Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism

by John H. Gerstner, R.C. Sproul (Foreword)

Book by Gerstner, John H.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Reference

398 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

John Henry Gerstner was a Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Knox Theological Seminary and an authority on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards.
He earned both a Master of Divinity of degree and a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1945. He was originally ordained in the United Presbyterian Church of North America, then (due to church unions) with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church (USA). In 1990, he left the PCUSA for the Presbyterian Church in America.

Gerstner counted among his students, noted author and preacher, R. C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dr. Arthur Lindsley, Senior Fellow at the C.S. Lewis Institute, and Dr. Walter (Wynn) Kenyon, Professor of Biblical Studies and Philosophy; Chair of the Philosophy Department and Division of Ministry and Human Services at Belhaven University.

In addition to the books Gerstner had written, he also recorded several lengthy audio courses giving a survey of theology, church history, and Christian apologetics, which are distributed through Ligonier Ministries. Gerstner was non-dispensationalist.

In 1976, a Festschrift was published in Gerstner's honor. Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology included contributions by Cornelius Van Til, J. I. Packer, Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, John Murray, R. C. Sproul, John Warwick Montgomery, and Roger Nicole.

Reviews

[Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

For me, it was an overall disappointment with an occasional useful bit here and there.

For the record, I am not a dispensationalist. I came to this book with a favorable view of the thesis demonstrated by the title (namely, that dispensationalism is wrong). The reason I read this book was because it is supposed to be one of the best refutations of dispensationalism out there. Also, though I don’t like to use the label (since it conjures up misunderstandings), I am for all intents and purposes a Calvinist (like Gerstner). I can’t say that I am free of bias, since I have elsewhere given pretty low reviews to other writings by John Gerstner. Still, I came to this book in general agreement with it, at least I thought, so I wasn’t out to get anyone.

Nevertheless, I found that this book demonstrates many of the negative stereotypes about Reformed theological writings I have come across. It also is poorly focused, going well beyond the topic at hand. A few decent chapters on core dispensational issues save this book from the 1-star rating I frankly wanted to give it.

REGARDING MY FIRST GRIPE WITH THE BOOK
What do I mean when I say it fits the negative stereotypes about reformed theological writings?
- 1. It is very hostile towards those it critiques, so much so that you would never in your right mind consider giving it to someone who disagrees with the book’s view in order to persuade them. Some have lauded Gerstner for his kindness, and I can’t help but thinking, “compared to whom?” I mean, he didn’t burn anyone at the stake or drown anyone he disagreed with like our deified “reformers,” so I guess in that light he was kind...

- 2. In the same vein as #1, he assumes the worst of anyone who is not “reformed.” If a non-reformed theologian says something that could be interpreted (and extrapolated) in such a way that it could be kind of like “pantheism” (one of the many accusations he levels), then darn it, it is pantheism! If one were to take this attitude with any number of reformed works, I’m sure they could make them sound awful and heretical as well. This one could easily be interpreted as teaching works-based salvation (as a number of published reviews have suggested), if one were to look at it in such a light.

- 3. It is clearly written to those who are already of Reformed denominations, since it is much more concerned with how the views it critiques differ from the Reformed faith (usually by comparing it to confessions) than it is with how the view differs from the Bible’s teaching. Even if one took the belief that dispensationalists by definition are not Calvinist (addressed below), he never makes a case that that is a bad thing, other than that Christianity is Calvinist, darn it!

- 4. It majors in minors and speculation. Apparently, some dispensationalists believed that Adam and Eve were merely innocent, neither righteous nor sinful, when the “reformed faith” (using not a single passage of scripture) teaches that they were in fact righteous and good, not merely innocent of evil. How is that in any way a significant point regarding dispensationalism? And, since when does the Bible say one way or another? But, it goes against the “reformed faith” (because I’m sure every reformed theologian agrees wholeheartedly...).

- 5. It forcibly systematizes beliefs (usually based on a majority of authors) even if they have no logical connection. If a bunch of authors who believe beliefs A and B also believe C and D, then A, B, C, and D all go together. It doesn’t matter if there is no logical connection between them, or if some prominent authors hold to A and B but not C and D, or the definition of AandBism most people hold only requires AandB, making C and D optional beliefs within the system. Since all theology is systematic, they go together, darn it!

