Below in this 57 minute panel discussion video, Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, Dr. Steve Lawson, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr. and Dr. R.C. Sproul, discuss various theological issues. For the first 20 minutes, the blatant errors of dispensationalism are discussed. Here is a partial transcript of Dr. Sproul’s words on dispensationalism and its very real dangers:

“They asked me, R.C., what’s your problem with dispensationalism? And I said, “You know, my biggest problem with dispensationalism is your historic doctrine of regeneration. And that was met with bewilderment. These professors said, “What are you talking about? What’s our problem with regeneration?”

I said, “Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever. And that was popularized in the picture books that were spread out by Campus Crusade, where you had the circle with the chair, and you had the cross outside the circle, and ‘S’ the self, was on the chair, and that’s the picture of the unregenerate person, the pagan.

But then you have the next stage of those who are regenerated, where now, Christ is inside the circle, but not on the throne. Self is still on the throne. You’re saved; you’re in a state of grace, you’re regenerated, you’re justified – but you have absolutely no fruit whatsoever because your life hasn’t changed; and that gave rise to the development of this concept of the ‘Carnal Christian’ where a person could be saved without any manifestation of any change, and that’s what I said… for us, regeneration involves a foundational change in the disposition of the human heart, where that fallen person prior to his regeneration had no inclination to the things of God, no love for Jesus, and once that heart has been changed, through the immediate, transcendent power of God the Holy Spirit in regeneration, now that person has Christ in his life, and Christ is now his Lord. He’s not perfected, not fully sanctified, but the process of sanctification has certainly begun. And if it hasn’t, you have a profession of faith with no faith!

And so what’s so serious about this is that it invites a false sense of security for people believing that they are saved, because they signed a card, or raised their hand, or walked an isle, and prayed a prayer, whatever, but have no evidence of the fruit of sanctification in their lives. Then they’re challenged and the whole thing about this antinomianism is that the Old Testament law has no bearing on the Christian life… that’s all future, and now comes the eschatology, where the kingdom of God is in no sense realized, it’s totally and completely future, now what do you do with that?”

Ligonier Panel: Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Scripture

Polished manuscript

R. C. Sproul: Hi, I’m RC Sproul and today I have the privilege of moderating an in-house discussion with the teaching fellows of Ligonier Ministry. We have here today Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, Dr. Robert Godfrey, Dr. Steven Lawson, and Dr. RC Sproul Jr. Now, this is not going to be a formal question and answer session where we try to give some kind of a response to a large number of questions that you’ve submitted, but rather we’re going to hone in on a couple of matters that have been sent to us by way of request.

The first one I’d like to discuss, gentlemen, with you is a question that’s been given to us in many different forms: what is the difference between what we call covenant theology and what’s called dispensational theology? Where did dispensational theology come from? And are the differences between these two approaches to biblical understanding important, significant, critical? What’s your judgment on all this? Let me ask you to start us off.

Sinclair Ferguson: I’ll be happy to start off, if Steve will jump in because I know something about his background, and he probably has a lot more knowledge of dispensationalism than a Scotsman would have.

I think the great thing about reformed theology and covenant theology is that it understands that whenever God engages with the world, he does so as the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. Throughout the whole of Scripture, he has one single plan that he has determined from all eternity and that he works out in time. He does this by entering into covenant arrangements, covenant commitments with his people from the very beginning.

Our Westminster Confession emphasizes that the relationship between God and man right at the beginning was a covenant relationship in which God made promises and called on men and women to respond in trust and obedience. Trust and obey, for there’s no other way. When humanity fell, God entered into a new covenant. He preserved the world by a covenant with Noah. Then he focused on redeeming his people, not just from one nation, but from all nations, in the promise to Abraham: “In you all the nations will be blessed, in your seed.”

That seed principle runs through the rest of the Old Testament until it is fulfilled in Christ. Whether you are a believer in the Old Testament or in the light of the New Testament, you are looking to the same Savior—forward then, backward now. All the covenants, sacrifices, and promises pointed to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, culminating in his words in the upper room: “This is the new covenant in my blood. Drink from it, all of you.”

So it is one simple but multifaceted story of grace and salvation from beginning to end.

