Kenneth W. Yates
Editor
I. INTRODUCTION
Most readers of the JOTGES call themselves dispensationalists. Dispensationalism is often associated with Free Grace theology. In The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism, Daniel Hummel does not argue that it “fell” because it was not Biblical, even though he is not a dispensationalist. His point is that it is no longer a dominant force in Evangelicalism today as it once was, but is relegated to a small and irrelevant group of adherents. Hummel does not openly say so, but it is clear he thinks this is a good development.
Instead of addressing the Biblical merits, or lack thereof, of dispensationalism, Hummel explains how it impacted the Evangelical movement and the culture of the United States. This is seen in the subtitle of the book: How the Evangelical Battle over the End Times Shaped a Nation.
In this article, I would like to summarize Hummel’s discussion on the history of dispensationalism with special emphasis on how that history impacted the Free Grace movement. I would also like to analyze his conclusions.
II. THE RISE OF DISPENSATIONALISM
The beginning of dispensationalism can be traced back to the 1830s, with the Plymouth Brethren in Ireland and England. J. N. Darby developed the system, with a different view of the church, the millennium, and a dualism between heaven and earth (p. 21). He did not see the world getting better, as did the postmillennialists of his day. The Christian was to look forward to the imminent Rapture of the church into heaven, which would be followed by a Tribulation on earth. Other premillennialists of the day (old premillennialists) said Christ would return after a period of trouble on earth. The old premillennialists did not adopt the other teachings of Darby.
Darby also separated Israel from the church. The Bible was to be understood as divided into different periods, or dispensations. Each dispensation ended in failure. The current dispensation, what we call the church age, will as well (p. 23). The kingdom of heaven would only come in the future through the nation of Israel. The Plymouth Brethren were opposed to revivalism but instead wanted to evangelize the denominations, since Christendom was in a sad spiritual state. There was a heavy emphasis on studying the Bible and discipleship (p. 36). Darby sought for people to leave their denominations.
When these teachings were exported to America, few joined the Brethren ranks, but many did accept much of their teachings. Aspects of this new premillennialism were adopted by large numbers of people, such as an imminent Rapture and the heavenly nature of the church. They also often accepted the idea of different dispensations (p. 67). However, most rejected the Brethren’s call to leave the denominations. The Brethren were also resistant to the Holiness Movement while many Christians in the United States embraced those teachings (p. 52).
At the heart of this emphasis on discipleship and teaching was the view that the Bible was to be interpreted literally. It was to interpret itself, through inductive study (p. 43). The OT prophets and the book of Revelation were to be interpreted in this manner as well, not in an allegorical method that saw promises made to Israel spiritually applied to the church. This hermeneutic appealed to many (p. 71).
D. L. Moody, the most famous evangelist in the world after the Civil War, met Darby in 1872. He accepted Darby’s premillennial eschatology, but not other aspects of dispensationalism, such as denominational separation (pp. 87-88). Moody was successful in reconciling Northern and Southern white Christians with a common goal to fulfill the Great Commission, which he saw as calling for the spiritual salvation of unbelievers. His successful ministry worked across denominational lines and introduced millions to the terminology of dispensational eschatology.
This new premillennialism, which was promoted by Moody, produced institutions to further its goal of global missions. There were Bible conferences around the nation, schools established, and independent mission organizations founded. They all looked forward to the imminent Rapture of the church (p. 98). The foremost missionary training school, Chicago Bible Institute, was founded in 1889. It was later named after Moody in 1899 (p. 104).1
These missionary agencies resulted in “faith missions.” Missionaries looked for financial support solely as an answer to prayer, and not by denominational funds. They adopted this idea from Darby and the early Brethren (p. 108).
Hummel concludes that at the end of the 1800s, dispensational teachings expressed in premillennial eschatology were seen in popular ideas. Institutions promoted these ideas, but there was a lack of scholarly theological credibility (p. 110). Many held to certain aspects of dispensationalism in various ways, but not as a complete system. The early Brethren would not have approved of some of the practices of these new premillennialists, such as working within and across denominational lines.
An example would be the new Pentecostal movement. They spoke in tongues, promoted supernatural healing, and claimed to have new prophecies. Many adopted premillennial eschatology, such as the Rapture and the imminent return of Christ. But they rejected dispensational times and the church-Israel distinction. At first, they were part of the Moody movement, but there was a split. Even so, Pentecostalism helped spread certain dispensational ideas (pp. 119-21).
