Is Dispensationalism a Recent Doctrine? How Do YOU Define 'Recent'?

One of the most common objections to Dispensationalism offered by Preterists and Covenant theologians is that, according to them, it was an invention based on a 'vision' ascribed to a young Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald.

As they tell it, in 1830, she had a vision about the end of the world and when she came out from under her trance, she wrote it down. This account attracted the attention of Edward Irving and his church later claimed Margaret as one of their own prophetesses.

Irving also had an interest in prophecy and held prophetic conferences. The historian of Irving's church claimed that Margaret was the first person to teach a two stage second coming of Christ.

John Darby traveled to Scotland to visit the MacDonald home. Darby was a lawyer until a year after his conversion when he was ordained a deacon in the Church of England. Soon after entering the ministry he became disillusioned with the institutional church and started the Brethren movement in Plymouth, England.

Darby became known as the 'father' of Dispensationalism, the first eschatology to incorporate the 'prophecy' of Margaret MacDonald. Darby continued to develop this new view by becoming the first to make a radical distinction between Israel and the Church.

Darby taught that God has two special groups of people (or two Brides) and a separate plan for each of them. This meant Christ would have to return twice.

Covenant theologians sneer that, "this secret rapture was so secret that no one had ever heard of it for 1800 years!" Can that be true?

First, let's clearly define what Dispensationalism means; "the act of dispensing or something dispensed; a specific arrangement or system by which something is dispensed."

Moses dispensed the Law. The word 'dispensation' does not mean a period of time. It means the dispensing of a particular message or ministry. For example, the Church Age began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture.

". . .Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)

The Margaret MacDonald story has been told and retold so many times that most Covenant theologians can recite it in their sleep. There is something about Dispensationalism that makes them see red.

Most Dispensationalists couldn't care less whether or not a segment of the Church believes it will go through the Tribulation. I am among that group.

If somebody trusts Christ for his salvation, but disagrees with the timing, (or even the doctrine) of a secret Rapture, they are still saved.

But I've yet to discuss Dispensationalism with Covenant (or replacement) theologians without being called names like 'false teacher' and 'liar'. The Margaret MacDonald story is included in every missive, so that 'ignorant' can be added to the list.

Is it true? Was the doctrine of Dispensationalism born out of the vision of a Scottish schoolgirl and nurtured by a church who proclaimed her a 'prophetess'? Is Dispensationalism, as replacement theology teaches, such a secret that nobody had heard of it for 1800 years?

In 177 AD, which is, ummm, like 1833 years ago, Irenaeus wrote in 'Against Heresies (1.10)

"What the church believes: One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who PROCLAIMED THROUGH THE PROPHETS THE DISPENSATONS OF GOD, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven."

In addressing the teachings of an heretical sect called 'Montanists" (today we'd call them 'replacement theologians') Irenaeus wrote;

"Montanists set at naught the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect of the EVANGELICAL DISPENSATION presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete (John 16); but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit."

In 'Against Heresies’ 3:15 Irenaeus wrote, “Jesus and the Father are the only true God. Jesus gave Moses the dispensation of the Law."

And, "Some of the orthodox are ignorant of God's dispensations." (Against Heresies 5.32)

Clement of Alexandria (192 AD -- 1,817 years ago) in his 'Stromata (5.3) identified seven distinct Dispensations of God, including the present Age of Grace.

Origin taught Dispensationalism in 230 AD (1,779 years ago). Justin Martyr taught in the 1st century that there were four phases, or dispensations' of human history; Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the eternal state.

So, if the early Church fathers taught Dispensationalism, then why so much focus on Margaret MacDonald? How come nobody was teaching Dispensationalism in 1492?

When the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the state Church of Rome, he set into motion a codification process in which ultimately resulted in the Bible being restricted to members of the clergy.

This period is known to history as the 'Dark Ages'. It wasn't until the Bible was made available to the common man that the Protestant Reformation began to take place in the 15th century.

And the Protestant Church was born out of the Roman Catholic Church. While it rejected Catholicism's teaching of salvation by works, it carried with it much of its doctrine, including that of replacement theology.

For almost three hundred years, the Protestant Church continued to accept the Catholic doctrine of replacement theology without challenge. Until Dr. C. I. Schofield reviewed and advanced the teachings of the early Church, publishing his findings in the Schofield Reference Bible.

The Scofield Reference Bible attempted to set in order the right divisions of God's purpose as Scofield understood it. And it is important to note that there is very little similarity between the writings of Scofield and the writings of Darby, despite being assigned joint credit for 'inventing' the doctrine by its critics.

As Christians, we are obligated to search the Scriptures and see if the Bible teaches different dispensations, and if it does, we are obligated to embrace its teaching. If it does not, we are bound to reject it.

There are three things to keep in mind about dispensational teaching. First, it maintains a distinction between Israel and the Church, recognizing God has an eternal, unchanging, Plan for Israel and a different Plan for the Church during the Church Age.

The second is that Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, instead of spiritualizing a text or making everything a 'type'.

Thirdly, Dispensationalists believe God's purpose is much bigger than the salvation of mankind. God's purpose centers in His glory.

It was at the Cross we get in on God's blessings and Purpose. However, the Cross is not the center or the end of God's Plan.

The Bible teaches that there have been and will be saved Jews and Gentiles who are not part of the present body of Christ. Moses and Abraham come to mind. So does the Gentile King, Melchizidek. And the Bible teaches that Enoch was not only saved, he was raptured early.

After the Church Age, the Bible teaches that all Israel will be saved at the end of the Tribulation.

Dispensationalists also believe in a literal thousand-year rule of Christ on earth. During that time, Scripture says Israel will be the head of nations and Jerusalem will be the center of government.

The Bible is all about God's kingdom and His Son ruling over it. This is the part where the replacement theologians start turning red. Dispensationalists believe that there is a place for the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God in this eternal purpose.

Those saved in this age are part of the "Church", which the Bible says is the Body of Christ.

Replacement theology cuts the Jew out of God's Plan, blurs the line between Christian and Gentile, and assumes unto the Church the Promises of God to Israel.

Therefore, according to the modern interpretation of replacement theology, modern-day Israel isn't really the Israel of the Bible. It has no special spiritual connection to the Land.

This theological worldview is behind most mainstream Protestant churches sharing the Vatican's unwavering support for the Palestinian cause.

Replacement theology is also the root cause of modern anti-Semitism. This is why those who hold to it get so nasty when attacking Dispensationalism.

If Dispensationalist truth IS truth, then they are standing against God's Chosen People.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)

Thanks for the ping.

This controversy is something I’ve very seldom encountered so I am not as familiar with the topic as others.

But I don’t see that there’s a need for nastiness in disagreeing over it.

If I understand it at least a little, the theology of Dispensationalism is much more involved than using the word “dispensation.”

Would it be correct to say that according to Dispensationalism, Jesus’s ministry/teaching was not to/for us?

In 177 AD, which is, ummm, like 1833 years ago, Irenaeus wrote in 'Against Heresies (1.10) "What the church believes: One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who PROCLAIMED THROUGH THE PROPHETS THE DISPENSATONS OF GOD, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven." In addressing the teachings of an heretical sect called 'Montanists" (today we'd call them 'replacement theologians') Irenaeus wrote; "Montanists set at naught the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect of the EVANGELICAL DISPENSATION presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete (John 16); but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit."

The heart of this article is the section regarding the early church fathers. These quotes, if they hold up in translation, are golden.

The rage over dispensationalism in some quarters involves the discarding of massive amounts of Scripture by those who have basically allegorized the Bible into meaninglessness and the fact that there are Christians who throw a monkey wrench into the works by believing and stating that the Bible is the revelation of God and absolutely true and without error from the first word to the last. People who do believe that Scripture is the inerrant, absolute truth, and authored by God are a threat to those who have convinced themselves that they not only have the authority but the divine wisdom and omniscience to declare that portions of Scripture simply are not true.

This is the only part where I disagree with Mr. Kinsella. I have never found any justification in Scripture for denying any of it, and I don't believe any person who is truly saved and calls themselves "Christian" would ever deny any part of the Book which details the only method which God has provided whereby man can be forgiven of his sin and reconciled to God. If the Bible is not altogether true, then maybe that part is false also. No true Christian is going to take it upon themselves to discard any part of the Bible.

I see.

Like I said, I just wasn’t that familiar with the debate.

Truth is truth and stands alone with or without our approval.

Thanks for the ping GN. A great article! It pretty much destroys the arguments of many.

>>Darby taught that God has two special groups of people (or two Brides) and a separate plan for each of them.<<

The church is the bride of Christ and Israel is the bride of the Father.

>>This meant Christ would have to return twice.<<

He does not “return twice”. We go to meet Him in the air in the rapture and then He returns to the earth at the end of the tribulation. Only one more “returning”.

I think that the simple answer to the charge that dispensationalism is too new to be correct lies in the fact that from Luthers time to Darby no one actually questioned Covenant Theology from a Biblical perspective. Then came the day when Darby decided to take the teachings of Covenant Theology which had been assumed to be correct and checked them line by line against the Scriptures. The result was the discovery that Covenant Theology is not supported by the teachings of the Bible.

To quote dispensationalist Michael Vlach “in an ironic way, dispensationalism is more desirving of the title covenant theology since it is based on covenants Abrahamic, Davidic, New that are actually found in the Bible while covenant theology is based on the covenants of works, redemption and grace which are not found in the Bible”.

LOL, he very well may be a lurker.

No one i know teaches the Church “replaced” Israel.

the Church is Israel!!

The One Olive Tree has a natural JEWISH branch, but Gentile believers are grafted into the tree.

No Replacement! Paul taught that if you belong to Christ, you are an heir to the promises made to Abraham.

Romans 2:29 teaches a true Jew is one inwardly ( faith ) not DNA.

The Israel of God is made of believers, not DNA.

Good Essay Thank You GiovannaNicoletta I learned something new. One aspect of childlike faith for me is to be teachable. You have taught me much.

Most Dispensationalists couldn't care less whether or not a segment of the Church believes it will go through the Tribulation. I am among that group.

This is one line that gave me pause. Does it matter from scripture when the rapture happens?

I do realize the main thesis of the essay the dispensational label vs covenant label. BTW Why do we need labels that put us in groups?

The church is the bride of Christ and Israel is the bride of the Father.

I can see from scripture some basis for this interpretation. My faith and conviction is The Lord Jesus Christ centric for all mankind. Does Israel need faith in Christ to be saved?

Is Dispensationalism a Recent Doctrine? How Do YOU Define 'Recent'?

How do you define "dispensationalism"?

First, let's clearly define what Dispensationalism means; "the act of dispensing or something dispensed; a specific arrangement or system by which something is dispensed."

Really? Wow. I guess it depends on what is, is.

Origin taught Dispensationalism in 230 AD (1,779 years ago).

So, the arch-allegorizer Origen, the ECF that every dispensationalist loves to loathe, is rehabilitated now? At least for rhetorical purposes.

In addressing the teachings of an heretical sect called 'Montanists" (today we'd call them 'replacement theologians') Irenaeus wrote;

And this makes me wonder if Mr. Kinsella has any idea what he's talking about.

How does the Apostle Paul define dispensationalism, Lee N. Field?

"If ye have heard of the DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD which IS GIVEN ME to you-ward: how that by revelation He made KNOWN UNTO ME, the mystery..." (Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9).

Evidently Paul knew of a dispensation that was given to him by God. It isn't a RECENT Doctrine at all.

You made the statement that "The Lord Jesus Christ is centric for all mankind".

Absolute truth in those words, as is the entire Bible centered on Jesus Christ. All of mankind, regardless of nationality, gender or race has one path to salvation: each and every individuals faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior. No other path exists and there are no exemptions.

Dispensationalism is a false belief. Please take a moment and go to the link below which briefly explains and biblically shows how this can be a very dangerous path away from our Savior Jesus Christ.

http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/february-2008/take-no-detours?page=0,0

God Bless

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.