What do you think?
Rate this book
Dispensationalism, Rightly Dividing the People of God
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
176 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1995
11 people are currently reading
172 people want to read
About the author
Keith A. Mathison
19 books57 followersDr. Keith A. Mathison is associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He is also academic dean and professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla., and author of From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
May 16, 2020
I picked this up to better understand the Reformed critique of dispensationalism. As a dispensationalist who also appreciates Reformed theology, I can't say I found the book overly persuasive. I can't say I hold much in common with the brand of dispensationalism critiqued.
Of course, part of this may be due to the strawmen abounding in the book; Mathison chastises dispeys for holding to a wooden literalism, and then calls them inconsistent when he finds them not to be in their interpretations. Still, assuming he fairly quotes his sources, I disagree with at least two of the six points he says defines the most prominent dispey scholars (17-18), and I know dispey writers who would, as well.
This is because Mathison avoids citing but from a narrow spectrum of dispey authors, meaning many dispeys wouldn't find themselves well represented in this book. As he notes in Appendix A, he purposefully ignored the progressive dispensationalists for being too different --- he says they're not really dispensationalists! He amazingly likens them to Baptists who no longer believe in immersion or theists who no longer believe in God (136).
This explains why he avoids quoting men like John MacArthur. In fact, the only time he interacts with MacArthur isn't in relation to dispensationalism, but in reference to lordship salvation. In Chapter 14, he says that dispeys aren't lordship (*some* aren't) except for MacArthur, who has a "dispensational" lordship view (scare-quotes used each time). Still, Mathison fails to demonstrate any difference between MacArthur's "dispensational" lordship and the Reformed view.
Indeed, MacArthur and many other of dispey types find no disagreement in the entirety of Part 3 of Matthison's book, "The Dispensational Doctrine of Salvation," and even with some of the other sections. Even those who do disagree with Mathison here (the Arminian variety) would cry fowl: soteriology is *not* a point of contention in this debate. Yet, it was an easier case for Mathison if he narrowly defined dispensationalism, waved away any dispeys that are closer to his position, cherry-picked some of the worst possible statements from non-Reformed writers, and then simply presented an overview of Reformation doctrine.
I can see why some would find this convincing, but a slam-dunk it was not. In fact, this book now explains some of the strange notions my Reformed friends think I hold we venture to discuss eschatology. If I may be so bold, it seems like this book is wrongly dividing the people of God.
Since it has some good material in the middle on Reformed theology, I'll give it an extra star for that. :-)
Of course, part of this may be due to the strawmen abounding in the book; Mathison chastises dispeys for holding to a wooden literalism, and then calls them inconsistent when he finds them not to be in their interpretations. Still, assuming he fairly quotes his sources, I disagree with at least two of the six points he says defines the most prominent dispey scholars (17-18), and I know dispey writers who would, as well.
This is because Mathison avoids citing but from a narrow spectrum of dispey authors, meaning many dispeys wouldn't find themselves well represented in this book. As he notes in Appendix A, he purposefully ignored the progressive dispensationalists for being too different --- he says they're not really dispensationalists! He amazingly likens them to Baptists who no longer believe in immersion or theists who no longer believe in God (136).
This explains why he avoids quoting men like John MacArthur. In fact, the only time he interacts with MacArthur isn't in relation to dispensationalism, but in reference to lordship salvation. In Chapter 14, he says that dispeys aren't lordship (*some* aren't) except for MacArthur, who has a "dispensational" lordship view (scare-quotes used each time). Still, Mathison fails to demonstrate any difference between MacArthur's "dispensational" lordship and the Reformed view.
Indeed, MacArthur and many other of dispey types find no disagreement in the entirety of Part 3 of Matthison's book, "The Dispensational Doctrine of Salvation," and even with some of the other sections. Even those who do disagree with Mathison here (the Arminian variety) would cry fowl: soteriology is *not* a point of contention in this debate. Yet, it was an easier case for Mathison if he narrowly defined dispensationalism, waved away any dispeys that are closer to his position, cherry-picked some of the worst possible statements from non-Reformed writers, and then simply presented an overview of Reformation doctrine.
I can see why some would find this convincing, but a slam-dunk it was not. In fact, this book now explains some of the strange notions my Reformed friends think I hold we venture to discuss eschatology. If I may be so bold, it seems like this book is wrongly dividing the people of God.
