Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[Josheb]

Does that have any biblical precedent? If one interprets the Bible by dividing it into specific ways in which God deals with and tests humanity, one could certainly find scriptures to support that view. Though imo, they would need to be isolated from the consistency of the whole of Scripture. So the question is, is that what the Bible, as a whole, is, and is doing? Is that what determines interpretation?

No, it is not what the text of the Bible teaches.

1. When Dispensational Premillennialists try to justify Darby's teachings by appealing to Christians who lived before Darby they deceptively use a slight of hand in which people who wrote about dispensations and people who wrote about premillennial viewpoints are used as evidence proving Dispensational Premillennialism has a history that precedes Darby. This is utter falsehood. The slight of hand occurs because a dispensation and a premillennial viewpoint are not Dispensational Premillennialism. The early premillennialists were Historicist, not Dispensationalist. Rarely do they mention that fact when quoting a Historicist. It is a lie of omission whenever that happens. It is a fiction. When earlier Christians wrote about dispensations they invariably did so in the context of the covenants, not exclusive of the covenants. They did not separate dispensations from covenants and Dispensational Premillennialism does. Therefore, again, whenever a Dispensational Premillennial source uses an earlier Christian source to say, "See, look, Dispensational Premillennialism was part of Christian thought long before Darby," they are misrepresenting the truth. It is a fiction. The word, "dispensation" can be found in Christian thought and doctrine going all the way back to the ECFs. The Dispensational Premillennialist use of the term cannot be found prior to Darby. The same is true of premillennialism. Historical is not synonymous with, nor identical to Dispensational Premillennialism. Treating the two as if they are the same is a falsehood. Teaching the word "dispensation" has previously been used the way Dispensational Premillennialism uses the word is another falsehood. These are two of the fictions of Dispensational Premillennialism and they go right to the foundation of the theology. If the theology's foundation is false, then so too is everything built on that foundation.
2. The fact of scripture is that scripture never uses the word "dispensation" to define itself and on the occasion the word is used, the scriptures do not use the term the way Dispensational Premillennialism defines the word. The Dispensational Premillennialist will appeal to the fact the Bible never uses the word "Trinity," either but that is an unequal comparison because the word "trinity," and the doctrine of the Trinity is bult from explicit statements anyone can objectively find in scripture. That is not the case with the word, "dispensation." All such attempts are false equivalences. That is another fiction of Dispensational Premillennialism.
3. Not only does the Bible never use the word "dispensation" to divide itself, or mark different aspects of its revelation, but the Bible never parses itself using the concept as the Dispensational Premillennialism defines the term. The definition is a man-made invention that is not a term scripture itself uses, and the definition of the concept is not one the scriptures ever explicitly assert, either. This is another fiction of Dispensational Premillennialism.
4. Historically speaking, orthodox Christianity has always asserted a continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The reason Christianity has taught continuity is because that is what the Bible teaches. We find repeated, constant use of the Old Testament in the teaching and practice of the early Church, especially in the epistolary. The Old Testament is repeatedly applied to the converts to Christ, both Jewish and Gentile. Dispensational Premillennialism rejects these facts - both the facts of scripture and the facts of Christian orthodoxy. On some occasions the rejection is completely incompatible with what scripture teaches and what Christian orthodoxy teaches. The two cannot co-exist. Dispensational Premillennialism teaches Dispensational Premillennialism is true, not scripture and not historical orthodoxy. This is another fiction of Dispensational Premillennialism.
5. Dispensational Premillennialism teaches a two-kingdoms, two-peoples, two separated purposes ecclesiology. It does this in spite of the fact the Bible always speaks of "God's people," as a single entity, not two different peoples (plural). This is another example of continuity between Old and New that is rejected by Dispensational Premillennialism, a continuity in which Dispensational Premillennialism teaches Dispensational Premillennialism is correct and scripture and historical, orthodox Christian teaching is incorrect. This is an invention of Dispensational Premillennialism. It is fiction.
6. Dispensational Premillennialism elevates ecclesiology and eschatology. In the process of doing so, the historically preeminent doctrines of Christology and soteriology are lowered in position, and the context of the entire Bible is changed. The Bible is first and foremost always about Christ and from the first mention of the tree of life in Genesis all the way through the existence of that tree in the new city of peace, soteriology is preeminent. The ecclesiology and the eschatology of Dispensational Premillennialism, not just their elevated position in theology, are completely different than that of scripture and that which historical orthodox Christianity has taught for two thousand years.
7. Not a single Dispensational Premillennialist has ever made a correct prediction in the two hundred years since the inception of Dispensational Premillennialism. Every prediction, every vague prognostication proves wrong. When sufficient time passes proving the prognostications wrong, nothing is done. Dispensational Premillennialism is a theology that asserts false predictions, teaches its adherents to make false predictions, teaches its adherents to ignore false predictions and never hold accountable false teachers who make false predictions. Every single Dispensational Premillennialist teacher has died, drawing his last breath, without a single prediction s/he's ever made coming true. Dispensationalism Premillennialism is fiction. It teaches fiction. It teaches the practice of fiction and a lack of responsibility, accountability, and culpability thereof.