New premillennial eschatology reflected certain dispensational themes. These themes and theology would become a dominant religious force in the beginning years of the 20th century.
III. THE SPREAD OF NEW PREMILLENNIALISM AND DISPENSATIONALISM
C. I. Scofield was a leader in the new premillennial movement. Hummel maintains that more than any other leader, he “transformed new premillennialism into a full-blown religious identity for millions of Americans” (p. 130). His reference Bible, full of notes and published in 1909, was premillennial and provided a framework for dispensational thought to both clergy and laymen (p. 134). It reflected the history of the Bible in seven dispensations.
This Scofield Reference Bible was used across denominational lines. It brought new premillennial teachings into various types of churches. It would make its way into religious hymns and then impact religious culture throughout the nation. Millions adopted dispensational concepts through the use of this Bible.
Through it, dispensational thought spread to other countries. Missionaries trained in the Bible institutes connected with Moody’s ministry used this reference Bible to teach that theology in other countries (p. 139). It became their handbook.
As World War I approached, premillennialists pointed to the depraved state of the world as proof of their contention that the world was getting worse. The historical situation reflected a move towards a one-world government as a precursor to the coming Antichrist. Capitalism was offering the promise of a better world (p. 145).
To fight against theological liberalism, several theologians published The Fundamentals. Many new premillennialists contributed to these writings. They reflected the predominant theological view of conservative Christianity in America (p. 151).
Dispensational eschatology seemed to be supported by the coming of World War I. Europe was seen by many Christians as fulfilling prophecy as the basis of the coming one-world government. In 1917, Britain took control of Jerusalem and produced the Balfour Declaration, all pointing to a homeland for the Jews and the end of the times of the Gentiles (p. 151). Scofield kept to his dispensational roots, saying that the only hope for humanity was the return of Christ.
Billy Sunday was an immensely popular revivalist and a premillennialist. At the same time, he was unashamedly pro-American and promoted nationalism. Like Moody before him, he used dispensational language but was not theologically astute. He also broke from the dispensational tenet that this world cannot be saved. Christians were told to fight and hope for the defeat of the Germans and the victory of democracy over fascism (p. 153).
A core of dispensationalists Hummel designates as “scholastic” were not concerned about shaping the nation’s culture or defeating the enemies of America. They formed new institutions to advance dispensational theology and premillennialism. They wanted to teach it as a full systematic theology and give it scholarly credentials (p. 174). Lewis Sperry Chafer, the leader of this scholastic group, wanted to train pastors and place them in the pulpits of various denominations, teaching systematic dispensationalism. Along with others, he founded Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) for this purpose (p. 182). By the 1940s, graduates of the school were accomplishing these goals, advancing dispensationalism as a complete system of how to interpret the Bible.
Names like Ironside, Feinberg, Pentecost, Walvoord, and later Ryrie, joined Chafer in producing numerous scholarly works. Graduates of DTS went on to establish publishing houses, more seminaries, and Bible colleges.2
Neo-evangelicals also used dispensational language, such as the Rapture and the coming Tribulation. The most famous of these was Billy Graham. However, he rejected other aspects of dispensationalism. He taught that the people in America could change the future if they would repent, believe, and turn to Christ in the hope of avoiding judgment on the nation. He also believed in an already/not yet aspect of the kingdom (p. 228). The kingdom was not just something that awaited a future development or only involved the nation of Israel.
Into the 1960s, dispensationalism and new premillennial eschatology were riding a wave of popularity. It had scholarly credibility. Many pastors trained at DTS were pastoring many churches. Even some of those who did not accept all of the points of dispensationalism taught certain aspects of it.
IV. THE FALL OF DISPENSATIONALISM
Hummel points to various things that led to the fall of dispensationalism as a respected system of Biblical interpretation. A major factor was the rise of what Hummel calls “pop dispensationalism.” But dispensationalism was also threatened by opponents from without and within.
A. Pop Dispensationalism
In 1970, DTS graduate Hal Lindsey published The Late Great Planet Earth. It was a non-scholarly book that sold ten million copies and spoke of the Rapture and the coming Tribulation. Hummel says this book led to the eventual demise of dispensationalism as a serious theological system (p. 234). It started the process of commercializing dispensationalism. Pop dispensationalism was immensely popular and scholastic dispensationalists could not compete with it.