Since it has some good material in the middle on Reformed theology, I'll give it an extra star for that. :-)
February 19, 2022
According to Mathison, the teachings of individual dispensationslists are perfectly representative of the essentials of the system of dispensationalism. Apparently, if Ryrie, Walvood, Pentecost, or Chafer ever wrote anything, that particular view is an integral and indispensable part of dispensationalism. The abject lack of critical thinking skills in evaluating dispensationalism is strikingly abysmal. I would only recommend this book to people looking to discern how *not* to evaluate an opposing view.
Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism is not part and parcel of the system, even if some of its adherents advocate for the like. I found myself offering hearty amens to much of what was written in chapters 7-10 on total depravity, irresistible grace, limited atonement, and unconditional election. That being said, I shouldn't be surprised that this book takes such a horrifyingly bad take on the soteriological views of a handful of dispensationalists, no matter how prominent. R.C. Sproul, whose endorsement sits on the cover, was just as uncharitable and incorrect when he penned "Willing to Believe."
If I did my math correctly, Mathison was in his late 20s when this book was published in 1995. It's my sincere hope that, were this book written today, that he would do a better job with his presentation of dispensationalism.
Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism is not part and parcel of the system, even if some of its adherents advocate for the like. I found myself offering hearty amens to much of what was written in chapters 7-10 on total depravity, irresistible grace, limited atonement, and unconditional election. That being said, I shouldn't be surprised that this book takes such a horrifyingly bad take on the soteriological views of a handful of dispensationalists, no matter how prominent. R.C. Sproul, whose endorsement sits on the cover, was just as uncharitable and incorrect when he penned "Willing to Believe."
If I did my math correctly, Mathison was in his late 20s when this book was published in 1995. It's my sincere hope that, were this book written today, that he would do a better job with his presentation of dispensationalism.
May 4, 2020
This was a good overview of dispensationalism. I do think he generalizes the view too much, but that's really the cost of doing a short overview of such a widely varied view. He says that dispensationalists claim to be 4-point Calvinists and I personally know of no dispensationalists that would say that. All dispensationalists I've met have been Arminian and vehemently anti-Calvinist. He only gave one reference for that view and I'd have liked to see more to back up that claim. He also doesn't do the best in arguing against dispensational eschatology. Again, it's supposed to be an overview of it, but he dismissed the rapture and premillennialism because they were connected to dispensationalism and are therefore wrong. He did argue from scripture some, but the crux of his argument was that "since dispensationalism = wrong, then rapture & premillennialism = wrong". I think the premil part annoyed me a little more because he even says that there's historic premillennialism, but then groups it with dispensational premillennialism anyway.
Overall, I think this was helpful. It addressed the main problems and provided a further reading list. It's more of a book to help you jump off into the right direction. It was also very easy to read and understand.
Overall, I think this was helpful. It addressed the main problems and provided a further reading list. It's more of a book to help you jump off into the right direction. It was also very easy to read and understand.
April 1, 2016
This was a fantastic book. Having progressively come out of the dispensational camp over the last 4 or so years, this book articulated very well many of the thoughts and struggles I had in mind while still engrossed in that system of theology - things that I could never really reconcile with Scripture.
Gracious in tone, Keith Mathison does a superb job of showing several of the flaws of dispensational theology when put up to the scrutiny of Scripture.
I highly recommend.
Gracious in tone, Keith Mathison does a superb job of showing several of the flaws of dispensational theology when put up to the scrutiny of Scripture.
I highly recommend.
June 9, 2013
This book is short, to the point, and absolutely destroys the Dispensational paradigm from every angle. It also contains a good positive defense of Reformed theology and an appendix that deals with "Progressive Dispensationalism", which Mathison shows to be neither "Progressive" nor "Dispensational".
Highly Recommend.
Highly Recommend.
June 18, 2020
Raised in Churches that taught Dispensationalism. Attended College that taught Dispensationalism as fact. This book helps show their errors and what the Bible teaches. We are living in a Christian culture that takes Dispensationalism as fact. Be ready to learn if you read this book!
June 24, 2012
This book was very disappointing, although I still consider it useful, with strong reservations.
I say that because it starts out with so much promise. Parts 1 and 2 (the first 30% or so) gave brief but nonetheless very convincing refutations of dispensationalist doctrine regarding the relationship between Israel and the church. Given its brevity (only about 40 pages), not all relevant passages could be looked at, but it made the case well. I was thrilled with this book. I was thinking it would make a great resource for my personal library.