R. C. Sproul: In the sixteenth century the Protestants had great controversy with the Roman Catholic Church, and debates among the Reformed, the Lutherans, and the Anabaptists. But one debate that did not exist at the time was between covenant theology and dispensationalism—because no one had ever heard of dispensationalism. That didn’t arise until the nineteenth century in England.

Bob, can you give us a little bit of historical background on that?

Robert Godfrey: Yes, you’re right. Dispensationalism is a relatively novel theological approach. It originated with John Nelson Darby. He was motivated by a desire to exalt the grace of God, to make clear that salvation is by grace alone and not by works. He concluded the only way to preserve that was to radically separate law and gospel, Israel and the church.

Darby made seven trips to America to spread his message—one for each dispensation, as some have joked. He was disappointed with the state of American religion, except for the old-school Presbyterians at Princeton. He thought they alone understood grace. He actually saw himself as a Calvinist, trying to preserve the teaching of grace alone in Protestant theology.

It is ironic, then, that today covenant theology and dispensationalism are sometimes framed as if they represent different positions on grace, when both arose out of a desire to preserve grace. Many contributors to the Scofield Reference Bible—the tool that popularized dispensationalism in America—were Presbyterians.

R. C. Sproul: Not only the Scofield Reference Bible, but many prophecy conferences promoted this system, with charts and diagrams showing how it worked. Bible colleges and Dallas Theological Seminary also played a major role in spreading dispensationalism, and it was very successful for a time.

Why was it called dispensationalism? Steve, what was a “dispensation”?

Steven Lawson: What dispensational theology began to do was to separate and divide things—overly, almost hyper-separation. They said there were seven economies of time: before the fall, after the fall, and so on. Scofield even suggested that salvation could work differently in the Old and New Testaments, with different criteria by which people approached God.

This exaggerated division took away from the centrality of the gospel and the purity of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It even led to separating Jesus as Savior from Jesus as Lord, or repentance from faith. Some even distinguished between “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” in ways that were not biblical. It went so far that it seemed like heaven would have different rooms for Jews and Gentiles.

In the end, it chopped up the Bible and lost the sense of unity.

R. C. Sproul: To be fair, there is little left of “pure” dispensationalism today. The sharp lines have softened, and many dispensationalists have moved closer to reformed theology. For many today, their main concern is simply eschatology. Originally, though, it was a full system that distorted the gospel, separating justification from sanctification and even allowing for the possibility of being justified but not sanctified.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: That is antinomianism—literally, “anti-law.” Nomos means “law.” Some dispensationalists denied that the Old Testament moral law has any bearing on the Christian life. Even the Sermon on the Mount, they claimed, was only for the future.

R. C. Sproul: Exactly. And this ties into a grave concern: classic dispensationalism’s view of regeneration.

I was once asked by professors at Dallas Seminary, “What is your biggest problem with dispensationalism?” I told them: their doctrine of regeneration. They were bewildered. But I explained: classic dispensationalism taught that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change of nature. They could be “saved” and yet remain unchanged in life, giving rise to the concept of the “carnal Christian.”

This invited a false sense of security: people thought they were saved because they prayed a prayer, signed a card, or walked an aisle—even without fruit of sanctification. That is dangerous.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: We should also remember that historically, there was a time when almost the only people left who believed the Bible were dispensationalists. Liberal theology had taken over the mainline denominations. Evangelicals were few, and most were dispensational. They were called “fundamentalists,” and they were heroic in their defense of Scripture.

So while we must critique dispensationalism’s extremes, we should also be grateful for their fight for the Bible.

R. C. Sproul: My mentor, John Gerstner, wrote Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth—a sharp critique of dispensational theology. I wrote the foreword. When I did, my friends at Dallas Seminary called me, surprised I endorsed Gerstner’s critique.

They asked, “RC, what’s your problem with dispensationalism?”

I told them: your doctrine of regeneration. You teach someone can be regenerated and justified but show no evidence of change. That is not biblical regeneration. True regeneration changes the disposition of the human heart, from no inclination toward God to a heart that loves Christ.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: That doctrine of the “carnal Christian” fostered false assurance. People thought they were saved while living unchanged lives.

