No two words have seemingly been more contradictory within evangelicalism than “reformed” and “dispensational”. Most recently, Dr. R.C. Sproul revised his book Grace Unknown under the new title What Is Reformed Theology? In it, he has entitled one chapter, “Nicknamed Covenant Theology”. I think that the problem is right there. Reformed theology is deemed synonymous with covenant theology. If that is true, “dispensational” and “reformed” cannot coincide. I want to pose a challenge to that premise, however, with the intent to show that it is possible to be dispensational and reformed.
Reformed theology typically refers to the doctrines of grace, or Calvinism. Calvinism is a soteriological system built upon the absolute sovereignty of God to fulfill with certainty the purpose of God for the glory of God. Calvinism shows that because of the total depravity of mankind, God takes the initiative by electing some whom He will save by the definite work of Christ on the cross and the effectual work of His grace. As a result, those who have received God’s favor will be saved for eternity. This way of salvation brings total glory to God.
Covenant theology, however, is not a soteriological system, but a framework of biblical theology. Biblical theology seeks to find unity within the Scriptures. Covenant theology sees Scripture through the lens of two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. With these two covenants, covenant theology unifies the Scriptures under the progressive work of redemption. The Bible becomes the story of God’s redeeming for Himself a special people (covenant theology either holds to a replacement theology, where the church replaces Israel, or a view that unifies Israel and the church as one entity). For a more detailed summary, see Dr. J. Ligon Duncan’s explanation
Dispensationalism is also a framework of biblical theology. It sees God’s rule established and broken in Gen. 1-3. In Gen. 3:15, God promises a seed who will conquer the evil one and, by implication, restore deliver the earth from the curse. All of Scripture, then, is an outworking of God’s plan to re-establish His rule over and through mankind (cf. Elliott Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: an Introduction). While His purposes remain the same, the way He administers His purposes change over the progress of revelation. The Scriptures anticipate a day when God’s purposes will be fulfilled in His restored rule on earth over and through His Son and those whom He has redeemed.
Without making a judgment on covenant theology, I just want to show that a dispensationalist can be reformed. Dispensationalism must acknowledge the total sovereignty of God in order for the system to make any sense. Dispensationalism acknowledges God’s purpose to save, and, if He is sovereign to re-establish His rule, He can also be sovereign in saving whom He wills. And seeing that He is sovereign over history and over the salvation of souls gives Him all the glory.
rick said:
I appreciate this writing. i go to a reformed church and I have been trying to figure out if I am a “dispensationalist ” for 2 years now. I still don’t know. just when i read a.w. pink or some other reformed author , then i read Hebrews and think I’m a dispy again. our church shows a lot of grace for minors. we are 50% credo baptist/50% paedo baptist. however, convenent theology is most widely accepted in the congregation.
what is your situation?
Neal said:
The irony of ‘popular reformed theology’ is that John Darby and C.I. Scofield believed in Calvinism as well, but they were not outspoken in regards to the labels thereof because of the strong opposition of covenant theologians. These men were the one who successfully analyzed scripture and brought forth a truth that had been masked by the institutionalized church for centuries… Covenant theologians become upset if you call their belief, “replacement theology”… I guess the truth hurts. Scofield and Darby believed WHOLLY in the soteriological beliefs of reformed theology, but they could not buy into “covenant theology”. DIspenstionalism is plainly written in scripture, but “covenant theologians” try to apply vague, non-literal, and spiritual meanings without exegesis to assert their stance. It’s gotten so bad that they even become militant and angry (as I observed in the video “An Evening of Eschatology” with John Piper). Covenant Theologians become angry because they cannot apply proper hermeneutics to this concept…
ronjourlocke said:
I actually was a dispensationalist before I embraced reformed theology. To be honest, I have a more nuanced understanding of dispensationalism, one that recognizes more of a continuity of God’s plan, while not discarding changes in administration.
