Was Isaac Watts a Pre-Trib-Dispensationalist?

[OldRegular]

http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

WAS ISAAC WATTS A PROTO-DISPENSATIONALIST?
by Scott Aniol
{Scott Aniol is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Church Music at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX.}

ORIGINS OF DISPENSATIONAL DISTINCTIVES
John Nelson Darby
Dispensationalists today usually admit that dispensationalism as a system first appeared in Darby’s writings. For example, Charles Ryrie states that “there is no question that the Plymouth Brethren, of which John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) was a leader, had much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism.” However, they are, nevertheless, often quick to distance themselves from him, as Ryrie does in the very next breath: “But neither Darby nor the Breth- ren originated the concepts involved in the system, and even if they had that would not make them wrong if they can be shown to be bib- lical.” He repeats this in another place: “Darby’s teaching...was obvi- ously not the pattern which Scofield followed.... The glib statement that dispensationalism originated with Darby, whose system was taken over and popularized by Scofield, is not historically accurate.”

Others are even more adamant that Darby’s influence is exaggerated:

This writer does not believe that the prominence of Darby should be confused with the dominance of Darby, and he believes the facts cited in the foregoing paragraphs are adequate proof that dispensationalism was not invented approximately 125 years ago by Darby. Dispensationalism had its roots in the very theses of early church chiliasm; the concept of multiple ages was often expressed by the fathers. After the reformation controversy over soteriology was settled, men again began thinking and writing about the purpose of God in the world, and some of them sug- gested six-and seven-division systems long before Darby. That there has been refinement of these views and the growth of an extensive literature in comparatively recent times is conceded. But it is not conceded that dispensationalism is a modern invention and perversion.​

Dispensationalists attempt to distance themselves from Darby for per- haps two reasons. First, it allows them to escape charge of recency. Second, it prevents association with the perceived divisiveness of Darby and the separatist Plymouth Brethren movement of which he was a part.

It is apparent from the following that Isaac Watts bore no resemblance to the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the parenthesis Church as some on this BB like to claim. In fact he was just the opposite, a covenant premillennialist who understood the following:

Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threatenings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15.

........................................................................................:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-

WATTS’S VIEW OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

The answer to the previous question will become clearer in consid- ering how Watts views the relationship between Israel and the church. In several cases Watts calls Israel “the church,” proclaims the “church or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible church of God,” and explains that for Israel “the church was their whole nation, for it was ordained of God to be a national church.” This does not necessarily indicate a blurring of the two, however, for dispensationalists are not immune from calling Israel a “church”— both Darby and Scofield do so. For example, Darby mentions the “Jewish church (i.e., assembly) or nation” in his writings, and like- wise, Scofield says, “It [‘church’] is thus appropriately used, not only of the New Testament church and of the New Testament churches, but also of Israel in the wilderness (Acts vii : 38), and of the town meeting of Ephesus (Acts xix : 32, 39, 41, ‘assembly’).” As both of them high- light the underlying meaning of “assembly,” however, they seem to be using the term in its general sense rather than specifically referring to the New Testament body. Watts, however, appears to use the term more specifically and sees at least a typological relationship between the two bodies and very likely a replacement of Israel by the church.

Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threatenings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15. These were the children of the kingdom concerning whom our Savior foretels, that they should not sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but should be cast out into outer darkness; Mat. viii. 11, 12.52​

The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:

As those Gentiles who do, really and inwardly, receive the Messiah, and practise his religion in faith and holiness, come into all these inward, real, and spiritual privileges and blessings; so all that make a visible and credi- ble profession of faith, and holiness, and universal subjection to Christ, come into all the outward privileges of the visible church, under the gos- pel: Some few of which privileges are continued from the Jewish church, but the greatest part of them are abolished, because the gospel state is more spiritual than the dispensation of the levitical law, and not such a typical state as that was; and none are to be admitted into this visible church, and esteemed complete members of it, but those who make such a declaration and profession of their faith in Christ, and their avowed subjection to him, as may be supposed, in a judgment of charity, to manifest them to be real believers in Christ, the true subjects of his spiri- tual kingdom, and members of the invisible church.​

