Is Dispensationalism Dangerous? LIVE Q&A for March 27, 2025

Is Dispensationalism dangerous?

It can be hard to define dispensationalism, because through the years people claiming the title have believed different things. Some say, pretty rigidly, that there are seven clear dispensations, and some even say that the “rules of salvation” differ from one dispensation to another.

I don’t agree with that kind of dispensationalism – but I agree with the core of dispensationalism.

First and foremost, dispensationalism is an approach to biblical interpretation – hermeneutics. Dispensationalism places a high value on understanding the Scriptures as clearly and as literally as possible, and always in a way that is connected to the first readers or hearers of Scripture.

Because of this approach, a core belief in dispensationalism is that there is a distinction between Israel and the church. But this distinction is rooted in a specific approach to hermeneutics, the science or study of Bible interpretation.

A dispensationalist will read the Bible with the idea that God has a plan for Israel (the Jewish people) and that God has a plan for the Church. Ultimately, that plan is to bring the Jewish people to salvation, and so the plan for Israel and the plan for the Church connect and intersect at places.

A non-dispensationalist simply sees Israel and the Church as two parts of the same thing. They often say it like this: “Israel is the Church in the Old Testament, and the Church is Israel in the New Testament.”

What’s strange is how some people present, and other people regard, dispensationalism as a “gloom and doom” and “we lose down here” perspective on the future. I don’t regard it that way at all. Sure, I believe the Bible says that in the end times, perilous times will come (2 Timothy 3:1-7 and other passages describe this). And sure, I believe the Bible says that there is coming a time of great tribulation on earth – a time worse than the earth has ever seen (Matthew 24:21). Yet all that is the prelude to the glorious rule and reign of Jesus Christ — in a direct, real way — over planet earth. There is nothing gloom and doom about that, and there is no losing in that. It’s glorious to live “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

“Jesus is coming soon and we should be ready” is a message of supreme hope and optimism. I don’t see the great hope in saying what our Post-Millennial brothers believe — that is, “It may get much worse over the next 50 or 500 years, but don’t worry because in the next 20,000 or 50,000 years virtually the whole world will be Christian.”

Dispensationalism is often blamed for producing Christians who care nothing for the present, and only have their hope in the escape of the rapture, all the while content to let the culture around them go to hell. I don’t doubt that there are some dispensationalists who are like that, but I don’t believe at all this is a necessary consequence of dispensationalism. To whatever extent that it does exist, it is an unwise, ungodly application of the biblical truth that God wants His people to live with the expectation of His soon return. We don’t have to let go of that biblical truth in order to reject any unwise, ungodly application of that truth. Christians should live in the active expectation of the soon return of Jesus Christ, AND fulfill the idea of Jesus when He said that the master’s command to his servants is, “do business till I come” (Luke 19:13). Christians can and should believe Jesus is coming soon, AND plant apple trees for future generations.

Should the Bible be interpreted literally or symbolically? Can people who believe in Replacement Theology still be saved?

I have been in Revelation in a Bible study, and I now see the imagery as symbolic instead of literal. Why do some Dispensationalists say that those who believe the church replaced Israel aren’t saved?

Well, when you read the book of Revelation and see the imagery as symbolic, that’s because it is, for the most part. The Bible specifically says that. In Revelation 15, John says, “I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous.” He’s telling us that he’s seeing something that is a sign. The book of Revelation presents literal truths using symbolic imagery. I would say that not every image it uses is symbolic, but where it’s natural and understandable to take the images as being literal, I think we should. But when it talks about a dragon drawing forth one-third of the stars of the heavens with its tail, I think we can take a step back and conclude that this is a picture, a symbol, and a sign of the fall of Satan and him dragging one-third of the angels with him. It’s pretty clearly explained in the text.

Understanding the Bible literally does not mean that we’re trying to erase the symbolism, imagery, or typology. No, not at all. We do need to be judicious; when the clear, plain sense makes sense, we don’t look for any other sense.

Here’s an example of this. The book of Revelation talks about different plagues coming upon the earth. Therefore, we don’t suppose it actually means these plagues come upon Venus, Mars, or the moon. No, it says that these plagues come upon the earth. The way these things are described may have some symbolic significance, but it’s clear we’re talking about things that happen on the earth. It can be a grievous trap to try to allegorize or symbolize everything in the Scriptures, especially when it’s not necessary to do so.

