Isaac Watts

[David Kent]

From the recently closed thread.

I wrote
I have read a number of times that Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist but I have never seen any quotes. Does anyone have any?
PLEASE.

John of Japan replied

Here is a link to a scholarly journal article that proves it:
http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

I did reply at the time thanking him for the article and offering a reply but it did not appear probably due to the six hour warning.

So I give another reply.

That article certainly does not prove it.
The conclusion of the article is as follows:-

Page 22

CONCLUSION Isaac Watts was a faithful student of Scripture, a gifted author, and an influential hymn-writer, but he was no proto-dispensationalist. Yet what he shares with the dispensationalist is a love of Scripture, a belief that God has a sovereign and unified plan for human history, and a desire to understand the progress of God’s revelation to mankind. But perhaps best of all, Watts shares a deep hope and longing for that day in which Christ Jesus will return to rule among his people:

Isaac Watts teaching is far from dispensational and differs little from my own beliefs.

 

[agedman]

From the recently closed thread.

I wrote
I have read a number of times that Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist but I have never seen any quotes. Does anyone have any?
PLEASE.

John of Japan replied

Here is a link to a scholarly journal article that proves it:
http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

I did reply at the time thanking him for the article and offering a reply but it did not appear probably due to the six hour warning.

So I give another reply.

That article certainly does not prove it.
The conclusion of the article is as follows:-

Page 22

CONCLUSION Isaac Watts was a faithful student of Scripture, a gifted author, and an influential hymn-writer, but he was no proto-dispensationalist. Yet what he shares with the dispensationalist is a love of Scripture, a belief that God has a sovereign and unified plan for human history, and a desire to understand the progress of God’s revelation to mankind. But perhaps best of all, Watts shares a deep hope and longing for that day in which Christ Jesus will return to rule among his people:

Isaac Watts teaching is far from dispensational and differs little from my own beliefs.

The words "Christ Jesus will RETURN to RULE among his people" is the key.

NO other scheme other than premileenial (what Darby dispensationalists use as well as premillennialists is the ONLY scheme in which there is an actual physical return followed by the millennial reign.

ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past.

From what I recall of what I have read, Isaac Watts was what we would consider dispensational in that he used the original covenantal view that outlined the Scriptures into periods of time.

Dispensational teaching is merely a manner of outlining the Scriptures along a historical timeline, and not considering doctrine but taking into consideration the covenants.

Early Darby dispensational charts showed this by placing over the historical view the typical covenantal teaching.

If your interested, this link will open a very simple graphic to show the three typical views most hold.

Note: there are variants upon each views, but ultimately they all fall into one of these three patterns.

http://www.christinyou.net/images/dispthdg.gif

 

[David Kent]

The words "Christ Jesus will RETURN to RULE among his people" is the key.

NO other scheme other than premileenial (what Darby dispensationalists use as well as premillennialists is the ONLY scheme in which there is an actual physical return followed by the millennial reign.

ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past.

From what I recall of what I have read, Isaac Watts was what we would consider dispensational in that he used the original covenantal view that outlined the Scriptures into periods of time.

Dispensational teaching is merely a manner of outlining the Scriptures along a historical timeline, and not considering doctrine but taking into consideration the covenants.

Early Darby dispensational charts showed this by placing over the historical view the typical covenantal teaching.

If your interested, this link will open a very simple graphic to show the three typical views most hold.

Note: there are variants upon each views, but ultimately they all fall into one of these three patterns.

http://www.christinyou.net/images/dispthdg.gif

 

[David Kent]

The words "Christ Jesus will RETURN to RULE among his people" is the key.

NO other scheme other than premileenial (what Darby dispensationalists use as well as premillennialists is the ONLY scheme in which there is an actual physical return followed by the millennial reign.

ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past.

From what I recall of what I have read, Isaac Watts was what we would consider dispensational in that he used the original covenantal view that outlined the Scriptures into periods of time.

