Josheb
Reformed Non-denominational
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 4,447
- Reaction score
- 1,927
- Points
- 113
- Location
- VA, south of DC
- Faith
- Yes
- Marital status
- Married with adult children
- Politics
- Conservative
As time permits, I will post six criticisms of Dispensationalism, the first of which is Dispensationalism's radical difference from historical, orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice.
Dispensationalism is an entirely new and radically different theology that makes much of historical Christianity wrong. Something being new is not inherently make it incorrect but according to Dispensationalism's own statements about itself it directly conflicts with 1800 years of Christian thought, Christian doctrine, and Christian practice. Implicit within Dispensationalism is the belief all Christians have been mistaken and mistaken in thought, mistaken in doctrine, and mistaken in practice and mistaken for centuries. From its inception leaders from mainstream orthodox Christianity have openly resisted the Dispensational view but Dispensationalists continue to resist correction, openly arguing much of what Christendom has held to be true is incorrect.
The term “dispensation” is thoroughly scriptural. That is not a point in dispute. Our English word “dispensation” is taken from the Greek word “oikonomia” which also can variously be translated as “economy” or “stewardship.” The existence of the term is not in dispute among Christians, either. It never has been a matter of dispute. What has been of dispute over the last 200 years is the way Dispensationalists define and use the term. The early Church Fathers (ECFs) often wrote of dispensation, but they always did so in light of the covenants. This is NOT to say the ECFs were Covenant Theologians. It does, however, mean they did not see distinctions between covenants and dispensations as do the modern Dispensationalists. You will, on occasion, find Dispensationalist apologists asserting modern dispensationalist premillennialism goes back to the ECFs but that is patently false. Historic premillennialism dates to the ECFs; Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) does not. Dispensationalists often quote from a variety of sources (such as Augustine, Luther, or Edwards) who used the term “dispensation” but they misrepresent the sources to suggest they were writing as Dispensational Premillenialists use the term and not in a manner contextual to the covenants.
Dispensationalists define a dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” This definition can be found in the Scofield Reference Bible, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Dispensationalism,” Charlies Ryrie’s book of the same title, and a plethora of other DP sources. Neither this use of the term nor that definition is found stated in scripture. In comparison, the covenants in scripture are clearly, explicitly stated as covenants and they are self-defined within the scriptures themselves. Dispensationalists hold the dispensations are unrelated to one another and are not elements of a single progressively unfolding revelation. They stand distinct from one another (this is called "discontinuity"). In addition, the Dispensationalist view of dispensations hold to a hermeneutic wherein a pre-existing view is assumed whereby there is a discrete distinction between Israel and the Church and scripture/prophesy should be read literally.
Dispensational Premillennialism began with the restoration movements of the early 1800s and most prominently with a man named John Darby. The Wikipedia article on Premillennialism states, “Dispensationalism traces its roots to the 1830s and John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), an Anglican churchman and an early leader of the Plymouth Brethren. In the US, the dispensational form of premillennialism was propagated on the popular level largely through the Scofield Reference Bible and on the academic level with Lewis Sperry Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology…..” And a survey of the notable treatises on Dispensationalism by its noted teachers easily confirms this fact. In his book, “Dispensationalism,” the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote, “…a worthy and scholarly research of the Bible with dispensational distinctions in view was made by J. N. Darby, Charles H. Mackintosh, William Kely, F. W. Grant, and others who developed what is known as the Plymouth Brethren movement. These men created an extensive literature of surpassing value which is strictly Biblical and dispensational…” They created something strictly dispensational. Ryrie, in an attempt to rightly refute the fallacy of genetics in his book “Dispensationalism,” reports “informed Dispensationalists....., recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier.” John Darby formulated the system.
I reiterate: Does the newness of something automatically mean it is incorrect? NO!!! Its de facto errors automatically make it incorrect.