And then there was Part 3…
Chapters 6-11 became essentially a diatribe against Arminianism, which is bad for two reasons. First, it isn’t a very good refutation of Arminianism. I agree with most of what he said, but I certainly wouldn’t have even considered that he was right if I were an Arminian (I consider myself a nuanced Calvinist). Some arguments were good, but they get overshadowed by caricatures of Arminians, an inability or refusal to deal with the problem texts beyond “the Bible as a whole says differently,” the tendency to assume the worst about whatever your opponents says, and such other flaws that I’ve unfortunately come to expect in Reformed polemical writings (though that are largely avoided in the better volumes, such as R.C Sproul’s Chosen by God).
More importantly, it’s bad because this is supposed to be a book about dispensationalism! He makes the completely unwarranted assumption that dispensationalism, by definition, means Armininiasm. However, nothing inherent in the dispensationalist system, as he himself defines it early (quite accurately, for the most part), requires one to be Arminian. But because several of the major dispensationalist writers of are day are apparently Arminian, to be dispensationalist must mean you’re also Arminian. That’s absurd of course. That would be like arguing against Calvinism because you believe the Bible says infant baptism is wrong. Indeed, the two positions commonly go together, but there is nothing in TULIP that logically ties them together. You can believe one without the other, and disproving one doesn’t in anyway disprove the other. That’s why there are plenty of Baptists who are Calvinist; heck, there is an entire Reformed Baptist denomination! Can you imagine if an Arminian author wrote a book against Calvinism, and devoted the entire middle of the book to a refutation of infant baptism? In like manner, you can be a dispensationalist and also be a full 5-point Calvinist (like John MacArthur, who is not exactly a nobody). The two sets of doctrine are not even related, so there is no reason why a heated rant about election was needed or in anyway useful in arguing against dispensationalism (except perhaps as an ad hominem; “Oh, we can’t trust those dispensationalists; their most popular adherents are Arminian, so their theology is clearly flawed…”).
Chapter 12 was not much better. In a nutshell, Mathison takes what are probably no worse than poorly worded explanations of internal spiritual regeneration by a few influential dispensationalists, and turns it into “dispensationalism teaches that you become God-men.” I am not exaggerating.
In Chapter 13, he refutes the idea that some dispensationalists have expressed (meaning that all dispensationalists believe it by definition, in Mathison’s mind), that the entire Old Testament Law has expired. He does so by, using scripture and reason, demonstrating that the entire Law of Moses, with all 613 commandments, is still in effect. Of course, since that is certainly not true, and since he as a Reformed Christian certainly does not believe that, this chapter was largely a miss.
Chapter 14 is about the controversy about lordship salvation. He looks at this view versus two forms of nonlordship salvation, and at those three versus the “Reformed view.” As with the other chapters, a dispensationalist could likewise hold the “Reformed view” given his definitions (he lists 9). This time around, however, although he doesn’t say so explicitly, it is clear that the lordship salvation position is consistent with the reformed, and therefore no false dichotomy is drawn between the “dispensationalist” position and the reformed view. It is an okay chapter as far as I can tell.
Finally, Part 4 gets back on topic, looking at things that are in fact unique or at least core to dispensationalism. Part 4 focuses on their view of the last things, and I’d say he does pretty good for the most part.
There are lastly two Appendices. The first Appendix is about why doesn’t like the name “progressive dispensationalism” since it denies a core attribute of dispensationalism, being the distinction between the clear church and Israel. Appendix B is a really good brief explanation and defense of the preterist view of Matthew 24, which I felt ended the book on a positive note.
R.C. Sproul called this book “…a clear introduction to the essential issues that divide dispensational theology from the classical Reformed Orthodoxy…A valuable tool for the layperson.” If it were possible to cut out Part 3 (except maybe Chapter 14, which was okay), I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I got this copy at a library, so I can’t just cut out 60 or so pages. Because the beginning and end are quite useful, I recommend the book, but with very strong reservations.
I say that because it starts out with so much promise. Parts 1 and 2 (the first 30% or so) gave brief but nonetheless very convincing refutations of dispensationalist doctrine regarding the relationship between Israel and the church. Given its brevity (only about 40 pages), not all relevant passages could be looked at, but it made the case well. I was thrilled with this book. I was thinking it would make a great resource for my personal library.