Dispensational teaching is merely a manner of outlining the Scriptures along a historical timeline, and not considering doctrine but taking into consideration the covenants.

Early Darby dispensational charts showed this by placing over the historical view the typical covenantal teaching.

If your interested, this link will open a very simple graphic to show the three typical views most hold.

Note: there are variants upon each views, but ultimately they all fall into one of these three patterns.

http://www.christinyou.net/images/dispthdg.gif

It is not true that ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past. Premillenialism was taught by the eartly church, thousands of years before dispensatiionalism was invented.

I am no way a dispy. I have always believed in a literal millenium. If you care to check, Henry Grattan Guinness and E B Elliott, great expositors of Prophecy taught a literal millenium and also mentioned dispensations.

While we are here you said "If your interested" It should be "If you're interested, or "If you are interested."
Not getting at you in particular but it really bugs me when people get it wrong.

You're = You are
Your. Beloning to you.
Also there.
There = Over there
Their = Belonging to them
They're = They are.

My daughter teaches private English lessons to British and foreign students one of them wrote the folllowing aide memoire:

 

[rlvaughn]

I have heard that Watts was premillennial, but have not previously heard he was a dispensationalist.

 

[David Kent]

NO other scheme other than premileenial (what Darby dispensationalists use as well as premillennialists is the ONLY scheme in which there is an actual physical return followed by the millennial reign.

Not true. As somebody once said, that is being economical with the truth. The early church writers wer pre millenial, but no way dispensationalism.

Historicists were also pre mil. Later ones may not be. Certainly Guinness and Elliott were.

 

[David Kent]

I have heard that Watts was premillennial, but have not previously heard he was a dispensationalist.

Pre mil is not a dispy view, they purloined the teaching as did SDA and Bristish Israelites..

 

[church mouse guy]

To me, the dispensations are not controversial.

Where the debate is, and it is not an intelligent debate in my opinion, when does the second advent occur.

Darby, Scofield, and the Fundamentalist gave a new answer in the 19th century and it is now exclusive to Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Pentecostals as far as I know and mostly in America.

 

[Dave G]

The words "Christ Jesus will RETURN to RULE among his people" is the key.

NO other scheme other than premileenial (what Darby dispensationalists use as well as premillennialists is the ONLY scheme in which there is an actual physical return followed by the millennial reign.

ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past.

Wow...

I guess that means I'm "Dispensational", even though I can't, for the life of me, remember seeing it any different over the 40 years since God called me by His Gospel.
I don't have a firm grasp on "Covenant Theology", either, although I have a rough idea of it... and I tend to agree with those who believe in it on this forum.

I do know that I see the Lord making covenants with men in Scripture, and I also notice that mankind, while screaming at the top of their lungs about having the free will to choose God or not to, never once steps up and tries to reconcile himself to God or to initiate a covenant with Him.
He has to do all the work, or it doesn't get done.

On a side note, I see Darby as being in error, having taught a 2-part second coming, which I see nowhere in God's word.


Having stated the above, I've read some here and there about Isaac Watts, and I have little trouble believing that he was my brother in the Lord and that he saw a great many things that I do from God's word.
I also love many of the hymns that he wrote.


If he was "dispensational", then I suppose that's what I am, as well.

 

[David Kent]

If he was "dispensational", then I suppose that's what I am, as well.

He wasn't.

 

[David Kent]

Darby, Scofield, and the Fundamentalist gave a new answer in the 19th century and it is now exclusive to Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Pentecostals as far as I know and mostly in America.

In the 19th century Dispensationalism was mainly confined to the Plymouth Brethren, in England and France where Darby visited and he translated the Bible into French and wrote other books in French.
I did read somewhere that the first denomination in the US to accept it was the AOG, but they dropped it later.
The reason the new teaching spread so fast in the US was the Scfofield bible was given free to all bible schools.
I am glad that you said it was a new answer. We know what the bible says about that 1 Timothy 4:1

 

[Covenanter]

To me, the dispensations are not controversial.

