• The distinction between law and grace 

• The compartmentalization of Scripture 

• The pre-tribulation rapture 

• The purpose of the Great Tribulation 

• The nature of the millennia\ reign of Christ 

• The eternal state 

• The apostate nature of Christendom

Dispensationalism and covenant theology differ on many biblical doctrines, such as: 

• The grace of God  

• The law of God 

• The church of God 

• The Word of God (interpretation) 

• Living the Christian life 

• World-and-life view 

• Sanctification (whether by a fixed, objective standard of righteousness) 

• Eschatology 

Although there are many important differences, four major differences go to the heart of dispensationalism. We could call them the four main pillars.

 Four Pillars of Dispensationalism 

1. The first pillar of dispensationalism is its literalism and Jewish understanding of the Old Testament prophecy and the messianic kingdom. 

2. The second is the parenthesis theory of the kingdom and the church. According to this theory, the church age is an unforeseen parenthesis in the Jewish program as described by Old Testament prophets. If the Jews had not rejected Jesus, the Jewish kingdom would have begun at our Lord's first coming. But, God's "Plan A" failed, or was thwarted, or interrupted, and the church age-totally unforeseen by the Old Testament prophets-was interjected as "Plan B," a substitute for "Plan A." The dispensationalists call this the "parenthetical church age." My Bible knows nothing about a God who does not have power to perform His plan. The God of the Bible is sovereign in creation, sovereign in redemption, and sovereign in providence. He is all-wise in planning and all powerful in performing. We must ask the dispensational teachers the following questions about their parenthesis theory: If the church is a parenthesis, when did it begin, and how do you know? When will it end, and how do you know? 

3. The third pillar of the dispensational system, which most dispensationalists apparently have not seriously examined, is the dichotomy between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. Dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament saints are not now in the church universal, which is the body of Christ. 

4. The fourth pillar of this erroneous teaching, which bears most heavily on the lordship controversy, is its false antithesis between the law and the gospel. The moral law (the Ten Commandments) according to dispensational teaching today is but the quenching fire and cooling ashes of a former religion. 

Biblically, however, the moral law carries permanent validity and goes straight to the root of our modern problems, and in the Christian life, that is, sanctification. The moral law also addresses our deepest needs in society, for we live in a lawless age. We have lawlessness in the home, in the schools, in government, and in the church. We are in need of a common set of rules for action-the duties and prohibitions contained in both the gospel and the law. 

The law by which God rules us is as dear to Him as the gospel by which He saves us. God's law should be dear to us as well. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, that great preacher and soul winner, in a sermon called The Perpetuity of the Law of God (The Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 28, sermon 1660 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1971]), said: 

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law a rule for their lives. What would have been sin in other men, they counted as no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that, may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. 

The dispensationalists would not agree with Charles Bridges concerning the relationship between the law and the gospel. In his classic book The Christian Ministry ([London: Banner of Truth, 1958], 222), Bridges wrote: 

The mark of a minister "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed," is, that he, "rightly divides the word of truth." This implies a full and direct application of the gospel to the mass of his unconverted hearers, combined with a body of spiritual instruction to the several classes of Christians. and comprehensiveness. It will embrace the whole revelation of God, in its doctrinal instruction, experimental privileges, and practical results. This revelation is divided into two parts-the law and the gospel-essentially distinct from each other, though so intimately connected, that an accurate knowledge of neither can be obtained without the other.

Dispensationalists set up a false antithesis between law and grace. (Of course when we are talking about how a person is justified, there is real antithesis, and every Christian should recognize this. Justification is by grace alone, not by works of the law.) The dispensational error in regard to the law is twofold. First, it applies this sharp antithesis to the successive dispensations, interpreting the Mosaic Law as law in contrast with grace, and the gospel dispensation as grace in contrast with law. Second, this antithesis leads dispensationalism into a false view of the law within the sphere of grace. This erroneous view appears very clearly in the Scofield Reference Bible (pp. 999-1000, 1002) and in Chafer's Systematic Theology (8 vols. [Dallas, 1948], 4:180-251). 

Many true Christians traveling on the road to the Celestial City grow very weary and discouraged with the divisions and controversies they encounter along the way. Christian, you must remember that God brings good out of evil. The Cross is the best illustration of this principle. The most wicked thing that was ever done by the hands of men was crucifying our Lord; yet the greatest blessings that God ever gave us are the blessings that flow from the Cross. 