That said, I have seen that the absolute sovereignty of God over history is essential to being a Calvinist, and, I believe, essential to being a dispensationalist. Moreover, understanding that God mediates that rule through his elect is also essential to both reformed theology and dispensationalism. To be sure, covenant theology and dispensationalism may not be that compatible, and if you argue that covenant theology is essential to reformed theology, then it will be more difficult to talk compatibility. But if you hold more specifically to God’s sovereignty over all and his mediating that rule through his elect, then there can be compatibility.
If I can say one more thing, I have observed that many discredit dispensationalism because of Left Behind and Hal Lindsey and those bizarre rapture movies of the 70’s, but to me that’s about as credible as discrediting Calvinism because of Harold Camping. Also, some throw dispensationalism away because of the erroneous “multiple ways of salvation” teaching. I can’t speak for other dispensationalists, though I have yet to hear of any dispensationalist in the last 60 years who have said such things, but I think that it is a misunderstanding of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not primarily about the salvific aspects of redemption as it is about the kingdom aspects of redemption, i.e., how God restores his rule through man over the earth. This does involve salvation, of course, but the way of salvation doesn’t change. The responsibilities of the elect in administering God’s rule over earth changes over time as his revealed purposes progress toward fulfillment. Thus I can be reformed in my understanding of God and salvation and be dispensational in my understanding of biblical theology. I admit I’m a little nuanced, but that’s where I am thus far.
Pingback: Dispensationalism: A Mistake and A Reassessment « Critical Time
Brian said:
Good article, well done. I tend to agree myself. I have a difficult time when discussing this issue, because I see truth in both dispensationalism and reformed theology. I find in the Scriptures aspects of both. I don’t think we have to choose one or the other/ WHat we need is to read the word of God and chose what He has taught us. Interestingly enough, dispensationalism is thought to have come primarily from Darby. When reading the early church fathers (not about them, but read their actual writings) we can quickly see the by and large, until Origen, they were all dispensationalists. Origen still recognized the different dispensations, but he introduced allegory as a way to integrate greek philosophy into scripture. He was pretty messed up. Anyways, all this to say that I find my self in the same “reformed dispensationalist” boat as you.
Amy said:
“I don’t think we have to choose one or the other/ WHat we need is to read the word of God and chose what He has taught us. ” Thank you! Reformed Dispensational Christ Follower
Leonard said:
I was searching for reformed dispensationalist and found this page. I appreciate the thoughts expressed here.
I often quip that to be a christian one must be a dispensationalist, that all reformed believers are also dispensationalists for this reason: “We are not under law but under grace” There are two focal points in the purposes of God, law and grace, both different in many ways, ceremonial and actual. Then if one is pre-millenial (like Spurgeon or Darby)that coming kingdom would guarantee three dispensations. All concur that Adam sinned and broke (a/the) commandment. However, if salvation is by grace Eph 2.8 then it was always was by grace. Men cannot save himself, even if not defined as succinctly as Paul did. The stickler for many is limited redemption. However, it is a matter of perspective. Eph 5.25 teaches it. Christ loved the assembly and gave himself for it.
rocketeer928 said:
I’ve called myself a Reformed Dispensational Christian for years now. I believe in the Doctrines of Grace (commonly called the 5 Points of Calvinism or Reformed Theology) and Dispensational Theology based on a biblical hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically successive “dispensations” or periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants, thus Israel and the church being two different dispensations. I don’t see Reformed Theology and Dispensationalism contradicting each other at all.
Philip said:
Welcome to the Reformed Dispensationalist Club. All of us here are grateful, that in God’s sovereign and electing grace, that we were predestined to live in the dispensation of full revelation. We are grateful to have a sufficient and complete canon that tells us of that grave and gives us a future hope that we will reign with Christ in His kingdom.
Johnny Mac argues (in a sermon series on the Grace To You website) that all Calvinist should be pre-millennial because it is actually more consistent with Replacement Theology. It is a great read if you have a few hours. I would love for him to release a systematic theology book!
Elaine Bittencourt said:
Just a correction Philip.
“Johnny Mac argues (in a sermon series on the Grace To You website) that all Calvinist should be pre-millennial because it is actually more consistent with Replacement Theology.”