Where the debate is, and it is not an intelligent debate in my opinion, when does the second advent occur.

Darby, Scofield, and the Fundamentalist gave a new answer in the 19th century and it is now exclusive to Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Pentecostals as far as I know and mostly in America.

No longer "mostly in America" as the dispensational heresy is spread by American preachers through the media, Christian broadcasting & missionary outreach to the extent that it is in danger of becoming evangelical orthodoxy. Due their "end times" teaching in support of the nation of Israel, the Gospel is being prejudiced as that evil regime is financed by pseudo-Christian countries.

Before Scofield, there was a general teaching, including Watts, that the Jews would be converted before Jesus returned for resurrection & judgment. I understand the idea was that because the Jews rejected their Messiah, God rejected them. 60 generations so far instead of the 3-4 stated in Deut. 5:9.

According to the Gospels & Acts, vast numbers of Jews welcomed the preaching of John & were baptised, then followed Jesus. At Pentecost 3,000 Jews & proselytes believed, soon after, 5,000, in Acts 6 we read - "7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

Too many to count, until a "perfect number" of 144,000 Jews from all the tribes are delivered from the great tribulation (before AD 70).

 

[David Kent]

Due their "end times" teaching in support of the nation of Israel, the Gospel is being prejudiced as that evil regime is financed by pseudo-Christian countries.

The early Brethren in Ireland considered that they were returnng to New Testament teaching when they began to teach that all believers, whatever denomination should meet to break bread every Lord's Day from house to house. That was long before P)lymouth and Darby.
Today dispensationalists have taken over that claim that they are a returtn to New Tedstament theology. But are they?
Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Theology or Pseudo Christian Cult – Part I by Gospel Plow – Grace Online Library

 

[church mouse guy]

No longer "mostly in America" as the dispensational heresy is spread by American preachers through the media, Christian broadcasting & missionary outreach to the extent that it is in danger of becoming evangelical orthodoxy. Due their "end times" teaching in support of the nation of Israel, the Gospel is being prejudiced as that evil regime is financed by pseudo-Christian countries.

Before Scofield, there was a general teaching, including Watts, that the Jews would be converted before Jesus returned for resurrection & judgment. I understand the idea was that because the Jews rejected their Messiah, God rejected them. 60 generations so far instead of the 3-4 stated in Deut. 5:9.

According to the Gospels & Acts, vast numbers of Jews welcomed the preaching of John & were baptised, then followed Jesus. At Pentecost 3,000 Jews & proselytes believed, soon after, 5,000, in Acts 6 we read - "7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

Too many to count, until a "perfect number" of 144,000 Jews from all the tribes are delivered from the great tribulation (before AD 70).

Yeah, that sounds like stuff from sixty years ago wherein it was believed that Jesus would return when the world became better, which is impossible for the world to do because of human nature.

The Jews are a non-issue because they are lost in sin and bound for hell since there is no longer any salvation in Judaism, as you know. It just is not true that vast numbers of Jews converted to Christianity. Only a remnant converted. I forget, are you a preterist?

 

[church mouse guy]

The early Brethren in Ireland considered that they were returnng to New Testament teaching when they began to teach that all believers, whatever denomination should meet to break bread every Lord's Day from house to house. That was long before P)lymouth and Darby.
Today dispensationalists have taken over that claim that they are a returtn to New Tedstament theology. But are they?
Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Theology or Pseudo Christian Cult – Part I by Gospel Plow – Grace Online Library

I can't see much controversial about dispensationalism except for the timing and act of the Second Advent, the Blessed Hope.

