An Interview With Yours Truly About Dispensationalism

Recently I was interviewed by an Australian brother ministering in England, where I’m from.   Lindsay Kennedy, who teaches at the Calvary Chapel College in York, asked me some questions as part of a series he is running on differing perspectives within Premillennialism.  I tried to represent Traditional Dispensationalism; Darrell Bock was interviewed about Progressive Dispensationalism, and James Hamilton was asked to write on Historic Premillennialism.  As you will see, my answers were longer than those given by the other two men.

Here are the links:

Dispensationalism (Part One)

Dispensationalism (Part Two)


Progressive Dispensationalism (Darrell Bock)

Historic Premillennialism (James Hamilton)

One thing these interviews show is how different these positions are.  Especially Hamilton makes it plain that he interprets much of Scripture typologically.

I trust you will be benefited by each interview.  Lindsay also asked each one of us to answer a question from one of the other interviewees.  I addressed one from Darrell Bock centering on Acts 2 and the reign of Christ.  That piece will be linked to once it appears on Lindsay’s blog.



  1. Love Jim Hamilton to death — brilliant man, terrific brother, first-rate scholar, gift to the church — his “God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment” is a must-have.

    “And that’s all I have to say about that” (Forrest Gump)


    1. Yes, I like ‘God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment’ as a well themed introduction to the Bible. I don’t like it as much as a Biblical Theology because of significant omissions, but I would also recommend it.

  2. Yesterday I watched this (see below) video then sent an email to our good dispensationalist friend Kevin Quick… As I re-read your pt 1 interview I thought you would appreciate my comments.. see attached…

    –Kevin: the first section of the video is anti-dipensational in nature from these strong reformed gentleman. I have responded, as you see below, to a few of the issues they try to raise…Good thing my teachers were of a high caliber so that my response has some validity. Hope to talk again soon — your brother in Christ.

    Some subtle but important mis-information that is worthy of clearing up from what they state.:

    The fact of Christ coming to earth to rule and reign directly as King is to say a new unfolding or phase of the kingdom…..NOT that there is no kingdom per say today.

    He rules and reigns in our hearts …His is (as is the paraclete the come-along-sider the Holy Spirit) in dwelling us as we speak yet the future unveiling will be of a kingdom of a different manifestation. This is what I read in the bible.

    The fact that there are many dispensationalist (especially from Dallas Theological Seminary ala Chafer) who are only 4 pters is a bit of a straw man. Particular redemption aka definite atonement is a complex item and the most difficult of the 5 pts to grasp (says the 5 pt dispensationalist). In other words they do see the other 4 pts!!!

    Also the charge of the “newness” of Dispensational theology as a system (1830) is also a bit disingenuous as Covenant theology as a formal system was only a couple hundred years older than dispensationalism. That is to say it wasn’t formalized until after @1600 years from the time of the cross.

    And of course the reformation ( I am Protestant and very comfortable with the doctrines of Grace) didn’t come alive until the 16th century either — so we see a distinct progression in theological thought.

    I am aware that Augustine (4th century) was the grandfather, if you will, of the reformation in some senses, but my point is that we clearly see a development of consensus in theological thought that often takes hundreds of years of time to come to fruition.

    Perhaps this is the out growth of us trying to grasp the infinite wisdom and thought of Elohim and we are rather limited as we all know- no matter what theological system we find the most understandable.

    They did not deal with the real issues which, at there root are hermaneutical in nature, nor did they deal honestly with the covenants — the explicit ones– which really is the biggest issue of all. They (covenant theologians) live in that rarefied air of implied covenants. We live in the down to earth strata of trying to understand , logically and plainly, what the bible says about those covenants which are explicit and given.

  3. I used to attend Calvary Chapel York when I was doing my first theology degree. I don’t remember this guy, Lindsay Kennedy. He obviously wasn’t there eleven years ago!

    1. Hey Matthew, I only just saw this comment. I arrived at York in 2009, so definitely wouldn’t have met you! I hope you enjoyed your time here. I’m sure we know some of the same people, small world, huh!?

  4. Guys, I posted comments on Hamilton’s questions to Bock on Lindsay’s blog. I think he has many good points but I must say I’m far more negative on him than Dan or Paul. Idisagree with his supercessionism (and this has some serious recurpssions on Jewish evangelism and Christian-Jewish dislogues), and I don’t think he seems to have considered seriously about the theological significance of hermeneutics driving dispensationalism and other systems of theology.

    The full comments are available over at the Three Premillennialists Duck It Out section:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s