I'm stopping here because that's a lot for Dispensationalists to defend (or try to disprove). It's not all. There is a lot more fiction in Dispensational Premillennialism but this should be sufficient for even the most ardently devoted DPer to realize there are very real and significant problems in that theology. Dispensational Premillennialism is fiction.

 

[CrowCross]

No, the answer to "Why?" is because that particular religious requirement foreshadowed Jesus and Jesus has satisfied that ritual.

Exactly...the previous dispensation ended. A new dispensation began with Jesus.

No more required.

 

[Josheb]

Exactly...the previous dispensation ended. A new dispensation began with Jesus.

No more required.

There is no dispensation to end. You just think there is and the only reason you think there was an end to a dispensation is because that's what your theology tells you to think. There's no actual scripture stating any such thing. There's no scripture even remotely defining a dispensation the way Dispensational Premillennialism. It's all an invention of Dispensational Premillennialism. What scripture does state is that animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ, especially sacrifices like the Passover and the scapegoat sacrifices. What scriptures does state is the entire Law, including its animal sacrifices testify to Christ. What the Bible does describe is a continuity between Old and New, not a discontinuity (as Dispensational Premillennialism teaches).

Unlike you, I can actually post scripture that states what I post.

Dispensational Premillennialism: Absolute unwillingness and abject inability to post scripture stating what Dispensational Premillennialism teaches about dispensations.
All Other Theologies: Absolute willingness and profound ability to post scripture stating what non-Dispensational theologies teach about dispensations and the lack of their scriptural existence and lack of veracity as a hermeneutic device.

By any and all objective measure, Dispensational Premillennialism is, at best, a lesser theology compared to all others, and at worst completely false when measured by what scripture actually states. Prove me wrong:


Where does scripture divide itself using the word dispensation ad DPism defines the word?


It is a question every Dispensational Premillennialist should be able to answer and, so far, you cannot and will not. We did the couresy of answering your question but have yet to see any parity, despite the fact I asked first.

Text deleted: Contentious, Insulting

 

[Josheb]

Unlike you, I can actually post scripture that states what I post.

Dispensational Premillennialism: Absolute unwillingness and abject inability to post scripture stating what Dispensational Premillennialism teaches about dispensations.
All Other Theologies: Absolute willingness and profound ability to post scripture stating what non-Dispensational theologies teach about dispensations and the lack of their scriptural existence and lack of veracity as a hermeneutic device.

Oops! I forgot to post the affirmative alternative for the Non-DP theologies! We also possess an ability and willingness to post scripture state what non-Dispensational theologies teach about constructs other than dispensations and the scriptural assertion of those constructs. By any and all objective measure, Dispensational Premillennialism is, at best, a lesser theology compared to all others, and at worst completely false when measured by what scripture actually states. Prove me wrong:


Where does scripture divide itself using the word dispensation ad DPism defines the word?

It is a question every Dispensational Premillennialist should be able to answer and, so far, you cannot and will not. We did the courtesy of answering your question but have yet to see any parity, despite the fact I asked first.

 

[CrowCross]

Prove me wrong

We have.

