Historical foundation of DIspensationalism

[Founded on the Rock]

I hear dispensationalists claim about their "rich history" in the church. Here at Moody Bible they say all the time, "well dispensationalism wasn't systematized til about 150-200 years ago but it has been in the Church very early. Covenant theology may be earlier but dispensationalism can be found in church history as well! Covenant Theology wasn't around til the 1600's either!"

Who do they cite as someone who held to primitive forms of dispensationalism?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I hear dispensationalists claim about their "rich history" in the church. Here at Moody Bible they say all the time, "well dispensationalism wasn't systematized til about 150-200 years ago but it has been in the Church very early. Covenant theology may be earlier but dispensationalism can be found in church history as well! Covenant Theology wasn't around til the 1600's either!"

Who do they cite as someone who held to primitive forms of dispensationalism?

It's the product of a fervent imagination. J.N. Darby got the ball rolling and Clarence Larken and C.I. Scofield carried it. It is truly the Johnny come lately theology of the present day. There is no credible evidence that anyone espoused it before these men. As for covenant theology, I think the case can be made that it was in use in the early history of the church. I do not believe that the 17th century confessions of faith were the first to teach it.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I hear dispensationalists claim about their "rich history" in the church. Here at Moody Bible they say all the time, "well dispensationalism wasn't systematized til about 150-200 years ago but it has been in the Church very early. Covenant theology may be earlier but dispensationalism can be found in church history as well! Covenant Theology wasn't around til the 1600's either!"

Who do they cite as someone who held to primitive forms of dispensationalism?

There were some who held to chilism in the early church which some dispensationalists will try to claim. But no one articulated an eschatological system or salvation scheme like dispensationalism. The closest one I can think of is Marcion, who basically called the OT a Jewish book and removed it from the Christian Canon along with anything else even hinting at Jewish influence in the New Testament.

But what is even more remarkable about the early church is that they articulated very clearly that the OT and NT saints were all saved through Christ and that the OT was not a Jewish book but pointed to Christ. They were unanimous on the fact that the OT was a Christian book. There was no seperate scheme of salvation like works for Jews and grace for Christians, which classical dispensationalism makes fundamental to their system.

The creator of dispensationalism was a Spanish Catholic named Manuel Lacunza who died at the end of the 18th century. Darby found his book, translated it, and republished it, and built upon it for his own scheme.

 

[ADKing]

Dispensationalists make the historical error that if someone was a premillennialist (of which there were many including eg. Irenaeus) they were dispensationalists. The two systems are very distinct though sharing some similarities.

A few years back I had to do some research to give a lecture on the history of dispensationalism. I found a book that I think is a must read for anyone interested in the topic. It is: Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century by Ronald Henzel. This book really is essential for understanding the movement in my opinion. It is unmatched.

 

[Kevin]

Anyone have any insight into the validity of the Margret MacDonald-Irving-Darby link.

I read a book some years ago on that subject but don't recall the author/title.

The basic thesis is that (one of) the sources of dispensationalism is extatic utterences made in a trance by MacDonald.

 

[Founded on the Rock]

Thanks for your responses

That is what I see, is that just because someone was a premillenalist does NOT mean they were in any way shape or form dispensational. Historic Premill's of the early church would probably kick themselves if they saw dispensationalists using their statements about the millennium to put forth their theology.

But I don't know church history as well as I should so I would never say that to a dispensationalist because I do not know sources Anyone know any links to dispensationalists arguments on this issue?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Here is a link to several articles by Dave Macpherson who has written extensively on this subject. Talks about Margaret Mcdonald as well.

http://www.truthkeepers.com/dave_mcpherson.htm

 

[Kevin]

Here is a link to several articles by Dave Macpherson who has written extensively on this subject. Talks about Margaret Mcdonald as well.

http://www.truthkeepers.com/dave_mcpherson.htm

Thanks! that is who I was trying to remember.

 

[JM]

Ryrie wrote something along the lines of, "if it's Biblical, then it's historical."

Here's a link to Mal Couch and the boys, this is the only section I could find but it has many other parts to it.
http://www.conservativeonline.org/journals/02_07_journal/1998v2n7_id02.htm

 

[AV1611]

Dispensationalists make the historical error that if someone was a premillennialist (of which there were many including eg. Irenaeus) they were dispensationalists. The two systems are very distinct though sharing some similarities.

