Nope. Earlier systematicians and theologians had no hesitation in using “dispensation” to describe the differing stewardship-arrangements that are undeniable in Scripture. It’s only now, with the deadly-earnest commitment to preserve an unbiblical tradition against its Biblical challenger, that scoffers shrink from its use.
The irony: dispensations are not the distinguishing aspect of dispensationalism, any more than the rapture. ALL CHRISTIANS affirm dispensations, as ALL CHRISTIANS affirm the rapture.
Not sure how early you are talking about, but the common usage (if there was one) had to do with the distinction between what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The Westminster Confession has this language:
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.The Westminsterian position is that there is one covenant of grace under two "dispensations", the Old and New Testaments. Thus it was common to speak of the "New Testament dispensation".6. 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 fullness, 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. (Chapter 7)
I know of no use of that term different from which agrees with the dispensational view Westminster prior to the appearance of JN Darby. E.g., no one before Darby would have made a theological distinction between the "dispensation of Noah" and the "dispensation of Moses".
But if you have some specific reference, I would enjoy seeing it.
ALL CHRISTIANS affirm dispensations, as ALL CHRISTIANS affirm the rapture.
Most Christians affirm the concept of "dispensations" as described above by Westminster. All orthodox Christians affirm the second coming of Christ. We have no need to differentiate what the moderns have come to call the "rapture", which usually is qualified with the words "pre-trib" by those who use it extensively.
Curious, then why call yourselves dispensationalists? What more appropriate label might you apply to distinguish it from other Christian doctrinal systems?
(I realize Dan won’t respond, so anyone can take a crack at it.)