Several years ago, Dr. MacArthur was asked about dispensationalism in a Q&A session at Grace Church. I love John's answer to the question. And while I doubt everyone reading this will totally agree with it, my guess is it should at least spark some conversation. We'll see...
Questioner: I would like to know about dispensationalism. I have been listening to Chuck Swindoll, yourself, and others. I really like their ministries. And they all preach the pre-tribulation rapture, and I can buy that. I think it’s great. And then I hear some other respected men in the Lord say, "Well that is a dispensational point-of-view," and they imply that that is something that has taken place within the last hundred years or so within the church. I would just like to hear a little from you.
John MacArthur:You see, that is just a label that they throw. What do you mean a "dispensational point-of-view"? The word "dispensation" is a New Testament word. Paul said that it was committed unto him the dispensation of the grace of God, the dispensation of the mysteries. It simply means a "stewardship." It is a biblical term, that’s all. This is the accusation over and over again that dispensationalism popped up with J. N. Darby, and C. I. Scofield, and all of that? But we are not working our way through a system. Rather we are attempting to interpret Scripture on its own merit.
Okay, you have some basic things to deal with. Dispensationalism, by the way, is simply a title for theology that recognizes a literal nation Israel to be restored in the future. And recognizes a literal kingdom, and a literal tribulation, and a literal return, and a literal rapture. The other perspective is what’s called non-dispensational or covenant theology, which has no place for Israel, no kingdom in the future, and essentially spiritualizes everything in prophetic literature rather than making it literal.
Now, what you have to do is to go back to some very basic things. "Dispensation" simply means that God manages things in a certain way at a certain time. Everybody is a dispensationalist, everybody. I don’t care who they are in theology, they’re dispensational. It’s only a question of how many you have. Let me show you why.
Was there a difference in the way God dealt with man before the fall? Was there a difference then after the fall? Alright. Then do you believe that pre-fall is one stewardship, or one economy of time, or one way in which God dealt with man? That’s one dispensation. Then after the fall, God had to deal with man on a different basis. Why? Because sin had entered the world, and God had to deal with man on that basis. So He implemented the sacrificial system which was not necessary before that.
When Jesus Christ came and died on the cross, was there a difference after that in the way God dealt with man? Law was not the major thrust, but God’s grace was the major thrust. So already you have at least three dispensations. And what happens in the eternal state? Now you have four.
I don’t care who you are. I don’t care if you want to wave flags and deny dispensationalism. Everybody winds up recognizing that there are different ways God has dealt with man, pre-fall, post fall, pre-cross, post-cross, and eternity. You have to see distinctions, so then it only becomes a matter of discerning how God is going to deal with Israel in the future.
Now what it boils down to in dispensational theology is that we believe that when God says something He means it, and He means exactly what He said. And we don’t want to take the liberty to spiritualize it.
Now in the OT repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, the Bible says God has a place for the nation Israel. This is echoed in the NT in places like Romans 11. We take all that literally. We say there is a kingdom for Israel.
The non-dispensationalist says, "No, Israel forfeited its kingdom in the execution of the Messiah, the Church is the New Israel, we are the Israel of God, there is no literal kingdom, everything is spiritual." And they take that theology, read it back into the OT and reinterpret all of the OT promises as spiritual promises to the church and eliminate Israel. For example, I know of a distinguished covenantal scholar who, when a student stood up and asked him in a seminar, "What is the significance of Israel's return to the land today?", his answer was, "It has absolutely no significance at all." That's ridiculous. But you see, he has to say that for his theology's sake. There aren't any Hivites, Jebusites, Amorites, Amalekites, Moabites, or Perizzites around today. But there are millions of Israelites alive and back in the land. Why? Because God isn't finished with them.
And that’s all that dispensationalism affirms. The covenant theologian admits pre-fall, post-fall, pre-cross, post-cross, and eternity; all we want to do is get kingdom in there. And if you have a literal kingdom, then you’re going to have a literal beginning of the kingdom. And then you’re going to have a literal return, and a literal tribulation, and then a literal rapture, that’s all. And we do this, again, because such naturally results from the consistent application of a literal hermeneutic.
Note from http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/2006/08/everybody-is-dispensationalist.html
