Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist: Intro
I got into a discussion a week or two ago on a friend’s blog about dispensationalism. I referred to the theological system as heresy, and someone called me out on it. I must admit, that was probably a little rough, so I backed down. Then a couple of people were curious as to what exactly dispensationalism is, and why it would be wrong. Fortunately, it was a friendly discussion, and I hope it can be a friendly discussion here as well. I don’t know how many posts it will take to deal with the issue–it may only take two or three total–but today I simply hope to give a general overview.
Allow me to give briefly my account of dispensationalism. As most conservative evangelicals, I was raised with this type of inherent dispensationalism. I didn’t know it, and even looking back, I don’t think anyone would have really called it that. But that’s what it was. It really shines through the understanding of eschatology. When Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series came out, we read all the books (although, to be fair, I only read the first two and a half, then gave up). We had one member of our church–who happened to be on staff–that didn’t agree with that version of eschatology, and he was incessantly made fun of.
The problem with the pretribulational, premillennial understanding of the end times is that there is an entire system underlying it. For some–maybe most–it starts with that eschatalogical understanding, as it did with me. But as preachers use commentaries and theologies and Bible studies written by dispensational theologians, the system underneath begins to creep into the common understanding, unbeknownst to so called “laypeople.”
So what is the “system” behind dispensationalism? While there are many good articles around the www to explain it, I will give it a shot.
Dispensationalism is primarily a way to relate the covenants of Scripture–or how to relate the Old and New Testaments. Where some systems, such as covenant theology, see a large degree of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, dispensationalism sees a radical disjunction between the two. What I mean is this: in the Old Testament, one reads of Abraham, Israel, etc., and the dispensational scheme sees this as a unique period of time, or dispensation, in which God spoke and acted towards His people in a certain way. When one gets to the New Testament, they find a different dispensation. In all, some understandings of dispensationalism find more than 30 different dispensations in history.
The primary distinction between the Old and New Testaments is simply that of Israel and the Church. Israel was and is God’s chosen people, and there will be a remnant of those chosen people. Israel is the center of God’s plan of salvation. When Christ came, His chosen people rejected Him, and He started a new thing–the Church. For many dispensationalists, the Church age is a parenthesis in God’s plan of salvation.
This is where the pretribulational, premillennial rapture comes into play. The rapture will happen at the end of the Church age, then God will deal with His chosen people–the Israelites–bringing a remnant back. The remnant is the 144,000 spoken of in the book of Revelation. This is what God is working on during the 7 year tribulation. At the end of that, there will be the millennial age–the reign of Christ.
This system depends on a literal interpretation of Scripture, from first to last. This fits well with the so-called “fundamentalist-modernist” controversy that is so concerned with a literal 6 days of creation. It interprets the prophecies of Revelation very literally. It takes Old Testament prophecies about Christ–Isaiah 9, for instance–and interprets them as literal in their time, with some side reference to the coming of the Messiah. Taking Isaiah 9 to illustrate, dispensationalism sees a dual fulfillment here, with the original meaning being about a child born in the 8th century BC, with an additional purpose of being tangentially related to the Messiah. This type of prophetic interpretation works throughout the entire Old Testament, with the story being purely about God’s relationship with His chosen people, Israel, and a few sporadic prophecies about the coming Messiah.
Lastly, I just want to mention the influences of this on modern believers. This system was originally espoused John Nelson Darby in the 1800s. It was later pushed by the likes of Schofield, Ryrie, LaHaye and others. You can see how common those names are. I, myself, still use my Schofield Study Bible to this day, Ryrie’s systematic theology sits on my shelf, and I still loathe the fact that I’ve read any of LaHaye’s books. But, for the common, conservative evangelical, these influences are incredibly prevalent, as many pastors are also using these books, and the prevalence of LaHaye’s books, even in the hands of non-evangelicals, is great.
For those who still have questions or comments, I recommend either leaving a comment, to which I will get back ASAP, or googling for “dispensationalism,” as there are many articles going more in-depth than I just did. In the next day or two, I will explain why I no longer find this a biblical or acceptable option for interpreting Scripture or understanding the world or our Triune God.
Look forward to reading your next post.
Comment by Allen | February 22, 2008
heretic.
just kidding. looking forward to reading it and reflecting back on my old hell fire and brimstone days.
Comment by josh | February 22, 2008
Allen, this is for you and Billy, and for me to come out of the closet. I hope you enjoy, and push me a little.
Josh, I’m only trying to prove that I’m not a full-fledged fundy……you can come give me grief now, since I do so on your blog…..haha
Comment by alanreynolds | February 22, 2008
Shockproof? Google “Pretrib Rapture Desperados,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Letter from Mrs. Billy Graham,” “Famous Rapture Watchers,” and “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” – of them penned by the author of the bestselling book THE RAPTURE PLOT (Armageddon Books) which, after I bought it, drowned me with tons of long forgotten but recently discovered (original) rapture documents found in British libraries etc. that date from the early 1800s. Great reads! Jon
Comment by Jon Edwards | February 23, 2008
The modern day origins of the rapture concept are the prophecies of Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshua) as found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke and of his Apostle Paul as found in Paul’s first epistle to the early church of the Corinthians and in his first epistle to the early church of Thessalonica.