Can people who believe in Replacement Theology still be saved? I think that they would be wrong, but I think that a believer can be wrong about a lot of things, yet still be a believer and still be saved. I think that a Christian can be wrong about forms of church government. I think a Christian be wrong about spiritual gifts. I think a Christian can be wrong about eschatological systems. I think a Christian can be wrong about other things having to do with the Christian life. I think that there are things that believers can definitely be wrong about, which do not affect their salvation. I don’t think that an eschatological system is determinative of someone’s salvation. However, I will say this. The real issue with dispensationalism is an issue of biblical interpretation. I do think that the dispensationalists have a superior approach to biblical interpretation. I think that they allow the Bible to speak most plainly and clearly for itself in a way that would be connected to what was understood by its original hearers, readers, and writers. I think people would be wrong to exclude people from salvation or from God’s true people based on such things.

Why is Dispensationalism less emphasized now in contemporary Christian circles?

As Dispensationalism seems to be less emphasized in many contemporary Christian circles, what do you think are the key factors behind this shift? How can we maintain a balanced, biblically faithful approach in light of modern theological trends?

First of all, I think that we really need to decide to not allow theological trends to determine our theology. Nobody should become a dispensationalist because that’s what the cool people believe. But neither should anybody forsake dispensationalism because that’s not what the cool people believe anymore. I think we have to be more mature than that, and not be blown about by whatever particular doctrines happen to be in favor at the moment.

Why is it that dispensationalism is less in favor now, at least in the minds of some people? I really don’t know. Maybe it’s fatigue. Some people get fatigued by the idea of saying that Jesus is coming soon. Listen, I’ve heard this from folks for all of my life. Forty years ago, when I was a teenager, we said Jesus was coming soon then, and He hasn’t come since. Some might assume this means that He’s not coming soon. Part of me understands that kind of thinking, but I hope that you can see the way I do, that there is legitimate value for every believer to live in the anticipation of Jesus’ soon return. Jesus told believers to live with that anticipation. Throughout history, God has given every generation of Christians some reason to believe that Jesus Christ is coming back soon. For myself, I would say He has given us more reasons than ever to believe it now. And this is a good thing, although I understand that for some, it causes fatigue. They assume it’s not going to come true.

Jesus Himself told His people to watch and be ready, and to live a life of watchfulness and readiness in the Lord. That’s what God’s people should be doing. But again, maybe people get fatigued with that. Maybe it’s just different fashions. Different people become prominent teachers, and they believe certain things. There was a time when the most respected Bible teachers in America were mostly dispensational, and they were prevalent guys like John MacArthur, James Montgomery Boice, Donald Gray Barnhouse, David Jeremiah, and so on. There was a time when many people would say, “Well, if those teachers believe it, it must be true.” And maybe now there are people rising in popularity in their own right who believe differently. That’s fine, but that’s not how we should determine doctrine.

I think we remain balanced by always looking at the whole counsel of God. And the whole counsel of God tells us to be ready for the return of Jesus, to be faithful and do business until He comes. This is what the Bible tells us. The two ideas don’t contradict each other. We remain ready for His return by being as faithful as we can in the present moment. Believe it. It’s a good question to ask yourself: are you being as faithful as you can in the present moment that God has given you?

If 7 represents completeness, does God always take 7 years to fulfill His promises?

I don’t find anywhere in the Scriptures that God always takes seven years to fulfill His plans. There are certain times when the Scriptures point towards a period of seven years, such as the seven years Jacob worked for Laban for the right to marry Rachel. But after seven years, Laban gave Leah to him instead, and Jacob worked seven more years for the right to marry Rachel.

There is also a great prophecy which God gave to Daniel, in Daniel 9, which is presented in units of seven years. I think the Bible draws attention to a special seven-year period that will immediately precede the glorious return of Jesus Christ. But I don’t think we can say that God’s promises always take seven years to fulfill. It is true that seven is a number that’s often associated with completeness, fulfillment, or perfection in the sense of being complete and fulfilled. So that’s a true biblical idea. But God nowhere says that He’s always going to take seven years to fulfill a promise. Some are sooner, some are later.

What are some overlooked or neglected doctrines in the modern church?

What are some overlooked or neglected doctrines, stuff most Christians or churches seem to be overlooking, missing, or neglecting?

