Does Dispensationalism Teach Multiple Ways of Salvation?

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

According to Charles Ryrie, “The most frequently heard objection against dispensationalism is that it supposedly teaches several ways of salvation.”[i]  John Wick Bowman, for example, made this accusation in 1956 when he said that dispensationalists are “clearly left with two methods of salvation.”[ii] In 1960, Clarence Bass argued that dispensational distinctions between law and grace and Israel and the church “inevitably result in a multiple form of salvation—that men are not saved the same way in all ages.”[iii]

            We will argue here that dispensationalism does not teach multiple ways of salvation. Before doing so, though, it must be acknowledged that some statements by earlier dispensationalists did appear to teach multiple ways of salvation.[iv] This was especially true in the case of the note concerning John 1:17 in the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible:

As a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as the fruit of salvation.[v]

Some nondispensationalists saw in this statement an explicit assertion that dispensationalists believed in multiple ways of salvation.[vi]

Significantly, Scofield’s views in the Scofield Reference Bible were often equated with dispensationalism since Scofield was viewed as the leading dispensationalist of his era. So, while we will not agree with the charge that Scofield and dispensationalism taught multiple ways of salvation, we do understand how a confusing note by a leading dispensationalist could lead to controversy. 

According to Fred Klooster, the belief that dispensationalism taught multiple ways of salvation was commonly held by nondispensationalists until 1965.[vii] At this time, Ryrie published his work Dispensationalism Today in which he responded to the charges that dispensationalism taught multiple ways of salvation.[viii] Ryrie asserted that earlier dispensationalists, including Scofield, did not teach multiple ways of salvation. They made “unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today’s debate.”[ix] Ryrie also called on nondispensationalists to acknowledge the significant change in the New Scofield Bible regarding John 1:17 in which the controversial wording was removed and a clear statement of one way of salvation was affirmed.

Since Dispensationalism Today, other dispensationalists have joined Ryrie in bringing clarity to this issue. As Robert Saucy writes, “While it cannot be denied that there is some unresolved tension in these earlier statements, dispensationalists have more recently been careful to explain that the progression in the dispensations involves no change in the fundamental principle of salvation by grace.”[x]

            As a result of Ryrie’s work, the writings of other dispensationalists, and the New Scofield Reference Bible revision, many nondispensationalists have become convinced that dispensationalism does not teach multiple ways of salvation. Klooster is one example:

In light of this significant revision in the New Scofield Reference Bible and the arguments of such dispensationalists as Ryrie and [John] Feinberg, the old charge should be dropped. One must proceed from the acknowledgement that Dispensationalism recognizes a single way of salvation throughout the Scripture. Salvation is now and has always been by grace alone—sola gratia! This agreement is a cause for joy; its acknowledgment should not be made grudgingly.[xi]

Klooster’s perspective is also shared by other nondispensationalists. Anthony A. Hoekema declared, “We gratefully acknowledge their [dispensationalists] insistence that in every age salvation is only through grace, on the basis of the merits of Christ.”[xii] Taking into account the New Scofield Reference Bible and Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today, Daniel Fuller wrote, “In comparing these contemporary statements of dispensationalism with covenant theology, we conclude that there is no longer any substantive difference between the two on the subject of the law and the gospel.”[xiii]

            Not all nondispensationalists, though, have dropped the charge that dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation. In his book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, John Gerstner accused all dispensationalists of teaching more than one way of salvation. He said, “We must sadly accuse dispensationalists (of all varieties) of teaching, always implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that there is more than one way of salvation and, in the process of developing that theology, excluding the one and only way even from this dispensation of grace.”[xiv]

            Contrary to the claims of Gerstner, however, the evidence indicates that dispensationalism has not taught multiple ways of salvation. First, as John Feinberg has pointed out, there is nothing inherent within dispensationalism that leads dispensationalists to conclude that the Bible teaches multiple ways of salvation:

Thus, the question of whether dispensationalism necessitates a multiple methods of salvation view, or a single way of salvation position is irrelevant. Soteriology is not the determinative area for dispensationalism.[xv]

Second, as Klooster and Hoekema have observed, the clarifying revision in the 1917 version the New Scofield Reference Bible is further evidence that dispensationalists do not teach multiple ways of salvation. This is an important example where dispensationalists have taken steps to remedy their own confusing statement regarding the way of salvation.

In summary, dispensationalism has not and does not teach multiple ways of salvation.