And then there was Part 3…
Chapters 6-11 became essentially a diatribe against Arminianism, which is bad for two reasons. First, it isn’t a very good refutation of Arminianism. I agree with most of what he said, but I certainly wouldn’t have even considered that he was right if I were an Arminian (I consider myself a nuanced Calvinist). Some arguments were good, but they get overshadowed by caricatures of Arminians, an inability or refusal to deal with the problem texts beyond “the Bible as a whole says differently,” the tendency to assume the worst about whatever your opponents says, and such other flaws that I’ve unfortunately come to expect in Reformed polemical writings (though that are largely avoided in the better volumes, such as R.C Sproul’s Chosen by God).
More importantly, it’s bad because this is supposed to be a book about dispensationalism! He makes the completely unwarranted assumption that dispensationalism, by definition, means Armininiasm. However, nothing inherent in the dispensationalist system, as he himself defines it early (quite accurately, for the most part), requires one to be Arminian. But because several of the major dispensationalist writers of are day are apparently Arminian, to be dispensationalist must mean you’re also Arminian. That’s absurd of course. That would be like arguing against Calvinism because you believe the Bible says infant baptism is wrong. Indeed, the two positions commonly go together, but there is nothing in TULIP that logically ties them together. You can believe one without the other, and disproving one doesn’t in anyway disprove the other. That’s why there are plenty of Baptists who are Calvinist; heck, there is an entire Reformed Baptist denomination! Can you imagine if an Arminian author wrote a book against Calvinism, and devoted the entire middle of the book to a refutation of infant baptism? In like manner, you can be a dispensationalist and also be a full 5-point Calvinist (like John MacArthur, who is not exactly a nobody). The two sets of doctrine are not even related, so there is no reason why a heated rant about election was needed or in anyway useful in arguing against dispensationalism (except perhaps as an ad hominem; “Oh, we can’t trust those dispensationalists; their most popular adherents are Arminian, so their theology is clearly flawed…”).
Chapter 12 was not much better. In a nutshell, Mathison takes what are probably no worse than poorly worded explanations of internal spiritual regeneration by a few influential dispensationalists, and turns it into “dispensationalism teaches that you become God-men.” I am not exaggerating.
In Chapter 13, he refutes the idea that some dispensationalists have expressed (meaning that all dispensationalists believe it by definition, in Mathison’s mind), that the entire Old Testament Law has expired. He does so by, using scripture and reason, demonstrating that the entire Law of Moses, with all 613 commandments, is still in effect. Of course, since that is certainly not true, and since he as a Reformed Christian certainly does not believe that, this chapter was largely a miss.
Chapter 14 is about the controversy about lordship salvation. He looks at this view versus two forms of nonlordship salvation, and at those three versus the “Reformed view.” As with the other chapters, a dispensationalist could likewise hold the “Reformed view” given his definitions (he lists 9). This time around, however, although he doesn’t say so explicitly, it is clear that the lordship salvation position is consistent with the reformed, and therefore no false dichotomy is drawn between the “dispensationalist” position and the reformed view. It is an okay chapter as far as I can tell.
Finally, Part 4 gets back on topic, looking at things that are in fact unique or at least core to dispensationalism. Part 4 focuses on their view of the last things, and I’d say he does pretty good for the most part.
There are lastly two Appendices. The first Appendix is about why doesn’t like the name “progressive dispensationalism” since it denies a core attribute of dispensationalism, being the distinction between the clear church and Israel. Appendix B is a really good brief explanation and defense of the preterist view of Matthew 24, which I felt ended the book on a positive note.
R.C. Sproul called this book “…a clear introduction to the essential issues that divide dispensational theology from the classical Reformed Orthodoxy…A valuable tool for the layperson.” If it were possible to cut out Part 3 (except maybe Chapter 14, which was okay), I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I got this copy at a library, so I can’t just cut out 60 or so pages. Because the beginning and end are quite useful, I recommend the book, but with very strong reservations.
December 24, 2019
Só achei absurdo a bibliografia ao final do livro não ser do próprio autor. Claramente os editores brasileiros são amilenistas. Sendo assim, retiraram os livros pós-milenistas indicados por Mathison e fizeram uma lista própria, sem nenhuma explicação ou nota de rodapé. Lamentável!
December 28, 2016
Доступный обзор основных различий между классическим диспенсационализмом и Реформатским богословием.
