I must admit that with all my seminary experience and years in the ministry, I have never once had a class on either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology (not even in Sunday School). This is striking to me, because the intellectual battle between the two has been raging for decades, decades through which I’ve both studied and ministered.

My own background is Dispensational (there’s no doubt about that), though I’ve also had many professors, teachers, and friends over the years that come from more Reformed traditions. Lately I’ve faced questions from folks I’m mentoring about this debate, and while I’ve long been aware of the main tenets of both the Dispensational and the Covenant Theologies, I have never taken a deep dive into either.

This book by Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, is my first attempt at systematizing the facts in my own mind. I found this book a highly readable description not only of what Dispensationalism is, but also where it differs most from Covenant Theology. He also offers a final warning chapter on what he calls “Ultradispensationalism” (one of the longer words I’ll write this year), what I’ve always known as “Hyper-dispensationalism.”

To be honest, what I liked most about this book is how Ryrie carefully handles each of the attacks that the Reformed crowd make against Dispensationalism, attacks that have always made me wonder if I’ve been sitting on the wrong side of the fence. These attacks, though, paint Dispensationalism with too broad a brush, as if the entire theology hinges on one author’s misguided application of a single point. I’ll just name three as examples.

A “New” Idea?

The first attack that has made me uncomfortable is that Dispensationalism is “new” idea, born only in the 19th century by Darby (who himself had some other wacky ideas) and therefore automatically suspect. In fact, I’ve heard the attacks that “No one believed in Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil until the 1850s!” Ryrie challenges this false notion by drawing the curtain back to the theologians long before Darby who described God’s progressive means of dealing with mankind, and even to Paul’s own use of the term and concept four times in his letters. While the systematization of Dispensationalism might have been relatively new, it’s not much newer than that of Covenant Theology, a system based on the writings of Calvin and Luther, though they themselves never described it (see Chapter 9). Of this, Ryrie writes:

“Dispensationalists do not claim that the system was developed in the first century; nor is it necessary that they be able to do so. Many other doctrines were not developed in the first century—including covenant theology which is seventeenth century. Doctrinal development is a perfectly normal process in the course of church history.” (66)

A Segmented Bible?

A second attack is that Dispensationalism encourages disunity within the Bible, segmenting human history into clean chunks that have nothing to do with each other. Ryrie thankfully never mentions “1,000 years per dispensation,” because that’s a made-up tool that doesn’t help anyone, but he does reference how each successive dispensation builds upon (and does not cancel out) the previous. He emphasizes the reality that “distinction” is not the same as “disunity.” In fact, Dispensationalism better emphasizes the clear progress of God’s revelation throughout human history than does Covenant Theology, which segments history into only two opposing sections (Works and Grace), though even within these two, they have sub-sections, which sound an awful lot like dispensations to me. Quoting H. Chester Woodring, he writes that “Sameness does not always produce unity nor difference disunity,” for example “The unity of the Trinity” which shows “unity with distinctions.” (101).

On this note, he does reference the error or those Ultradispensationalists (look at that! A longer word!) who parse the New Testament to bits, claiming that, for example, the Sermon on the Mount is useless for the Church, or that baptism and the Lord’s Table were meant only for the Jews before Paul instituted the Church. Such nonsense! And yes, these interpretations do border on heresy, because they essentially tear pages from God’s holy Word. In fact, I once worked with a man (KJBO-type) who tried to convince me that the book of James is only meant for Jews during the Tribulation—-and he knew this, because he had “rightly divided the Word of Truth.” It’s painful even to contemplate the confusion such teaching spreads within the Body of Christ, and it’s worth fighting against. 

Many Ways of Salvation?

A third attack is that dispensationalism teaches many ways of salvation, which is the worst one of all. Claim you don’t agree with the dispensationalist, but don’t accuse him of the worst kind of heresy! Salvation has always been according to God’s grace. Always. Every dispensation shows it. By grace, through faith. No one in the Old Testament was ever saved by works but by faith in the grace of God, in response to which they acted in obedience. Those who attempted to please God with works alone sent up sacrifices that were a stench to our holy God, things He absolutely hated. No matter what tradition we’re from, we’d all do well to note such OT instances.

In Chapter 9, Ryrie takes each of these attacks and more and mirrors them back to Covenant Theologians, suggesting that their own tradition is rife with holes as well. “If these matters are not relevant to covenant theology, then covenant writers would do well to stop trying to make so much of them in their attacks on dispensationalism.” (191)

He gets deep into the other important topics like the literal-vs.-spiritual interpretation of the Bible, the Church-vs.-Israel, and the Kingdom of God, but you’ll have to read the book to get the full picture. All in all, I thought this was a fine explanation of both the Dispensational and the Covenant Theologies, though from a markedly Dispensational standpoint. I’d like to read more from the other side of the fence next. Any recommendations?

2022 E.T.