I, as Tom, have but a little time thus, here are some notes taken from John Hendryx (creator and editor of
Monergism.com; the normal disclaimers apply):
It can be forcefully argued from the Bible and plain reason that the dispensationalist belief in the mutually contradictory doctrines of
effectual grace and
universal atonement give rise to a fatally inconsistent view of the Scriptures. All spiritual blessings have their origin in the person and work of Christ (Eph 1:3). Efficacious grace is a spiritual blessing. Dispensationalists, like Calvinists, also teach the doctrine of efficacious grace and that this grace is applied by the Holy Spirit to the elect only (not to the non-elect). Therefore it infallibly follows that they must believe that Christ died for the elect (to secure effectual grace) in a way that He did not for the non-elect. Therefore, either dispensationalists really do believe in the biblical doctrine of particular redemption without knowing it or they promote an unintelligible system of theology that is divorced from Christ with regard to the application of the work of redemption.
Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), the Dispensational mother ship, widely promoted four of the five points of Calvinism (Amyraldianism). In agreement with traditional Calvinists the professors at this institution teach that man cannot save himself, God's grace is effectual (irresistible), His election is unconditional and the elect of God will be preserved by him in such a way as to never ultimately fall away. Yet, in contrast to Reformed theology, DTs teaches a
universal atonement, that Jesus died for all mankind (elect and non-elect)
in the same way, and with the
same intent. Other traditional Reformed doctrines that most dispensationalists reject include monergistic regeneration.
Dispensationalists agree that the elect are given efficacious grace and the non-elect are not. In light of this I must point out as a reminder that all redemptive blessings we have can be traced back to the work of Christ, according to Scripture (Eph 1:3). If it were not for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to deliver us, then all that is left to us is God's wrath. The dispensationalist has forgotten that
even the benefit of efficacious grace is to be found rooted in Christ and His work. In other words, since this blessing is only given to some and not others, it follows that such a blessing was purchased only for those He intended to save. Would someone dare argue that some spiritual blessings are to be found outside of Christ? Therefore, to embrace efficacious grace and, at the same time, teach a universal atonement is to contradict the Scripture. Even dispensationalists believe that the redemptive benefit of efficacious grace is for the elect only since the non-elect do not receive this benefit. Therefore, even by their own standards, Christ must have died in a way for the elect that He did not for the non-elect. If efficacious grace is among that which Christ purchased on the cross (as are all spiritual blessings) then the unavoidable, and only reasonable conclusion must be that the non-elect were not included in this particular redemptive blessing. Anything less is an unbiblical bifurcation of Christ and His redemptive benefits.
Dispensationalists believe "this present world system . . . is now controlled by Satan" (
not by God) and will end in failure and apostasy (John A. Witmer, "A Review of 'Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth).