You do know it didn't start with Darby?

 

[Josheb]

Please do not change the subject. Only one thing has currently been asked of you. Just answer the question asked. Everything else is obfuscation.

We have.

You do know it didn't start with Darby?

Where does scripture divide itself using the word or concept dispensation ad DPism defines the word?

 

[CrowCross]

Please do not change the subject. Only one thing has currently been asked of you. Just answer the question asked. Everything else is obfuscation.

Where does scripture divide itself using the word or concept dispensation ad DPism defines the word?

Why do you keep asking this question? It's been answered several times. If you don't understand by now i don't think you can be helped.

Basically your question is no longer worth responding to.

 

[Arial]

Why do you keep asking this question? It's been answered several times. If you don't understand by now i don't think you can be helped.

Basically your question is no longer worth responding to.

It has never been answered. It has been skated around,the subject changed, accusations made, and neither has the question I asked.

WHO decided that the Bible, the one continuous story of redemption as it takes place in history, should be be divided into dispensations when the Bible itself never mentions dispensations in regard to redemption; but does indeed place it into covenant. Old Testament (Covenant), New Testament (Covenant). Someone had to decide that the meaning of the Bible was to be found in dividing eras into dispensations, and using that as the foundation to build upon, because the Bible itself does not do that.

Covenant of Redemption (eternal within the Godhead before creation).
Covenant with creation and mankind (Gen 3:15. Not stated as covenant but covenantal language of promise).
Covenant with Noah ( the Seed bearer of the Redeemer).
Covenant with Abraham and his descendants Issac and Jacob (seed bearers of the covenant Redeemer).
Covenant with Israel (covenant promise to Abraham to bring them out of Egypt into the promised land).
Sinai Covenant with Israel (covenant promise to Abraham fulfilled and the land and people through whom the Redeemer would come).
More sub covenants within that one including the one with David.
Promised new covenant Redeemer comes, fulfills all the SInai covenant law, dies on the cross according to the eternal Covenant of Redemption, take his place as King of kings and New Covenant mediator. Fulfills all the promises of the old covenant.

In Scripture there is no breaking the Covenant of Redemption into dispensations that determine the meaning of or have any relation to redemption. But as an aside, notice where the focus is all the way through the outline I gave. The day and age have no bearing on how Scripture is interpreted, or on Redemption, other than as God's purpose and plan progressing through history.

 

[Josheb]

Why do you keep asking this question?

Because you have yet to answer that question.

It's been answered several times.

That is incorrect. That question has not been answered several times.

If you don't understand by now i don't think you can be helped.

That is also incorrect. You could and should explain yourself and make a conscious and conscientious effort to make your position understood both scripturally and logically.

Basically your question is no longer worth responding to.

The posts prove otherwise.


The fact is the Bible never uses the word "dispensation to divide itself. That fact was eventually alluded to in Post 30, and eventually explicitly acknowledged in Post 70 where you finally came right out and stated, "The word trinity isn't in the bible," which is what should have said when first responding to Post 13. Those are the demonstrable facts of the thread. It took you seventy posts to come right out and state the word, "dispensation" is never used in scripture. You tried to get by with a false-equivalence comparison to the word "trinity," but that argument fails because every Trinitarian can, unlike any Dispensationalist, point to explicit statements in scripture identifying the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since then, I have moved on from the exact, specific word, and asked for proof the Dispensational Premillennial definition is used in scripture.

You have NOT provided any such proof. It's not a matter of anyone's "understanding," or lack thereof. It is a simple, demonstrable fact you've not answered that question. What you tried to do is argue the lack of animal sacrifices is proof of a dispensation but that is completely unscriptural and wholly irrational. Scripture states animal sacrifices were discarded because their witness was no longer necessary once what they foreshadowed appeared. That is what scripture states. It NEVER states animal sacrifices were a means of interacting with humans for a period of time in a discontinuous manner to demonstrate stewardship. Scripture never ever states any such thing and if it does then the onus is on you to prove that teaching with scripture.

You have not provided any such proof.

