Introduction

In the first study I explained that the Free Presbyterian Church allows honest disagreement among Premillennial, Amillennial and Postmillennial positions.

There are two schools of thought within the premillennial hypothesis. My colleagues in ministry espouse the post-tribulation premillennial theory (commonly called ‘post-trib pre-mill’). This is the historic premillennial premise which can be traced back through Church history. The other theory is the pre-tribulation variation (‘pre-trib pre-mill’).

This article narrows the focus: it examines pre-tribulation dispensationalism — the premillennial system that separates God’s purposes for Israel and the Church and teaches a secret rapture. My aim is to show, on biblical and pastoral grounds, why that interpretation undermines the unity of redemption and creates serious pastoral risks.

1: Pre-Tribulation Dispensationalism

This name originates from the teaching that God’s people will not pass through ‘The Great Tribulation’, being the second half of the Antichrist’s seven-year reign.

This period of three and a half years will begin with an event called the secret rapture. Christ returns silently and invisibly to the air without touching the earth. All of the Church will secretly vanish, hence the term “secret rapture”. This has produced sensationalist appeals to the unconverted in evangelism. When I was a teenager the movie A Thief in the Night was not only viewed but its contents were believed by many. One can readily see how the thought of waking to find an unsaved loved one gone, as the world descends into a period of unparalleled judgment, would fill the heart with shock and terror. The events surrounding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ are terrifying for sinners and there ought to be a warning. But these warnings must be based on truth, not on fabrications.

2: The Secret Rapture Examined

According to the secret-rapture theory, Christ returns not once but twice.

A study of passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 shows a single, public coming is in view. This will be a loud and public event with the blast of a trumpet and the Lord descending with a shout. There will be a rapture in that the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, but the rapture will neither be secret nor silent.

Our Lord’s warning about “one shall be taken and the other left” is often misunderstood. Followers of the secret-rapture view assume that the Christian is taken while the sinner is left behind. This is not the picture Christ presents. A careful study of the passage in Matthew 24:36–44 shows that Christ drew a parallel between His coming and the days of Noah. On that occasion the people taken were the ungodly. Therefore the sinner must be prepared, for the Second Coming of Christ will take them in judgment while the Christian will be spared.

If the Church were raptured out of the world during Antichrist’s reign, grace would be removed and there would be no hope for those left behind. They would be exposed to the fearful visitation of judgment followed by the Lord’s visible return.

This, however, does not tally with how the Saviour presents His own return. The Gospel will continue to be advanced throughout all the earth until the end (Matthew 24:14). God will not remove His grace nor His gospel from the earth and leave men without hope.

THE ‘PRE-TRIB’ MILLENNIUM

It is when we turn to the dispensational millennium that the fallacy of these unscriptural theories becomes clearer.

The Millennium, in dispensational teaching, ushers in the seventh dispensational period of world and biblical history. This will be the age of Israel when God’s programme for Israel is fulfilled as Christ reigns personally from the seat of David in Jerusalem.

3: One People, One Gospel

Dispensationalists believe that God has two separate plans: one for the Church and another for Israel.

They argue that the Church is a parenthesis. As Israel rejected the Messiah and thus abandoned the blessings intended for them, God established the Church. After the Church age has passed, God’s ultimate plan for Israel will be revealed in the Millennium.

This is quite different from the traditional Protestant perspective, which I subscribe to. God has one plan: to build His Church throughout history. Israel were the people of God in the Old Testament (Acts 7:38), while the New Testament Church is one body — “one new man” uniting Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:15).

During the Millennium, dispensationalists allege, the Jews will preach a gospel known as the Gospel of the Kingdom. This will differ from the Gospel of Grace preached in this age, the era of the Church. It will be founded on legal obedience rather than faith in Christ alone.

By presenting different redemptive administrations, dispensationalism tends to weaken the uniqueness of the one gospel of free grace in Christ. While its proponents may preach grace and faith in Christ alone in this age, they do not always hold that it is the only way of salvation in every administration. The Scriptures teach there is one gospel, founded on grace through faith in Christ; there cannot be another. Works never satisfy a holy God (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Furthermore, the Gospel of the Kingdom is not another gospel but the same gospel. Paul preached both aspects in his ministry (Acts 20:24–25).

It must be conceded that some dispensationalists, recognising the problems posed by their system, have attempted to modify the concept to allow for grace in the ages of Law and Kingdom. I would argue, however, that this is only to concede the inherent failings of a system built on a house of cards.

It should be emphasised that Scofield taught four gospels:

• The gospel of the kingdom: the promise of an earthly Jewish kingdom.
• The gospel of the grace of God: the good news that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.
• The everlasting gospel: preached by Jews after the rapture but before the Millennium.
• That which Paul calls “my gospel”: a fuller development of the gospel preached by Christ and His apostles — on this account, the gospel the Church preaches is Paul’s gospel.

