What is Dispensationalism?

[agedman]

This thread makes very relevant reading -
What do you think of Isaac Watts as a dispensationalist?

The link to the article cited is here.
Thanks A-M for linking to it. Pity there were only a few replies.

It does indicate that dispensation is a commonly used term. He quotes Ryrie -


I think the association of time with dispensation is due to the way Eph. 1:10 reads - the dispensation of the fulness of time implying other dispensations relating to other times.

Perhaps Ephesians 1 doesn’t present as you desire

Ephesians 1:

7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
​

See how the emphasis is upon the administration and that administration was suitable to (fit the circumstances of) the times (age)?

The basic thread of this passage is both the presentation of the gospel and the hope in the promise. That which is not time related but that commission, that stewardship, in which believers are to present.

 

[Reformed]

One thing that attracts me to dispensationalism is that it is a good, Biblical philosophy of history as well as a system of theology.

Not a criticism of Dispensationalism directly, but that is exactly what lead me to abandon Dispensationalism for Covenant Theology: good biblical philosophy of history as well as a [good] system of theology.

I am following your thread and promise not to derail it, but to comment when relevant.

 

[Reformed]

Now, one strange thing about the opposition to dispensationalism is that the opponents often do not realize that other theologies admit to there being dispensations.

I am going to caution you about making sweeping generalizations. You made the following comment earlier in this thread:

Why should it be surprising that the theology has been fine tuned and better developed in the 100 some years since Scofield?

Covenant Theology has experienced some different iterations as well; most notably the rise of something called 1689 Federalism, a form of Covenant Theology that is distinctly Baptist. The reason I mention this is that there is a well-informed number of Baptists who do understand Dispensationalism because many of them came out of it.

How do Covenant Theologians view dispensations? Strictly speaking, they use that term obliquely and not in the same manner that they use the word "covenant". How do Covenant Theologians define covenant? One definition is that a covenant is a commitment made by God that includes divine stipulations or sanctions. I am going to refrain from commenting any further on Covenant Theology so as not to derail your thread. I will only offer comments as redirects of things you may say.

 

[David Kent]

Quite often here on the BB my dispensational beliefs have been mocked and ridiculed and viciously attacked. We are called "dispy" and other names, and mocked as being unscriptural. Here is one example from Iconoclast's most recent thread:

I write "dispy" not as a term of abuse, but because i am not a good typist these days and my fingers don't always hit the correct keys and it is much easier to write dispy that dispensationalist. My arthritis you know, But it seems that most writers who used the word 'dispensation' in the past before the current teaching took hold, referred to the Odl Testament dispensation, and the New Testament dispensation, and most were not futurists.

 

[Reformed]

What they are opposing is only one facet of dispensationalism: dispensational premillennialism.

John, let us be honest here. Without its premillennial eschatology, Dispensationalism crumbles. Dispensationalism is dependent on its premillennial eschatology.

they are not really opposed to teaching dispensations per se, but to premillennialism, which is not exclusively dispensational but is held to by anyone who interprets the Bible literally, including the early church fathers, my grandfather, and many others who were or are not dispensationalists.

Actually, some of us really do disagree with "dispensations per se". And yes, premillennialism is not exclusive to Dispensationalism but historic premillennialism (Chiliasm) is much different than its dispensational counterpart.

 

[David Kent]

441

Actually, some of us really do disagree with "dispensations per se". And yes, premillennialism is not exclusive to Dispensationalism but historic premillennialism (Chiliasm) is much different than its dispensational counterpart.

Yes but the futurists have taken over premilennialism as if it were their own.

 

[David Kent]

Good post, and all true. Just a warning: don't try to read Darby's works. They are really turgid!

He is known as the father of dispensationalism. Not correct, Edward Irving was

 

[agedman]

John, let us be honest here. Without its premillennial eschatology, Dispensationalism crumbles. Dispensationalism is dependent on its premillennial eschatology.



Actually, some of us really do disagree with "dispensations per se". And yes, premillennialism is not exclusive to Dispensationalism but historic premillennialism (Chiliasm) is much different than its dispensational counterpart.

Why would outlining the Bible into dispensations “crumble” without premillennialism?

The two are not strictly reliant upon each other are they?

 

[agedman]

He is known as the father of dispensationalism. Not correct, Edward Irving was

From theopedia:

Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations." It maintains fundamental distinctions between God's plans for national Israel and for the New Testament Church, and emphasizes prophecy of the end-times and a pre-tribulation rapture of the church prior to Christ's Second Coming. Its beginnings are usually associated with the Plymouth Brethren movement in the UK and the teachings of John Nelson Darby.

​

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, he has been somewhat discredited. But the theology does not depend on Scofield's personal life. So attacks on dispensationalism based on the personal life of Darby or Scofield are error in logic of ad hominem.