 

[church mouse guy]

In the 19th century Dispensationalism was mainly confined to the Plymouth Brethren, in England and France where Darby visited and he translated the Bible into French and wrote other books in French.
I did read somewhere that the first denomination in the US to accept it was the AOG, but they dropped it later.
The reason the new teaching spread so fast in the US was the Scfofield bible was given free to all bible schools.
I am glad that you said it was a new answer. We know what the bible says about that 1 Timothy 4:1

I am thinking that the Assembly of God still believes in the pre-trib rapture as does all of Pentecostalism. "Actually much more could be said to show that the pre-Tribulation Rapture fits the New Testament teachings as a whole better than any other view."

Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | Resources

 

[David Kent]

I am thinking that the Assembly of God still believes in the pre-trib rapture as does all of Pentecostalism. "Actually much more could be said to show that the pre-Tribulation Rapture fits the New Testament teachings as a whole better than any other view."

Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | Resources

 

[David Kent]

I can't see much controversial about dispensationalism except for the timing and act of the Second Advent, the Blessed Hope.

Not so. My main problem is their taking the prophecy in Dan 9 to be of the Antichrist instead of the Christ.

Then there is Jesus coming to the air, instead of us meeting Him in the air. Then the Holy Spirit and Church being taken out of the way. Do you know where the Brethren got that from? I do, I was taught by them. It came from :

• Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Of course this has nothing to do with that teaching but the time that man had to repent before the flood.

Then there is their tribulation teaching from Matt 24, etc, which of course was the tribulation an the Jews during the Roman war.

 

[church mouse guy]

Not so. My main problem is their taking the prophecy in Dan 9 to be of the Antichrist instead of the Christ.

Then there is Jesus coming to the air, instead of us meeting Him in the air. Then the Holy Spirit and Church being taken out of the way. Do you know where the Brethren got that from? I do, I was taught by them. It came from :

• Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Of course this has nothing to do with that teaching but the time that man had to repent before the flood.

Then there is their tribulation teaching from Matt 24, etc, which of course was the tribulation an the Jews during the Roman war.

Really? I never heard anything about Daniel 9, which is quite clear that Christ would be cut off and that an anti-Christ would arise.

 

[agedman]

There seem to be two basic blocks of dispensational thinking.

Those of us who are more "old school" types which take the timeline, particularly that found the last chapters of the Revelation, as presented as factual.

Other threads have dealt with this topic and it is not necessary to go into all that here.

Then there is the "Darby" dispensational teaching. The typical modern teaching of a pre wrath rapture, and the second that the church is a separated distinct unit from Israel are what I consider erroneous.

Within the last century or so, the dispensational teaching (Darby type) has been the presentation offered to the public. It is popularized into the media, and many scholars do accept it as a truthful presentation. The presentation has some very good points and is well worth remembering.

However, the problem presented by both the covenantal and the Darby dispensational folks concerns the consideration of ethnic Israel. They both present ethnic Israel as either a separate grouping or one in which there is total rejection and no redemption.

Neither of these schemes fits the Scripture account of the Gentiles being grafted into believing Israel (as pictured by Paul as the breaking off of branches to make room for the gentiles), nor prophetic statements of a reestablished and recalled to be redeemed ethnic Israel, promised throughout the Scriptures. Such rejection is just erroneous.

Frankly, it matters little if one outlines the Scriptures by covenant, by dispensation, by grouping into types, or by some other scheme.

What does matter is that the Scriptures be taken as truthfully presenting what has, is, and will happen.

Some schemes embellish the mythology, the typology, or some other manner that a presentation might seem to be more appealing. But, ultimately one must come to understand, no matter the scheme this existence is not the final home.

As such, I personally want to take the Scriptures pertaining to the future with an attitude that they are faithfully and truthfully presented. That Christ is returning, He will establish His kingdom thrown in Israel, that rebellion will breakout and God will call a halt to all creation. He will judge all and those redeemed of the Lamb will find a most awesome new creation in which the Saviour is preparing for those who love Him.

John stated:

3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near...
20He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.”
Amen.
Come, Lord Jesus!
​

I am unanimous in my agreement with John.