MY SECOND MAIN PROBLEM
It is along the lines of that final point that spell out the book’s biggest weakness, it being poorly focused. The “dispensationalism” addressed in this book goes beyond what most who call themselves dispensationalists would call dispensationalism. If you read their online articles, or even scholarly writings (like Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism/Dispensationalism Today) what is core to dispensationalism is but two elements: 1. A literal (albeit inconsistently applied) reading of scripture, and 2. A (mostly assumed a priori) distinction between Israel and the Church as separate peoples of God. Those issues are looked at to an extent, but a lot of it is focused on other issues. We are even told in the introduction that what makes dispensationalism an unchristian doctrine (Gerstner does go that far) is that it is not really Calvinist (even though apparently dispensationalists say that it is), and that it is antinomian (meaning it holds that so long as one believes in Jesus, he or she need not in anyway reform or change his or her life or try to stop sinning or anything, and is still saved). Therefore, while most of us would consider these views secondary to dispensationalism, views that admittedly a good number of famous dispensationalists held but by no means make or break ones membership in the dispensationalist club, Gerstner considers “dispensationalism” to, by definition, include these beliefs. Even if we were to say that Gerstner was successful in refuting “dispensationalism,” it wouldn’t be the dispensationalism most of us would be trying to refute in the first place! And there are plenty who would call themselves dispensationalists yet don’t hold to antinomianism, and at least a fair number who are explicitly five point Calvinists. Consider John MacArthur, who Gerstner himself calls a “dispensationalist.” MacArthur is a staunch Calvinist and an avid proponent of so-called lordship salvation (which is logically incompatible with antinomianism). How is he a dispensationalist? Because he holds to the two core ideas that dispensationalists and most non-dispensationalists have considered the defining attributes of dispensationalism for quite some time.

Imagine the following scenario: I decided to write a book against Calvinism. Now, when most of us hear “Calvinism,” we have a pretty similar idea of what I am talking about. I am speaking of a doctrine of election, generally tied to the five-points that make up the acronym TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). However, do you know what really irks me about Calvinism? How it teaches infant baptism. Now, you might be thinking, “you can be a Calvinist and not baptize infants. There’s no logical connection between holding to TULIP and baptizing infants” However, many (if not most) Calvinists belong to denominations that teach infant baptism. Augustine baptized infants. Calvin himself baptized infants. Therefore, I define Calvinism as teaching TULIP and infant baptism. Then, after giving a historical overview of Calvinism, I devote 1/4 of the book to the issue of election, and spend the rest talking about how Calvinism is wrong because baptizing infants is wrong. One might object that there are a good number of Southern Baptists (and even a Reformed Baptist denomination), and that they consider themselves Calvinists even though they don’t baptize infants. However, since historically the two views have gone together, I just respond that they are inconsistent Calvinists by not baptizing infants. I hope that sounds ridiculous, because it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, I don’t think the book I am reviewing was supposed to be...

ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS:
This Bible does not point to the Bible very much at all. The measuring stick of truth is generally this abstract idea of the “reformed faith” and how “Christian” a belief is. Not nearly enough of the author’s points are supported with scripture, and when they are, it is often in passing well after he has argued the point.

Exegetical errors do pop up from time to time. For example, in order to prove that Old Testament saints believed not only in God but in “Christ and in Him crucified” (even though crucifixion didn’t exist until hundreds of years after Moses), Gerstner points out how Jews thought Jesus was “the prophet” in John 7:40, proving that they knew the Messiah when they saw Him. Of course, in context, they are arguing about Jesus’ identity, so it wasn’t that clear or obvious. In context, they are doing so in response to His words, which were that whoever believed in Him would have rivers of living water flowing out of them (you don’t need prefigurations to wonder if He might be the Messiah after that!). And, in context, “the prophet” and the Christ are not same thing, since in the next verse, we see that others thought He was “the Christ.” And even if they had a pretty good idea of what to expect from the Messiah, would the same really be true for someone in Moses’ time, hundreds of years before the prophets? Would they know that God was going to subject His suffering servant to misery and death for our sins 500 years before Isaiah told them so? Would Noah have had a clear idea at all about how God would save the world in a time before there even was scripture? Perhaps God told Him, but that is pure speculation.