I think you meant to say “reformed theology” instead of “replacement theology”?
Melinda said:
Not knowing much about dispensationalism and never really hearing the word until I became Reformed, I was wondering if you could tell me a little about it. I’ve heard that there are 7 dispensations (Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, The Age of Grace-this is the when the second coming of Christ would occur, and then The Kingdom) do most dispensationalists believe in all? Or are there other groups of dispensationalist who believe in only, say 5 dispensations? If so what are those?
Do all dispensationalist believe that during the time of Moses God dealt with people according to the law, and now He deals with man by grace? Unlike the Reformed teaching of God has always maintained the law and always dealt with sinners by grace as the only way of salvation.
And then finally do all dispensationalists believe that Christ is not yet king? That when the Jews refused to accept Jesus as their king, His kingdom was delayed and that God is saving men by the means of the Church, and that when Christ comes again He will establish His kingdom and rule on earth for 1,000 years like a king, but with moral perfection?
In my personal life I’ve grown to be skeptical of people who say they are Christian because in our sociaty all that means is that you don’t consider yourself Muslim of Buddist. So I ask “Where do you go to church?” And that has helped me a lot to find out where people our at. Now I’m finding that if I find that someone is Reformed I am also having to ask “What confessions does your church adhere to?” There are so many differnt groups jumping on the “Reformed” bandwagon right now, that I would not be at all surprised if Rob Bell started labeling himself as one.
Elaine Bittencourt said:
Hi Melinda, there are many great resources to read about what dispensationalism really is. Here’s a few:
Dr. Richard Mayhue
http://www.richardmayhue.net/messages.html
Michael Vlach
http://theologicalstudies.org/
(his book “Has the Church replaced Israel?” is really good)
The Master’s Seminary has a lot of resources, including this lecture series on “futurist premillennianism” (which is just another way of saying dispensational premillennianism)
http://www.tms.edu/media.aspx?topic=Futuristic%20Premillennialism
and for quick reference, Dan Phillips’ “What Dispensationalism Is Not”
http://bibchr.blogspot.ca/2006/02/what-dispensationalism-isnt.html
Joyce Atela said:
I’m glad I found your site. I have just left a church I’ve been attending for only 2 months. This is the hardest thing to find is a good church. I’ve considered myself a dispensationalist except I love to listen to John MacArthur. He is the best preacher I’ve heard. I found a Reformed church site & what stops me from going to it is non elect babies that die or have not yet been born will not go to heaven. That’s what they say. The church I just left is a Bible church, but the pastor is a King James only teacher. The people aren’t & they want him to leave & he’s giving them a hard time. The man has mental problems & is disrespectful how he talks to them ,the congregation. What attracted me to the Reformed church is the Soverignty of God they preach & He controls everything with Salvation, but where do these babies who never lived go [HELL]? I worry too about not being one of the elect, I don’t feel regenerated yet. I have tried many churches, pentacostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses & was raise Catholic. I read the Bible, listen to good sermons, but these different explanations of God is very confuseing after a while. I just pray I’ll find a church that preaches the Truth.
ronjourlocke said:
Thanks very much for your reply. I am saddened to hear the conflict in the Bible church that you attended. I pray that God will resolve that conflict quickly so the church can return to the work of the gospel. Thanks very much for your reply. I am saddened to hear the conflict in the Bible church that you attended. I pray that God will resolve that conflict quickly so the church can return to the work of the gospel. I do pray that God lead you to a solid Biblically-faithful, Christ-exalting, loving church.
Regarding dispensationalism, John MacArthur actually describes himself as a dispensationalist. You shouldn’t find much conflict with his teachings on that subject. Regarding babies, there has been much discussion on the subject. You will find as many who believe that babies go to heaven (like MacArthur, for instance), those who oppose, and those who just don’t know for sure. So those in the Reformed camp are very diverse in that matter.egarding dispensationalism, John MacArthur actually describes himself as a dispensationalist. You shouldn’t find much conflict with his teachings on that subject. Regarding babies, there has been much discussion on the subject. You will find as many who believe that babies go to heaven (like MacArthur, for instance), those who oppose, and those who just don’t know for sure. So those in the Reformed camp are very diverse in that matter.