We can take encouragement from these words of an old Puritan:

The road to heaven is very narrow, and worse yet, there is a dangerous ditch on either side of that narrow road. On the one side is the ditch of DESPAIR and on the other side there is the ditch of PRESUMPTION, but bless God, in front of the ditch of Despair is a hedgerow of God's promises and in front of the ditch of Presumption is a hedgerow of God's precepts.

Chapter FOUR

The Beginnings of Dispensationalism in America

In chapter three we considered the vital relationship of dispensationalism to the lordship controversy. Dispensationalism is the theological mother of nonlordship teaching. In this study I wish to give a very brief history of dispensationalism in the United States. 

I am taking this little diversion because many if not most people who carry Scofield Bibles and sit under dispensational teachers know very little about the system and its history. They are unaware of how the dispensational theological system differs from historic Reformational theology in general and Reformed, covenantal theology in particular. Not only people in the pews but often the preachers themselves have never seriously compared dispensationalism with covenant theology as it is most clearly expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. Covenant theology is the arch rival of dispensationalism. 

It is my conviction that many who are presently disposed toward dispensationalism would not be if they were better informed about that system and its history-its theological roots and the doctrinal errors it has spawned.

The Roots of Dispensationalism Dispensationalism has its roots in the Plymouth Brethren Movement, which began in the United Kingdom. Writers differ as to time and place where the Brethren Movement began. The first "breaking of bread service" I can find a record of was in 1827 in Dublin. The best information points to John Nelson Darby as a key founder and early teacher of the Brethren Movement. There are other names associated very early, such as A. N. Groves, B. W. Newton, W. H. Dorman, E. Cronin, and J. G. Bullett. These men were early leaders in places like Dublin, Plymouth, and Bristol. It is generally agreed that Darby was the energizing and guiding spirit in the movement's beginning, despite many differences and divisions among these men in the early days and thereafter. Some dispensationalists deny a connection with this movement. But their arguments will not survive historical examination. Dispensationalism is indeed a development of the Plymouth Brethren Movement, growing into a theological system and a method of biblical interpretation during the late nineteenth century. 

The first record of dispensational ism in the United States is when J. N. Darby twice visited the U.S. in 1864-65. Through two visits to the 16th and Walnut Avenue Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, then pastored by Dr. James H. Brooks, this church became the principal center of dispensationalism in America. For a Presbyterian church to promote dispensationalism was like mixing oil with water. But Dr. Brooks quickly became Darby's most prominent supporter and is said to be the father of dispensationalism in the United States. 

Brooks propagated dispensationalism by his own Bible studies with young men. His best-known student was C. I. Scofield. Brooks published many books and pamphlets (this should teach us the power of literature) and edited a magazine called The Truth. A line of influence can be traced from Darby to Brooks, from Brooks to Scofield, from Scofield to Chafer, and from Chafer to Dallas.

Inroads into Mainline Churches To understand Dr. Brooks's conversion to dispensationalism, it may be wise to call attention to conditions in the mainline denominations in the U.S. at the time. In the early 1900s liberalism was beginning to rear its ugly head in mainline churches. This sad condition had a profound effect on the success and inroads of dispensationalism. Initially, liberal Presbyterians were more influenced by dispensationalism than other denominations. Princeton Theological Seminary, once the stronghold of biblical Christianity worldwide, was one of the first places where liberalism surfaced. ln 1914 J. Ross Stevenson became president of Princeton Seminary. Dr. Stevenson was more interested in ecumenical goals than the theology of the Westminster Standards. Eventually a group of spiritual and theological giants followed J. Gresham Machen to found a new seminary. On September 25, 1929, Westminster Theological Seminary, with fifty students and a choice faculty, was opened. There has never been a faculty like it since. 

Westminster's faculty consisted of articulate Reformed theologians. They were fighting for the fundamentals of the faith, namely, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement. Their battle was against liberalism, and similar battles were being fought in most, if not all, the mainline denominations. Those who rejected liberalism and held to the five fundamentals mentioned above were labeled "fundamentalists." 

Their fundamentalism should not be confused with the present-day dispensational fundamentalism. Let me explain. The five fundamentals mentioned above are beliefs of historic Christianity. In that sense every true Christian who embraces those truths is a fundamentalist. Present-day dispensational fundamentalists, though holding to those five essential truths, often attack many other important fundamentals of the faith that Reformed people have always cherished and have shed their blood to defend. 