November 6, 2023
A nice job in most respects, hitting the main issues and giving important rebuttals to the key ideas. The soteriological chapters were the only exception, and seemed misplaced. Though I do think dispensationalism, consistently held, likely leads toward Arminianism, Mathison does not show how dispensationalism's own principles entail such positions. Moreover, I did not think it was good practice to define Arminian positions by citing a Calvinist polemic, and the definitions were not fair as a result. When it came to issues concerning ecclesiology and eschatology, Mathison did a better job citing primary sources and dealing with the essential marks of the system as they are truly held. The greatest value of the book is that Mathison skillfully cuts off the motte-and-bailey technique usually employed with the allegations of so-called "replacement theology" by properly distinguishing between the different senses Scripture uses for "Israel", emphasizing the unity of the entire body of Christ throughout the ages even while the visible form of the people of God has changed. Nondispensationalists, or at least all of which I'm aware, would never affirm a paradigm where believing Jews are actually replaced by believing Gentiles such that they no longer inherit the promises, and the Gentile believers do instead. This is a dispensational projection, since their position divides the people of God into two groups with different sets of promises, an untenable position in light of the work of Christ, who breaks the dividing barrier and in whom are all the promises "yes" and "amen". It's a calumny that should end, but given that books such as this one have been out for about 30 years, I'm not going to get my hopes up that it will anytime soon. The eschatology section was quite good as well, properly emphasizing the problem of temple sacrifices, such as sin offerings, in the millennial kingdom. Such an idea is repugnant to the message of Hebrews especially. Mathison identifies numerous other problems with the system, and I especially appreciate that he does not go down a rabbit trail of distinguishing amillennial and postmillennial tenets, but focuses on areas where they would agree against dispensational excesses. Overall, a nice, shorter book that gets to the heart of a lot of the key issues and shows where dispensationalism is found wanting.
July 19, 2024
A REFORMED CRITIQUE OF DISPENSATIONALISM
Keith A. Mathison is also the author of books such as 'Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope,' 'From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology,' 'When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1995 book, "The decision to write this book was not an easy one... why would a Christian decide to write a book critical of a system of theology cherished by so many godly men and women? ... (Because) the dispensationalists I know desire to believe only what the Scriptures teach. That is also my desire."
He immediately distinguishes between premillennialism and dispensationalism, noting that premillennialism has existed since the first century, "but dispensationalism dates from only about 1830." Later, he notes that "while all dispensationalists are premillennialists, not all premillennialists are dispensationalists" (Pg. 123)
He states that the "real point of disagreement centers on the relationship between believers in the church age and believers in other ages... Reformed theology teaches that the believers of all ages are part of the one body of Christ..." (Pg. 23) While dispensationalism insists that "the church cannot fulfill the new covenant," he asserts that the new covenant is "the clearest example of a promise made to national Israel that is now being fulfilled in and by the church... the old covenant has been abolished and .. the new covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus Christ." (Pg. 28-29)
He adds that Old Testament believers "are NOT distinct from New Testament believers. A true Israel always existed within the nation of Israel... The true Israel was and is the true church, and the true church is the true Israel." (Pg. 41-42)
Mathison's book will mostly likely not convince dispensationalists (or premillennialists); but it is a clear and forceful critique of dispensationalism, and well worth study.
Keith A. Mathison is also the author of books such as 'Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope,' 'From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology,' 'When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1995 book, "The decision to write this book was not an easy one... why would a Christian decide to write a book critical of a system of theology cherished by so many godly men and women? ... (Because) the dispensationalists I know desire to believe only what the Scriptures teach. That is also my desire."
He immediately distinguishes between premillennialism and dispensationalism, noting that premillennialism has existed since the first century, "but dispensationalism dates from only about 1830." Later, he notes that "while all dispensationalists are premillennialists, not all premillennialists are dispensationalists" (Pg. 123)
He states that the "real point of disagreement centers on the relationship between believers in the church age and believers in other ages... Reformed theology teaches that the believers of all ages are part of the one body of Christ..." (Pg. 23) While dispensationalism insists that "the church cannot fulfill the new covenant," he asserts that the new covenant is "the clearest example of a promise made to national Israel that is now being fulfilled in and by the church... the old covenant has been abolished and .. the new covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus Christ." (Pg. 28-29)
He adds that Old Testament believers "are NOT distinct from New Testament believers. A true Israel always existed within the nation of Israel... The true Israel was and is the true church, and the true church is the true Israel." (Pg. 41-42)
Mathison's book will mostly likely not convince dispensationalists (or premillennialists); but it is a clear and forceful critique of dispensationalism, and well worth study.