The concept was in existence from the inception of Christianity and is not a modern-day concept lacking prophetic background by Yeshua and Paul. New Testament sources for the corroboration of the end-times, pre-tribulation rapture concept are primarily:
Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 24 verses 40 & 41.
Gospel of Luke, Chapter 17, verses 34, 35 & 36.
Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 15,
verses 51 through 57.
Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 4,
verses 13 through 18.
It is a wholly aberrant concept that Schofield, John N. Darby, Ryrie, Hal Lindsey and Larry Jenkins and Tim LeHaye were 18 and 19th century contemporary authors who created the rapture event concept, especially in view of the New Testament prophetic scriptures of Yeshua and Paul
which I have specifically referenced.
Paul’s epistles explained the pre-tribulation Rapture event as a mystery back in his unfulfilled prophetic times, but clearly taught the early Christians to prepare themselves for the imminent ocurrence of the Rapture event.
Which event Christians are still waiting for in these times when we can discern that we are awaiting the fulfullment of the rapture event in what our population perceives to be the coming of the end-times and the end of God’s grace toward the Gentile people.
In Yeshua’s Name,
Jonah Immanu,
Christian Eschatological Author
Comment by Jonah Immanu | February 26, 2008
Thank you, Jonah, for your comment. I will deal with Scripture and the “rapture” soon. But for now, let me say that none of the verses you mention give a pretrib rapture–one must infer the idea first, then read it into the text. I will deal with the verses specifically later, so I invite you to come back. And for what it’s worth, it is Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 and 25 that first caused me to rethink my dispensational upbringing.
Comment by alanreynolds | February 26, 2008
[...] Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist: Intro [...]
Pingback by Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 2: The Historical Record « spermologos | February 26, 2008
[...] Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 3: The Bible and the Rapture Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist: Intro [...]
Pingback by Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 3: The Bible and the Rapture « spermologos | March 4, 2008
[...] Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 4: Ignoring the New Testament Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist: Intro [...]
Pingback by Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 4: Ignoring the New Testament « spermologos | March 6, 2008
[...] Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 5: Miscellanies and Conclusions Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist: Intro [...]
Pingback by Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 5: Miscellanies and Conclusions « spermologos | March 14, 2008
You might find my Blog of interest…
Comment by Paul Chastain | June 5, 2008
You might find my Blog of interest…
http://journals.aol.com/vawatchman/dark-night-coming…/
Comment by Paul Chastain | June 5, 2008
I thought you might be interested in an electronic edition of Ryrie’s work on dispensationalism. It’s now available for pre-order from Logos Bible Software as part of the Charles Ryrie Collection.
Comment by Kent | July 25, 2008
I wss saved into a pretrib, premil theology in a conservative Baptist church. I believed this without question for for about 30 years or so. And preached it to my neighbors and friends when they would listen. I was like most of the church people I knew. I believed this and could only defend it by requoting ideas and scriptures I was spoon fed my my pastor and other teachers. The scriptural references seemed right on, but as I finally studied this through for myself, I came to the horrific conclusion that this teaching was not in the scripture at all. I had to be told what the scriptures meant before I could see the dispensational teaching. I could never come up with it myself because I am convinced it is not there. What is there is only a hermenutical style ( literal no matter what) of reading along with clever interpretations of verses that could just as easily mean other things. The greatest problem that I personally see, is the belief that National Israel is the focus of the Old Testament. It was only true in the sence that physically, Israel was chosen to carry the gospel to the world ( which as a nation they would never do). God also used them to demonstrate his power to the world as he worked through and often against them. Spiritually, it was never about national Israel. It was always about believing Israel, that is the Israel of God. Is 45:25 states In the Lord, all of Israel will find righteousness. It says in the Lord, not in National Israel.
Dispensationalism to me as a full fledged heresy in that it takes greatly away from the finished work on the cross. The New testament goes out of its way to show us that there one new man in Christ, Jew and Gentile. There are not two people of God, the Old Testament believers which are the wife of Jehova, and the New Testament Chuch which is the bride of Christ. This suggests that God, being only one has somehow gained two women, one a wife and one a bride. This whole system of dispensational ferver and two people of God was made up of Darby around 1830 and seems to be contrary to sound thinking. By the way, not that it changes anything, but Darby was a very brilliant lawyer. Left this to become an Anglican Priest. Left this because of his great dislike for the demands from the Pristhood. Joined up with the Brethern. Never has any theological training at all. Hated the concept of denominations, of Clergy, of revival campaings. Once he gained control of the movent, he would throw members out of the church that did not agree with his dispensational teachings. The pretribulation, dispensational teaching became the center piece of all his brethern churches before he cause a great split in them. To me it is only fitting that a brilliant schooled lawyer could come up with this brand new (at the time) dispensational package) and force all of his following to accept or leave the church.