Scofield dispensationalism brought a new kind of fundamentalism into many churches, which filled a vacuum created by liberalism. The churches had drifted away from the doctrinal roots expressed in the old confessions and creeds. Many of the best schools and seminaries had been taken over by liberals and modernists. Their influence was felt first in the colleges, then in the seminaries, then in the pulpits, and finally in the pews. Bible-believing Christians had to turn to new teachers who held the Bible in high esteem. The vacuum left by liberalism provided a prime opportunity for the entrance and spread of the new dispensational teaching. 

This development produced the independent church movement, the independent Bible conference movement, and the Bible school movement. Their members were almost all carrying Scofield Bibles, and their leaders were predominantly dispensational in their views. 

The major training center for evangelical and Bible-believing churches was Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924, with Lewis Sperry Chafer as its first president. In that desperate hour, when the crucial battle between modernism and historic Christianity was being waged, sincere, Bible-believing people turned to Dallas, the mecca of dispensationalism, for teaching on God's Word. Subsequently, many dispensational Bible schools and colleges were born during this period-all unreformed. 

The late Robert K. Churchill, a respected Presbyterian minister, wrote a little paperback, Lest We Forget (Philadelphia: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), reflecting on the first fifty years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Churchill confirms what I have said about dispensational inroads into the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (pp. 29-40). He tells of his personal experience in two Presbyterian churches: the First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma, Washington, where he was converted, baptized, and called to the ministry, and a congregation in neighboring Seattle. Churchill explains how in these two great churches the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible became more and more prominent in the preaching. He laments, "These notes, and the interpretation of Scripture upon which they were based, were contrary to our Presbyterian and Reformed heritage" (p. 28). 

Churchill (p. 32) tells of Dr. Chafer's delivering a series of lectures on the subject of grace (the same material now in Chafer's book entitled Grace).

But Chafer's treatment of the subject of grace never arrives at the right view of the law of God. According to Dr. Chafer, the law was a condition of salvation placed upon the people of God in the Old Testament during a special and limited time period-the Dispensation of Law. This condition, Chafer contended, no longer has application to the New Testament believer since we relate to God under a new dispensation, the Dispensation of Grace. Since, as he put it, "we are no longer under law, but under grace," Chafer argued that there is no necessary relationship between law and grace. Here is law without grace, and grace without law. Always and in every sense, law and grace are opposed to each other. 

This teaching appears to be scriptural, but in reality it was the ancient error of antinomianism (anti-law) which denies that the law has application to the Christian. Chafer defended this view by means of a radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures.

Not a Return to Historic Truth How could dispensationalism be welcomed and embraced in strong Presbyterian churches whose Confession of Faith teaches Reformed, Calvinistic, covenant theology? Though there is no simple answer, one thing is certain. The churches were no longer teaching these doctrinal distinctives of their own Confession. 

All honest dispensationalists would agree that the dispensational system of theology has a different view of the grace of God, the law of God, the church of God, the interpretation of the Word of God, and the salvation of God  --different from the tested, respected, historic creeds and confessions. Likewise, dispensationalism has a different view of living the Christian life, that is, of sanctification, and of how justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together in the application of God's salvation. 

We cannot overlook the accomplishments of dispensationalism. It has given rise to Bible colleges and independent churches all over the land. It has spawned numerous independent missions, independent preachers, and missionaries. If we apply the pragmatic test and ask, "Does it work?" the answer is yes; it has seen much growth and success. If we apply the same test and ask the same question of: 

• the Watchtower, the answer would be yes, it works; 

• Mormonism, the answer would be yes, it works; 

• Roman Catholicism, the answer would be yes, it works; 

• the charismatic movement, the answer would be yes, it works. 

They all have numerous converts and followers. They build schools and churches, and have missionaries and great accomplishments. But, there is another, more important question that needs to be asked. Are they true? Is what they teach biblical? This question will bring a different answer. 

Dispensationalism represents no minor difference from historic Reformed teachings. It is not just a difference in end-times theories. It is a whole system of theology that touches every major doctrine of Christianity. What is at stake is the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and the sinner's assurance that he is living according to God's plan for history.