It should be obvious to anyone who reads the above that the dispensationalism of Isaac Watts bore absolutely no resemblance to the pre-trib-dispensationalism of the "Rapture Ready" folks on this BB! Watts states unequivocally that GOD has rejected National Israel just as I have stated on this BB numerous times presenting the following as Scriptural proof:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[revmwc]

http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf



It is apparent from the following that Isaac Watts bore no resemblance to the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the parenthesis Church as some on this BB like to claim. In fact he was just the opposite, a covenant premillennialist who understood the following:

........................................................................................:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-



It should be obvious to anyone who reads the above that the dispensationalism of Isaac Watts bore absolutely no resemblance to the pre-trib-dispensationalism of the "Rapture Ready" folks on this BB! Watts states unequivocally that GOD has rejected National Israel just as I have stated on this BB numerous times presenting the following as Scriptural proof:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

If he did and I haven't read much of his work he would be following early church fathers who taught it:

We see:

Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) "was a bishop of the church in Lyons, France. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John (who wrote the Book of Revelation) and a disciple of Polycarp, the first of the Apostle John’s disciples. Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them.

In his writings on Bible prophecy, he acknowledged the phrase “a time, times and dividing of times” in Daniel 7 to signify the 3 ½ year reign of the Antichrist as ruler of the world before the Second Coming of Christ. He also believed in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth following the Second Coming and the resurrection of the just."

let's check another:

"Cyprian (200 AD – 258 AD) – Cyprian was Bishop of the church in Carthage. During his short stint as leader of the church, he guided the flock through intense persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. In 258 AD after spending seven months of confinement to his home by order of Roman authorities, he was beheaded for his faith. Several of his works still exist today.

In Treatises of Cyprian he wrote in describing the end times Great Tribulation:

“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”

And another:

"Ephraim (306 AD – 373 AD) was made a deacon in the church in Syria in 338 and later became the bishop of Nisibis. Although he was made a “saint” in the Roman Catholic Church, he was not involved in Catholicism and did not even live in the Roman Empire until the final years of his life. The book Pseudo Ephraim was one of his still existing works. It was called “Pseudo” because of later dispute over authorship. However the book’s one reference to the rapture is very compelling:

In his work, On The Last Times 2, he wrote:

“We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom. Why therefore are we occupied with worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time.

Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord. And we think that the earth exists with blind infidelity, arriving at its downfall early. Commotions are brought forth, wars of diverse peoples and battles and incursions of the barbarians threaten, and our regions shall be desolated, and we neither become very much afraid of the report nor of the appearance, in order that we may at least do penance; because they hurl fear at us, and we do not wish to be changed, although we at least stand in need of penance for our actions!”

So here we see at least three early Christian leaders who were looking forward to Christ return before the Tribulation. From around A.D. 150 to A.D. 350 they felt the Lord's imminent return would come. Then the church married the roman empire and many of these truths were hideden to support the Roman view. So Issac Watt would be following early church teachings if he did teach it. As would all who hold the Pre-Trib view of eschatology.

 

[blessedwife318]

I always find it interesting how pre-tribbers like to use the rapture and the Imminent return of Christ interchangeably, but then turn around and make a distinction between the return of Christ and the rapture.

 

[OldRegular]

I always find it interesting how pre-tribbers like to use the rapture and the Imminent return of Christ interchangeably, but then turn around and make a distinction between the return of Christ and the rapture.

They will twist Scripture like a corkscrew to support their views. That link to Watts was provides in an attempt to prove that Watts was a dispensationalist. he did talk about dispensations but as the OP shows his doctrine bears no resemblance to Pre-trib-dispensationalism!

 

[OldRegular]

If he did and I haven't read much of his work he would be following early church fathers who taught it:

We see:

Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) "was a bishop of the church in Lyons, France. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John (who wrote the Book of Revelation) and a disciple of Polycarp, the first of the Apostle John’s disciples. Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them.