Comment by BOB | November 13, 2008
Below is the result of the research that I did on Darby using several articles. Bob S.
John Nelson Darby: All info taken from the internet. 8/2006
Before Darby, Covenant Theology dominated the Protestant thinking and belief system regarding the redemptive history and is still the view held by the reformed churches. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox reject both dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.
Born: John Nelson Darby was born November 29, 1800 and died April 29, 1882.
Born in Westminster London to an Anglo Irish landowning family and was christened at Saint Margaret’s on March 3, 1801. His godfather and family friend was the famous Lord Nelson..
Education: He went to Westminster School and Trinity College, where he was trained in law, Dublin Ireland. He graduated a classic Gold medallist in 1819. He was saved during his studies and had no formal theological training.
Lawyer: He joined the Inn of Court as a lawyer. After a short while, he gave it up as he felt it was a conflict with his spiritual beliefs. He was concerned that his talents as a lawyer could help defeat justice.
Priest: He was ordained as an Anglican clergyman in Ireland in 1825, a deacon in the church of Ireland and became a priest the following year.
Resigned Priest: In 1826 or 1827 Darby resigned his position because his converts were required to swear allegiance to George the 4th as the rightful king of Ireland.
Injury: In October of 1827, Darby fell from a horse against a door jam and sustained injury (reportedly a broken leg which required surgery in Dublin). During his time of recovery and healing, He ” recognized ” that Isaiah and other Old Testament scriptures about the Kingdom were completely separate from the Christian Church. It seems clear that Darby was in reaction to the state church, the Church of Ireland. Darby found the affairs of the church were largely political and not spiritual. He learned to despise formal theological training and did not believe in clergy or denominations. He believed that God should be able to raise up any one in the body at any time to minister.
Rapture theories: From 1827 to 1832, he developed his theories of theology. Probably in reaction to the church of Ireland, Darby decided it was against the Holy Spirit to have clergy. He believed that the Spirit could speak through any member of the church. Darby began to develop his seven age dispensations around 1830 and by 1835, he added the secret rapture. He gradually added dispensations up to 1838.
Margaret Macdonald and her vision of a secret rapture: In 1830, at age of 15, while living in Port Glasgow, Scotland, Margaret Macdonald reported she had a vision about end times. Not long after her vision, she wrote down her vision and sent hand written copies to a number of Christian leaders. The Morning Watch, a leading British publication, quickly copied some of her distinctive notions. Her revelation was first published in Robert Norton’ Memoirs of James & George Macdonald of Port Glasgow (1840), pp. 171-176. Norton published it again in the Restoration of Apostles and Prophets: In the Catholic Apostolic Church ( 1861). pp 15-18. Her vision was published as one block and is somewhat difficult to read. There is some controversy as to whether her vision is a post or pre tribulation view. It is clear however, that she saw a secret coming of the Lord where the non-believers could not see the Lord come, only the saints of God. A quote from her vision, ” Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. Tis Christ in us that will lift us up–he is the light–’this only those who are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air.” … “I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye: but ’tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people. ”
There is much controversy over where he came up with the secret rapture theory. Dave MacPherson published a book in 1973 called The Unbelievable PreTrib Origin. Quoting from long forgotten productions of the Catholic Apostolic Church, he insists that the secret rapture was clearly enunciated first among those who received that charismatic gifts at Port Glasgow Scotland, in the spring of 1830. Whether or not she was the first to broach this idea, the Idea of a secret coming was unheard of before this time. The 1830 vision of Christ’s return was apparently meant for Macdonald’s time since she named the Antichrist which was Robert Owens (1771-1858). The Bible condemns her as a false prophet since her prophesy did not come true. The apparent purpose of her prophesy was to correct the error Jesus made in describing his visible coming in Matthew 24. She claimed his coming would be invisible and only seen by those filled with the spirit.
Darby’s solution: Darby was not so bold and simple minded as to correct Christ. What he did instead was to assert that these statements apply only to Israel and the rest of the world that will see the physical return of Christ seven years after the church (which does contain Jews and Gentiles alike) , has been secretly raptured. For there to be two returns of Christ, one secretly and one visible, there had to be a major shift in Biblical thinking about the body believers in the New and Old testaments. During Darby’s recovery of his horse accident, it occurred to him that if he made the Old Testament believers and the program of salvation for the Jews completely and unrelated to the New testament Church, then all of these apparent contradictions would be reconciled. Without the complete separation of these two peoples of God, Darby’s theories would not hold up. This belief was the great capstone and foundation upon which his entire dispenstaional theories rested.