I was not thinking so much about ad hominem argument re Scofield and Dispensationalism by its opponents -- though that certainly exists. I was thinking more about Dispensationalists distancing themselves from Scofield.

 

[Reformed]

Why would outlining the Bible into dispensations “crumble” without premillennialism?

The two are not strictly reliant upon each other are they?

Because Dispensationalism as a theology depends on its eschatology. The system is dependent on its parts. Without a conclusion (eschatology) you are left with a method of understanding God's dealing with His creation that never has an ending (or a beginning, depending on how you look at it).

 

[agedman]

441


Yes but the futurists have taken over premilennialism as if it were their own.

Hey if the amill and post mill folks weren’t using it, then why not?

 

[agedman]

Because Dispensationalism as a theology depends on its eschatology. The system is dependent on its parts. Without a conclusion (eschatology) you are left with a method of understanding God's dealing with His creation that never has an ending (or a beginning, depending on how you look at it).

But that system can also be used in nearly any eschatology scheme can’t it?

 

[Reformed]

But that system can also be used in nearly any eschatology scheme can’t it?

Depending on what brand of Dispensationalism you subscribe to you are going to have some real problems reconciling an eschatological view such as postmillennialism. Postmils see the gospel eventually winning out before the second coming. Dispensationalism results in human failure every step of the way. That is not conducive to a postmil view of eschatology. Oh, I am not postmil, I am just using it as an example. Dispensationalism's dispensations revolve around a separation of Israel and the Church. That view certainly is not compatible with Covenant Theology which teaches there are one called-out people of God throughout history. I think the argument is mostly moot because there is no competing system to Dispensationalism that uses dispensations. Of course, I could be wrong. This is just my studied take on the issue.

 

[prophecy70]

You might be correct sir....lol....I thought I was historic premill for awhile...ie, George Eldon Ladd, then perhaps an optimistic amillennial person.....now drifting toward postmill.....

I have actually been reading Ladd's take on Israel and the Church. It is very informative to me.

Let me get this straight, John you believe Israel and the church are two separate groups? Where Jesus is going to fulfill the promises to them literally?

And TCass? What do you believe on that subject? I agree a lot with Ladd, are you not the same position as him?

 

[Reformed]

I have actually been reading Ladd's take on Israel and the Church. It is very informative to me.

Let me get this straight, John you believe Israel and the church are two separate groups? Where Jesus is going to fulfill the promises to them literally?

And TCass? What do you believe on that subject? I agree a lot with Ladd, are you not the same position as him?

Are you reading Ladd's "The Blessed Hope"?

 

[prophecy70]

Are you reading Ladd's "The Blessed Hope"?

The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism.

I am A-Mill in my thinking So I disagree with some of it, but still it makes very valid points. Something I can't grasp in Dispensational writings.

 

[Reformed]

The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism.

I am A-Mill in my thinking So I disagree with some of it, but still it makes very valid points. Something I can't grasp in Dispensational writings.

When I was a Dispensationalist I viewed everything through that lens. After I left Dispensationalism I guess it was natural for me to see all its flaws (as I perceived them). It is sort of like an ex-smoker. Some of them become anti-smoking zealots. I do not want to say I am an anti-Dispensationalism zealot, but I do see what I perceive to be its inconsistencies and blind spots.

 

[agedman]

When I was a Dispensationalist I viewed everything through that lens. After I left Dispensationalism I guess it was natural for me to see all its flaws (as I perceived them). It is sort of like an ex-smoker. Some of them become anti-smoking zealots. I do not want to say I am an anti-Dispensationalism zealot, but I do see what I perceive to be its inconsistencies and blind spots.

There is no doubt that the typical Darby type presentation can and does get over exercised and driven into error.

However, using dispensation to show human failure in spite of the administration/distribution/stewardship of God’s communication can be useful no matter the eschatology view.

Certainly, it fits the premillennial view.

But, I have also seen “Darby charts” that included covenant divisions, too.

Does not covenant thinking also exclude Israel, replacing it with the church, just as the Darby folks do?

 

[Reformed]

Does not covenant thinking also exclude Israel, replacing it with the church, just as the Darby folks do?

Not in the way Dispensationalism does. Some forms of Dispensationalism still have believing Jews and Christians separated in the eternal state. Covenant Theology places its focus on God's revealed covenants. Some of these covenants are plainly visible in scripture (Abrahamic, Sinaitic, Davidic, New Covenant), while others, like the Covenant of Works, are strongly inferred in scripture. Covenant Theology existed before Dispensationalism, so a good question to ask is why come up with Dispensationalism if the two are the same thing? The answer really rests in a pre-wrath view of eschatology. Dispensationalism fits a pre-wrath view like a glove. Can a Covenant view work with a pre-wrath view? It can but you have to purchase the Ronco conversion kit.