Lindsey greatly simplified certain dispensational teachings, but his focus was on things happening in the social and military scenes. He tried to connect current events to a very loose premillennial interpretation of prophecy, often using outrageous interpretations of Biblical passages. Hummel compares it to a tabloid newspaper. It combined prophecy, including what was happening in the Middle East, with entertainment. Lindsey wanted the reader to think he was a serious and scholarly theologian who was able to write of complex Biblical issues in a way that the contemporary American could understand in light of what was happening in the world (p. 237).
Lindsey was not concerned that his writings did not reflect scholarly dispensational theology. He embraced certain charismatic teachings, set dates for the Rapture based on current events, and did not focus on the church-Israel distinction. Hummel suggests he was not a good example for Christians because of his multiple divorces and remarriages, as well as his lavish lifestyle (p. 239).
Many would follow Lindsey’s example of making money off of pop dispensationalism. One was Tim LaHaye, who would later become the most successful of them all with his Left Behind series. Various dispensational authors wrote similar paperbacks that flooded the commercial market. Hummel says that they wrote for profit, regardless of their sincere beliefs. These writings became even more popular, with their teachings appearing in fictional books, movies, and music. No church, denomination, or seminary put a check on what was being said. Millions of Americans were exposed to a “haphazard engagement” with dispensationalism. Broader aspects of Biblical teachings were set aside. At times, Pentecostal spirituality, which was rejected by older dispensationalists such as Chafer, was embraced within a premillennial view of judgment that also spoke of the coming Antichrist and his mark (p. 244). It was inevitable that serious Biblical scholars would mock the popular expressions of dispensationalism.
Hummel maintains that even John Walvoord, the president of DTS, took advantage of the commercial success of pop dispensationalism. In 1974, he wrote Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis. It discussed Cold War politics, the problems with the oil market and the Arab-Israel conflict, and the move toward European unity. It was not based upon the exegesis of the Scriptures or a systematic dispensational treatise. Instead, it was more like a conservative Republican policy brief (pp. 255-56).
Other dispensational writers followed suit. They fed the popular desire to interpret geopolitical events in Biblical language. Hummel says these writers were looking at “sales charts” instead of promoting dispensational teachings (p. 256).
Dispensational teachers and Bible colleges expanded their efforts in giving the people in their churches what they wanted to hear. They quit emphasizing the study of Biblical prophecy and other doctrines to focus on social issues and the mental well-being of Christians. Tim LaHaye was widely successful with his books on how to have a healthy sex life and marriage (p. 257).
B. Theological Opposition from Without
Coinciding with the rise of pop dispensationalism was the teaching of “historic premillennialism.” This challenged the dispensational view that the kingdom of God involved the nation of Israel. It maintained that the kingdom was focused on the church in this present age. This renewed many of the teachings of old premillennialism, which also denied the imminency of the Rapture of the church and dispensational times. It was heavily promoted in many Evangelical seminaries and presented a scholarly alternative to eschatology instead of the emotional appeal of pop dispensationalism.
This view of the kingdom called for social activism, as the church furthered the impact of the kingdom in this present age. This gave rise to the New Christian Right, which sought to influence the culture in areas such as abortion and family values. Leaders such as Francis Schaeffer and James Dobson rejected the idea of an imminent Rapture and the view that the kingdom was in the future. Instead, Christians in America needed to be organized politically to further inject Biblical values into the culture. All of this was contrary to dispensational teachings (p. 258).
This brand of premillennialism was much more acceptable to Covenant and Reformed theology. There was robust scholarly engagement among Evangelical scholars about the kingdom, the church, and Biblical interpretation. Most seminaries rid themselves of their dispensational faculty members, as dispensational hermeneutics and theology lost credibility in academic circles (p. 262). Dispensational ideas were relegated to their expressions in pop dispensationalism. These expressions had little in common with the theology of Darby, Schofield, and Chafer.
Lindsey was a glaring example of how his brand of dispensationalism had denied the tenets of that system. He adopted the strategy of the New Christian Right, calling on his millions of readers to shape both domestic and foreign policies. He unabashedly supported the platform of the Republican Party and Ronald Regan. His view was that a strong Christian America could keep judgment from coming upon the world (p. 268). Tim LaHaye also encouraged his readers to get involved in conservative politics to impact the culture.