Many believe he first heard it from Macdonald and inserted into his general ideas of dispensationalism that he developed over several years from 1830 through 1835. His critics point out that he knew of the family and was familiar with he vision which was made known in 1830 and onward. Her entire vision can be found on the internet “wikipedia.org.wiki/Margaret_Macdonald_%28Prophecy%29″, … , and more of her history at: preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/tarkowski-ed_dd_01. The thing that is common between Darby’s theory of end times and her vision of end times is the secret rapture part of her vision, which she said is only seen only by the saints of God. There seems to be no conclusive proof as to whether Darby used her secret rapture theory, or came up with it on his own. Since they both started talking about it in the same general time frame, with Macdonalds vision probably first, this controversy will probably never be settled.
Powerscourt convention: In 1832, Darby formally separated from the church of Ireland. He announced his theories of the secret rapture at the annual meeting held by his friend, and rich widow, Lady Powerscourt, at Lady Theodosia Wingfield Powerscourt estate. Before long, Darby became the acknowledged leader of these meetings to which many clergymen were attracted as well as some of the charismatic Irvingite leaders. It was about this time that some critics in America claimed that Darby had received his secret rapture doctrine from the Irvingite “prophetess”, Margaret Macdonald. Supposedly the charge and its refutation is contained in the eighty page booklet “The Truth of the Pre Tribulational Rapture Recovered (4), by R.A Huebner.
Traveled and spread his theories: From 1832 to 1840, Darby traveled through Europe and England establishing many Brethren Assemblies.
Edward Irving: ( info taken from Microsoft Encarta Enc. 2002) Irving, Edward (1792?1834), Scottish minister in the Church of Scotland, associated with the founding of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Irving was born in Annan, Dumfries, on August 4, 1792. At first a mathematics teacher and part?time student of theology, he was called to London’s Caledonian Chapel in 1822. He preached so effectively there that, in 1827, a larger church was built for him in Regent Square. He aroused controversy, however, when he began to emphasize the end of the world and to speak of Christ’s second coming, which he prophesied would occur in 1864. His book, The Doctrine of the Incarnation Opened (1828), in which he spoke of Christ’s sinful human nature, generated stern opposition that led to his excommunication by the London presbytery and his deposition (1833) from the ministry of the Church of Scotland. Nonetheless, Irving continued to prophesy the second coming, claiming the ability to speak in tongues (see Glossolalia; Second Coming). His associates and followers formed the basis of the Catholic Apostolic Church; its members are sometimes called Irvingites. Irving died in Glasgow on December 7, 1834.
Microsoftr Encartar Encyclopedia 2002. c 1993?2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Early Brethren: Darby was not the founder of this movement, but soon became its leader and the force behind the Brethren’s growth and was responsible for growth in other countries. Early in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland, Dr. Edward Cronin and Edward Wilson began meeting on the Lord’s day breaking bread, worshiping and study of the Bible. They did not believe in church membership as they were already members of the body of Christ. About this time ( 1827 to 1832) Darby joined the inter denominational meetings which included A.N Groves, Edward Cronin, J.G. Bellett and Frances Hutchinson, Lord Congleton and William Stokes. They broke bread together as a symbol of unity. About this same time the Irvingite heresy with its charismatic tongues and prophesying began to surface in London. By 1832, they considered themselves a distinct a Christian assembly. As Darby attended the above meetings, about the time he was 28, Darby organized a small association devoted to evangelism and the group grew quickly. In 1832, B.W. Newton, leader of one of the larger assemblies located in Plymouth, England invited Darby to come and share in the ministry which he did. Around 1830, the group was given the name Plymouth Brethren. Darby soon came to be regarded as the leader of the Brethren movement. They traveled throughout England and Ireland forming new assemblies. They commonly referred to each others as brother which stuck and they became known as the Brethren. The main location for these meetings came to be in Plymouth, England. Darby was the leader of the Brethren movement which in part, was a reaction against the Church of Ireland. They all believed in an anti-clerical, anti-creedal and anti-denominational stand. By 1840 , the Brethren movement had grown to 800 strong and would reach 1200 by 1845.
Brethren, Open or Closed: The open consider their assemblies to be independent of the others as to its government and actions, while relying upon a spiritual unity with fellow assemblies. Each group is responsible for itself in its locality, accepting all who qualify for fellowship by the grace of God on their own spiritual standing. Hence, the influx of new members that have a spiritual background dilutes the distinctiveness of the Brethren causing them to lose more than they gain. Some even cooperate with Billy Graham crusades. Such cooperation with denominational churches stands against everything the Brethren assemblies stand for. Their attitude about the influx of new believers from a crusade such as this is stated by Darby when he stated as follows, (referring to the Moody-Sankey revival meetings held in England), … the revival work and the tone which accompanied it have introduced a mass of persons from whom God alone can deliver us. Along the same lines, J. B. Stoney commented: ” it is easier to build on the edge of a knife that on a revival conversion”.