The question is worth answering and pretending it is not worth answering is evidence of your unwillingness and inability and I will score that avoidance as proof of Dispensational Premillennialism's fictional status. I'll give you one more opportunity to answer the question asked, and if there's another attempt at obfuscation, I will move on to another, completely different question about Dispensational Premillennialism which you will probably not answer immediately or directly, nor with scripture.


Where does scripture divide itself using the word or concept dispensation as DPism defines the word?


Where would we find the Bible defining the term?


If the answer is, "We wouldn't find the Bible defining the term as Dispensational Premillennialism does because the Bible does not define the term it never uses," then just post that! If the answer is, "The Bible contains a definition of the term/concept in ?????? ," then post that text. Real easy either way. Should take one post, not 70.


Where does scripture divide itself using the word or concept dispensation as DPism defines the word?


Where would we find the Bible defining the term?


.

 

[Josheb]

I don't think dispensation reflect two...or more...gospels. Rather I see them as different ages of how God dealt with man.

Dispensation means multiple ages.

And, yet, according to the leading Dispensational Premillennialists, the word "dispensation' and the word "age" are not synonymous. A dispensation is a period of time, but it is not an age.

​

Chafer (the founder of DTS, and his successor, Ryrie, defined a "dispensation" as "a stewardship administration" that "involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward." Scofield defined the term as "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." Ryrie further states a dispensation "is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time," and he explicitly states "'age' and 'stewardship' are not synonymous in meaning." Thomas Ice asserts Ryrie's teaching, "The verb oikonoméô refers to a manager of a household....... dispensation means to manage or administer the affairs of a household."

A dispensation is not an age.

Perhaps you have misunderstood the specifics regarding what Dispensational Premillennialism teaches.

 

[Josheb]

Can't you see that interpreting it as a dispensation, a way in which God was dealing with man in that "age", completely separates it from the covenant Jesus fulfilled, and the new he mediates? It is as though the word of God becomes a story about "ages" instead of one continuous story of God redeeming---and that through covenant.

No! The reason that cannot be seen is because scripture explicitly states the sacrifices of bulls never took away sins and always foreshadowed Christ. Furthermore, everything revealed in the sacrificial system (especially that articulated on the Mosaic Law) is said to be part of the covenant promises made to Abraham and his seed. The so called "dispensation" of animal sacrifices therefore falls within the covenant first initiated with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob (the patriarchs, the forefathers) and completed in Christ. In other words, scripture itself explicitly makes a connection of continuity between animal sacrifices (which began in Noah's day, or what Dispensational Premillennialism calls the dispensation of conscience, not the dispensation promise, nor the dispensation of law). Animal sacrifices have absolutely nothing to do with one single way of God dealing with man in a given age. Animal sacrifices transcend four dispensation and thereby prove a continuity of scripture across those four dispensations.

It is NOT "as though the word of God becomes a story of ages instead of one continuous story of God redeeming."

Every single sacrifice, and every single type of animal sacrifice (Passover lamb, scapegoat, purification, first fruits, etc.) all foreshadow Christ crucified and resurrected for the forgiveness of sin. Continuity, not discontinuity.

Romans 15:4 NIV
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us [the saints], so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Everything written in the past was for the Church, the body of redeemed believers in Christ. Scripture itself explicitly states the continuity between Old and New and it does so multiple times in several different ways.

1 Peter 1:17-21
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; 18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

The continuity of scripture runs from "before the foundation of the world," to "these last times" in which Christ was revealed. That which was revealed to earlier generation of the God's chosen people in the Bible remained a mystery until it was revealed to the saints in the New Testament. One continuous story, a mystery story, that was eventually made known such that ALL the promises of God are affirmed in Christ. God even told His people living in the Old Testament that He declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done..." None of it is the word of God becoming "a story about "ages" instead of one continuous story of God redeeming" and scripture itself never states any such think. All of it is an invention, a man-made invention fo Dispensational Premillennialism, a man-made invention that demonstrably contradicts what God's word explicitly states in favor of the man-made inventions of DPism.

and that through covenant.

