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.
"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.
Lets draw a random sample here to prove the point.
"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."
I'm reading Clement right here and I don't see any such thing. In fact "Stromateis" 5.3 is titled (in English) "The Object of Faith and Hope Perceived by the Mind" and there is nothing in there about division, ages, dispensations anything. The author assumes that his readers won't bother to check and will mindlessly accept his lies.
But it gets better...
"The second is that Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, instead of spiritualizing a text or making everything a 'type'."
Let me present, from the same book "Stromateis" some chapter titles:
Clement sounds like he is a strong literalist and Dispensationalist of the Bible, huh? </sarc>
So what is a Dispensationalist going to do? Embrace the non-existent "dispesnations" allegedly taught by Clement and then conveniently disregard the 95% of the same book that speaks about allegory, symbols, mysteries and abstractions as being ways to convey God's Truth? If you are a true Dispensationalist, of course this is what you do. Contort and bend what you think you can get away with, and then categorically reject and ignore all that which contradicts. Standard MO.
"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."
Typical Dispensationalist. Just state an open lie and use that as an introduction into attacking the saints of God who have not fallen prey to the Futurist Cabal. Note no supporting Scripture. But the Bible is about Jesus Christ. (John 1:45;5:38-39 Luke 24:44; Acts 26;22) When the Bible speaks of the Kingdom, it has absolutely nothing to do with an earthly kingdom Jn 18:36, or this party-pooper passage to the Dispensationalists:
"The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." ( Luke 17:20-21 )
The Dispies must reject this passage wholesale because they keep pointing to the modern secular God hating nation Israel and saying that is the physical location of God's [future] Kingdom.
Of course, you can't be a real Dispensationalist until you just blurt out pure blasphemy:
"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."
Strangely, there are no references to back that outrageous statement up. But we do have Matthew 13:17 Hebrews 11:23-29 or John 5:46 to remind us that Moses did look to Christ. And of course we have Hebrews 11:8,17 to counter the heresy that the author is delivering regarding Abraham. But the Dispensationalists here wouldn't know the Gospel anyway so they wouldn't see that statement from Hell. That explans why John Hagee believes in Christless salvation for the Jews and is committed to the idea that the Jews do not need the Gospel -- ergo, they don't need Jesus Christ.
Here is an interesting gem of Psychological Projection:
"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."
First off, he begins his statement with a very well refuted lie and slander - and then hypocritically calls the saints of God "nasty" in his nasty attack against us. Second, it is ultra-Dispensationalist John Hagee who wants to see Jews burn in eternal Hell by refusing to preach the Gospel to them - and he presses others of his kind to refuse to preach to Jews also. Third, it is the Dispensationalists who fantasize about two-thirds of the world's Jews being slaughtered. I don't know of any non-Dispensationalist who wants to see another Jewish holocaust. Yet Dispensationalists teach it as if it is fact. Remember! According to their warped and depraved thinking Jesus loves the Jews so much that He will slaughter most of them and make them suffer through the bloodiest and most violent Tribulation!
When it comes to anti-Semitism, the Dysfunctionalists conveniently forget that the "Semitism" comes from one of Noah's sons Shem and includes 480 million people living today. So while they fantasize about millions of Jews being brutally slaughtered, they also openly advocate and wish that hundreds of millions of other "Semites" aka Arabs and Middle Easterners, are vaporized after suffering famines, plagues, war, pestilences and other calamities. Dispensationalists often in this forum wish death and destruction upon hundreds of millions of Semites. They are the true monsters whose dreams if come true would have a larger body count than all of the murders committed by the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, Castros et al over the past millennium.
Maybe Jack Kinsella ought to hold back that outrageous "anti-Semitism" card, especially when he slanders us by calling us "replacementarians" and hypocritically accuses us of "nasty" attacks. Speaking Truth to this demon and the people who blindly embrace this dreck is not "nasty", rather it is heaping upon them the condemnation of rejecting the Gospel - which is what Dispensationalism is really all about.