These writings by Lindsey and LaHaye taught, in LaHaye’s words, the reality of a “humanist tribulation.” This would occur before the Rapture, so the Rapture was not imminent. It involved a battle between the forces of humanism and modernism against Christianity. Political involvement by Christians would cause a moral victory and delay the coming of the Lord. This would allow the gospel to go out and more people could be saved. The New Christian Right agreed, with Jerry Falwell joining in the battle for America’s soul with the founding of the Moral Majority (pp. 272-74). Francis Schaffer was promoting similar views of current events in Reformed circles. Those who claimed to be dispensationalists were often indistinguishable from opposing theological camps.
Other theological distinctions were blurred as well. With a call for political involvement, supported by pop dispensationalism, Pat Robertson came to have a great influence on the American religious scene. His 700 Club was popular with Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and many other denominations. He also longed for a revival in the country to avoid the humanist tribulation (pp. 276-79). Even though millions of Americans were familiar with certain terms related to dispensational eschatology, scholastic dispensationalism as a system to understand the Bible was not a moving force.
In the 1980s, these trends were visible in televangelism programs such as The PTL Club, The Jimmy Swaggart Telecast, Oral Roberts and You, and the Trinity Broadcast Network. They used certain dispensational terms such as the Rapture, Tribulation, Antichrist, Armageddon, and the Second Coming. But they did not have much interest in dispensational hermeneutics. These shows were all charismatic in nature and were decidedly opposed to scholastic dispensationalism. They all, like pop dispensationalism, spoke a great deal about the need to slow down cultural and moral decline and the chaos certain political parties were causing (p. 287).
John Hagee in San Antonio is another example. He also promoted New Christian Right political activism. He used a mixture of dispensational themes along with Pentecostalism and prosperity theology (p. 295).
Scholarly theologians ridiculed the direction dispensationalism was going. Hummel states that even those who were considered scholastic dispensationalists contributed to this ridicule. Charles Dyer, a professor at DTS, wrote in 1991 during the crisis in the Persian Gulf that Saddam Hussein was potentially a person the OT prophets wrote about. His book was highly successful, so Walvoord “rushed” to cash in on the money and popularity of such writings by publishing his own work that sold a million copies (p. 289).
The rise of New Calvinists also brought opposition to dispensationalism. These included Baptists who often had a premillennial eschatology but rejected the new premillennialism associated with dispensationalism. They were Reformed in their theology concerning salvation and saw the kingdom as being present in the church.3 John Piper is one of its most well-known advocates and a staunch opponent of systematic dispensationalism (p. 294). Hummel points out that in the 1990s, this covenantal premillennialism was the overwhelming position of the leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention. New Calvinists are the predominant view among the faculty in all their seminaries (p. 298).
Hummel suggests that when theological scholars attacked dispensational views, the dispensationalists were not able to defend their positions. The leadership was old and its centers of theological education were shrinking. There was little to no response to a rising postmillennialism which specifically attacked the dispensational teaching that encouraged believers not to get involved in societal problems and to wait for the Rapture (pp. 304-307).
Even Christian music abandoned dispensational themes. Songs did not speak of an imminent Second Coming. Instead, they focused on living holy lives in the present world. The kingdom of God was commonly said to be here in the church and in the lives of Christians (p. 291).
C. Opposition from Within
Some pastors trained at DTS went on to lead megachurches. These included Charles Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, David Jeremiah, Robert Jeffress, Tony Evans, and Andy Stanley. Other dispensationalists did the same, though they were not trained at DTS. These included David Hocking and John MacArthur. They were all selective in which part of dispensational teachings they embraced (pp. 292-93).
Hummel discusses MacArthur’s public break with scholastic dispensationalism over the issue of soteriology. Hummel says this led to a large defection of dispensationalists to Covenant Theology. MacArthur insisted that eternal life was only given to the one who made Jesus the Lord of his life (p. 302). He maintained that the New Calvinists and Reformed teachings on salvation were Biblical and not the dispensational Free Grace gospel, which only required “mental assent,” which he called “easy believism.” Pop dispensationalism had spread this heresy, in MacArthur’s view, but Lewis Sperry Chafer was responsible for it. At the root of the issue was the dispensational tenet that separated the dispensation of the Law in the OT and the dispensation of grace in the NT.