Scripture actually uses the word "covenant," and scripture itself literally explicitly ties the covenants together in a continuous story. Scripture never uses the word "dispensation" to describe separate stories, or to divide itself in any other way. The entire schema, along with the definitions of the words used for division is man-made fiction.

It is as though each "dispensation" is its own book. It own separate story.

No, it's not. The claim is pure invention. This is observable in the simple fact scripture never defines the word or concept as Dispensational Premillennialism defines it. All you have to do to prove that wrong is post the places where scripture states the definition.

Where does scripture divide itself using the word or concept dispensation as DPism defines the word/concept?

Where would we find the Bible defining the term?



.

 

[Josheb]

Why do you keep asking this question? It's been answered several times.

It has never been answered.

@Arial is correct. The question asked has not been answered. If you think otherwise, then post the number of the post that shows us the scripture defining "dispensation" (or the concept) as Dispensational Premillennialism defines it. Absent such proof both posters and the thread itself prove the question has not been answered. Just answer the question asked and let's move forward with the conversation regarding whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction.


Where does scripture divide itself using the word or concept dispensation as DPism defines the word/concept?

Where would we find the Bible defining the term?


.

 

[CrowCross]

It has never been answered. It has been skated around,the subject changed, accusations made, and neither has the question I asked.

WHO decided that the Bible, the one continuous story of redemption as it takes place in history, should be be divided into dispensations when the Bible itself never mentions dispensations in regard to redemption; but does indeed place it into covenant. Old Testament (Covenant), New Testament (Covenant). Someone had to decide that the meaning of the Bible was to be found in dividing eras into dispensations, and using that as the foundation to build upon, because the Bible itself does not do that.

Covenant of Redemption (eternal within the Godhead before creation).
Covenant with creation and mankind (Gen 3:15. Not stated as covenant but covenantal language of promise).
Covenant with Noah ( the Seed bearer of the Redeemer).
Covenant with Abraham and his descendants Issac and Jacob (seed bearers of the covenant Redeemer).
Covenant with Israel (covenant promise to Abraham to bring them out of Egypt into the promised land).
Sinai Covenant with Israel (covenant promise to Abraham fulfilled and the land and people through whom the Redeemer would come).
More sub covenants within that one including the one with David.
Promised new covenant Redeemer comes, fulfills all the SInai covenant law, dies on the cross according to the eternal Covenant of Redemption, take his place as King of kings and New Covenant mediator. Fulfills all the promises of the old covenant.

In Scripture there is no breaking the Covenant of Redemption into dispensations that determine the meaning of or have any relation to redemption. But as an aside, notice where the focus is all the way through the outline I gave. The day and age have no bearing on how Scripture is interpreted, or on Redemption, other than as God's purpose and plan progressing through history.

 

[CrowCross]

WHO decided that the Bible, the one continuous story of redemption as it takes place in history, should be be divided into dispensations

Who decided the bible should include chapter and verses?

Who decided there is an Old testament and a New Testament?

Who decided that the way God interacted with men in the deluvial age was NOT different than the way God interacts with men now? Keep in mind we're not speaking of salvation as salvation has always been faith and grace.

If you thing dispensations are...God saved this way from the fall to the flood, then saved a different way when the law was given, for example:
1-Innocence, 2-Conscience, 3-Human Government, 4-Promise, 5-Law, 6-Grace, and 7-Kingdom....you don't really understand dispensation.

Dispensations are simply a way to label times in biblical history.

 

[CrowCross]

And, yet, according to the leading Dispensational Premillennialists, the word "dispensation' and the word "age" are not synonymous. A dispensation is a period of time, but it is not an age.

If you say so.

NEXT

 

[Arial]

The reason the Isrealites sacrificed bulls was because they were under the Law that Jesus would come to fulfill so that temporary covering for sin was not necessary. It had nothing to do with what dispensation it was in. Can't you see that interpreting it as a dispensation, a way in which God was dealing with man in that "age", completely separates it from the covenant Jesus fulfilled, and the new he mediates? It is as though the word of God becomes a story about "ages" instead of one continuous story of God redeeming---and that through covenant. It is as though each "dispensation" is its own book. It own separate story.