Quite true. They miss the point that the early Premillennialists held to the unity of the covenant community...i.e. the Church of the NT was a continuation of the Church of the OT. Which is precisely what the dispensationalists reject.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The dispensational histories of covenant theology that I've read have been completely dependant upon 19th century secondary sources. I don't blame them entirely for not getting it right since many Reformed folk haven't done much better.

There are histories here and here.

rsc

 

[elnwood]

There were some who held to chilism in the early church which some dispensationalists will try to claim. But no one articulated an eschatological system or salvation scheme like dispensationalism. The closest one I can think of is Marcion, who basically called the OT a Jewish book and removed it from the Christian Canon along with anything else even hinting at Jewish influence in the New Testament.

But what is even more remarkable about the early church is that they articulated very clearly that the OT and NT saints were all saved through Christ and that the OT was not a Jewish book but pointed to Christ. They were unanimous on the fact that the OT was a Christian book. There was no seperate scheme of salvation like works for Jews and grace for Christians, which classical dispensationalism makes fundamental to their system.

The creator of dispensationalism was a Spanish Catholic named Manuel Lacunza who died at the end of the 18th century. Darby found his book, translated it, and republished it, and built upon it for his own scheme.

Classical dispensationalists do not make separate schemes of salvation for Jews and Gentiles. I don't know of a single dispensationalist today who makes that claim, and the ones that have written on it clearly deny that (see especially Charles Ryrie's work on Dispensationalism, who clearly says that all were saved by grace through faith). Unfortunately, that straw man continues to get propagated in Covenant Theology circles, and many early dispensationalists were misinterpreted that way (much in the same way Federal Vision folks misinterpret the Reformer's view of justification).

And the chiliasts were definitely not dispensationalists! I once read a paper that tried to show that the chiliasts were pretribulational. The argument basically boiled down to "they believed in imminence, therefore they were pretrib." Nothing about the complete distinction between Israel and the Church, which is the defining point of dispensationalism.

 

[ADKing]

Classical dispensationalists do not make separate schemes of salvation for Jews and Gentiles. I don't know of a single dispensationalist today who makes that claim, and the ones that have written on it clearly deny that (see especially Charles Ryrie's work on Dispensationalism, who clearly says that all were saved by grace through faith).QUOTE]

Classical dispensationalists (e.g. Scofield, Chaffer et. al.) did in fact teach different schemes of salvation in the different dispensations. See especially Scofield's note in his study Bible on John 1.17. Ryrie's teaching represents a modified version of dispensationalism that many of us think of as dispensationalism. However, Ryrie and later Dallas Seminary altered some of the more radical teachings of Scofield. This is why you do not know of dispensationalists today making this claim. The system is understood through the lens of Ryrie (or progressive dispensationalism) and there are very few true Scofieldites around.

 

[Kevin]

you are right Rev King. I know of Dispensationalists who say that Ryrie "compromised with CT" by recognising the single way of salvation for Jews & Gentiles.
For these 'true believers' anything other than Darby/Scofield/Larkin is a sell out

 

[elnwood]

you are right Rev King. I know of Dispensationalists who say that Ryrie "compromised with CT" by recognising the single way of salvation for Jews & Gentiles.
For these 'true believers' anything other than Darby/Scofield/Larkin is a sell out

Are serious? I've never met anyone today espousing this. What groups today espouse this? Do you have any web links of people, organizations or churches teaching this?

Here's an article that disputes that dispensationalism ever taught two ways of salvation, and cites that reference in the Scofield Bible. Ryrie similarly disputes the claim.
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/4/4-contents.htm

Regardless, the two-ways-of-salvation principle is definitely not an essential of dispensationalism.

 

[caddy]

Interesting to see that Scott has contributed to Tabletalk's October Issue on Covenant Theology. I'm going to have to pull that issue back out. I am pretty sure I read the piece, but cannot recall it with it not being in front of me...

Outside interest include: C. S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers. Which raises the question, have you read much of Chesterton's works, seeing that He was a heavy influence on both of these writers...especially Lewis?

