Salvation in Dispensationalism

By Larry Oats | October 31, 2019

Dispensationalism inherently sees distinctions in many areas of theology and practice between the Old and New Testaments. We believe that the progress of revelation includes a progression of dispensational expectations and truth, some expanding upon information from former dispensations and some in contrast to former dispensations. Covenant theology, on the other hand, seeks to unify the testaments, using redemption and the allencompassing umbrella of the covenant of grace to tie the entire Bible into one neat package. The covenant/dispensational differences are evident in the doctrine of salvation.

Charles Hodge demonstrates the unity of Old Testament and New Testament salvation: “The plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning. There is the same promise of deliverance from the evils of the apostasy, the same redeemer, the same condition required for participation in the blessings of redemption, and the same complete salvation for all who embrace the offers of divine mercy.”1 Many covenant theologians have been critical of dispensational soteriology, arguing that we teach multiple ways of salvation. Robert Reymond, after reviewing dispensational soteriology, concludes that dispensationalists believe “there are at least two different plans of salvation in Scripture” and then adds that dispensationalists have also argued for two ways of salvation in the Old Testament, one before the Law of Moses and a different way afterwards.2 He then argues for the validity of covenant theology’s singular soteriology.

The Accusations

Ryrie identifies (and responds to) several reasons for this accusation.3 One reason is a misunderstanding of the use of the term “dispensation of grace.” This phraseology is taken to mean that there was no grace in other dispensations.

Another is a misunderstanding of the concept of a dispensation. Dispensationalists believe that revelation specific to a dispensation may include dispensationally specific requirements concerning how God approaches man and vice versa. This is assumed to mean that dispensationalists must argue for multiple ways of salvation.

A reason more important to dispensationalists, however, comes from statements made by early dispensationalists which indicate that salvation in the Old Testament was not by grace. The Scofield Reference Bible was the Bible of early Fundamentalism, and its editor, C. I. Scofield, was one of the leading popularizers of dispensational thought. Scofield made this unfortunate statement: “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3.24–26; 4.24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation (John 1.12, 13; 3.36; Mt. 21.37; 22.42; John 15.22; Heb. 1.2; 1 John 5.10–12).”4 This seems to indicate that in the New Testament salvation came by grace through the acceptance of Christ, while for those under the Mosaic Law salvation came by works through the maintenance of a system of works. Based on other comments by Scofield, this writer has concluded that this was an unfortunate phrasing by Scofield, but that is beside the point—the statement has been in print for over a century.

A related problem is that Lewis Sperry Chafer, a leading early dispensationalist, gives the impression that the dispensation of Law was a forsaking of a previous plateau of grace, a reversal in the progress of the dispensations. “When the Law was proposed, the children of Israel deliberately forsook their position under the grace of God which had been their relationship to God until that day, and placed themselves under the law.”5 The implication is that the Old Testament saint was under grace until Moses, under law until Christ, and the New Testament saint is now again under grace.

The Responses

The first two concerns may be addressed briefly. The term “dispensation of grace” is Biblical (Eph. 3:2). Grace is characteristic of this dispensation, but not exclusive to it. Grace and mercy flow from God’s love and are, therefore, characteristic of His dealings with humanity since the Fall. God was gracious toward Noah (Gen. 6:8). Deuteronomy 7:7–9 indicates that one reason that God chose Israel was because of His grace, expressed in these verses as love and mercy.

The second concern is more significant and ongoing. Dispensationalism does not claim that each new dispensation contains new revelation concerning salvation. If a person accepts the traditional seven dispensations, then he must admit that the dispensation of Civil Government shed no new light regarding redemption. The more significant element of this problem, however, is that the hermeneutical debate between covenant theology and dispensationalism will not be resolved. Dispensationalists see a distinction between law and grace, based on Romans 6:14 and much of Galatians. Covenant theologians cannot accept this. While dispensationalists probably need to emphasize the role of grace in the Mosaic period more than they have traditionally done, we cannot dismiss the Biblical distinction between the two concepts and all the ramifications attendant to this distinction. Covenant theologians, however, have a problem on their side of this issue. Berkhof admits, “The Sinaitic covenant is an interlude, covering a period in which the real character of the covenant of grace, that is, its free and gracious character, is somewhat eclipsed by all kinds of external ceremonies and forms.”6 Dispensationalism believes that each new dispensation represents a progression in revelation and a step forward in God’s plan for the ages. Israel in Egypt had failed in their faithfulness to God; thus the giving of the Law was progress. It was obvious that Israel needed something better than it had in Egypt; therefore, God gave them a detailed code for living. Deuteronomy 8:18 declares that the Law was a gift from God. Romans 3:21 and Galatians 3:24 give one purpose of the Law as pointing to Christ, and it did so far more effectively than previous revelation. Hebrews demonstrates that no Old Testament sacrifice could actually take away sin, but that the sacrifices were only foreshadows of Christ’s coming.

