You do know it didn't start with Darby?
It did start with Darby.
An "~ism" is a formalized system of thought. Prior to Darby many theologians spoke/wrote about dispensations but there was no formal system of thought known as "
Dispensationalism." Furthermore, Dispensational Premillennialism is not Dispensationalism and more than premillennialism is Dispensational Premillennialism. This op specifies Dispensational Premillennialism, not mere dispensationalism and not the use of dispensation in theological discourse. Dispensational Premillennialism is something different than either mere dispensationalism and mere premillennialism.
This has always been a point of deceit in Dispensational Premillennialism. Premillennialism prior to Darby was covenantal. Premillennialists were horrified when Darby formalized his system of thought. They were so against any association with Darbyism that they changed the name of their premillennialism and that is why Historical Premillennialism has a name. They wanted to put as much distance between the historical viewpoint as possible. The called it
Historical Premillennialism because that is what it is =
historical! Darby's Dispensational Premillennialism is not historical. As a formal system of theological thought Dispensational Premillennialism started with Darby.
Prior to Darby theologians wrote about dispensations within an established context of the covenant. Darbyism separates dispensations from the covenants. Prior to Darby premillennialists considered Israel irrelevant to Christian eschatology. It is not that there were no theologians who thought Israel might be "restored," but none of the conflated God bringing the Jews back to their land with
Christian eschatology. Darby changed that viewpoint. Darby's Dispensational Premillennialism teaches Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. It started with Darby.
When Dispensational Premillennialist theologians teach the relevance of Israel as part of their formalized system of thought they are practicing something new, something less than 200 years old In Christian thought, doctrine, and practice
and they are teaching something that is completely irreconcilable with the historical, orthodox teaching of both scripture and the Church and what scripture and the Church has taught for 2000 years. When they do not teach their viewpoint is new and different they are committing a lie of omission. When Dispensational Premillennialists like Ice (or
William C. Watson) expound on the precedents of Darbyism they often cite heretics. They do not tell the reader the source is heretical. They commit a lie of omission. Ice does this when he cites Another falsehood is the appeal to history interpreted. An example of this with Thomas Ice is his article, "
A History of Dispensationalism," and "
A Short History of Dispensationalism." The same article with two different titles. The first deceit is equating a history of dispensationalism with the history of Dispensational Premillennialism. The second deceit is equating mere mentions of dispensations with the formalized system of thought, or
theology now known as Dispensational Premillennialism. Here's an example of the latter taken from page 7 of both artciles...
Crude, but clear, schemes of ages and dispensations are found in ante-Nicene fathers such as Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (130-200), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Methodius (d. 311), and Victorinus of Petau (d. 304).
A "crude" "scheme" is not a formalized system of thought. Notice Darby does not actually prove any scheme actualy exists with any of the authors cited. He assumes it, and assumes it without any evidence to support his interpretation of their writings. Instead, what he does do is make an appeal to a second-hand source.
Dispensational historian, Larry Crutchfield concluded that: Regardless of the number of economies to which the Fathers held, the fact remains that they set forth what can only be considered a doctrine of ages and dispensations which foreshadows dispensationalism as it is held today.
The essence of Ice's argument is that some guy who was a Dispensational Premillennialist concluded (code for interpreted) those sources as dispensationalists when they were not. Ice is appealing to a second-hand interpretation
instead of the sources themselves. Why would he do that? The ECFs' writings are available to everyone freely, thanks to the internet. He has easy, ready access to those sources and, if he has actually read them then he can
and should cite them first-hand and not rely on one of his Dispensationally Premillennialist buddy's interpretation. This is
dishonest.
A third deceit occurs because Martyr, Tertullian, and Watts were all
covenantal. Their views in dispensations occurred within the context of a theological understanding of covenant, and they did so because the word, and the concept, of the covenant is something explicitly stated in the Bible whereas the word/concept dispensation is not found therein.
This is what the Ice article states about Watts,
Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the famous theologian and hymn writer, also wrote about dispensations in a forty-page essay entitled “The Harmony of all the Religions which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations towards them. His definition of dispensations is very close to modern statements. The public dispensations of God towards men, are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, where in are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealing with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behavior, both in this world and in that which is to come. Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different religions, or at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men in the several successive ages of the world.”
All you,
@CrowCross (or anyone else reading this post), have to do to verify the covenantal beliefs of the Martyr, Tertullian, and Wats is to Google, "
Was Justin Martyr covenantal?" "
Was Tertullian covenantal?" or "
Was Isaac Watts covenantal?" The answer in all three cases will be yes! These men did write about dispensations but they did NOT write about dispensations the way Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach and other Dispensational Premillennialists write about Dispensationalism. Isaac Watts is particularly relevant because modern-day Dispensational Premillennialists cite Watts as a proto-dispensationalist because of his co-occurring premillennial views but Watts believe Israel would be brought into the Church. Watts was a subscriber to what today would be called a form of Replacement Theology. He taught the Church had replaced
national Israel as God's people (singular), and Israel would be brought into the Church (made one with God's one people). Watts was a covenantal RTer when he expounded on his views of dispensations! Wats was NOT Dispensational Premillennialist. He did not hold nation Israel's future was relevant in Christian eschatology, he did not separate dispensations from covenants, he did not hold the Bible to be discontinuous, he did not hold God had two peoples, he did not think there were two completely unrelated eternal purposes for national Israel and the Church. He believed national Israel would become part of the Church. One people.
It is not accurate to portray Watts as an early Dispensational Premillennialist. Watts was a covenantal dispensationalist and Historic Premillennialist.
Ice, Crutchfield, and Watson
lied. They committed lies of omission in their efforts to justify Dispensational Premillennialism. They argued a false cause fallacy = just because someone mentioned the word "dispensations" does not mean they were early dispensationalists, and it definitely does not mean they were Dispensational Premillennialists. It does mean Darby used these men to form his own thinking but what Darby created is much different than what anyone before him has conceived. We cannot say these Ice made "honest mistakes," or that they may have inadvertently or unintentionally misrepresented their sources because he has a doctorate. Ice, Crutchfield, and Watson are highly educated men, whose education taught them to be objective and whose ethics code requires them to accurate present any and all sources. There are only two possible explanations for Ice's article, and Crutchfield's failure to correctly portray the ECFs and Watts. They are either incompetent, or they are lying (deliberately misrepresenting the facts for the purpose of deception). Either way, whether incompetent or lying, they are not reliable sources.
Which is why I have repeatedly told
you,
@CrowCross, to
be as critical of your own sources as you are of my posts!!! Be an equal opportunity critic. What Ice, Crutchfield, Watson, and other DP apologists do is comparable to saying the Essenes and
Acts 2:44 are early examples of Marxism. It is utter hogwash.
Darby used writings from earlier writers selectively. He created an entirely new and radically different theology in which the understanding of dispensation was removed from its covenant moorings, scripture was divided up in discontinuity, the people of God (singular) was divided into two peoples, national Israel was made critically important to Christian eschatology, and in the [process he compromised several core Christian historically held orthodox doctrines. Dispensationalism teaches a different Christology, a different soteriology, a different ecclesiology, a different eschatology.
Dispensational Premillennialism did start with Darby; Darby is the individual who formalized a system of thought that was previously non-existent in Christian theology.