Regarding election, please know that those who are elect are those who believe in the gospel of Christ. If you believe that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has satisfied God’s wrath for our sins and removed the curse of death, you are saved. Regarding election, please know that those who are elect are those who believe in the gospel of Christ. If you believe that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has satisfied God’s wrath for our sins and removed the curse of death, you are saved. The doctrine explains that such faith in Christ is a part of God’s work in the lives of believers from before he created the world. So instead of worrying over election, I would rather urge you to trust in Jesus alone as your Savior and Lord.
Joyce Atela said:
Thank you for your help in replying to me. I watched John MacArthur’s 4 day conference & it was wonderful. I’m thinking of trying a Reformed Baptist church soon. I’m still in contact with the old church I left through some people who still go there. The people are unhappy with their situation but have been in that church for 40 or more years. I’ll keep you posted on my outcome. Joyce
Pastor Chris said:
Good Stuff. I hold to a Reformed (Calvinistic) view of salvation and history but a Dispensational Eschatology. The two are most certainly not mutually exclusive, largely on the grounds that you point out. Very nice article. Thanks for writing it.
Gregory Davis said:
Thank you for this article. I have been wrestling for months with this issue. I too would consider myself a Cavinist. I definitely believe God is Sovereign over everthing down to the smallest molecule. But, I cannot hold to Covenant Theology because I feel Romans 9, 10, and 11 are crystal clear. There is a clear distinction between Israel and the church. I cannot hold to Amillenialism because I don’t see how Satan could be bound, and I haven’t seen any Lions laying down with any lambs and I definitely haven’t seen any babies sticking their hand in viper nests yet. lol
Praise God, I’m a Reformed Dispensationalist who attends a Reformed Presbyterian Church. Funny thing is, most people in the church don’t even know what that means. Just the other day I overheard someone at my Reformed, Amillenial, Covenant church say, ” I’m looking forward to the Rapture!” lol
Janine said:
It was so refreshing to realize that I’m not alone in my beliefs. I’ve had quite an eclectic Christian journey, not to mention several years as a charismatic after Jesus saved me. The Holy Spirit led me to a PCA church about 20 years ago, where after much study and some excellent teaching, I embraced the doctrine of election and the absolute beauty and awe of God’s sovereignty. It took me years, however, to reconcile my adherance to dispensational doctrine because it is mocked at and even considered heretical by some of my elders.
Thank you for clearing up the differences. I now understand covenant theology better and realize that that is where I part ways with my church.
Grace and peace to all my brothers and sisters in the Lord!
Elaine Bittencourt said:
The main point of dispensationalism is about Israel. Everything else comes out of the belief that Israel is not the church (as CT’s believe), and that God hasn’t broken His promise to that nation, which will be fulfilled in the literal earthly reign of our Lord Jesus.
As Richard Mayhue (http://www.richardmayhue.net/messages.html) has said, every dispensationalist believes in covenants, and every covenantalist believes in dispensations. How covenants are defined, and how many dispensations there are, those are not the problem. Even when we all agree that dispensationalism has been so badly misrepresented (willfully or not), we still have the “problem” of Israel.
That is why it does not make sense that people who believe in the sovereignty of God would suggest that God broke His promise to Israel and now has replace that nation with the church (hence the famous “Why every Calvinist should be a premillennianist” http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermon-Series/300/Why-Every-Calvinist-Should-Be-a-Premillennialist)
Thank you for your article.
E.
Doug Del Bosco said:
A sound and consistent hermeneutic will lead one to embrace: the doctrines of grace, a pre-mil eschatology and a deep appreciation for a Kingdom run from it’s eventual headquarters Jerusalem…Shalom
Pingback: I’m a Calvi-minian! (theological ramblings) | Enough Light