In his writings on Bible prophecy, he acknowledged the phrase “a time, times and dividing of times” in Daniel 7 to signify the 3 ½ year reign of the Antichrist as ruler of the world before the Second Coming of Christ. He also believed in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth following the Second Coming and the resurrection of the just."

let's check another:

"Cyprian (200 AD – 258 AD) – Cyprian was Bishop of the church in Carthage. During his short stint as leader of the church, he guided the flock through intense persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. In 258 AD after spending seven months of confinement to his home by order of Roman authorities, he was beheaded for his faith. Several of his works still exist today.

In Treatises of Cyprian he wrote in describing the end times Great Tribulation:

“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”

And another:

"Ephraim (306 AD – 373 AD) was made a deacon in the church in Syria in 338 and later became the bishop of Nisibis. Although he was made a “saint” in the Roman Catholic Church, he was not involved in Catholicism and did not even live in the Roman Empire until the final years of his life. The book Pseudo Ephraim was one of his still existing works. It was called “Pseudo” because of later dispute over authorship. However the book’s one reference to the rapture is very compelling:

In his work, On The Last Times 2, he wrote:

“We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom. Why therefore are we occupied with worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time.

Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord. And we think that the earth exists with blind infidelity, arriving at its downfall early. Commotions are brought forth, wars of diverse peoples and battles and incursions of the barbarians threaten, and our regions shall be desolated, and we neither become very much afraid of the report nor of the appearance, in order that we may at least do penance; because they hurl fear at us, and we do not wish to be changed, although we at least stand in need of penance for our actions!”

So here we see at least three early Christian leaders who were looking forward to Christ return before the Tribulation. From around A.D. 150 to A.D. 350 they felt the Lord's imminent return would come. Then the church married the roman empire and many of these truths were hideden to support the Roman view. So Issac Watt would be following early church teachings if he did teach it. As would all who hold the Pre-Trib view of eschatology.

Watts did not hold a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis"Church as is clearly shown in his remarks. Furthermore he clearly states that God has cast aside National Israel as I have contended on this BB for 10+ years. So you people who try to defend your doctrine using Watts are flat wrong! Live with it!

 

[Yeshua1]

They will twist Scripture like a corkscrew to support their views. That link to Watts was provides in an attempt to prove that Watts was a dispensationalist. he did talk about dispensations but as the OP shows his doctrine bears no resemblance to Pre-trib-dispensationalism!

Are you saying that holding to that viewpoint is heresy, and that pre mil views you will accept?

And how can it be a heresy, as it states that jesus will return ay his second coming, which is the thing the bible teaches?

We can argue the timing, if its pre/.id/post/post mil/a mil, but NONE of them are heresies, just that some are closer to the bible than others!

 

[OldRegular]

Are you saying that holding to that viewpoint is heresy, and that pre mil views you will accept?

And how can it be a heresy, as it states that jesus will return ay his second coming, which is the thing the bible teaches?

We can argue the timing, if its pre/.id/post/post mil/a mil, but NONE of them are heresies, just that some are closer to the bible than others!

NO! I said:

They will twist Scripture like a corkscrew to support their views. That link to Watts was provides in an attempt to prove that Watts was a dispensationalist. He did talk about dispensations but as the OP shows his doctrine bears no resemblance to Pre-trib-dispensationalism!

Then I said:

Watts did not hold a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis"Church as is clearly shown in his remarks. Furthermore he clearly states that God has cast aside National Israel as I have contended on this BB for 10+ years. So you people who try to defend your doctrine using Watts are flat wrong! Live with it!

Just respond to the question posed in the OP!

 

[Revmitchell]

Dispensationalists today usually admit that dispensationalism as a system first appeared in Darby’s writings.