4: The Fallacy of the Dispensations

C. I. Scofield, who more than any other popularised dispensational teaching in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with his Reference Bible, cited Paul’s words “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) as his warrant. From this he argued that God’s Word is divided into distinct dispensations.

Scofield, however, was mistaken in this application. Paul was teaching that care must be taken when interpreting Scripture — not that the Bible is a divided book that must be chopped into separate, unrelated economies.

When interpreting Scripture we must be driven by the text and its surrounding context. It is misleading to force texts to mean what our human systems of thought think they should mean. We must remain faithful to the Book.

The word dispensation, in its proper sense, signifies a period of time. There are certainly specific time periods in biblical history that differ from one another. The Old and New Testaments are dispensations in this broad sense, and distinctions and contrasts do exist which the student of Scripture must recognise.

“He taken away the first that he may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9).

This, however, is quite different from the seven time periods Scofield identified — seven tests in which God deals with mankind in different ways.

What are they?

1. Innocence (Genesis 1–3): Adam and Eve in Eden, ending with the Fall.
2. Conscience (Genesis 3–8): From the Fall to the Flood, where humanity acted on personal conscience.
3. Human Government (Genesis 9–11): Post-flood, initiating human responsibility to govern, ending at the Tower of Babel.
4. Promise (Genesis 12–Exodus 19): From Abraham to Moses, focused on God’s covenant with the patriarchs.
5. Law (Exodus 20–Acts 2): From Moses to the crucifixion of Christ, during which Israel lived under the Mosaic Law.
6. Grace (Acts 2–Revelation 20): The current age, beginning at Pentecost and (in classic dispensational thought) ending at the Rapture, focused on salvation by grace.
7. Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20): A future, literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.

Some classic formulations imply successive administrations that culminate in Christ; that implication, if pressed, treats the coming of Christ as an afterthought — a notion the Bible does not support.

This, if pressed to its logical end, fractures the unity of Scripture. In Eden God promised the Messiah who would bruise the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15). Christ was delivered according to Peter “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Christ’s redemptive work is the product of the eternal covenant of grace, established between Father and Son from eternity (see John 6:37). Nothing that God plans is a failure. There is but one way of salvation through Christ (John 14:6).

5: Law and Grace are not Polar Opposites

Furthermore, to set Law and Grace as polar opposites within the economy of redemption is not biblically sound.

To do so is to assert that Law does not exist in this present dispensation of grace — and, by logical extension, that grace does not exist in the Old Testament. According to the harsher forms of dispensationalism, during the period of Law and during the Millennium salvation is by legal obedience rather than by grace.

This theorising is not supported by the biblical record. For example, Abraham in the Old Testament — during the Dispensation of Promise — was justified by faith, according to St. Paul. Paul used Abraham as his textbook example of justification (Romans 4). If Abraham were justified by works, he would have cause for boasting; but Scripture says Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Romans 4:2–3).

Law and grace are complementary rather than opposites. Paul taught that the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). By this he meant that the rites and rituals of the ancient economy point to Christ as the ultimate fulfilment of the Law.

Paul then adds the often misunderstood phrase:

“But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Galatians 3:25).

The Galatians had been misled by false teachers who introduced legalism into the lives of these Gentile converts; Paul was clear that ceremonial rites no longer applied.

For the ancient Jew there were three strands to the Law:

• Moral Law: summarised in the Ten Commandments.
• Civil Law: laws governing Israel’s conduct as a nation.
• Ceremonial Law: the Levitical code.

In this New Testament age the Civil and Ceremonial Laws are no longer in force, but the Moral Law remains.

The dispensational claim that the Law was a way of salvation is mistaken. The Ceremonial Law was grace in action, pointing to Christ, while the people were still expected to keep the Moral Law. The offering of sacrifices alone did not make the worshipper right in God’s sight; there had to be faith and a heart turned to God. Those who worshipped with their lips while their hearts were far from God were condemned (Isaiah 29:13). Others could perform the legal act of repentance while their hearts remained unmoved (Joel 2:13). Jeremiah mourned because the uncircumcised in heart were no better than the physically uncircumcised (Jeremiah 9:25–26). Thus the legal act had value only when mixed with faith (Hebrews 4:2).

Just as the Law became a means of grace under the ancient economy, so grace becomes the motive for obedience to the Moral Law in the church age. James emphasises this: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20).

Law in the New Testament

On many occasions the Moral Law is reiterated in the New Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ raises the legal standard from mere outward conformity to the standard of the heart:

“Ye have heard that it was said… Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28).

That standard exposes the depth of our depravity and our need of a Saviour. To argue that the Sermon on the Mount pertains only to the Law and not to grace is to distort God’s standard of holiness and, perversely, to give Christians an excuse for sin.