R. C. Sproul: And connected to that was antinomianism. Some said the Old Testament law has no bearing on Christians. That is the very definition of antinomianism.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: I once visited a dispensational church where their hymnal included a song saying, “One day Jesus will be King.” That alarmed me. Jesus is King now.

R. C. Sproul: Often their eschatology pushed everything into the future. For example, the idea that the kingdom of God is entirely future denies that Christ reigns now.

I once had lunch with a leading dispensationalist who asked me to explain the reformed view of limited atonement. Afterward, I asked him: “Show me one verse in Scripture that teaches a pre-tribulation rapture.”

He smiled and said, “I don’t know. I’ve just always been taught it.” That is not a sound basis for theology.

Robert Godfrey: And to be fair, many Christians who call themselves dispensationalists today are mostly interested in prophecy—rapture, millennium, and the future. They don’t buy into the whole original system. Some even argue that they are just premillennialists, which has been around far longer. But premillennialism is not the same as dispensationalism.

R. C. Sproul: Let me shift to another topic. It’s Thursday, and we need to hurry because, according to Harold Camping, the world is going to end on Saturday. Full-page ads have been placed in USA Today. People are leaving their jobs. One woman even said that if it doesn’t happen, she’ll give up her faith in the Bible. Gentlemen, what do you make of this?

Sinclair Ferguson: Just last Wednesday, in our midweek meeting, I was speaking from 1 Thessalonians 5: the times and seasons are not for us to know. Paul told new believers that they already knew everything they needed: Christ will return, but not the day or the hour. Christians are to live in readiness, not in speculation.

To prophesy specific dates is contrary to the apostolic teaching. And when people quit jobs or panic, it shows how damaging this can be. Paul already warned against idleness that would arise if people misunderstood the Lord’s return.

Sinclair Ferguson: I love the story of John Wesley. A man once asked him, “If you knew the Lord would return on May 21, what would you do until then?” Wesley pulled out his diary, listed his preaching appointments, and said, “That’s exactly what I would do.” That is how Christians should live—faithful in their callings, expectant every day.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: Camping had also taught that the church no longer exists, that Christians should leave their churches. To me, that is worse than setting a date. I’d rather a man tell people to quit their jobs and wait on a hill with the church than tell them to quit the church.

Robert Godfrey: I actually knew Harold Camping. He was my Bible teacher in high school and at that time he was thoroughly reformed. That makes this all the more tragic. Now, in his preaching about the end of the world, he was calling people to repent and call on God—but he left out Christ and the cross. That is the deeper tragedy.

Our prayer should be that he and his followers would repent and come back to Christ and his gospel.

Section 5 – The Golden Chain of Romans 8 and the Doctrine of Election

R. C. Sproul: Somebody asked us about the “golden chain” of Romans 8. What is it, and why is it significant? Sinclair, would you explain?

Sinclair Ferguson: Interestingly, Paul doesn’t call it a chain, but the Reformers and Puritans did. In Romans 8:29–30, Paul says: “Those whom he predestined he also called; those whom he called he also justified; those whom he justified he also glorified.”

The Reformers saw this as a chain of assurance. William Perkins, for example, described it as God’s unbreakable grip on his people. If God has justified you, he will certainly glorify you. You are chained to Christ, and nothing can separate you from him—no more than Christ can be separated from his Father.

R. C. Sproul: And this text has also been at the center of debates over predestination. Everyone who believes the Bible must have some doctrine of predestination, since the word itself is there in the text. The two main competing views are:

• Unconditional election, the reformed view, where God sovereignly chooses apart from foreseen merit.
• Prescient election, the Arminian view, where God looks down the corridors of time and chooses those he foresees will say yes to the gospel.

Our semi-Pelagian friends often appeal to Romans 8: “Those whom he foreknew, he predestined…” They say “foreknew” means foreseeing faith.

But the text actually teaches the opposite. The grammar is elliptical: all whom he foreknew, he predestined; all whom he predestined, he called; all whom he called, he justified; all whom he justified, he glorified. There is no break in the chain.

Notice: everyone called here is justified. That cannot mean the outward call of the gospel, because not all who hear the outward call are justified. It must mean the effectual inward call of the Spirit. This passage is one of the strongest affirmations of reformed election, not a refutation.