The Exclusive or Open Brethren: They deem it absolutely essential to meet not under any denominational authority, but in the spirit of where two or three are gathered, there am I in the middle of them. Darby believed this totally and pushed it so hard that division and error began to form. He believed that all assemblies should be as one body. As an example, if a tiny assembly in New Zealand made a certain decision concerning discipline in their midst, every other assembly in the world were obliged to act accordingly. This point caused the great division between Darby and Muller. This was strictly maintained no matter what the consequences to fellowship or marriages. Darby said if this is not followed, the Lord will not participate in their fellowship. This proved to be an effective means of control and keeping everyone in line. They believe in using real wine for communion even though there may be some with severe drinking problems. One group that seems to have remained strong and spiritual is a relatively moderate group of Grantites in the Jew Jersey, U.S.A.
Later Brethren: The vast majority of Open Brethren Assemblies have tragically embraced religious humanism. In contrast, the Closed Brethren, Darby’s branch, have battled Christological heresies and have nearly excluded themselves out of existence.
George Muller (1805-1898): Controversy in the Brethren: In 1848, controversial existed in the Brethren assemblies over open and exclusive meetings. He became leader of the closed or exclusive meetings. Darby ran his meetings with an iron hand and would tolerate no disagreement with his views. The History of the Brethren (Denver: W.F. Knapp, 1936) documents one of the most contentious histories for a Christian Fellowship. One of Darby’s great conflicts involves one of the greatest works of God in England, the great orphanages as Bristol England build by George Muller. Muller married the daughter of another Plymouth Brethren named Anthony Groves, a man that gave up a profitable dental practice and became a missionary in Baghdad. A Plymouth Brethren named Henry Craik had met Muller and invited him to Bristol in 1832. Within two years Muller began to set up a society dedicated to duplicating Auguste Francke’s efforts in Bristol. A century before, Francke had set up Christian orphanages. God blessed this work and over 10,000 children eventually passed through the orphanage before Muller died in 1898. A huge number of them received a profound conversion into the Kingdom of God. Muller depended on the Brethren assemblies when he needed good men for his orphanage. Muller had became a Brethren. Darby and Muller got into conflict. A Brethren assembly had put several people out for their actions. Some of these met came to Muller and told them that they were innocent of any wrong doing and did not support the actions of those that were put out. Muller believed their report after questioning them and let them join his group. Darby was incensed by this and demanded that they be reestablished by the church that put them out before letting them into his church. This was not resolved and caused a great schism in the brethren assemblies. The controversy got so bad that Darby called Muller a liar and excommunicated him from the Bristol congregation. The Bristol Brethren were not completely anti-clerical like Darby nor did they make the soon coming of the Lord the bedrock foundation of their assemblies. They did believe in the soon coming of the Lord, but unlike Darby, they did not teach it continually as a foundational and essential belief in their assemblies. Darby would not recognize the gifts of God in other men if they disagreed with his positions on end times, pastors and denominations, in fact, Darby would throw them out of the Brethren assemblies. This eventually led to open Brethren assemblies and closed Brethren assemblies which Darby was the head of.
Darby and the two peoples of God: There was another cause for internal battles within the Brethren assemblies. This was Darby’s belief and teaching that there were two peoples of God and two tracks of salvation, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. This conflict centered on B. W. Newton (1807-1899) who regarded the idea of two peoples and two plans of salvation as “full fledged heresy”. In a more modern day theologian is Bernard Ramm who wrote, ” the sharp division of the church and Israel, each going through its own unique course through history into eternity is a remarkable piece of theological heresy.” Perhaps Darby had taken Romans 11:26, ” And so all Israel will be saved” out of context–a passage intended to get Gentiles in Rome who had been treating Jews as second class citizens to understand through the olive tree allegory that God’s glorious plan ( the ” mystery” of Romans 11:25) provided salvation for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Paul was pleading with the Roman Christians to accept the Jewish Christians with the same love and honor as the Gentile Christians (Romans 15:7)
Naturally highly intelligent: Darby had an extremely brilliant mind. He translated from the original languages of the Bible, translated the Bible into English, French, German and the New Testament into Italian, wrote commentaries, many articles, hymns and poems and 44 books each nearly 400 pages each, many of which are in print today. . However, his legacy rests in the fact that he is the father of the secret rapture separated from the seconding coming of Christ by 7 years, dispensationalism with its seven periods, and the very basic tenants of dispensationalism which separates Israel of the Old Testament completely form the modern Church which includes Israel and Gentile believers. He belies that God has a plan and promises for Israel independent from the church age. The church age, he taught, started with Pentecost and ends with the Rapture. At this time, God once again works with Israel, saves all Israel which are not killed during the 7 year tribulation. Then under the Kingdom of God, the 1000 year millennium begins. God fulfills all the promises ever made to Israel in a very literal way during this time. Below are the key tenants of dispensationalism.