One overlooked doctrine would be the biblical understanding of dying to self. I don’t hear many people talking about that today. Jesus said in Matthew 16:24 – “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” Paul would later write that he dies daily (1 Corinthians 15:31), and that those who belong to Jesus Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Galatians 5:24). Maybe people are talking about that idea using different vocabulary, but if that’s the case, I’m not really seeing much of it. This idea of the disciple’s real need and challenge to die to self is an important thing that I think is often neglected.

Another overlooked practice in the church today is fasting. Normal believers should fast more. When I say fasting, I’m referring to true fasting, which is abstaining from all food and caloric intake. Now, there may be things people do with their diet that speak of some form of self-denial, and that’s good. A person might decide, “I’m not going to eat any solid food. I’m just going to drink things like smoothies and milkshakes.” Friends, that may be a form of self-denial, but it’s not fasting. Somebody else may say, “I’m going to cut out all sweets from my diet.” Okay, that’s good. That could be a form of self-denial, but it’s not fasting. I think that true fasting is a neglected practice.

Do believers need to submit to leaders who treat us harshly and harass us? What should a pastor do when people do not submit to him?

An angel told Hagar to submit to Sarah, who treated her harshly. Does this mean we also need to submit to leaders who treat us harshly and harass us? What should a pastor do when people do not submit to him?

This is a difficult question to answer because there’s a great deal of nuance involved. First of all, Hagar’s situation was unique in that God spoke to her directly by an angel of the Lord. There was no doubt that this revelation was from God, which makes it unique. Secondly, there is a whole array of what you might call a harsh treatment or harassment which God may direct us to bear. I think that there are obviously more severe forms of harsh treatment or harassment about which God would say to the believer, “No, you do not need to bear up under this.” I’ll be very upfront with you and say that this line can be difficult to draw, and it often may require good and wise counsel from a trusted brother or sister or perhaps a pastor who knows the situation and has good biblical wisdom. But we can’t put ourselves in the place where we say, “Nobody’s ever going to treat me badly. You say one cross word to me, and I’m out of here. I don’t have to take that. You raise your voice at me, and forget it, that’s harassment. I don’t have to take it.” That’s one end of the spectrum. Listen, as a believer, some of this you can and should just bear. But there is another end of the spectrum, where perhaps someone in authority is pressuring somebody to try to accept and remain under all kinds of abuse. So, it’s not an easy question to answer. There is a small measure of harassment and harsh treatment that we should bear up under for the glory of God.

Now, what should a pastor do when people do not submit to him? When a pastor or person in authority has to shout, “You must submit to me because I am your authority!”, they’ve lost it. There is something very wrong with that kind of exercise of authority. It could be wrong on both ends, but that’s a very dysfunctional situation that needs to be addressed and needs to be fixed.

Can you give your thoughts on Amillennialism?

I have more appreciation for amillennialism than I do for post-millennialism. Amillennialism basically believes that all the Bible’s mentions of the Kingdom of God and the rule and reign of Jesus Christ are symbolic in nature, that Jesus is going to come back at some indeterminate time, and that we shouldn’t worry ourselves with signs of the times or think anything about it. It believes that Jesus is going to return in glory at some indeterminate time in the future, and that we are currently in the reign of Jesus Christ right now, as much as will ever be.

I have a hard time with that, but I think it is to be preferred above the post-millennial idea that basically says it is the church’s duty, with the power and blessing of God, to Christianize the entire world and then Jesus will come back. I don’t think that is right biblically, and I also have a hard time figuring out how that’s going to work practically. I think that this idea comes too close to the idea of the perfectibility of man. I believe that this will happen under the direct reign of Jesus Christ. But post-millennials would say that at some time in the future, apart from the direct reign of Jesus Christ, the whole world is going to become Christianized, and all the nations will become Christians. Now, I believe Jesus Christ Himself can institute that directly, but I have not seen any indication in last 2000 years of church history that the church is able to do that on either a small scale or a larger scale. Some post-millennial guys would argue, “Well, then you’re not very confident in the power of God or what God can do through His people.” Listen, I’m very confident about what God can do through His people, but I’m not so confident to believe that we can have 5000 years of uninterrupted Christian glory in any one nation, much less throughout the whole world.

So, I have problems with amillennialism, as I think it approaches the Scriptures too symbolically, but I would favor that above post-millennialism.