Many professing dispensationalists I encounter aren’t clear about what dispensationalism actually is. The specific doctrines of dispensationalism are often cloudy since the movement is so broad and pervasive. Nailing down our definitions is both helpful for us when we encounter dispensationalists in conversation, but also for dispensationalists, so they can have a better understanding of the roots of their theology.
What Is Dispensationalism?
According to Charles C. Ryrie (1925-2016), a theologian who’s well known for his work in dispensational premillennialism, “The essence of dispensationalism is (1) the recognition of a consistent distinction between Israel and the church, (2) a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation, and (3) a basic and primary conception of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.”
Dispensationalism is NOT the belief that there are dispensations.
Many people, even professing dispensationalists, incorrectly claim that dispensationalism is simply the belief in dispensations. Dispensations themselves, aren’t actually a key distinctive of the dispensationalist theological system.
As such, the name dispensationalism seems to me to be a little deceptive. While dispensations are a central element of dispensationalism, they aren’t the key distinctive between it and other theological systems. Every theological system believes in dispensations. But because it’s called dispensationalism, it’s very understandable why so many people come to that conclusion.
Scofield’s Definition of Dispensation
The popular definition of dispensation from the Scofield Reference Bible is this: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”
Ryrie’s Definition of Dispensation
Charles Ryrie defines it like this: “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment.”
Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology
Interestingly, covenant theology is seen as the primary historical opponent to dispensationalism. But if it’s true, as many modern lay-dispensationalists claim, that dispensationalism is merely the belief in dispensations, does that mean that Covenant theology is merely the belief in covenants? Does that mean that there’s really no difference between covenant theology and dispensationalism at all since we all believe that God works out his plan through time? Of course not.
We should try to understand our opponents’ positions better so we don’t attribute to them something they don’t actually claim to believe. Dispensationalists would do well to understand the roots of their own theology, and the roots of the theology they’re attacking to avoid straw men. And the same goes for us who embrace covenant theology.
We must recognize that at the core of dispensationalism is not the mere existence of dispensations themselves, but as Ryrie says, the distinction between Israel and the church, the dispensational hermeneutic, and God’s purpose for mankind being his own glory, rather than salvation.
Correcting Ryrie’s Divisions
While Ryrie would argue that covenant theology teaches against a literal interpretation of the Bible, this isn’t true. I cover the proper understanding of “literal” interpretation in another article here. To be brief, “literal” simply means “accurate.” Everyone believes they’re interpreting the Bible accurately, despite the negative connotation of the word “literal” in recent days. The most liberal theologian in the world believes he’s interpreting the Bible accurately. But to be sure, dispensationalists approach the Bible very differently than covenant theology does. This is because dispensationalists believe a very specific thing when they say “literal.”
I think there are two primary elements to “literal” dispensational hermeneutics as they understand it. (1) Dispensationalist eschatology (pre-trib rapture premillennialism) drives their interpretation of Scripture, and (2) they tend to shy away from allegory and metaphor. When Jesus says the stars will fall and the sun will go dark in Matthew 24, dispensationalists tend to believe the physical stars will fall and the physical sun will go dark.
Instead, the truly “literal,” or accurate, interpretation of passages may require understanding certain passages as allegory or metaphor.
As a side note, not all passages are metaphorical. In fact, a passage that many dispensationalists incorrectly fail to interpret literally is Matthew 24:34 when Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” “This generation,” or the generation Jesus was speaking to at the time, have clearly passed away.
Secondly, Ryrie argues that dispensationalism, contrary to covenant theology, believes that God’s purpose for mankind is for his own glory, rather than the salvation of man. Ryrie recognizes that salvation is, of course, a part of God’s plan for mankind, but not his primary purpose.
But this isn’t different at all from traditional covenant theology.
The very first question in the Westminster Larger Catechism says, “What is the chief and highest end of man? Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy Him forever.“
So, both dispensationalism and covenant theology teach God’s primary purpose for mankind is his own glory. Also, both dispensationalism and covenant theology claim to interpret the Bible literally. However, their interpretive methods are very different. This is a key difference.
The key second key difference is what Ryrie accurately describes as the distinction between the church and Israel. This belief, inspired by the dispensational hermeneutic has many dangerous downstream consequences.