1. Israel and the body of Christ are distinct. There are two peoples of God. Law and the gospel of the kingdom and Grace and the gospel of Christ.
2. Law and grace are mutually exclusive.
3. The body of Christ, the church and the dispensation of grace was not seen nor indicated in the Old Testament. at It was not alluded to or anticipated all in the Old Testament. He believes this was a complete mystery and kept totally hidden until Christ came and made it known.
4. There is a great distinction between the two comings of Christ. At first, he comes in the secret rapture for his church. Then, 7 years later, he comes again to raise all the dead in a final judgment and to set up the 1000 year kingdom.
Darby also, in an attempt to make the Bible linear and easy to understand (one after another with no overlap, consecutive) in its presentation, divided the Bible up into seven completely separate and distinct periods of time called dispensations. 1. The dispensation of innocence (Gen 1:1-3:7) prior to Adam’s fall. 2. Conscience ( Gen. 3:8 – 8:22), Adam to Noah. 3. Government ( Gen 9:1- 11:32) Noah to Abraham. 4. Patriarchal rule (Gen 21:1- Exod 19:25), Abraham to Moses. 5. Mosaic Law ( Exod. 20:1 – Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ. 6. Grace ( Acts 2:4-Rev 20:3) the current church age. 7. The literal 1000 year Millennial Kingdom reign of Christ on earth that has yet to come but will soon come. (Rev 20:4-20.6).
Date setting Observation: Although the dispensation system is not given to exact date setting, general date setting is built in to the thinking of this system. All that embrace this system have all believed that the Lord is coming soon, meaning in a few years or within their life. As a result of the structure of this belief, if the Lord does not come for 500 hundred more years, each generation will have believed that the Lord would most likely return during their life. The reason that any type of date setting should be impossible, according to Darby’s original theories, is that there are absolutely no signs or prophecies to be fulfilled before the rapture. Each day, each decade, each one hundred years is exactly like the last, in that each day has an equal probability that the Lord will come that day. There is no such thing as “the signs of the times”, the Jews in the land again is not a sign as such because there are no signs. However, progressive dispensationalism has evolved to change much of Darby’s original dispensationalism, such that there are signs of the times and the Jews in the land is definitely a sign. Newspaper theology has influenced modern day dispensational eschatology to such an extent, that every day current events are often taken as signs pointing to the nearness of the rapture.
Later travels: From 1862 to 1877 Darby made 5 missionary visits to America mostly in New England, Ontario, Great Lakes Region, Toronto Canada, Sidney, San Francisco, Hawaii and New Zealand. Here he spread his ideas about the secret rapture and dispensationalism and his theology which was the foundation of the Brethren movement. .
The theories came to America: Dispensational theories came to America between 1854 and 1872. James Inglis introduced this through his monthly magazine, Waymarks in the Wilderness published intermittently between 1854 and 1872. Inglis organized the believers’ meeting for Bible study which introduced his Dispensational theories to a small but influential circle of American evangelicals. After Inglis died (1830-1898), James H. Brooks of Saint Louis, a pastor, formed the Niagara Bible Conference to continue the spread of Dispensational ideas.
Dwight L. Moody: Moody learned of Dispensationalist teaching from an unknown pastor of the Brethren movement in 1872. Moody became close to James H. Brooks and other dispensatiionalists. Brooks, Moody and others worked to spread the theories of dispensationalism. It is reported that Moody never fully understood the theories on dispenstsationalism created by Darby. Many of the greatest Fundamentalist leaders of the past have openly acknowledged their indebtedness to the teachings and ministry f Darby and the Brethren. After securing the writhing of C.H. Mackintosh, the man most responsible for popularizing Darby’s works, D.L. Moody said, ‘ if they could not be replaced, I would rather part with my entire library, excepting my Bible, than with these writings. They have been to me a very key to the scriptures”.
Foundation for the spread of Dispensationalism: Moody formed close relationships with Reuben Archer Torry (1856-1928), James M. Gray (1852-1925), Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), William J. Eerdman (1873-1923), A.C. Dixon (1854-1925), A.J. Gordon (1836-1895) and William Blackstone who wrote , Jesus is Coming, which was a best seller. These were the key men in the spread of Dispensationalism in America.
The Moody Bible Institute was started in 1866, The Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1907 and the Philadelphia College of he Bible which is now the Philadelphia Biblical University (1913). The network of related institutes soon sprang up and became the nucleus of the spread of American Dispensationalism.
Scofield, some personal background: He lived (August 19, 1843-July 24, 1921) was an American theologian, minister and writer. He was born in Lenawee County, Michigan. Served as a private in the 7th Tennessee Infantry, C.S.A. By 1866 he was working in his brother in law’s law office. He was admitted to the Kansas bar in 1869 and elected to the Kansas legislature as a Republican in 1871 and 1872 and was appointed to U.S. attorney for the district of Kansas. Probably because of alcoholism, he abandoned both his career and his first wife and two daughters. Consequently, his wife divorced him in 1883. That same year, Scofield remarried Hettie Hall von Wartz with whom he had a son. He was converted to evangelical Christianity in 1879, evidentialy 4 years before his wife divorced him and he remarried. Scofield’s wife proved a faithful companion and editing assistant. His relationships with his children were very distant at best. He died at home in 1921 in Douglaston, Long Island.