May 11, 2023
This book contains a solidly biblical explanation of the topics it covers. It covers the doctrines of dispensationalism and also several key doctrines of Reformed Theology at a good introductory level. There are tons of scriptural references and also references to other books that help build up his points.
For a short book that is easy to read it has a good level of depth, but there is a ton more to cover and he lists dozens of books at the end for further reading on several topics. One book he didn't list that I expected to see was "The Holiness of God" by R.C. Sproul, I think that one would fit under the Total Depravity topic, but he did list other books by Sproul.
As Sproul said, this book is a great tool for the Laymen. Even if it won't convince your dispensational friends to change their minds, it gathers a lot of key scriptures into one place to help you build up an expository case against dispensationalism. These topics tend to be emotional for all sides though, so always remember to speak the truth in love above all else (Ephesians 4:15). God Bless
For a short book that is easy to read it has a good level of depth, but there is a ton more to cover and he lists dozens of books at the end for further reading on several topics. One book he didn't list that I expected to see was "The Holiness of God" by R.C. Sproul, I think that one would fit under the Total Depravity topic, but he did list other books by Sproul.
As Sproul said, this book is a great tool for the Laymen. Even if it won't convince your dispensational friends to change their minds, it gathers a lot of key scriptures into one place to help you build up an expository case against dispensationalism. These topics tend to be emotional for all sides though, so always remember to speak the truth in love above all else (Ephesians 4:15). God Bless
September 3, 2019
Mathison has given us a valuable resource with his gracious challenges to the dispensational doctrine of the church (which he identifies as being at the heart of dispensationalism). His conclusions are not immune from criticism, but the questions he poses for dispensational brothers and sisters are very helpful. The chapters on eschatology are also helpful, though too brief. But the real weakness of this book lies in chapters 7-14, "The dispensational doctrine of salvation." I am still puzzled as to why this was in the book at all - he asserts that the church/Israel distinction is the essence of dispensationalism, but then spends many pages discussing Reformed soteriology (and not particularly cogently). So, borrow this book and read chapters 1-6, but you can safely skip most of the rest.
August 14, 2024
Interesting book which I will keep as a reference. The author argues for a Reformed, amillennialist view, to which I subscribe. There were more good arguments for the Reformed viewpoint than against the Dispensationalist interpretation. Since the Dispensationalist view was mostly represented with summary quotes and not by detailed scriptural interpretations, this book did not prepare me as much for conversations on the topic as I had hoped. Perhaps a better book would be written by two writers from the different views showing how they each see their interpretation of scripture. I would benefit from a 'how shall we then live' implication of each viewpoint as well.
August 12, 2022
I stayed up until midnight reading this book. Excellent resource to understand dispensationalism versus the Reformed view of the church/Israel, rapture, Great Tribulation, millennium, Second Coming, and doctrines of grace. This is the clearest discussion on these topics I have read and is fully supported with Scripture. The appendix on the Olivet Discourse alone is worth the price of the book. Highly recommended!
https://www.ligonier.org/store/dispen...
https://www.ligonier.org/store/dispen...
December 7, 2023
While this book is an excellent overview of reformed theology, I do not think it paints an entirely true picture of dispensationalism. It stretches dispensationalism to topics well outside of the division of church and Israel. I also felt there were times the author was bashing other people rather than lovingly pointing to truth. But with tons of sources and scripture, this book is a well laid out resource!
September 8, 2025
An excellent and concise look at dispensational theology. While the book focuses on the traditional dispensational position and many of its arguably heretical teachings, understanding it can give better insight to many of the current progressive dispensationalists’ rather inconsistent teachings. Much of what modern progressive dispensationalism teaches makes no sense unless you understand its roots.
March 27, 2021
The community where I find myself is heavily dispensational so I picked up this book along with Gerstner’s lengthier “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.” Mathison’s work is a good summary to provide conversational starting points and elementary understanding.
March 9, 2023
Excellent and easy read. Explanations of difficult topics were so appreciated. I have learned a great deal from this book and it has helped to guide me in Scriptural support for my belief. All to the glory of God!
January 29, 2018
This book was really good and made me think a lot! One of the best books I've read when it comes to theological issues.
August 20, 2018
Overall, this is an excellent critique of dispensationalism; however, I wish he steered clear of advocating for preterism/postmill. It makes me less likely to refer people to the book.
