Sometimes I think that dispensationalism is represented out of ignorance, but other times I am not so sure. In any case, it is one thing for students of the Scripture to reject dispensationalism when they understand it correctly and something else when they are rejecting a caricature. Here are four more misconceptions:
5. The escape from all trials. Dispensationalists do not believe that Christians will not face tribulations and even suffer martyrdom. They do believe that the Church will not be on earth when God pours out his just wrath on an unbelieving world during a seven-year Tribulation prior to Jesus’s return to establish his kingdom.
6. A wooden literalism in the interpretation of Scriptures. Dispensationalists accept figures of speech and symbols according to the author’s intention. They deny that what all would have understood as literal in the OT became symbolic because of NT revelation. They believe that NT revelation is consistent with the OT and no change is necessary or permissible. (For example, Ezekiel’s temple should be understood as a physical building in Jerusalem and not as some spiritual symbol of the church or New Jerusalem.)
7. An inherent preoccupation with timelines and date-setting. Because the dispensational view takes Scripture literally there are lots of details which they believe God has revealed. (By spiritualizing these details, the other views know very little about the future.) This provokes greater study in an effort to understand God’s plan correctly. Some untrained or unbalanced individuals have made sensational claims but these are not intrinsic to dispensationalism.
8. The newness of the system. Opponents frequently try to bias others against the view by claiming that dispensationalism was only first begun in the early 1800s. But it is very similar to the writings of the early church. And a similar charge could have been made by the Catholics against the Reformers in the 16th century. The real issue is whether it is correct to interpret the Bible according to the author’s intention or whether some passages must be re-interpreted (changed) in light of later revelation.
If you want to read more about this issue, I would recommend Dan Phillips ‘ article, Twenty-five stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism.
If you would like a copy of this Millennial Views series, you can download a pdf of it here.