"Seven Dispensations" in History?

[Fly Caster]

Came across this in A'Brakel's A Christian's Reasonable Service last night (vol.1 page 79):

The second practice to avoid is that of forcing everything into a framework of seven dispensations, as the entire concept of seven dispensations is erroneous. It would be tolerable if this were limited to the Revelation of John; however, it would prevent one from ever ascertaining the correct meaning of the book of the Revelation. It is, unacceptable to search for seven dispensations throughout the entire Bible, subordinating every scriptural issue to a dispensation. That would take away the true meaning, spirituality, and power from the Word.
The third practice to avoid is to regulate everything to the realm of prophecy, relating everything to a special era in the New Testament dispensation and considering it as fulfilled or as yet to be fulfilled. This means that hardly anything remains which is of contemporary relevance. There are those who relate everything to the church and the antichrist. Even the parables of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the gospels are denominated as prophecies, and are considered to be references to the church and the antichrist. Whoever engages in such a practice wrests the Word of God, robbing it of its spirituality and power...

I thought the notion of "Seven Dispensations" originated around the time of Darby and the rise of Dispensationalism. Can anyone shed some light on the practice that A'Brakel was referring to, and the similarities and differences with modern Dispensationalism?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Timothy,
I don't have my a'Brakel handy, so I can't look at it.

But my first impression of what you've quoted there is that it may well be taken from an introductory section, written by a modern translator or editor, and not be written by the venerable Dutchman himself. You may want to check on that...

Having said that, we should understand that a modern "dispensational" perspective on interpretation may be only loosely connected to older versions of a similar (or similar-sounding) theological grid. Anyone who isn't self-conscious about understanding an older tradition, isn't in a good position to perpetuate it or develop it in any honest manner. This would be true for covenant-theology or any other traditional mode. We see many modern dispensationalists who identify themselves with the chilliasts (pre-millenialists) of the early church, and through them claim an ancient theological pedigree. The "historic pre-mils" (for whom tribulation-talk and rapture-fever were unknown) are much closer to that tradition in fact.

 

[Fly Caster]

Timothy,
I don't have my a'Brakel handy, so I can't look at it.

But my first impression of what you've quoted there is that it may well be taken from an introductory section, written by a modern translator or editor, and not be written by the venerable Dutchman himself. You may want to check on that...

Having said that, we should understand that a modern "dispensational" perspective on interpretation may be only loosely connected to older versions of a similar (or similar-sounding) theological grid. Anyone who isn't self-conscious about understanding an older tradition, isn't in a good position to perpetuate it or develop it in any honest manner. This would be true for covenant-theology or any other traditional mode. We see many modern dispensationalists who identify themselves with the chilliasts (pre-millenialists) of the early church, and through them claim an ancient theological pedigree. The "historic pre-mils" (for whom tribulation-talk and rapture-fever were unknown) are much closer to that tradition in fact.

Thanks Bruce. The context is from Chapter 2, on the Holy Scriptures (not from intro).

 

[elnwood]

I thought the notion of "Seven Dispensations" originated around the time of Darby and the rise of Dispensationalism. Can anyone shed some light on the practice that A'Brakel was referring to, and the similarities and differences with modern Dispensationalism?

The term "dispensations" preceded dispensationalism. In fact, the Westminster Confession uses the word to distinguish between administrations within the Covenant of Grace.

Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

This is in WCF 7.6, but it does not appear in the LBC.

How many dispensations? It is striking that it says "various" and not "two." Perhaps there was disagreement on the number of dispensations within the Covenant of Grace among Presbyterians, and this is the source of the teaching A'Brakel was against.

 

[Afterthought]

Could A'Brakel be reffering to something like this? Or perhaps more to the point: something like this (the "millennial day" theory)?

 

[Pilgrim]

Evidently you can occasionally find older writers dividing redemptive history into several ages or dispensations in an attempt to illustrate the flow of Biblical history. I want to say it goes back at least to Augustine. Charles Ryrie notes several of these in his Dispensationalism Today but he does not claim that they were dispensationalists. My recollection is that he listed Isaac Watts and Cocceius among others. The point as I recall it was not that dispensationalism as a system or theological development predates the 19th Century, but that (the issue of pre-trib aside) Darby and Scofield didn't create their dispensational schemes out of whole cloth and come up with something completely new that no one had ever seen before. (Many of the dispensations correspond to Biblical covenants.) Some of these older schemes bore at least some superficial resemblance to them, Scofield in particular if I recall correctly. (EDIT: See this chart from page 81 of Ryrie's Dispensationalism for an illustration of this point.) Obviously since Augustine would be considered to be a vicious spiritualizer by dispensationalists (and many premils in general) he wasn't a dispensationalist!

Perhaps the biggest difference between these men and the dispensationalists is that they didn't make it into a rigid interpretive grid and didn't associate each dispensation with a test as dispensationalism does. Classic (Scofield/Chafer) and normative (Ryrie/Walvoord) dispensationalism teaches that each dispensation has a test, with failure of the various tests that are designed to reinforce the fact that man is a totally depraved sinner. Along with his notes on the Sermon on the Mount, the most notorious teaching is Scofield's note in John's Gospel (on the dispensation of grace) in which he states "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ."

It's not entirely clear to me that Scofield and Chafer really thought that the OT saints were not saved by grace. I haven't read them through by any means (nor do I intend to currently) but I understand that elsewhere they affirmed that they were saved by grace. But statements like the above (which Ryrie terms "unguarded") certainly led some of their less nuanced followers (especially laymen) to believe that, with some of them still believing it today. And the more that some writers like Chafer wrote, apparently the more unclear it became (or clearer that there was an ultra-dispensationalist tendency and confusion on the question in general, confusion caused by their own scheme.) Thus, the charge of teaching multiple ways of salvation as seen with the report of the 1944 PCUS Committee that rejected Chafer's teaching.

The Progressive Dispensationalists seem to have abandoned the idea of a "test" (as well as the usual dispensational scheme in general) and at least from my reading it appears that some "revised" or "normative" dispensationalists of the mid 20th Century put less emphasis upon the test concept.

 

[Pilgrim]

If you are seriously interested in trying to find out what writer(s) a'Brakel may have had in mind with the quote in the O.P. a good place to start would be contacting the man who translated these tomes into English, Pastor Bartel Elshout. The Christian's Reasonable Service

 

[Fly Caster]

If you are seriously interested in trying to find out what writer(s) a'Brakel may have had in mind with the quote in the O.P. a good place to start would be contacting the man who translated these tomes into English, Pastor Bartel Elshout. The Christian's Reasonable Service

I had thought of that, but I hate to bother someone I don't know. Thanks for the other post above-- is helpful.