Does Dispensationalism Lead to Arminianism?

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

A charge sometimes made against dispensationalism is that it teaches or inherently leads to Arminianism. According to Keith A. Mathison, “Dispensationalism has adopted a semi-Pelagian, Arminian doctrine not based on Scripture.”[i] Gerstner views dispensationalism as inherently “anti-Calvinistic” and accuses dispensationalism of denying all five points of Calvinism.[ii] He also says, “In its views of the creation of man, the Fall, the Atonement, soteriology, and eschatology, this system is a variation of the Arminian system.”[iii] J. I. Packer appears impressed with Gerstner’s assertions when he states, “He [Gerstner] sets out to show that Calvinism and Dispensationalism are radically opposed, and he proves his point.[iv]

As for their methodology, Mathison and Gerstner point to alleged Arminian statements from dispensationalists like J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles C. Ryrie, and Robert P. Lightner that supposedly link dispensationalism with Arminianism.[v] On this particular point that certain dispensationalists hold Arminian views, there is little dispute. Some dispensationalists are Arminians. The real issue, though, is not whether some dispensationalists hold Arminian views. For some certainly do. The more important issue is whether dispensationalism is inherently connected with Arminianism. We offer three reasons why it is not.

First, as we have already indicated, dispensationalism is primarily about ecclesiology and eschatology, not soteriology. In addressing whether dispensationalism is related to the Arminianism/Calvinism issue, Feinberg explains why it is not:

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is at the essence of Dispensationalism. . . . This matter is not at the essence of Dispensationalism, because Calvinism and Arminianism are very important in regard to the concepts of God, man, sin, and salvation. Dispensationalism becomes very important in regard to ecclesiology and eschatology, but is really not about those other areas.[vi]

Second, although there are dispensationalists who are Arminians, there are also dispensationalists who are Calvinists—even five-point Calvinists. As David L. Turner explains, “There are certain dispensationalists, myself included, who hold Calvinistic theology, including limited atonement.”[vii] In addition, to Turner, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. is another dispensationalist who holds to all five points of Calvinism.[viii] Jeffrey Khoo points out that James Oliver Buswell (1895-1977) was a “dispensational premillennialist” who was also “a true and consistent reformed scholar. . . a five-point (TULIP) Calvinist.”[ix] Buswell, a member of the Bible Presbyterian Church, was “perhaps the most prominent Reformed scholar who took a dispensational premillennial view.”[x]

Both Mathison and Gerstner deny a connection between dispensationalism and Calvinism, but they do not logically show why dispensational theologians like Turner, Johnson, and Buswell cannot be Calvinists. Instead of just quoting certain Arminian-oriented dispensationalists, the arguments of Gerstner and Mathison would be more impressive if they could logically show why dispensationalism is inherently anti-Calvinistic and why dispensationalists who claim to be Calvinists are not really Calvinists. There is, however, no logical reason why a dispensationalist cannot be a Calvinist. As Richard Mayhue observes, “One may be a five-point Calvinist and still be a consistent dispensationalist.”[xi]

Finally, some nondispensational scholars have actually documented a close historical connection between dispensationalism and Calvinism. According to Poythress, “Scofield’s teachings and notes are evangelical. They are mildly Calvinistic in that they maintain a high view of God’s sovereignty.”[xii] Church historian George M. Marsden says, “Dispensationalism was essentially Reformed in its nineteenth-century origins and had in later nineteenth-century America spread most among revival-oriented Calvinists.”[xiii] C. Norman Kraus declares that “the basic theological affinities of dispensationalism are Calvinistic.”[xiv] In his discussion of Arminianism and Reformed theology, Wayne Grudem says, “Both views are found among. . . Dispensationalists.”[xv]

The point here is not to show that dispensationalism necessarily leads to Calvinism because it does not. But just as it is incorrect to make an inherent connection between dispensationalism and Calvinism, it is equally erroneous to make a necessary connection between dispensationalism and Arminianism.