The dispensational histories of covenant theology that I've read have been completely dependant upon 19th century secondary sources. I don't blame them entirely for not getting it right since many Reformed folk haven't done much better.

There are histories here and here.

rsc

 

[ReformedWretch]

Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century

WOW!

That's a heck of a title!

 

[Kevin]

Are serious? I've never met anyone today espousing this. What groups today espouse this? Do you have any web links of people, organizations or churches teaching this?

Here's an article that disputes that dispensationalism ever taught two ways of salvation, and cites that reference in the Scofield Bible. Ryrie similarly disputes the claim.
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/4/4-contents.htm

Regardless, the two-ways-of-salvation principle is definitely not an essential of dispensationalism.

Brother I was brought up in it. That type of teaching was mothers milk to us. I don't know about it because of on-line reseach I "know" it because it was my upbringing.

I suppose you could find some one on-line who teaches this, I dunno I haven't looked. We were Bob Jones, Hyles Anderson, type of Fundies and this was the clearly taught view. Two ways of salvation (possibly more...are people saved in the tribulation? how? The millennium? how?) were taught clearly from the pulpit in several churches I went to.

Jews were (are?) saved by 'keeping the law' & we (New Testament Christians) are saved by grace.

 

[elnwood]

Brother I was brought up in it. That type of teaching was mothers milk to us. I don't know about it because of on-line reseach I "know" it because it was my upbringing.

I suppose you could find some one on-line who teaches this, I dunno I haven't looked. We were Bob Jones, Hyles Anderson, type of Fundies and this was the clearly taught view. Two ways of salvation (possibly more...are people saved in the tribulation? how? The millennium? how?) were taught clearly from the pulpit in several churches I went to.

Jews were (are?) saved by 'keeping the law' & we (New Testament Christians) are saved by grace.

That's bizarre. The first time I was taught that salvation was the same for Old Testament saints as for New Testament saints (I had never thought about it before), that it was by faith alone through Christ alone, it was from a dispensational minister from Dallas Theological Seminary teaching a bible study in an evangelical organization founded by DTS dispensationalists.

It's a shame that your experience with dispensationalism was not as positive as mine was.

 

[Kevin]

Dallas? What has DTS to do with sound doctrine? Those guys were liberals who tried to change 'the faith once delivered to Darby'.

No kidding I have heard DTS used as an example of how a "once sound seminary" was taken over by "liberals" (read non-hyper Dispensational just like us).

BTW what did you mean about "positive experiences" with dispensationalism?

 

[turmeric]

I grew up with this also - it's one thing that leaves them open to despising the message of the epistle to the Hebrews by claiming that there will be blood sacrifices in the Millenial kingdom which are efficacious for "ceremonial impurity."

Uh-oh, here comes the rant...

Either allare sinners, or not. If God hates sin, then He hates all sin, whether by Jew or Gentile. I don't think He hates the sins of the Jews in a different way, that allows them to be covered with a little animal-blood, whereas Gentiles need the full treatment of the blood of Christ. I know that well-known Dispensationalists like John MacArthur do not teach this slop, but by the time some of these folks get done describing what they think is God's love of Israel, they've made Him sound like a liar and a capricious being who has no objective standards. No wonder it's hard for some of us from that background to believe in imputation as a fact, and to take comfort in it.
What if God changes the rules tomorrow in a new dispensation? Maybe I better try harder to hit a moving target.

So the Jews get law, and the Church gets grace, and they're calling US anti-Semitic?

Okay, I'm done. Sorry.

 

[elnwood]

Dallas? What has DTS to do with sound doctrine? Those guys were liberals who tried to change 'the faith once delivered to Darby'.

No kidding I have heard DTS used as an example of how a "once sound seminary" was taken over by "liberals" (read non-hyper Dispensational just like us).

BTW what did you mean about "positive experiences" with dispensationalism?

I.e. I came to faith in Christ through the faithful teaching and preaching of dispensational teachers from DTS. My experience was not unlike that of John Frame, who attended the same college fellowship a couple generations before I did, although PEF was far less fundamental when I was there than it was under Donald Fullerton.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Remembering_fullerton.htm