Uh no they don't

 

[DHK]

Baptist theologian John Gill in the 1700's wrote:

And the dead in Christ shall rise first; the same with those that are asleep in Jesus, 1Th 4:14 not only the martyrs that died for the sake of Christ, and his Gospel; nor merely those who die in the lively exercise of faith in Christ; but all that die interested in him, and in union with him: and these shall "rise", in consequence of their being his; being given to him, made his care and charge, and engaged for by him, and in virtue of their union to him; and shall rise to an entire conformity to his glorious body, and in order to enjoy eternal life and glory with him: and these will rise "first", before the wicked, which is the first resurrection, Re 20:5 even a thousand years before them; the righteous will rise in the morning of the resurrection, and so will have the dominion in the morning, Ps 49:14 even at the beginning of the thousand years, as soon as Christ will come; but the wicked will not rise till the evening of that day, or till the close of the thousand years: and this agrees with the notions of the Jews, who thought that some will rise before others;

--Two resurrections separated by a thousand years. Read more extensively. He calls the first resurrection "the rapture."

 

[DHK]

Gill further says:

That we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord: not that the apostle thought that he and the saints then in the flesh should live and continue till the second coming of Christ; for he did not imagine that the coming of Christ was so near, as is manifest from 2Th 2:1 though the Thessalonians might take him in this sense, which he there corrects; but he speaks of himself and others in the first person plural, by way of instance and example, for illustration sake; that supposing he and others should be then in being, the following would be the case: and moreover, he might use such a way of speaking with great propriety of other saints, and even of those unborn, and that will be on the spot when Christ shall come a second time; since all the saints make up one body, one family, one church and general assembly; so that the apostle might truly and justly say, "we which are alive"; that is, as many of our body, of our family, of our church or society, that shall be living at the coming of Christ; and he might choose the rather to speak in this form, person, and tense, to awaken the care, circumspection, diligence, and watchfulness of the saints, since it could not be known how soon the Lord would come: however, from hence it appears, that there will be saints alive at Christ's second coming; he will have a seed to serve him till he comes again; he always had in the worst of times, and will have, and that even in the last days, in the days of the son of man, which are said to be like those of Noah and of Lot: and these are said to "remain", or to be "left", these will be a remnant, the residue and remainder of the election of grace, and will be such as have escaped the fury of antichrist and his followers, or of the persecutors of the saints: now these

He firmly believes that he will be taken when Christ comes and thus escape the fury of the Antichrist (or The Tribulation).
Gill believed in a pre-trib rapture. There is no doubt about this.

 

[OldRegular]

Gill further says:

He firmly believes that he will be taken when Christ comes and thus escape the fury of the Antichrist (or The Tribulation).
Gill believed in a pre-trib rapture. There is no doubt about this.

This thread is about the claims made that Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist. From the link you provided I showed that Watts had the same view of National Israel that I have stated many times; that he had the same view of then Church that I have. He was Covenant Premillennial. I am amillennial but we both had the same view of the Church and National Israel. So live with it!

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[OldRegular]

Baptist theologian John Gill in the 1700's wrote:

--Two resurrections separated by a thousand years. Read more extensively. He calls the first resurrection "the rapture."

The OP is about Isaac Watts! John Gill was a Covenant premillennialist. He had the same view of the Church that I do! If you are interested in John Gill read his commentary on Matthew 21:43 but do not deliberately derail this thread because it shows you were wrong about Watts!

 

[DHK]

The OP is about Isaac Watts! John Gill was a Covenant premillennialist. He had the same view of the Church that I do! If you are interested in John Gill read his commentary on Matthew 21:43 but do not deliberately derail this thread because it shows you were wrong about Watts!

Gill believed in the pre-trib rapture. That much is evident.
Concerning Watts, it has already been demonstrated that his dispensations are very similar to Scofield's, that he is a premillennialist, that Christ will come and then set up his Millennial Kingdom on earth. Isn't that enough?

 

[OldRegular]

Gill believed in the pre-trib rapture. That much is evident.
Concerning Watts, it has already been demonstrated that his dispensations are very similar to Scofield's, that he is a premillennialist, that Christ will come and then set up his Millennial Kingdom on earth. Isn't that enough?

