On the April 20, 2026 episode of the Steve Deace Show, Steve did a special one on one interview for a full hour and a half on the topic of Dispensationalism. As the expert for this discussion, Deace chose theologian Dr. Dave Anderson (president/CEO and professor at Grace School of Theology, Dallas Seminary alum, Free Grace proponent). Mr. Deace seemed to be trying to dispel myths and misconceptions about dispensationalism for his audience, which is quite ecumenical. We should also note that the church that Dr. Anderson retired from as senior pastor has several female pastors, though Dave’s wife never held that role to our knowledge.
What is Dispensationalism?
After about 13 minutes of introduction, Dave Anderson was asked to define Dispensationalism for the audience. He defined it as the view that God’s overarching program for humanity includes distinguishable periods (economies or administrations) in Scripture, each with their own sets of rules for mankind. Dave said he typically sees seven dispensations (i.e., Innocence in the Garden → Conscience → Government → Promise → Law → Grace/Church Age → Kingdom/Millennium). Each begins with a new revelation from God, and most end in failure except perhaps the final one. Dr. Anderson characterized this as the result of mostly literal reading of the text.
Contrast to Covenant Theology
Steve Deace then asked Anderson to describe Covenant Theology and how it differs from Dispensationalism. Dave described it as laying out distinguishable time periods but instead operating under two (now three) overarching theological covenants: Covenant of Works (Adam/Eve in Eden must earn life by obedience, but this was broken at the Fall), Covenant of Grace (post-Fall overarching promise of redemption), Covenant of Redemption (intra-Trinitarian plan involving Christ). No substantive critique was offered, except to say that these three are not explicitly in the Bible in those terms. This same objection can be levied just as easily against the alleged seven dispensations. Dave did not mention at all the idea of fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Christ, a single chosen people of God, or the church being the true Israel.
Church History and the Origins of Dispensationalism
Steve Deace inquired of Dr. Anderson if Dispensationalism is a new doctrine that came about in the 19th century. Dave said that Dispensationalism was not new with Darby and Scofield. Rather, this framework existed in the primitive church. His argument rests on these alleged pillars that were representative of the 1st and 2nd century church:
-
Post-apostolic/early church held a “day-age theory,” the idea that the days of creation were actually long periods of time (a view that was later codified in the Scofield Reference Bible)
-
Chiliasts/premillennialists (literal future earthly reign of Christ) were dominant at the time
-
Donatists (pre-Augustine North African majority) allegedly practiced a form of literal dispensationalism
Dr. Anderson goes on to cast Augustine as the proverbial villain, who guided Western Christianity away from this “pure” doctrine. Anderson describes the main pivot point as Augustine’s spiritualization of Matthew 24:13, referring to spiritual/final salvation and not physical deliverance. Dave then pivots from here, to take shots at the reformers, who he calls “thoroughly Augustinian.”
In reality, this is a very simplistic view of church history and the pre-Augustinian church fathers. There was not widespread agreement on almost any theological issue, and covenant theology does not rest on how one interprets a single verse in Matthew 24. It’s honestly shocking how simplistic this argument is, from an alleged academic in this area.
Israel, Abrahamic Covenant, Foreign Policy, and Modern Application
In closing, Dr. Anderson clarifies that there are not two paths for salvation. Jews still need Christ’s atonement for salvation. The current secular state of Israel is not the full prophetic regathering, but God is sovereignly using it to grow a Messianic Jewish remnant. Anderson also emphasizes a future fulfillment of the antichrist, claiming that 70 AD doesn’t meet any of the biblical qualifications.
Conclusion
What was so shocking about the interview was how much hand-holding Steve had to do. A lot of the questions were meant to guide the professor to right answer, and even then the professor would often not pick up on the hint. At the end of the episode, Steve Deace allowed each of his cohosts (Aaron McIntire and Todd Erzen) to react. Aaron (Reformed leaning) gave a mostly “can’t we all just get along” appeal to those who agree and disagree with this view. In contrast, Todd (Roman Catholic) actually pushed back on the simplistic arguments that Anderson made about the early church and pinning it all on Augustine. And honestly, God help you when Todd Erzen is the voice of reason.
If Dr. Dave Anderson truly represents the best of Dispensationalism, then that is terrible news for Dispensationalism. Historically, it simply cannot stand up to scrutiny, even from friendly critics. We may very be seeing the death spiral of a dangerous and unbiblical theology.
Powered by RedCircle
