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

The Omega Letter ^ | August 11, 2011 | Jack Kinsella

[GiovannaNicoletta]

LOL!! I do believe Mr. Kinsella may be lurking on Free Republic!

Great article that does an excellent job of setting the record straight.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Ping!

[metmom]

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.

[D-fendr]

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?

[xzins]

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.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

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.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

No. It would not be correct to say that.

[metmom]

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.

[CynicalBear]

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”.

[fatboy]

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”.

[Godzilla]

Insightful post.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

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.

[marbren]

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?

[marbren]

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?

[Lee N. Field]

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.

[smvoice]

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.

[Vegasrugrat]

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

[marbren]

Thank You Vegasrugrat for your kind words and your link.

[CynicalBear]

>>Does Israel need faith in Christ to be saved?<<

Yes they do and those that do not now, scripture says that they will during the Tribulation.