On a sad note, his early life remains controverted. It seems virtually certain that Scofield deliberately provided inaccurate information to Who’s Who to his biographer, Charles Trumball. See Charles G. Trumball, the Life Story of C.I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press 1920); which is flawed because of untruths or lies told by Scofield to Trumball.
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield:
Scofield was very eager and energetic to spread the doctrine of Darby’s Dispensational beliefs to a wide audience. To this end, Scofield published his Scofield Reference Bible through the Oxford University Press. Before this, Biblical scholars were reluctant to put commentary in the pages of the most Holy Pages of the Scriptures for fear people would mistake, confused or be impressed with the authors comments as the actual word of God. Scofield was not influenced by the great men of the past nor their ideas of correctness. In fact, Darby, Scofield and Sperry Chafeer (which would found Dallas Theological Seminary) did not promote sound hermeneutical exegesis of the Bible based on others teachings. There is not much need for any type of hermeneutical training among these modern day Christians. Darby taught that the Bible was to be taken in a simply literal way. There was no particular need to struggle over what the Bible meant to the original hearers. They did not struggle with Biblical poetry, Genre, Hyperbolic speech, Allegorical teaching, Satire and Metaphors as they interpreted prophecy. They simply choose to take all things literally according to Darby’s Dispensational rules unless is extremely clear that another approach is necessary. As an ongoing result of the Darby foundational teaching among the Evangelist churches in America, very few of modern day Conservative evangelical Christians know anything about the rules of hermeneutical principals and reading the Bible for all its worth and what the great saints of the past taught concerning end time prophecies and the resurrection. They choose to teach Darby’s new theological ideas which were developed from his brilliant mind and unusual gifts of intelligence. They were not so concerned what the great saints of the past had to say, what their rules for Bible interpretation were, their creeds and any of their denominational standings and their denominational beliefs. The Darby movement was anti-clerical, anti-creeds and anti-denominational. Scofield did what others were afraid to do, he told people what to think as they read the Holy Scriptures in the pages of the Bible along with the words of God. This coupling of God’s inspired word along with he theories of Darby was a powerful coupling and promoted the dispensation theories to the extent that they were accepted and believed by a very wide audience in America.
Scofield religious involvement: After his conversion in 1879, he assisted in the Lt. Louis campaign conducted by Dwight L. Moody and served as the secretary of the St. Louis YMCA. He was mentored by James H. Brookes, pastor of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis. Brookes was a prominent Dispensationalist premillennialist. In 1883 Scofield was ordained a Congregationalist minister and was pastor of a small mission church founded by that denomination which became the First Congregational Church of Dallas Texas. It is now the Scofield Memorial Church. It grew from 14 to 500 by the time he resigned in 1895. In 1890, he founded Lake Charles College. He also was the author of rightly dividing the word of truth in 1888. He became a leader in the Dispensational premillennialism which was the forerunner of the twenty and twenty first century Christian fundamentalism. In 1895, Scofield was called as pastor of Moody’s church, the Trinitarian Congregational Church of East Northfield, Massachusetts and took charge of Moody’s Northfield Bible Training School. Scofield attended a Niagara Bible Conference. These conferences were originally started to stem liberalism which had made the gospel weak and social in churches. Later, these conferences presented other things like Darbyism and his Dispensational theories. These theories were accepted by Scofield and lit a fire under him and he came up with the idea of printing margin notes in a Bible to help Christians understand the complexities. Scofield finally encountered Arno Gaebelein which had a network of wealthy friends. Arno talked them to funding Scofield’s Bible project. Scofield turned in his attorneys hat and became a theologian. Scofield returned to his Dallas pastorate in 1903 and also spent excessive time on his Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909.
The Scofield Bible: The Scofield Bible was published in 1909 through the Oxford University Press and became the leading Bible used by the independent evangelicals and fundamentalists in the United States for the next 60 years. In seemed to appeal to the masses because it offered easy to understand answers of rather hard and complex questions about end time events, what the future holds, the fate of Israel both physically and spiritually. Darby put the coming of the Rapture on a any second basis (referred to as the imminent return of Christ) and gave the saints in America the feeling that when times got to difficult, the Lord would rapture the saints out of the world.