No it is not enough. The doctrine of Isaac Watts was in no way similar to that of pre-rib-dispensationalism contrary to your claims. It was straightforward COVENANT PREMILLENNIAL and he had the correct view of the Church as I showed in the OP from the link you graciously provided. I will repeat the OP for your edification.

http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

WAS ISAAC WATTS A PROTO-DISPENSATIONALIST?
by Scott Aniol
{Scott Aniol is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Church Music at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX.}

ORIGINS OF DISPENSATIONAL DISTINCTIVES
John Nelson Darby

Dispensationalists today usually admit that dispensationalism as a system first appeared in Darby’s writings. For example, Charles Ryrie states that “there is no question that the Plymouth Brethren, of which John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) was a leader, had much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism.” However, they are, nevertheless, often quick to distance themselves from him, as Ryrie does in the very next breath: “But neither Darby nor the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system, and even if they had that would not make them wrong if they can be shown to be biblical.” He repeats this in another place: “Darby’s teaching...was obviously not the pattern which Scofield followed.... The glib statement that dispensationalism originated with Darby, whose system was taken over and popularized by Scofield, is not historically accurate.”

Others are even more adamant that Darby’s influence is exaggerated:

This writer does not believe that the prominence of Darby should be confused with the dominance of Darby, and he believes the facts cited in the foregoing paragraphs are adequate proof that dispensationalism was not invented approximately 125 years ago by Darby. Dispensationalism had its roots in the very theses of early church chiliasm; the concept of multiple ages was often expressed by the fathers. After the reformation controversy over soteriology was settled, men again began thinking and writing about the purpose of God in the world, and some of them suggested six-and seven-division systems long before Darby. That there has been refinement of these views and the growth of an extensive literature in comparatively recent times is conceded. But it is not conceded that dispensationalism is a modern invention and perversion.​

Dispensationalists attempt to distance themselves from Darby for per- haps two reasons. First, it allows them to escape charge of recency. Second, it prevents association with the perceived divisiveness of Darby and the separatist Plymouth Brethren movement of which he was a part.

It is apparent from the following that Isaac Watts bore no resemblance to the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the parenthesis Church as some on this BB like to claim. In fact he was just the opposite, a covenant premillennialist who understood the following:

Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threatenings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15.

............................................................ ......................................:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-

WATTS’S VIEW OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

The answer to the previous question will become clearer in consid- ering how Watts views the relationship between Israel and the church. In several cases Watts calls Israel “the church,” proclaims the “church or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible church of God,” and explains that for Israel “the church was their whole nation, for it was ordained of God to be a national church.” This does not necessarily indicate a blurring of the two, however, for dispensationalists are not immune from calling Israel a “church”— both Darby and Scofield do so. For example, Darby mentions the “Jewish church (i.e., assembly) or nation” in his writings, and likewise, Scofield says, “It [‘church’] is thus appropriately used, not only of the New Testament church and of the New Testament churches, but also of Israel in the wilderness (Acts vii : 38), and of the town meeting of Ephesus (Acts xix : 32, 39, 41, ‘assembly’).” As both of them highlight the underlying meaning of “assembly,” however, they seem to be using the term in its general sense rather than specifically referring to the New Testament body. Watts, however, appears to use the term more specifically and sees at least a typological relationship between the two bodies and very likely a replacement of Israel by the church.

Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threatenings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15.​

These were the children of the kingdom concerning whom our Savior foretells, that they should not sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but should be cast out into outer darkness; Mat. viii. 11, 12.52​

The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:

As those Gentiles who do, really and inwardly, receive the Messiah, and practise his religion in faith and holiness, come into all these inward, real, and spiritual privileges and blessings; so all that make a visible and credi- ble profession of faith, and holiness, and universal subjection to Christ, come into all the outward privileges of the visible church, under the gos- pel: Some few of which privileges are continued from the Jewish church, but the greatest part of them are abolished, because the gospel state is more spiritual than the dispensation of the levitical law, and not such a typical state as that was; and none are to be admitted into this visible church, and esteemed complete members of it, but those who make such a declaration and profession of their faith in Christ, and their avowed subjection to him, as may be supposed, in a judgment of charity, to manifest them to be real believers in Christ, the true subjects of his spiri- tual kingdom, and members of the invisible church.​