@Josheb Re: post #91 You show that as a quote from @CrowCross but it is actually something I said. Does that change your understanding of why it was said and how you would repsond ----knowing where I am coming from, and what Crow would likely mean if he had said it?

 

[Arial]

Who decided the bible should include chapter and verses?

Irrelevant and there can be no comparison between deciding to do chapter and verse and someone deciding the Bible is divided into dispensations and then deciding how to define those dispensations and how to use them as a framework. The first is a matter of translation from a language that didn't use chapter and verse into a language that does. The second serves no necessary purpose unless the Bible itself does that explicitly.

Who decided there is an Old testament and a New Testament?

The Scripture itself did. The one is the Old Testament because it was moved forward into a New Testament (COVENANT) by the work of Christ. It calls itself the New Covenant and if there is a new covenant that means there is also an old one, one that came before it. The coming of the promised Seed of the old is what makes the conventional distinction.

Who decided that the way God interacted with men in the deluvial age was NOT different than the way God interacts with men now? Keep in mind we're not speaking of salvation as salvation has always been faith and grace.

Really? What does it being different have to do with anything? You may not have noticed this, but time as we know it, has always been moving forward and time changes things. He always acts the same way with men. Covenantally. Interacting with someone is a relationship. Even you have admitted that there is no relationship in a dispensation. It would be nothing more than God acting ON mankind. Not interacting with him.

If you thing dispensations are...God saved this way from the fall to the flood, then saved a different way when the law was given, for example:
1-Innocence, 2-Conscience, 3-Human Government, 4-Promise, 5-Law, 6-Grace, and 7-Kingdom....you don't really understand dispensation.

Thank God that isn't what I think a dispensation is. Maybe a return to read the OP would be helpful.

Dispensations are simply a way to label times in biblical history.

It would appear that you may be the one who doesn't understand his own beliefs. That is not how dispensationalism applies its dispensations. The way in which they apply them, changes the Bible by not acknowledging or in any case, not applying, the eternal Covenant of Redemption to everything else in the Bible from the promise of Gen 3:15. It is in dispensationalism , as though redemption starts with the Sinai Covenant. In effect they make it the Sinai Dispensation of Law. And no matter what you say to the contrary, it divides Israel and the Church. It has two peoples of God.

 

[Arial]

The reason the question of WHO decided that the Bible should be divided redemptively and/or otherwise into dispensations, has not been answered is this:

There is a who. I suspect the one who won't answer the question knows that and who the who is. It has certainly been brought to light in this thread at least twice. It is not orthodoxy, but a new (relatively) insertion/assertion placed on the Bible. So, if this "who" is named, everything that has been said against dividing the Scriptures into dispensations would have to be acknowledged. The whole house of cards would crumble.

Dispensationalism has its own hermeneutical system of theology. It makes a sharp distinction between Israel and the church, divides the history of salvation into dispensations, and has a woodenly hermeneutic literalism when it comes to biblical prophecy and Apocalyptic literature,

"What caused it to flourish in the twentieth century was the advent of "prophecy conferences," the widespread use of the Scofield Study Bible, and the establishment of dispensational Bible institutes and colleges. " (Source ligonier,org).

@CrowCross To answer the question of "who" all one needs to do is look up the history of modern dispensationalism, and there, front and center will be the "who". John Nelson Darby.

 

[CrowCross]

Dispensationalism has its own hermeneutical system of theology. It makes a sharp distinction between Israel and the church, divides

That is true. It is a hermeneuitical system of theology just a Covenant

Dispensationalism is a hermeneuitical method of interpreting history that divides God’s work and purposes toward mankind into different periods of time. I could have use ages instead of time but @Josheb would get upset again.

As far as a distinction between Israel and the Church...the Church didn't replace Israel.

 

[CrowCross]

To answer the question of "who" all one needs to do is look up the history of modern dispensationalism, and there, front and center will be the "who". John Nelson Darby.

It has been demonstrated several times that Darby didn't invent dispensationalism. I'll agree God used him to "popularize" it.
The concept can be traced back to the early church in the first couple of centuries tied directly to the disciples of some of those who actually walked with Christ. I have no need to prove that known fact anymore.