The third accusation needs to be addressed more completely. Scofield and Chafer (and they are not alone) left an impression that salvation comes in various ways. These were unfortunate statements.7 It may be argued that they were said early in the debate and were not thought through well. It must also be admitted that the dispensationalism of today is not the same as the dispensationalism of Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, and other early writers. There has been additional study and revision. Ryrie’s position is usually called “revised dispensationalism.” Some dispensationalists continue to revise and correct Ryrie to some extent. Still others have moved much further into progressive dispensationalism, but that discussion is for another day.

Dispensationalism agrees with covenant theology that the basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ (Heb. 10:4ff). However, this does not mean that all believers in every age understood that it would be the death and resurrection of the God-man Jesus which would be the basis for granting salvation. While the proto-evangelium may now be seen to refer to Christ’s death on the cross, it is unlikely that anyone in Adam’s time fully comprehended this. “Bruising” someone’s heel seems a far cry from crucifying him. Christ’s death is the basis of salvation because from God’s perspective the sacrifice of Christ was a finished transaction. The death of Christ was God’s plan from eternity, and therefore God has always seen Christ’s work as an accomplished fact.

The requirement of salvation in every age is faith. Paul, in his theological discussion of justification, used Abraham as an example of faith being the requirement for righteous (Rom. 4:3, 4, 9, 16).

The object of faith in every age is God. Hebrews 11 demonstrates the role of faith in the Old Testament. The object of faith is preceded by the prepositions eis (John 2:11; Acts 10:43; 19:4; Gal. 2:16; etc.) and epi (Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; Rom. 4:5; etc.). In John 1:12 faith was to be placed in Jesus’ name, phraseology that “had significance to the Hebrews, who regarded one’s name as virtually equivalent to the person.”8

It is the content of faith that changes in the dispensations. Covenant theologians and dispensationalists would typically agree on the basis, requirement, and object of faith. They do not agree on the reality of a change in the content of faith. Covenant theology “insists that Old Testament saints were saved through conscious faith in the future, anticipated sacrificial work of the promised Messiah in their behalf.” Otherwise, salvation would be available for someone who did not know that without “the shedding of [Messiah’s] blood there is no forgiveness.”9 Adam had to be fully aware that the Messiah would be sacrificed for his sin and thus redeem him.

Dispensationalists agree that Biblical faith is not fideism, faith without an object. There must be something and someone genuinely true to believe on and believe in. Genuine faith believes that something is true (the content of faith) and believes (trusts) in a Person, the object of faith. The content of the faith is the mental assent to truth. When John the Baptist asked Jesus if He were the Messiah, Jesus directed him to His miracles (Luke 7:19–22). When Thomas doubted, Jesus offered him the opportunity to feel his wounds. These two cannot be divorced—faith in a Person without a content leads toward neo-orthodoxy and existentialism. Faith in content without trust in a Person leads to empty knowledge, a scholasticism of sorts. The question is, when the Old Testament saint “looked forward” to the final sacrifice for sin, did he see exactly what we see when we “look back” to the cross of Calvary? If not exactly, then how much did he see? And the question for the covenant theologian, then, is, how much must he have known of Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection?

Dispensationalists argue for the progress of revelation, and we would include even redemptive revelation. The first revelation of the coming redemption was the declaration that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). This glimmer grew brighter throughout the Old Testament until the prophets were speaking of the name, character, mission, and even birthplace of the Coming One (Isa. 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if anyone clearly understood these matters; even His disciples did not fully understand until after His death and resurrection (John 2:22).

The content of the faith of the Old Testament saints was whatever portion of God’s redemptive revelation had been given to that point. It is important to remember that since in each economy the content is what God has revealed, belief in the content for that age is belief in the ultimate object of faith, God Himself, whether in the Person of the Father or the Son.

Dr. Larry Oats is a professor in the Maranatha Baptist Seminary. His service at Maranatha began in 1974.

(Originally published in FrontLine • July/August 2010. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

  1. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint, 1970), 2:367. [↩]
  2. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 509–11. [↩]
  3. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 106ff. [↩]
  4. C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), 1115, footnote 1. [↩]
  5. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947–48), 4:162.) [↩]
  6. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 296–97. [↩]
  7. In fairness to both Scofield and Chafer, the reader is directed to Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 108, for a defense of their actual positions. Both of these men rejected multiple roads to God. [↩]
  8. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 953. [↩]
  9. Reymond, 509. The brackets are Reymond’s. Knowledge of the shedding of blood was insufficient; Reymond’s addition indicates that the believer had to recognize that the sacrifices pointed to Jesus the Messiah and that He would die as the future sacrifice or there was no faith. [↩]
Posted in Blog and tagged , ,