The Free Grace gospel was also made popular with the writings of DTS professors such as Ryrie and Zane Hodges. Hodges, in particular, rejected the need for repentance from sins and the acknowledgment that Jesus is Lord on the part of the unbeliever (p. 310). Even though MacArthur maintained some dispensational beliefs, he became much more comfortable in the company of Covenant theologians. His popularity caused many to reject the soteriology of certain dispensational writers.
Another source of opposition came from DTS itself. In the 1990s, some of the younger professors challenged critical aspects of dispensationalism. They called themselves “progressive dispensationalists.” These scholars, who included Darrel Bock and Craig Blaising, rejected the view that the church age was a parenthesis in God’s dealings with Israel. There were not seven distinct dispensations, but a progression from one dispensation to another. Prophetic utterances did not have to be literally fulfilled. These prophecies could be fulfilled in more than one way. Opponents of traditional dispensationalism often praised the progressives. They saw this movement as contributing to the decline of dispensational theology and that progressive dispensationalism was similar to Covenant Theology and its eschatology. These young scholars, who had jettisoned much of traditional dispensationalism, were held in high regard by many of those who critiqued the old system (pp. 315-16). Progressive dispensationalism became the leading theological perspective at formerly dispensational schools.
D. The Results
By the first decade of the 21st century, traditional dispensationalism was a small and practically irrelevant scholastic tradition. Hummel says it had no respected national leaders and no young scholars coming up through the ranks. Pop dispensationalism was a commercial success, but there was no unity in the movement (p. 322). Christians from many different theological backgrounds were part of the customers of what pop dispensationalists were selling. There was a strong appeal to political voters, especially conservative ones.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 provided another source of revenue for pop dispensationalism. The War on Terror allowed writers to make predictions about end-time scenarios. It did not matter when these predictions failed to come true. Whatever allusions there were to Biblical eschatology, the emphasis was on geopolitics and not on looking for the future kingdom of God (p. 326).
Hummel maintains that the entertainment value of pop dispensational themes made it attractive to completely secular ventures. The Rapture motif showed up in comic books, movies, television shows, and video games. Among serious theologians, in Hummel’s view, the idea of an imminent Rapture was a source of ridicule.
The collapse of dispensationalism has led to increased discussions about the meaning of the kingdom of God. Instead of seeing believers being taken in an imminent Rapture to meet the Lord in the air, a respected scholar such as N. T. Wright says that believers should try to bring Jesus to the earth to make this planet better. Others say that the kingdom is a “present reality” in the preaching of the gospel and works of justice and mercy (p. 339). In various degrees, those who contributed to the fall of dispensationalism would agree. In the present age, that includes the vast majority of Evangelicals.
V. ANALYSIS
Space does not permit a complete analysis of Hummel’s discussion on dispensationalism. However, certain points that he made are of particular interest to readers of the JOTGES. These merit our consideration. In this section, I will discuss three such issues. These are: dispensationalism and accusations of racism, the relationship of Free Grace theology to dispensationalism, and what the Bible says about the fall of dispensationalism.
A. Dispensationalism and Racism
Throughout the book, Hummel points out what, at the very least, could be labeled as racist tendencies in dispensationalism. Specifically, these tendencies often arose from the new premillennial eschatology (pp. 5, 12, 54, 85-89, 119, 122, 125-27, 220-21, 263, 270, 279). The reader is left to determine for himself if particular dispensationalists/ premillennialists were racist or if they were simply being true to their sincere theological beliefs. If the latter, then the dispensational system itself could be accused of promoting racism in the American culture. While not stated, this would certainly imply that the theology was an unbiblical one. Its collapse should then be welcomed by all Christians.
Hummel states that dispensationalism provided four generations of “white” Protestants a way to understand not only the Bible, but the world in which they lived (p. 5). In light of the soon return of Christ, after the Civil War new premillennialists did not concern themselves with the plight of black citizens or the effects of slavery. They concerned themselves with preaching the gospel. They were eager to work with racist Southerners in this endeavor (p. 12). They were content with the status quo. Dispensational eschatology taught that the church should not get involved in political issues such as Reconstruction. The church had a heavenly citizenship. Segregation was not a spiritual issue (p. 54).