June 22, 2020
Pretty bad. Lot of proof texting.
December 20, 2020
Very brief overview of the history and teachings of dispyism, and how it differs from reformed theology.
May 11, 2022
Prior to reading Mathison's book I had a pretty good handle on Reformed, Armininian and Lutheran theology, but had little understanding of Dispensationalism. Mathison has clarified this for me.
May 25, 2022
Too brief and yet somehow too meandering. The apparent loss of focus in the middle chapters (dealing with the five points) detracted from the overall premise.
June 21, 2022
This book was so helpful for me. I love the way Keith Mathison writes: simply, with lots of scripture to support his point, and in a way that makes you feel like you are listening to a sermon.
October 17, 2023
This was a very helpful book which pointed out the errors of dispensationalism.
July 14, 2025
DNF at about 50%
Mathison makes some good points but I found his tone condescending and I get the feeling he's cherrypicking or taking out of context a lot of his quotes.
Mathison makes some good points but I found his tone condescending and I get the feeling he's cherrypicking or taking out of context a lot of his quotes.
November 15, 2022
For a book written in 1967, it addresses the relevant issues of the day surrounding common expressions of dispensationalism. Today, traditional dispensationalism has fallen mostly out of favor for progressive dispensationalism, which regrettably only gets a brief appendix with no real analysis. I appreciated that Keith Mathison didn’t pull any punches and argued against dispensationalism from a Reformed Postmillennial perspective without it becoming a purely postmillennialism versus dispensationalism book. This is a good read for those unfamiliar with the issues surrounding the historical positions of dispensational thought or for those who were introduced to parts of Reformed theology through people like John MacArthur.
March 8, 2015
This book was kind of mediocre at best. The book is split into three parts, each relating to an aspect of dispensationalism (Church-Israel distinction, soteriology, and eschatology) and in the proceeding chapters of those parts he gives an assessment and critique of these aspects of dispensational theology. Great idea, poor execution.
The problem is that part 2 of the book, his assessment and critique of dispensational soteriology, is completely pointless. He basically just says they are wrong because it doesn't follow the Calvinist TULIP model. However, because dispensationalists are not the only ones who haven't bought in to the TULIP view of salvation, he burns several other bridges along the way. And at the end comes to the conclusion of Dispensationalists are Arminians and states that that is obviously un-Biblical.
As he finally moves on, he goes into dispensationalist eschatology which is actually a core tenant to dispensational theology and is therefore much more helpful and interesting.
The book as a whole is fine, not the most interesting, but knowledgable at points and a very easy read. My biggest critique is just that in part 1 he makes an emphatic point to clearly define what makes a dispensational theology stand out, comes to the conclusion that it is their Church-Israel distinction and that alone (their eschatology hinges on this axiom and thus does not stand apart from the church-Israel distinction), then in part 2 takes the majority of the book tearing them apart for being too Arminian and not Reformed Calvinists, and in Part 3 and in the Appendices makes several statements like, I wish the would just move over into Reformed theology.
Overall, the book felt like a child's reaction and retaliation to some dispensational bullies from his days at Dallas Theological Seminary before transferring to Reformed Theological.
The problem is that part 2 of the book, his assessment and critique of dispensational soteriology, is completely pointless. He basically just says they are wrong because it doesn't follow the Calvinist TULIP model. However, because dispensationalists are not the only ones who haven't bought in to the TULIP view of salvation, he burns several other bridges along the way. And at the end comes to the conclusion of Dispensationalists are Arminians and states that that is obviously un-Biblical.
As he finally moves on, he goes into dispensationalist eschatology which is actually a core tenant to dispensational theology and is therefore much more helpful and interesting.
The book as a whole is fine, not the most interesting, but knowledgable at points and a very easy read. My biggest critique is just that in part 1 he makes an emphatic point to clearly define what makes a dispensational theology stand out, comes to the conclusion that it is their Church-Israel distinction and that alone (their eschatology hinges on this axiom and thus does not stand apart from the church-Israel distinction), then in part 2 takes the majority of the book tearing them apart for being too Arminian and not Reformed Calvinists, and in Part 3 and in the Appendices makes several statements like, I wish the would just move over into Reformed theology.
Overall, the book felt like a child's reaction and retaliation to some dispensational bullies from his days at Dallas Theological Seminary before transferring to Reformed Theological.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews