The Early Church Fathers and the Foundations of Dispensationalism

Conservative Theological Society ^ | Larry V. Crutchfield, PhD

[xzins]

Ping to basic article

[xzins]

The footnotes didn't come out exactly correct. However, if you look to the middle of the link, you'll see the number. It will hyperlink you to the proper footnote where you'll have to again look to the middle for the proper number.

???? I don't understand html enough to explain this.

[xzins]

I do find the ideas of dispensationalism compelling.

Even with just 2 covenants, there is a recognition that God worked in different eras in different ways.

This is an interesting read in that it shows premill thinking in the earliest church. It also shows the ante-Nicean Fathers thinking in terms of God's acting in different ways with different "ages" of history. Thought provoking.

[P-Marlowe]

When push comes to shove I don't really care what the Early Fathers taught about eschatology, since the early church fathers were hampered by the little fact that during their time the nation of Israel had, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist. Thus in order to place the book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel into context they were required to allegorize those books rather than view them as literal prophesies.

While the Early church Fathers may have been brilliant theologians, none of their writings even approach the level of inspiration of scripture. I will rely upon the scripture itself and if the scripture mentions the Nation of Israel in prophecy, then I am not going to assume that what that means is the Catholic Church or the Nation of Gentiles. And When Jesus says that these things will come to pass when the times of the Gentiles are complete, then I would assume that Jesus was not talking allegorically, but Literally.

If we take the Bible at its word, one cannot help but be a dispensationalist. If we have to allegorize according to our own understanding of history to twist the Book of Revlation into a history book rather than a book of Future events, then we are not trusting God at his word.

So if the Early Church Fathers weren't dispensationalists, that doesn't bother me a bit. They were all just confused by the Destruction of Israel in 70AD.

[xzins]

I agree with your literal approach. So does this author.

He shows that the early Fathers DID use dispensational forms of thinking. That's why I liked this article.

[ThomasMore]

Principles of hermeneutics, for example, were inconsistently applied and the science of biblical interpretation was in a state of flux throughout this period.

Historical/Critical is at the root of the error of modernity. In fact, IMHO, historical/critical is to biblical studies what psychology is to science. As psychology became more speculation than fact, i.e. nothing wrong with homosexuality and the latest, Relational Disorder rather than sinful nature, I lost my taste for the art. It has its small place in the scope of human understanding. Historical/critical analysis is on the same par. When used properly (about 10%) it can be helpful. However, many HC exegetes are dumping the system for the Neo-patristic approach. see rtforum.org

I question the validity of this hypothesis based on Christ's own words, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." [ Matt 5:17]

Also, what about covenant theology? Can God go back on His word? Can the Eternal Law change?

[fishtank]

bump for later

[The Grammarian]

If we take the Bible at its word, one cannot help but be a dispensationalist.

Objection! Baiting the witnesses!

[xzins]

Covenant theology.

How many covenants were the according to covenant theology? I'd say, "2."

Does each of the covenants cover a particular era? I'd say the answer is "yes."

Therefore, a covenant is a dispensation.

Everyone is a dispensationalist. IMO, The argument really is over HOW MANY dispensations there are.

[drstevej]

***Everyone is a dispensationalist. IMO, The argument really is over HOW MANY dispensations there are. ***

Not really, whether there is a distinction between Israel and the Church and whether the promises to Abraham will be fulfilled literally with Israel or spiritually with the Church is a more definitive delineation.

[xzins]

You are correct.

Mine is an opening position is a discussion with a covenantalist. Trying to get them over the notion that "dispensation" is a "four-letter word."

[ThomasMore]

Of course, we all believe in two covenants. But you speak of covenant, the old and new, in terms of dispensation. I consider this to be apples and oranges comparisons. Christ came to fulfill the Old Cov, not dispense with it. Something was dispensed, but I propose it was NOT the old covenant.

The OC was under the moral/civil/ceremonial law. The OC civil and ceremonial law had to be obeyed for the same reason we are obliged to obey civil authority (rom 13:1)? But now Christ has come and we no longer need the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law to enforce it, we have the Spirit of Christ who enables us to obey the law, obey it in a more perfect and spiritual manner. Yet the moral law remains. And I think this is where you and I differ in our theologies.

The moral law is derived from God's eternal law and given to Moses. The civil and ceremonial laws were used to enable the Israelites to be faithful to that moral law. We no longer need those for we have the Holy Spirit. Yet we still need the moral law.

Here we see the principle of obligation to the moral Law prophesied,

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."[Ezek 36:25-27]

Here we see the principle of obligation to the moral Law stated again,

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."[rom 13:8-10]

No dispensation from the moral law!

[P-Marlowe]

Not really, whether there is a distinction between Israel and the Church and whether the promises to Abraham will be fulfilled literally with Israel or spiritually with the Church is a more definitive delineation.

I think you can have both. I believe that Christians are heirs to the promises of Abraham in a spiritual sense and that the Jewish People are heirs to the promises in a literal sense. In this particular dispensation it is much better to be a spiritual heir to the promises as the requirements of being a literal heir to the promises are virtually impossible to acheive. Hence the Jewish People needed their Messiah, they just didn't recognize him when he came.

[P-Marlowe]

Hey, dispensation may be considered a four letter word by some, but the FACT is a four letter word. The fact is that you cannot escape the FACT that there have been several dispensations in the past and that we are living in a different dispensation at this time. I just happen to believe that there is at least one more dispensation that needs to be fulfilled before all is complete.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that there has only been one dispensation in the history of mankind?

[WriteOn]

People complain about Mariology, but what's more distracting from Christian life than eschatology?

[Catholicguy]

<> It would have been helpful to read actual quotes by the Ante-Nicene Catholic Church Fathers rather than the assertions and personal opinions of protestants in "interpreting" them.

I have an excellent collection at home. Mebbe someone will, someday, point out to me all these proetstant doctrines alleged to exist. I have been told that St.Augustine was a crypto-Calvinist, that others were sola scripturists etc etc tec. There seem sto be a burgeoning industry in reinterpreting Catholic Church Fathers to shoehorn them into posiitons advanced 16 centuries later. LOL I find it amusing that I know so little about my own Catholic Church's Theology:) I guess they forgot to include Chialistic Theology in the current Catechism:)

The good thing about the Church Fathers being cited is that an interest may develop in others - they may want to read what they actually said and places like, www.newadvent.com, features these Catholic Church Fathers for free and anyone can read for themselves what they believed<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Christians are encouraged to mediate frequently on the Last Things; Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell.

[ThomasMore]

Chialistic Theology

ROTFL :^D

[TotusTuus]

I question the validity of this hypothesis based on Christ's own words, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." [ Matt 5:17]

Just browsing through, but this reminded me of a saying of St. Augustine that I can only try to paraphrase here. It is to the effect:

"God gave the Old Law (Torah) so that we would recognize the need for Grace (the New Law). God gave the New Law of Grace so that we would be able to fulfill the Old Law."