It should be obvious to anyone who reads the above that the dispensationalism of Isaac Watts bore absolutely no resemblance to the pre-trib-dispensationalism of the "Rapture Ready" folks on this BB! Watts states unequivocally that GOD has rejected National Israel just as I have stated on this BB numerous times presenting the following as Scriptural proof:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[DHK]

No it is not enough. The doctrine of Isaac Watts was in no way similar to that of pre-rib-dispensationalism contrary to your claims. It was straightforward COVENANT PREMILLENNIAL and he had the correct view of the Church as I showed in the OP from the link you graciously provided. I will repeat the OP for your edification.

You do realize that almost all the dispensationalists on this board do not believe everything Darby has to say. We have been trying to tell you that.
Of course we differ from Watts as well.
Isaac Watts was a musician as well as a theologian. Much of his theology was expressed in the almost one thousand hymns that he wrote. One of the most famous hymns that he wrote, is the following, often confused with his birth (it is not), it is about the Second Coming, and then the physical Millennial reign of Christ on this earth:

Joy to the world! The Lord is come
Let earth receive her King!
Let every heart prepare Him room

And heaven and nature sing
And heaven and nature sing
And heaven, and heaven and nature sing

Joy to the world! the Savior reigns
Let men their songs employ
While fields and floods
Rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy
Repeat the sounding joy
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy

No more let sins and sorrows grow
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make
His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found
Far as the curse is found
Far as, far as the curse is found

He rules the world with truth and grace
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness
And wonders of His love
And wonders of His love
And wonders and wonders of His love

Songwriters
G. F. HANDEL, ISAAC WATTS


This never happened in 70 A.D., very obviously!!
It still has not yet happened. The Lord is not reigning.
Satan is the god of this world. This hymn speaks of a future time which Watts is looking forward to.

 

[OldRegular]

You do realize that almost all the dispensationalists on this board do not believe everything Darby has to say. We have been trying to tell you that.
Of course we differ from Watts as well.
Isaac Watts was a musician as well as a theologian. Much of his theology was expressed in the almost one thousand hymns that he wrote. One of the most famous hymns that he wrote, is the following, often confused with his birth (it is not), it is about the Second Coming, and then the physical Millennial reign of Christ on this earth:

Joy to the world! The Lord is come
Let earth receive her King!
Let every heart prepare Him room

And heaven and nature sing
And heaven and nature sing
And heaven, and heaven and nature sing

Joy to the world! the Savior reigns
Let men their songs employ
While fields and floods
Rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy
Repeat the sounding joy
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy

No more let sins and sorrows grow
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make
His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found
Far as the curse is found
Far as, far as the curse is found

He rules the world with truth and grace
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness
And wonders of His love
And wonders of His love
And wonders and wonders of His love

Songwriters
G. F. HANDEL, ISAAC WATTS


This never happened in 70 A.D., very obviously!!
It still has not yet happened. The Lord is not reigning.
Satan is the god of this world. This hymn speaks of a future time which Watts is looking forward to.

I have said that Watts was premillennial but he had the correct view of the CHURCH. That makes him a Covenant Premillennialist a world apart the pre-trib-"snatching away"-of-the-"Parenthesis"-Church-dispensational-premillennialist. Watts understood that Jesus Christ meant what HE said when HE told the Jews:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Watts believed as noted on two previous occasions:

He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threatenings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15.​

And then:

The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:

 

[DHK]

I have said that Watts was premillennial but he had the correct view of the CHURCH. That makes him a Covenant Premillennialist a world apart the pre-trib-"snatching away"-of-the-"Parenthesis"-Church-dispensational-premillennialist. Watts understood that Jesus Christ meant what HE said when HE told the Jews:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Watts believed as noted on two previous occasions:

And then:

Perhaps you misunderstand Watts.
The Bible says that God has cut off Israel. I don't have a problem with that. I also believe the same Israel has been cut off for a time. God has given many of the blessing that Israel had to the believers of the NT.
Watts used a poor choice of words. I don't believe in replacement theology. I am not convinced he believes in that either. He says it is the "spiritual" kingdom that is given to the believers. Well that is somewhat true.
You even bolded this statement of Watts:

inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:
--The believers do not inherit the physical blessings given to Israel, do they?
He does not negate the fact that ethnic Israel still exists. Paul prays for them in Romans 9 and 10. he was not a lunatic.

What does he mean in his song"
No more let sins and sorrows grow
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make
His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found
Far as the curse is found
Far as, far as the curse is found

Obviously, sins and sorrows are still here.
Thorns and thistles infest THIS ground.
This is the Millennial Kingdom he is speaking of.

I believe you have misunderstood Watts.

 

[OldRegular]

Perhaps you misunderstand Watts.
The Bible says that God has cut off Israel. I don't have a problem with that. I also believe the same Israel has been cut off for a time. God has given many of the blessing that Israel had to the believers of the NT.
Watts used a poor choice of words. I don't believe in replacement theology. I am not convinced he believes in that either. He says it is the "spiritual" kingdom that is given to the believers. Well that is somewhat true.
You even bolded this statement of Watts:

inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:
--The believers do not inherit the physical blessings given to Israel, do they?
He does not negate the fact that ethnic Israel still exists. Paul prays for them in Romans 9 and 10. he was not a lunatic.

What does he mean in his song"
No more let sins and sorrows grow
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make
His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found
Far as the curse is found
Far as, far as the curse is found

Obviously, sins and sorrows are still here.
Thorns and thistles infest THIS ground.
This is the Millennial Kingdom he is speaking of.

I believe you have misunderstood Watts.

I have said that Watts was a Covenant premillennialist. That means he believed in a 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ with HIS Church on earth! He certainly did not believe in a pre-trib-"snatching away"-of a "parenthesis" Church. Furthermore, Watts correctly believed that GOD was finished with National Israel!

I have shown you several times that you are wrong about Watts. You attempted to make Isaac Watts a supporter of pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church and failed! It is obvious you misunderstood! I didn't! Man up to it. As I have said before nothing you say can change history.

 

[DHK]

I have said that Watts was a Covenant premillennialist. That means he believed in a 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ with HIS Church on earth! He certainly did not believe in a pre-trib-"snatching away"-of a "parenthesis" Church. Furthermore, Watts correctly believed that GOD was finished with National Israel!

I have shown you several times that you are wrong about Watts. You attempted to make Isaac Watts a supporter of pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church and failed! It is obvious you misunderstood! I didn't! Man up to it. As I have said before nothing you say can change history.

There are a number of things here that you won't "man-up" to.
1. Who said anything about any of us believing in a "parenthesis" Church. This is a false assumption on your part which is basically a false accusation or a lie.
2. Who disagrees with Watts that God is finished with the nation of Israel, (at least for now).
3. I believe you don't understand what we believe, and don't totally understand what Watts believes either.
As has been posted before in chart form his comparison of the various dispensations is closer to Scofields' then Darby's.

 

[OldRegular]

There are a number of things here that you won't "man-up" to.
1. Who said anything about any of us believing in a "parenthesis" Church. This is a false assumption on your part which is basically a false accusation or a lie.
2. Who disagrees with Watts that God is finished with the nation of Israel, (at least for now).
3. I believe you don't understand what we believe, and don't totally understand what Watts believes either.
As has been posted before in chart form his comparison of the various dispensations is closer to Scofields' then Darby's.

You believe in the dispensation of Grace don't you. You believe in a Jewish millennium and the restoration of National Israel don't you! Darby got the 7th dispensation out of Isaiah 32! Where did you get it!

Check out post #2 in the thread "Out of Whose Womb"!

I know what Watts said in the link you so graciously provided. I have been remiss in not thanking you!