Do Dispensationalists Take Things To Far?

Non-lordship salvation is a neutral term for easy believism  this link should explain it. An easy way to look at it is the opposite of lordship salvation. And yes that's exactly what I'm doing Is a restudy on Dispensationalism so that I can get a better understanding.

I agree with you 100% let me give a little better definition of Dispensationalism. There are many to choose from I'll go for the most acceptable ones.

The word dispensation is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary as:

1. a general state or ordering of things; specifically: a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs

2. a particular arrangement or provision especially of providence or nature

3. an exemption from a law or from an impediment, vow, or oath

4. a formal authorization

5. the act of dispensing

6. something dispensed or distributed

Then we have the biblical definition of dispensation.

 Charles Ryrie writes as follows:

At least three dispensations (as commonly understood in dispensational teaching) are mentioned by Paul. In Ephesians 1:10 he writes of “an administration [dispensation, KJV] suitable to the fullness of the times,” which is a future period. In Ephesians 3:2 he designates the “stewardship [dispensation, KJV] of God’s grace,” which was the emphasis of the content of his preaching at that time. In Colossians 1:25–26 it is implied that another dispensation preceded the present one, in which the mystery of Christ in the believer is revealed.

Roy Aldrich presents the Biblical definition of the word "dispensation" as follows:

The word dispensation is a Scriptural term. It occurs in 1 Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25. The Greek word is oikonomia. It is a compound word derived from the words oikos (house) and nomos (law). The literal meaning is house rule and the general meaning is stewardship, economy, or government. Dispensational truth simply means that God has dealt with the human race or the Jews under different economies or responsibilities

Then we have the theological use of the term "dispensation"

Building on the above definition of a dispensation, dispensationalism may be defined as that system of theology which interprets the Bible literally—according to normal usage—and places primary emphasis on the major biblical covenants—Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, New—and sees the Bible as the unfolding of distinguishable economies in the outworking of God’s major purpose to bring glory to Himself.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines dispensation in the following manner:

A religious order or system, conceived as divinely instituted, or as a stage in a progressive revelation expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time, as the patriarchal, Mosaic (or Jewish) dispensation, the Christian dispensation; also the age or period during which such system has prevailed.

The definition given by The Oxford English Dictionary would be generally approved by both modern dispensationalists and nondispensationalists.”

So if i believe Jesus came not to judge but to save, I am an easy believist? This makes no sense..


The oxford defenition is too week. It attempts to place dispensationalism as jews vs the church.

Again, this is in error. 

I believe this is why most people hate dispensationalism, In thinking it is just the jews against the church, it assumes a duel covenant or gospel theology (the jew was saved by law. When we go back to tribulation of the last 7 years. They will return to be saved by law. The church is saved by Grace)

while there is a SMALL sect of dispy’s who follow this theology. It was not taught by the fathers of dispensationalsim (namely scofield) nor is it held by maintstream di spy’s

We believe that all people from adam until the last man standing, are saved by grace through faith.. Abraham believed God and it was accounted as righteous..

The book of Romans is a tremendous revelation of what happens in the believer's life when he comes to Christ. The opening two verses of Romans 6 make it very clear that the apostle is dealing with the question of whether the believer can go on living in sin after he has come to Christ. Can he go on in a lifestyle that is basically wrong and sinful? Can he live as an alcoholic, or a swindler, or an adulterer, or a homosexual, or a slanderer? Is it possible to maintain such a lifestyle and be a Christian?

The apostle's answer -- as we have already seen in the first two verses -- is, "By no means!" Romans 6:2a It is impossible, Paul says, because, as he puts it in these four little words, "We died to sin," Romans 6:2b  Paul's conclusion is: "How can we go on living in it any longer?" Romans 6:2c 

In Verses 3-14 (of Romans 6) we want to see how the apostle begins to unfold this conclusion so that we might understand in detail what that change means in our lives.

When you become a Christian, when you really, truly receive Jesus Christ as Lord, something happens that makes it impossible to go on living a lifestyle of evil. We died to sin -- and this is what we are examining in this message. The apostle uses two marvelous visual aids that God likes to employ to help us to understand truth. One of them is baptism; and the other, which may be more difficult for you to see, is grafting -- as a plant or a branch is grafted into a tree. Let's see what the apostle says about baptism in Verses 3-4. Beginning at Verse 1:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Romans 6:1-4 

Dig Deeper

Same here.


What Is Pretribulational Premillennialism?  l A lot of good links from this page on this topic.

LOL! Oh my, did I create a monster? 

Take care not to commit a construction error, or a false-cause error. While it is true all "no-lordship" "theology" comes from non-dispies it is not fair to say Dispensationalism causes that particularly bad bad theology, nor that what is true of one part is true of the whole. I will say the sheer number of unusual and/or extreme points of view are a legitimate reason to examine the common root and ask, "How did that come to be?" and "What can be done to change that root so further error and damage does not ensue?"

These are all distinctions made into divisions by men after the canon of scripture was closed. For example, the NT does speak of old and new covenants (not capitalized) but the old ones are all foreshadows of the new one. The law is one of those covenants AND within the new covenant every single new covenant writer used the law (and the prophets and psalms) and applied it to both Jewish and Gentile converts. 


If you're interested, when you get done reading all this dispensationalist tomes I recommended , you might give Stephen Wellum's books, "Kingdom Through Covenant," and "Progressive Covenantalism," a read because he's sought to address some of the flaws in Covenant Theology and address the matter of continuity of scripture that has been brought into question by Dispensationalism. 

You're welcome. I recommend monergism.org, but I also remined you to become familiar with Dispensationalism as its adherents assert it, not just it's critics.