Dispensationalism's list of dispensations varies as to the number and nature of the dispensations but generally speaking the number of dispensations is cited as seven and they are generally listed as,
From Adam to the Fall
From the Fall to the Flood
From Noah to Babel (or Abraham)
From Abraham to Moses
From Moses to Jesus
From Jesus to the Millennial Kingdom
The Millennial Kingdom
None of these are specifically or explicitly noted by the scriptures themselves as separate epochs unrelated to one another and nowhere are they labeled as dispensations. Both positions are assumed beforehand by Dispensationalism and in most cases the explicit report of covenant is ignored as a more explicitly scriptural approach.
In other words, Dispensational Premillennialism is new, but it is not solely a new formalization of scripture that has equal efficacy with other models. The precepts, concepts, and positions it asserts are entirely new and problematic because they contradict scripture and historically orthodox Christianity.
Here is a single very plain and simple means of observing exactly how different this newness is:
For 18 centuries there was no Israel. For 18 centuries Christian thought, doctrine, and practice held to views consistent with that reality. Dispensational Premillennialism stands far apart from ALL of what came before it by asserting geo-political nation-state Israel is relevant to Christianity when for the entire history of Christianity the orthodox position has been the exact opposite. If Dispensational Premillennialism was new and consistent then there might be a reason to consider it valid but Dispensational Premillennialism is a radical departure from 20 centuries (20, not 18 – the Church has continued with its established thought, doctrine, and practices despite the inception of Darbyism) of Christian thought, Christian doctrine, and Christian practice. This difference, and many others, are largely due to the inventions of one man, John Nelson Darby.
The specifics in this op are easily verified. Anyone can (and should) look up what I've posted. The meaning or significance of these facts can be discussed, but the historical and doctrinal facts themselves are not matters of dispute. Aside from the Wiki article my sources are the Dispensationalists themselves (along with comparative sources), I have not in any way appealed once to a single critic of DPism. I can, and will if needed, use scripture itself and in-house DP sources to prove my claims about DPism.
The reason for this op is that if Dispensationalism is correct then Christianity prior to Darby has always been wrong.
Dispensationalism is an entirely new and radically different theology that makes much of historical Christianity wrong.
.
Dispensationalism is an entirely new and radically different theology that makes much of historical Christianity wrong. Something being new is not inherently make it incorrect but according to Dispensationalism's own statements about itself it directly conflicts with 1800 years of Christian thought, Christian doctrine, and Christian practice. Implicit within Dispensationalism is the belief all Christians have been mistaken and mistaken in thought, mistaken in doctrine, and mistaken in practice and mistaken for centuries. From its inception leaders from mainstream orthodox Christianity have openly resisted the Dispensational view but Dispensationalists continue to resist correction, openly arguing much of what Christendom has held to be true is incorrect.
The term “dispensation” is thoroughly scriptural. That is not a point in dispute. Our English word “dispensation” is taken from the Greek word “oikonomia” which also can variously be translated as “economy” or “stewardship.” The existence of the term is not in dispute among Christians, either. It never has been a matter of dispute. What has been of dispute over the last 200 years is the way Dispensationalists define and use the term. The early Church Fathers (ECFs) often wrote of dispensation, but they always did so in light of the covenants. This is NOT to say the ECFs were Covenant Theologians. It does, however, mean they did not see distinctions between covenants and dispensations as do the modern Dispensationalists. You will, on occasion, find Dispensationalist apologists asserting modern dispensationalist premillennialism goes back to the ECFs but that is patently false. Historic premillennialism dates to the ECFs; Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) does not. Dispensationalists often quote from a variety of sources (such as Augustine, Luther, or Edwards) who used the term “dispensation” but they misrepresent the sources to suggest they were writing as Dispensational Premillenialists use the term and not in a manner contextual to the covenants.