Moody, a new premillennialist, was an outspoken proponent of this way of thinking. In his ministry, he encouraged Christians not to discuss the issues that caused the Civil War or black civil rights (pp. 87-89). Even though he was from the North, he was welcomed as a speaker in the South. Moody even spoke to segregated crowds. Whatever his personal racist views may or may not have been, the overriding principle was unity among white believers to fulfill the Great Commission (pp. 122-24). Black believers had practically no role in Moody’s revivalism. Hummel says that dispensationalism would become known as an almost totally “white” theology.
Hummel maintains that the dispensational view of the future kingdom sometimes resulted in racist views of eternity. Israel will rule over the “nations.” But these nations could be described in racial terms. G. Campbell Morgan, a dispensationalist who would later reject the system, said he did not think black people would be raptured. Moody seemed to see the heavens as ruled by white Europeans as well (pp. 125-26). In other words, in some premillennial writings, black citizens of the kingdom will still be inferior.
For most dispensationalists, however, problems with racism would be resolved in the kingdom. There was no need to engage in the issues now. In fact, in a world that is spiraling down, such effort is a waste of time. The later Civil Rights Movement was seen as an example of American liberalism, which was godless. Dispensationalists saw no need to reach out to black constituents to try and improve their social status. DTS did not accept its first black student until 1966. When confronted with this lack of concern about the black church, Walvoord, the president of the institution, responded that he was not willing to fight against the status quo (p. 263). DTS, after all, was located in the South.
Pop dispensationalists, who had at least some connections with new premillennial eschatology, often reflected racist ideas. Hummel points out that Tim LaHaye, one of the leaders of this movement, belonged to the John Birch Society. It was strongly racist and appealed to white conservatives. He and people like Jerry Falwell were strong opponents of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s. They saw that movement as prohibiting the furtherance of the proclamation of the gospel (pp. 270, 279). When the vast majority of the black church supported liberal politics and social change, and white premillennialists mostly supported conservative political programs, the latter would often be seen as racist by the former.
Hummel rightly points out that opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, as well as the idea that solving racist problems should await the world to come, caused the dispensational movement to be rejected by the black community and church. This also contributed to the collapse of the system as it did not reach out to such a large population of potential adherents.
However, it is another thing to say that dispensationalism and new premillennial eschatology are racist themselves. If one concludes that individuals like Morgan and LaHaye were racist, it does not necessarily mean that the theological system they promoted was as well. It is inconsistent to single out dispensationalism as racist when other Evangelicals did the same things. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention certainly supported segregation and most of their early leaders were slave owners. Their seminaries, like DTS, also did not admit black students until the 1960s either.
Evangelicals of practically all stripes were guilty of hypocrisy when it came to race relations. It is unfair to suggest that racists were only associated with a theological system that saw the kingdom as totally future.
Surely almost all dispensationalists would reject the racist views of the “nations” of Morgan and what Moody said about the white Eurocentric leadership of the kingdom of God. For example, this reviewer has never met a single dispensationalist who held these views. Unfortunately, like many Evangelicals, people like Morgan and Moody were products of the culture in which they lived. The fault laid in their individual beliefs and not the literal interpretation of Biblical prophecy. Racist dispensationalists, like all racist Evangelicals, are not faithful to the teachings of God’s Word.
A Christian who does not support liberal political programs may very well not be a racist. He could see those policies as detrimental to the black community and church. In fact, those policies can be seen as detrimental to all of society. A white Republican dispensationalist may conclude that these policies will result in the wrath of God on our culture. Even if he is looking forward to the coming kingdom, he does not want what he sees as destructive policies enacted in his community.
If one accepts the dispensational view that the kingdom is future, it is not racist to believe that the black church is mistaken in its view that liberal political programs will be of benefit to them. The answer for believers of all races is found in living godly lives in anticipation of the imminent return of the Lord. This would involve properly interpreting the Bible. A dispensationalist is not a racist if he thinks his system provides the way to do so. A dispensationalist is not a racist because he believes the church cannot redeem this fallen world from the sins so prevalent around us, including the sin of racism.
B. Free Grace Theology and Dispensationalism
As mentioned above, Hummel sees opposition to Free Grace (FG) theology as a reason why dispensationalism collapsed. He mentions it on numerous occasions (pp. 11, 39, 148, 151, 184, 193-95, 209, 302, 310).
