Chiliasm or dispensation?

They believed what THEY believed, the point was they possess dispensational concepts and beliefs.

 

1. Justin believed that when Christ first came, he did so in humiliation. But when he returns, a second time, he will come to Jerusalem, where he will be recognized by the Jews and he will feast with his disciples and will reign there a 1000 years.

2. A view that was widely popular in the mid-second century. (edited)

 

1. Then along came Augustine who believed that 1000yrs began with Christ first coming. But at the end of it Satan will be loosed for a short time (Rev. 20).

2. This view was to dominate the Middle Ages.

 

Firstly, your need to characterize me as an "over anxious dispensationalist" only demonstrates a tendency toward the ad hominem method of self-validating one's own views. But going beyond that petty tactic of yours I will deal with your issue.

The original concern or claim was that a poster said dispensationalism did not exist before the last 300 years. My response was it did, in varying forms, from minimal to extensive.

I merely need to point to the information before this post posted by none other than YOU in recognizing the varying economies espoused by Justin.

While it might not be classic dispensationalism, no one claimed, especially me, that it was. But it is a recognition of dispensations and schematically qualifies as a system that has separate economies during varying ages with an emphasis on the uniqueness of the church age which in general is what Dispensationalism is. Now its progression and metamorphosis since Darby certainly takes it further away from the theological concepts of Justin, but the point is again, in the end, is that a recognition of the varying economies did exist before Darby and indeed you yourself listed a dispensational scheme by Justin.

You say it is chiliasm, but that is simply the belief of the literal return of Christ to set up a literal 1,000 year kingdom on earth. And while that might be in part the scheme of Justin includes a chiliastic belief that is NOT the sole basis of his scheme nor the basis or cause of the distinctions he recognizes in other dispensations/economies/ages that are part of his construct.

 

It was chiliasm plain and simple. The fact that a theologian may teach that there are dispensations, or historic/prophetic events related to the biblical concept of "millenium" does not make him a dispensationalist. For example, my heroe John Gill was premillenial (I ain't), but not dispensational. "Dispensationalism" is a whole systematic built around dispensational theory. I would be surprised to learn that the systematic eschatology we know today as "dispensationalism" existed in the time of Calvin.

Covenant theology no more denies the existance of dispensations than dispensationalists deny the existance of covenants. Traditional CT, especially the Presbyterian/Dutch Reformed brand, certainly supresses the idea of dispensations, IMO too much so, hence the development of variants which take changing economies into consideration such as New Covenant Theology, Modified Covenant Theology, etc.

 

1. I agree with you 100%.

2. We need to avoid anachronism at this stage.

 

Furthermore, Gill was a literalist - that is, he insisted on a literal, exactly to the minute, one thousand year millenium. But Gill's millenium was a glorious reign of Christ with his CHURCH, not Israel. He believed that the promises to Israel concerning the Davidic kingdom were fulfilled in Christ.

For example, here is a quote from Gill's Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity:

.​

Over and over he references time periods in which God worked differently toward man.

Yet in regards to covenant, of which he has several chapters regarding, from the same book:

​

So, though Gill was a literalist, and a historic premillenialist, he was also a covenantalist. He saw the story of redemptive history as related to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, and everything else being secondary to that overarching concept.

 

Not trying to pile on - I was writing #11 while you guys were posting.

 

No one saying these former men were "dispensationalists" as we know now. My argument is that forms of dispensationalism and dispensational distinctions have been around long before Darby and all you all have done in your eagerness to protest is prove my point. Not once have I promoted the claim they were dispensationalist parallel with Darby.

 

Different views

Seems that Spurgeon was a "Classic" Premil as well. But as to Dispensational, he claimed as I recall it that he did not subscribe to the ideas inserted by the brethren. But as to the depth of his doctrinal understanding of it, I am not sure.