The book is full of quibbling about language. Chapter 8, “Dubious Evangelicalism: The Dispensational Understanding of ‘Dispensation’ Denies the Gospel” is based almost entirely on that (with admittedly a few good points very sparingly sprinkled in). He says at one point “If a dispensationalist replies that we are quibbling with language, he cannot have carefully reflected on this matter.” Well, I’m not a dispensationalist, so what now?

POSITIVES
The book wasn’t all bad. For example, the chapter on dispensationalist hermeneutics was pretty useful. It looked at the issue calmly and methodically, and saw the errors behind the reasoning of the so-called literal hermeneutic without being too hostile. Chapter 9 on the “kingdom offer” to the Jews was also good, as it actually addressed something that, though not totally inseparable from dispensationalism, is still core to most dispensational theology (even of progressive dispensationalists like Robert Saucy). I think some of the points at the end become a little bit muddled, but some parts, like this, can be of use.

OVERALL
If you are looking for a good argument against dispensationalism, there are other books that do the job better. Consider Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern Polythress. It is more focused on the core beliefs of dispensationalism, and addresses the issues in a much more charitable tone. I would not be ashamed to recommend it to a dispensationalist who I was looking to persuade. Consider also Hank Hannegraaf’s The Apocalypse Code; its tone is a bit arrogant at times, but it is less hostile than this book, and it focuses much more on the core issues involved (like, actual dispensationalism...).

[Jesus Salgado · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was decent, was expecting a lot more solid material but didn't get any.

[Jared Mindel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with some of what's in here. I think that he did a really good job of critiquing the implicit neonomianism in Dispensationalism and how the Gospel is an afterthought in Dispensational theology, but I was hoping for more focus and a more systematic response. If someone were to ask me what the best book is to respond to Dispensationalism, I wouldn't say this one, but I'd add this as a supplement.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Keith A. Mathison's Dispensationalism, Rightly Dividing the People of God may take the cake for brevity, accessibility, and being more current, but overall, Gerstner’s work gets the ribbon. It’s length is not owing to tediousness but thoroughness. It’s added complexity doesn’t cloud but clarifies. It may be dated but it is deep. This is simply the sharpest dissection of dispensationalism I’m aware of, showing that dispensationalism unnecessarily and unbiblically divides.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this book the second time around, I am not as impressed as I was when I first read it. The book is good for its critiques of the soteriological implications of classical dispensational theology, especially in relation to sanctification. At times, however, it is lacking in exegetical rigour and is so severe in its denunciations of dispensationalists that it is not something you could give to someone who was not already Reformed. In the second edition, the responses to critics of the first edition were a bit snippy for my liking. As someone who was a church historian, he should not have dismissed the pointing out of his historical errors so easily as not being central to the point. Granted, they were not but readers are right to demand accuracy.

[Marven Gzilla · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very informative and logical in its comparisons. I am aware that for those who have not heard Dr. Gerstner speak, they will take much of the tone of this book as being aggressive or disrespectful. Dr. Gerstner is forthright, he does take the bull by the horns and deals with problems directly and with a bit of humor. This may come off as snarky but his spirit is not so. He is in fact quite fun loving and spritely. Listen to him preach on the many Ligonier videos he took part in and you will get a feel for this. That aside, a very good treatment of an important issue.

[Davey Ermold · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can sum up the whole of Gerstner's book with the following syllogism:

Dr. So-and-So is a dispensationalist.
Dr. So-and-So holds to Doctrine X.
Therefore, Doctrine X is an essential teaching of dispensationalism.

And if that's not enough to tell you what you need to know, Gerstner repeatedly talks past the issues by looking at specific words, without any mind for the definitions of such words (e.g., regeneration, Antinomianism). I was hoping this would be better than Mathison's book. It was not.

[Jeremy Weaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough work to say the least. Difficult to digest at times.