The opponents of FG theology, according to Hummel, object to the practice of only requiring a sinner’s prayer, the call to simply accept Jesus into your heart, or making a decision for Christ, in order to be saved from hell. They reject the teaching that the unbeliever does not have to submit to the will of God. They claim that dispensationalism played a large role in supporting such notions. It taught that the sinner only had to acknowledge Jesus as Savior.
A common accusation is that dispensationalism’s teaching about separate dispensations led to this way of presenting the gospel. The OT was seen as a dispensation of Law, and the NT was the dispensation of grace. In the church age, people are under “pure grace.” Opponents said that this division of the Scriptures into dispensations mutilates the Bible and perverts the gospel.4
Hummel says that the revivalism of people like Moody emphasized this idea of free grace. People were told they only had to walk the “sawdust trail” and simply make a decision for Christ.
In The Fundamentals, Scofield taught FG. Hummel points out that critics, even ex-dispensationalists, said it allowed Christians to keep on sinning while claiming to be saved from hell. Other Evangelicals, such as A. W. Tozer, complained that such a gospel did not require obedience or cross-bearing.
MacArthur traced what he considered the heresy of the FG gospel to Chafer. Ryrie continued the supposed error. But the leader of this teaching would be Zane Hodges, another long-time professor at DTS. He taught that repentance, which he defined as turning from sins, was not required for eternal salvation. The unbeliever did not have to acknowledge Jesus as Lord in order to be saved.
Most readers of the JOTGES will be confused by some of Hummel’s statements. Free Grace theology does not call for a decision. A sinner’s prayer has never saved anybody. Nobody was ever saved by walking down the aisle or inviting Jesus into his heart. Hummel seems to imply that FG theology has nothing to say about holy living. He never mentions the doctrine of rewards or explains that FG theology makes a distinction between eternal salvation, which is absolutely free, and discipleship, which is costly and requires good works.
In addition, Hummel does not accurately explain what the FG gospel is. As taught by Hodges, who he states was its most able spokesman, eternal life is given by believing in Jesus for eternal life. Faith is being convinced that the promise of eternal life given by the Lord is true. Assurance of that salvation is the essence of faith. Hummel does not mention any of these things.
It follows, then, that FG theology does not necessarily flow from dispensationalism. They are separate issues. One can be a dispensationalist but not FG. Hummel himself states that Darby did not teach the same gospel as Hodges or Chafer and that the early Brethren leaders were Reformed in their soteriology. Moody’s revivalism also did not promote a FG gospel. Holiness leaders were part of that movement and they denied the assurance of salvation.
Many of the proponents of new premillennial eschatology, which was associated with dispensationalism, were either Reformed or Arminian in their soteriology. They did not maintain that assurance was the essence of saving faith. Eternal salvation and discipleship were not seen as separate. Discipleship was seen as necessary either to prove one’s salvation or to keep it. Eternal rewards as the result of good works were seldom if ever taught among many who held various dispensational beliefs.
This reviewer attended DTS at a time when all professors claimed to be dispensationalists. The vast majority of them did not hold to a FG gospel. Hodges was not seen as a representative of dispensationalism in this regard.
The connection between FG theology and dispensationalism is a literal hermeneutic. Specifically, the FG gospel is derived from interpreting the gospel presentations in the Gospel of John in a literal way. For example, when Jesus says to the woman at the well that if she believed in who He was (the Christ) and the gift He had to give (eternal life), it would be hers and she would never thirst for it again. She would be eternally saved forever and her eternal life could never be lost. The necessity of works, however it is introduced, is excluded.
C. Biblical Teaching and the Fall of Dispensationalism
Hummel’s book is not an exegetical work that attempts to show that dispensationalism failed because it was not Biblical. It argues that there were historical reasons why the system collapsed as a viable alternative to Biblical interpretation. It is safe to assume that Hummel would agree with the opponents of dispensationalism that its rejection by the vast majority of Christian leaders is all but proof that it is unbiblical.
This is a common accusation against both dispensationalism and FG theology. Since the majority of Christians and their leaders have determined they are either unbiblical or even heretical, they are to be thrown on the trash heap of history. Dispensationalism experienced a relatively short period of popularity, but its rejection by Christians across denominational lines shows its demise should be celebrated.
According to Hummel, another reason dispensationalism fell is because of the character flaws of many of those who were associated with, and promoted, the system. They literally cashed in on popular aspects of the theology. Others were too lazy to respond to the attacks upon it.
But does the majority determine Biblical truth? Do the sins of proponents of a theological system prove it is false? The answer in both cases must be “no.” Even those who oppose dispensationalism differ on the issues it has raised. There is no majority opinion on eschatology, soteriology, or the view of the kingdom. Each group has its own examples of leaders with feet of clay. Their failures do not prove or disprove their theology.
The real issue with dispensationalism is the degree to which it accurately interprets the Word of God. Is it Biblical to interpret the Bible in a literal way? Is it proper to allow the Bible to interpret itself? Does God have a future for the nation of Israel? Are Israel and the church separate entities? Does the kingdom of God lie in the future? We cannot determine these things by a vote or by whatever shortcomings teachers in the flesh may demonstrate. Only the Bible will give us the answers. Since that is not the purpose of Hummel’s book, it will not answer those questions.
George Ladd was a very harsh critic of dispensationalism. Even so, he had some high praise for the system. Hummel says Ladd commented that it is:
…doubtful if there has been any other circle of men [dispensationalists] who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching, and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.5
Even if we accept this verdict by Ladd as true, it does not prove the truth of dispensationalism. But his words can also serve as a warning. Just because the majority of this world does not accept the teachings of dispensationalism does not mean they are automatically false.
It is somewhat ironic for this reviewer when we are reminded of Darby’s view of the majority of Christendom in his day. He and the early Brethren saw a church that needed reformation and a return to serious Bible study and discipleship. Their view was that the situation was so bad that Christians needed to withdraw from their denominations, study the Bible, and get back to Biblical living based upon looking for the imminent return of the Lord.
How would they respond to the history of dispensationalism as presented in Hummel’s book? The book concludes that a very large percentage of people in those denominations have looked at the teachings of those early dispensationalists and found them lacking. However, if these men were able to speak to us today, surely they would suggest that they were right about the state of Christendom. You can almost hear Darby say, “I told you so.”
VI. CONCLUSION
In The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism, Daniel Hummel has done a great job of describing the history of dispensationalism. It started as a small group of radical, separatist, European believers. Within 150 years it had grown to be a popular, respected, and scholarly view of Evangelical interpretation. But it quickly became a system that is seen by most Christian leaders today as an oddity or even a source of ridicule. The majority of people reject it. This is what Hummel means by its “fall.”
Readers of the JOTGES will find this an interesting book. They will discover familiar names and learn how different groups responded to dispensational teachings. Many will understand at a deeper level how small a group they belong to.
The book also challenges dispensationalists to be consistent in their beliefs and practices. What does it mean when we say that the kingdom of God is not the church but lies in the future? How does that impact how we try to influence the present culture? How involved should we be in politics? Are accusations of racism towards premillennialists valid?
The book also shows the gross misunderstanding of FG theology that exists in our Christian culture today. The opponents of the gospel of grace have something in common. Despite their denials, they add works to the offer of eternal life. As a result, they have no assurance of eternal salvation.
Dispensationalism is not the same thing as Free Grace. But they have something in common. They both insist on a literal hermeneutic. In the case of FG theology, if we take the words of the Lord at face value when He evangelized unbelievers in the Gospel of John, we can only arrive at one conclusion. The message of grace that we proclaim is what He preached. That should be our goal, not conforming to the views of the majority.
1 Biola would become another one.
2 These include Talbot Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary.
3 A Reformed view of soteriology includes works in the offer of eternal salvation. It is worded in different ways. Some say that salvation cannot be obtained until a person gives his life over to the Lord by turning from his sins. Others say that final salvation will only be obtained when the Lord looks at our works at the final judgment to see if we merit that salvation. Many say we look to our works to see if we are true believers or not. All of this is related to the Calvinist teaching that genuine believers will persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives.
4 This reviewer finds it strange that opponents of dispensationalism and its connection with the FG gospel often accuse dispensationalism of teaching two ways of eternal salvation. They say dispensationalists teach that people in the OT were saved by works of the Law while NT believers are saved by grace. That is simply not true. Grace Evangelical Society, for example, teaches that OT people were saved by grace through faith in the coming Christ. New Testament believers are saved by grace through faith in the Christ who has already come. In both cases, they believe that the Christ gives eternal life by believing in Him. I do not know a single FG leader who claims OT people were saved by keeping the Law of Moses.
5 George E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 49.