Steven Lawson: Exactly. If “foreknew” means God looked into the future to see who would believe, then God is learning something he didn’t know—a denial of his omniscience. And if God is waiting to see who believes apart from his grace, then we’ve denied total depravity and the bondage of the will.

The Greek word here is proginōskō. Ginōskō means to know intimately, even to love—as in “Adam knew his wife.” When Paul says, “those whom he foreknew,” it means those whom God chose to set his love upon from eternity. It is about persons, not actions foreseen.

That understanding changed everything for me. It showed me this is not about foreseen faith, but about God’s distinguishing, sovereign love.

R. C. Sproul: And, of course, the natural question follows: if God has already chosen the elect, why should we bother with evangelism?

I remember John Gerstner asking this in class. One by one, students admitted they didn’t know. When he got to me, I said, “Well, God commands us to.” He replied, “What reason could be more significant than that?”

Then he reminded us: Romans 10 follows Romans 9. God ordains not just the ends but the means. He has chosen preaching as the instrument to call his elect. Evangelism is both our duty and our privilege.

Steven Lawson: Exactly. Think of William Carey going to India. He reasoned: God must have his elect among the nations, and if someone preaches, God will call them. That gave him confidence to endure hardship.

And our Lord himself rejoiced that the Father reveals truth to babes because it was his will, and then immediately called, “Come to me, all who labor.” Election fuels evangelism.

Robert Godfrey: And practically, we don’t know who the elect are. No one has an “E” stamped on their forehead. So we preach to all, knowing God will gather his people through the gospel.

R. C. Sproul: Let’s turn to another pressing issue: the authority and character of Scripture. Do we have an inspired, infallible, inerrant Bible?

Some today dismiss the word “inerrancy” as outdated, or as if it represents a backwoods mentality that ignores higher criticism. But in the late 1970s and 80s, we organized the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy to call the church back to confidence in Scripture. Gains were made, but now they’re slipping. We hear voices even within evangelicalism wavering on this.

Robert Godfrey: That’s right. It’s become commonplace to hear, “Of course the Bible has contradictions.” I saw a Time magazine article about Rob Bell where the author just assumed that point. But there are no contradictions in the Bible.

What strikes me more and more is the unity of Scripture. The more I read, the more amazed I am at how harmoniously it speaks.

R. C. Sproul: I recall a seminary friend who became convinced the Bible was “filled with contradictions.” I challenged him: “Give me 50 by tomorrow.” He stayed up all night and brought me 30. We examined them one by one, and not a single one violated the law of non-contradiction. They were difficult passages, yes, but not contradictions.

Afterward, I told him: “Stop saying the Bible is filled with contradictions when you couldn’t produce one.” My experience has been the same over the years: the deeper you go, the more unified it proves to be.

Steven Lawson: This is why creeds and confessions are so important. Some today say, “No creed but Christ.” But the moment you answer the question “Who is Jesus?” you are doing theology.

Creeds are simply the church’s way of summarizing and safeguarding what Scripture teaches. Without them, people invent their own Jesuses—a Christ of their imagination. That is idolatry.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: Right. Many in our culture want spirituality without content, belonging without believing. They want a relationship with Jesus but without knowing who he is or what he demands. But true relationship always involves promises, vows, commitments—just like a marriage.

Robert Godfrey: The tragedy is that this becomes idolatry: people invest the name “Jesus” with whatever qualities they want him to have. That is why we must return to the truth revealed in Scripture.

R. C. Sproul: Exactly. And when we hear talk of multiple “avatars” of God—whether Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or anyone else—we must remember: there is only one Mediator, only one monogenēs Son of God incarnate. To say otherwise is to reject the gospel.

Steven Lawson: And sadly, even within evangelical circles, you hear people say, “If you’re born again, you’re as much the incarnation of God as Jesus.” That is blasphemy. Christ alone is the incarnation of God.

R. C. Sproul: Brothers, we’ve covered a lot: covenant theology, dispensationalism, regeneration, antinomianism, Harold Camping, election, evangelism, inerrancy. And what strikes me is that though we come from different backgrounds, on the main things—Christ, the gospel, the authority of God’s Word—our hearts beat as one.

Thank you for joining this discussion.