[Jacob Foster · Rating 2 out of 5]

Overall, it was quite a disappointment. I've always respected Dr. Gerstner's scholarship, especially his "Handout Church History" series, so this level of academic quality was a bit of a letdown. As a precursor, I will note that I come from a Covenantal background, largely influenced by Reformed Baptists and OPC pastors, as well as Sproul/DeYoung/etc.

I purchased a copy of this volume from the Ligonier store after reading Bahnsen and Gentry's "House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology". It was a fiery work against Dispensationalism from the Theonomic camp of Reformed Theology that rabidly tore strawman Dispensationalist apart in a style reminiscent of Luther or, more recently, R.J. Rushdoony.

I came to this book looking for a clearer argument against Dispensationalism and a delineation between Israel and the Church seen in the theology of many in evangelicalism. Instead what I got was something very similar to Bahnsen and Gentry's work, with repeated attacks against a "Dispensationalism" that most students and faculty at Dallas or Grace Seminaries would hardly recognize.

I think it is time for Reformed Evangelicals to approach Dispensational Theology in a more reasoned and coherent manner. I, for one, have been pushed much more towards the Dispensationalist camp after observing such blatant misrepresentations of their thought.

[Douglas Adu-Boahen]

Dispensationalism. You may not be familiar with that word - but I can bet you are famiiliar with much of its offspring. You've probably heard of the Rapture or read the Left Behind series. If you have, you're pretty familiar with dispensationalism to some degree. But what is the theology behind this system, what are the concerns from a Reformed perspective and more importantly, what does the Bible say to these things?

Enter Dr John Gerstner (1914-1996), a Reformed theologian, with an keen eye and a sharp ability to see past the rhetoric, right to the heart of a matter. Tracing the history of dispensationalism through its theology and wading into the heart of classic dispensational thought on the doctrine of salvation, Gerstner leaves no stone unturned in dealing with this issue. It's a workout, but one that comes highly recommended.

[Leslie Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for anyone surrounded by dispensationalists......or dispensationalists themselves, for that matter. Irenic and kind, Dr. Gerstner explains classic dispensationalism and the theology behind it, something that many who are only acquainted with the "Left Behind" theology are unaware of. He does, if I remember correctly, give a nod to the "progressive dispensationalism" that is coming to the fore these days, and explains how this is a move toward a more "Reformed" theology, not that all adherents of this view find themselves in that particular camp.

For those who were unaware that there is another view of eschatology-whether you accept Gerstner or not-this book is invaluable for explaining the eschatological views that were prevalent BEFORE John Nelson Darby.

And.....Gerstner ably defends his views scripturally as well.

[Walt Murray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though there are some small points I disagree with, this is a great book. Frankly, God used this book to save me from fundamentalism, dispensationalism, and a couple of other -isms. It can be a little deep at times, and some of the issues he discusses are not as relevant now as they were when the book was first written, but it still holds it's value. I think this will become one of the rare books I reread.

On a side note- Dr Gerstner was one of the most entertaining theologians I have met. He never pulled punches, and yet he was a real gentleman.

[Rock Rockwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book to read if you believe in Dispensationalism or if you are reformed and need to understand Dispensationalism. In either case, you will finish this book wanting to read Covenantal/Reformed books more.

[Corey Reynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

So far, this book is incredible. Bible scholars really need to understand the subtly dangerous soteriology inherent in Dispensationalism and thus be aware that this system of theology is not just about eschatology.

[Jerry Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second edition published by NiceneCouncil.com. In this edition, Dr. Gerstner added nearly 200 pages in response to his critics. http://store.nicenecouncil.com/wrongl...

[Dmcconkey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book issued a firestorm of response from the dispensational group. Good read – should cause for re-evaluation rather than entrenching that most of the responses represent.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good.

[Jeff Noble]

Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (?)

[William Dicks · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent dismantling of dispensational theology.

[Michial · Rating 5 out of 5]

Controversial critique but needed

[Jeff Garrison · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a valuable critique of dispensationalism. At times Gerstner's struggles with the Mainline Protestantism distracts from his making a case that dispensationalism is a dangerous theology.