Even by their own recognition, dispensationalists must concede that there is Law in the New Testament. Paul frequently appeals to moral duties among Christians; if partial failure renders a man guilty, the inevitable conclusion is that the moral law applies in principle to New Testament believers.

6: Pastoral and Moral Consequences

THE LAWLESSNESS OF DISPENSATIONALISM

Here lies the greatest pastoral and moral folly of dispensationalism. By chopping up Scripture into separate economies, some may be given doctrinal tools to justify sin.

The technical name for an attitude against the law is antinomianism.

Please do not misunderstand me — many dispensationalists live godly and holy lives; there are covenant theologians who live hypocritical lives. True Christianity is a life lived from the depths of the heart; it is more than a theory.

A system, however, which gives the professing Christian the idea that the Moral Law is irrelevant, or that the Sermon on the Mount is not for the church, is dangerous and must be cautioned against. The theological toolbox for justifying sin has been opened, and it must be guarded against.

LORDSHIP SALVATION

The Lordship-Salvation controversy illustrates some of the dangers at stake.

That controversy was popularised by John MacArthur in his book The Gospel According to Jesus. He argued that the gospel Jesus taught demands faith and repentance which produce the fruits of the Spirit — in short, every true Christian calls Jesus Lord. MacArthur maintained that the teaching of Jesus (for example, in the Sermon on the Mount) remains as relevant for the Christian as the teachings of Paul.

Dispensationalists pushed back. As Dr Alan Cairns notes, some professors at the Dallas Theological Seminary argued that the Lordship formulation adds works to faith. Charles Ryrie, a leading modern dispensationalist, argued that one is saved by trusting Christ by faith alone and he rejected the language of lordship; critics charged that his formulation allowed a distinction between mere trust and demonstrable lordship that risked weakening ethical insistence. In short, the logical trend of certain formulations could remove the imperative to practical holiness and repentance.

As Cairns summarises:

“The Lordship Salvation controversy is the old dispute on the relation of grace to law and of faith to work. We are not saved by works. We are saved by grace through faith. But living faith always produces good works — that is, it acknowledges Christ as Lord” (Romans 10:9).

The Holy Spirit is the author of holiness and the stamp of Christ upon the soul of man.

“According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness… that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Peter 1:3–4).

Yes, the true Christian is saved for eternal salvation. But eternal salvation implies perseverance and growth — this is sanctification by the Spirit. A professing Christian who uses grace as an excuse to sin is not a Christian in reality; he is a sham and a hypocrite who gives others cause to reject the gospel. This may sound strong, but when non-Christians observe such a life they are given a logical reason to avoid Christianity. This is dangerous business, made worse by flawed theology and misinterpretation of Scripture.

We must be challenged in our growth by the Spirit of Christ, who kept the law for us and by whom we grow in grace through conformity to the Moral Law. This is the Spirit of Holiness without which we cannot keep the law.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived…” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8).

7: The Covenant with Abraham

The Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12 marks the true beginning of the public unfolding of God’s redemptive purpose in history. Here God declares that through Abraham’s seed all families of the earth would be blessed. This promise is neither incidental nor temporary; it is the backbone of redemptive history and the interpretive key to understanding the unity of Scripture.

Dispensationalism, whatever its adherents may claim concerning continuity, inevitably disrupts this covenant in practice. By separating Israel and the Church into parallel and ultimately divergent purposes, it fractures the Abrahamic promise and confines its fulfilment to ethnic and national categories which the New Testament explicitly transcends. Paul is unequivocal: those who are of faith are the children of Abraham, and the blessing promised to Abraham comes upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:7–9, 14). The covenant does not pause, reset, or divide; it advances and expands.

This covenantal unity forms the theological ground of the postmillennial hope. The promise was global in scope from its inception, and history has yet to witness the full extent of that blessing. The Psalms repeatedly anticipate the nations coming to the light of the Lord; the prophets foresee the knowledge of God covering the earth; and the New Testament presents the risen Christ reigning until all His enemies are placed beneath His feet. This is not an interruption in God’s plan but its maturation.

As Don Richardson aptly observed:

“…the Bible actually begins with missions, maintains missions as its central theme throughout, and then climaxes in the Apocalypse with spontaneous outbursts of joy because the missionary mandate has been fulfilled” (Eternity in Their Hearts).

That missionary mandate is nothing other than the Abrahamic covenant worked out in history.

We are therefore faced with a clear theological divide. Either redemptive history is one covenantal story, unfolding progressively toward the blessing of the nations in Christ, or it is a fragmented scheme in which God’s purposes are divided and His promises postponed. Postmillennialism stands firmly upon the former. The world has not yet seen the fullness of the blessing promised to Abraham’s seed — but it will.