Dispensationalists define a dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” This definition can be found in the Scofield Reference Bible, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Dispensationalism,” Charlies Ryrie’s book of the same title, and a plethora of other DP sources. Neither this use of the term nor that definition is found stated in scripture. In comparison, the covenants in scripture are clearly, explicitly stated as covenants and they are self-defined within the scriptures themselves. Dispensationalists hold the dispensations are unrelated to one another and are not elements of a single progressively unfolding revelation. They stand distinct from one another (this is called "discontinuity"). In addition, the Dispensationalist view of dispensations hold to a hermeneutic wherein a pre-existing view is assumed whereby there is a discrete distinction between Israel and the Church and scripture/prophesy should be read literally.
Dispensational Premillennialism began with the restoration movements of the early 1800s and most prominently with a man named John Darby. The Wikipedia article on Premillennialism states, “Dispensationalism traces its roots to the 1830s and John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), an Anglican churchman and an early leader of the Plymouth Brethren. In the US, the dispensational form of premillennialism was propagated on the popular level largely through the Scofield Reference Bible and on the academic level with Lewis Sperry Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology…..” And a survey of the notable treatises on Dispensationalism by its noted teachers easily confirms this fact. In his book, “Dispensationalism,” the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote, “…a worthy and scholarly research of the Bible with dispensational distinctions in view was made by J. N. Darby, Charles H. Mackintosh, William Kely, F. W. Grant, and others who developed what is known as the Plymouth Brethren movement. These men created an extensive literature of surpassing value which is strictly Biblical and dispensational…” They created something strictly dispensational. Ryrie, in an attempt to rightly refute the fallacy of genetics in his book “Dispensationalism,” reports “informed Dispensationalists....., recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier.” John Darby formulated the system.
I reiterate: Does the newness of something automatically mean it is incorrect? NO!!! Its de facto errors automatically make it incorrect.
Dispensationalism's list of dispensations varies as to the number and nature of the dispensations but generally speaking the number of dispensations is cited as seven and they are generally listed as,
From Adam to the Fall
From the Fall to the Flood
From Noah to Babel (or Abraham)
From Abraham to Moses
From Moses to Jesus
From Jesus to the Millennial Kingdom
The Millennial Kingdom
None of these are specifically or explicitly noted by the scriptures themselves as separate epochs unrelated to one another and nowhere are they labeled as dispensations. Both positions are assumed beforehand by Dispensationalism and in most cases the explicit report of covenant is ignored as a more explicitly scriptural approach.
In other words, Dispensational Premillennialism is new, but it is not solely a new formalization of scripture that has equal efficacy with other models. The precepts, concepts, and positions it asserts are entirely new and problematic because they contradict scripture and historically orthodox Christianity.
Here is a single very plain and simple means of observing exactly how different this newness is:
For 18 centuries there was no Israel. For 18 centuries Christian thought, doctrine, and practice held to views consistent with that reality. Dispensational Premillennialism stands far apart from ALL of what came before it by asserting geo-political nation-state Israel is relevant to Christianity when for the entire history of Christianity the orthodox position has been the exact opposite. If Dispensational Premillennialism was new and consistent then there might be a reason to consider it valid but Dispensational Premillennialism is a radical departure from 20 centuries (20, not 18 – the Church has continued with its established thought, doctrine, and practices despite the inception of Darbyism) of Christian thought, Christian doctrine, and Christian practice. This difference, and many others, are largely due to the inventions of one man, John Nelson Darby.
The specifics in this op are easily verified. Anyone can (and should) look up what I've posted. The meaning or significance of these facts can be discussed, but the historical and doctrinal facts themselves are not matters of dispute. Aside from the Wiki article my sources are the Dispensationalists themselves (along with comparative sources), I have not in any way appealed once to a single critic of DPism. I can, and will if needed, use scripture itself and in-house DP sources to prove my claims about DPism.
The reason for this op is that if Dispensationalism is correct then Christianity prior to Darby has always been wrong.
Dispensationalism is an entirely new and radically different theology that makes much of historical Christianity wrong.
.
