The Five Points Of … Dispensationalism

A recent online conversation about a new group email address for “5ptdispy” led to discussion of what is a “five point dispy” and belief statement lists generally.  We’re all familiar with the five points of Calvinism, the TULIP.  As I recently learned from a church history series, that five point list came about in the 17th century, in response to the early Arminians’ five point list of their doctrinal beliefs.

Another well-known list of Fives:  the Five Solas

But since we were discussing “what is a 5 point dispy?” here is my suggested list of the Five Points of Dispensationalism:
1.  Distinction between Israel and the Church.  The church is not Israel, it is not the continuation of Israel, and it has not replaced Israel.
2.  Israel’s Future. Israel has a future as a nation in the plan of God in which the Lord will fulfill the covenant promises He made to her in the Old Testament.
3.  Emphasis on the Biblical covenants set forth in scripture, and especially on the unconditional, unilateral Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants.  These take precedence over the theological covenants of Covenant Theology.
4.  Literal future kingdom of God upon the earth, which will last for a literal 1000 years, in which Christ reigns from Jerusalem, and Israel has a place of prominence among the nations.
5.  Literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic.  The Old Testament stands on its own and is not “reinterpreted” to have additional meanings.  Bible texts can have multiple applications, but have (one) singular meaning.

This is of course a “rough draft” statement, a basic overview, but one that does address the main doctrinal points of what dispensationalism really is.

Matt Weymeyer’s “Am I A Dispensationalist?”  expands on the first two of my five points.  A brief excerpt concerning item 2, Israel’s future:

The Old Testament promises of Israel’s restoration have not already been fulfilled.  The New Testament also teaches an eschatological restoration and salvation of the nation of Israel in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises. … Having considered the promises of restoration in their original Old Testament contexts, I am convinced that there is no way that these promises have already been fulfilled.

They were not fulfilled in the returns to the land from exile under Zerubbabel (536 B.C.), Ezra (557 B.C.), or Nehemiah (445 B.C.), and they cannot be rightly understood as finding their fulfillment in the present salvation of the church and/or the eternal state.  To put it simply, the Lord simply has not yet done what He has promised to do in these Old Testament passages, and for this reason I await the day when He will.

Second, I believe that the New Testament also teaches an eschatological restoration and salvation of the nation of Israel in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises. At this point, I should note that I don’t believe it to be necessary that promises be repeated in the New Testament for them to remain valid—if the Lord has made a promise in the Old Testament, and He has yet to fulfill that promise, one can expect that He will still do so regardless of whether or not it is repeated in the New Testament. In my reading, however, I find that the New Testament picture to be consistent with how I have interpreted the Old Testament.