Dallas Theological Seminary: In 1924, Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) an acquaintance of Scofield, was heavily influenced by Scofield and his published Dispensationalist ideas. After Scofield died in 1921, Chafer took up the cause of the spread of Dispensational ideas. Chafer, like Scofield had no formal theological training. In fact, Chafer bragged in his 8 volume theology, that he had the advantage because he was not tainted by the work of theologians of the past. He founded the Dallas Theological Seminary so he could spread Darby’s ideas. This seminary became the flagship of the Dispensational teaching in America. This Dispensational teaching and belief system came to dominate the America Evangelical scene, especially the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Baptist churches in America.
Comment: I find this quite ironic, that the very things that Darby, Scofield and Chafer relied on was the fact that they had no theological training and were not influenced with the theologians of the past and their ideas, nor any of their Hermeneutical principles. Yet, Scofield and especially Chafer did much to insure that everyone else would believe their theories. They labored hard to teach others this new belief system and did everything they possibly could to make sure that they themselves would be the scholars and theologians that future generations would look to for answers about prophecy. They were extremely successful. They abandoned the idea of sound Bible hermeneutical principles and replaced it with a hermeneutic of simple literalism. One cannot help but wonder, if the greatest thinking about end time interpretations in 1800 years came through Darby, a theologically untrained lawyer, and was also promoted quite successfully throughout the United States by the works of Scofield, another theologically untrained lawyer and Chafer also untrained in theological thinking, why then, do churches in America demand that their pastors be theologically trained and if possible, have their Ph.D. in theology.? Is it to insure that Darby’s new ideas will be the last new thoughts to enter into their denominations and churches, especially new thoughts about end time events ? This is the very thing that Darby fiercely fought against, the control of seminaries and denominations and theologically trained pastors over Christians. Darby was totally committed to independent church groups free of creedal positions, free of denominations and especially free of theologically trained pastors hired to lead a church. Thus, the very thing that Darby was totally against is the very thing that locked his dispensationalism into denominations for 170 years, and that is denominationally trained pastors from seminaries. He believed that church groups should be spontaneous and led by different people as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, different people at different times dependent only on the Spirit’s leading.
Dr Ironside: (1876-1951). Dr Ironside moved from the Salvation Army to the open Brethren to the closed Brethren(Grantites), to an extended ministry as pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. He wrote several books including ” A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement”. Dr Ironside was a supporter of the dispenstaional belief system.
John F. Walvoord, president emeritus of Dallas Theological Seminary, says ” much of the truth promulgated by fundamental Christians to day had its rebirth in the movement known as the Plymouth Brethren. Walvoord staunchly defended dispensationalism beliefs and is often quoted by many modern day dispensationalists.
Seminaries today: Progressive Dispensational teaching loosens some of the original tenants of the classic belief systems. Today, virtually all of the traditional Dispensational seminaries teach progressive dispensationalism.
Later influence: Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of Israel in the land put the dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism. The beliefs may have influenced the British government in it decision to support the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that said the British government would basically support the return of the Jews into the land of Palestine. These Dispensationalist ideas have certainly had an effect on the policies of the United States under Reagan and George W. Bush.
Darby’s doctrines today: Darby’s theological distinctives have virtually been reduced to his doctrine of the church in ruins, the premillennial return of Christ (with special emphasis upon Israel and the church’s role in that kingdom age) and the rapture of the church. However, these doctrines were an outgrowth of other doctrines which were the bedrock of the Brethren movement. It is the same bedrock upon which orthodox Christianity has stood since Pentecost and upon which Fundamentalists made their stand shortly after the turn of the century. Darby said that he could not hesitate in seeing the Son, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, and thus it shines all through. Darby defended the truths of priesthood of believers, the moving of the spirit among the Christians for ministry, the trinity, and many other fundamental doctrines.
Comment by BOB S. | November 13, 2008
Recently found the following “bombshell” on Google: “AMERICA’S PRETRIB RAPTURE TRAFFICKERS.” (Not only did Tommy Ice not approve of it, but he most likely would like to ban it!) Richard
Comment by Richard | November 25, 2008
Why are you in seminary if you are trying to get away from people? Isn’t seminary training about serving people?
Comment by Mark | December 2, 2008
Mark, don’t you ever need to get away? If you are referring to the “about me” section, where I refer to going to the beach or mountains to get away from people, I don’t mean that I do that every single day of my life. But sometimes, I want a place of solitude, just like Jesus did (cf. Mark 1:35). And I don’t know of a seminary professor or pastor who wouldn’t say that this is a needed thing.
Comment by alanreynolds | December 3, 2008
Do you wear clothes? I assume you do. Why? Adam and Eve clearly did not, but we do today and we should. The bible teaches modesty, but God never told Adam and Eve to be modest. They wer naked and unashamed. God does treat people differently at different times as their knowledhe grows (as God reveals truth over time) their responsibilty grows. God is unfolding His pan over time. I state this as one small example merely to show that we are all dispensationalists. Some certainly to a greater extent than others.
Covenant theology and dispensationalism exist together in God’s word. You can’t totally ignore either.
Comment by Randall | July 22, 2009