Featured John Nelson Darby and Pre-trib-dispensationalism

You can point to people all day long that viewed history in different dispensations, but until you find someone that believes in the as Ryrie put it Sine Quo Non you have not put Dispensatiolism before Darby. Because as Ryrie says "a person can believe in dispensations and even see them in relations to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist."

 

What you really mean to say is: "You have not put Darby's dispensationalism before Darby," which is a very strange way of putting things, and you would be correct in saying that, but not correct in saying that dispensationalism never existed before Darby. Indeed it did. It just wasn't "Darby's Dispensationalism."

 

Perhaps it might be wise to not lump all "dispensationalists" as "DARBY dispensationalists." Imo, that is the lack of distinction that some are making.

There is no doubt that many scholars taught forms of dispensation pre-Darby. However, the gentile "parenthesis" that was put into "Darby" dispensationalism is (imo) the area of distinction.

Some others may certainly (pre-Darby influence) have taught of the apostasy, the tribulation, the second coming, and even a rapture (though not called that) of the saint.

When a poster presents that all dispensational thinking is Darby and must conform to Darby, that is just inaccurate. If such is presented irregardless of the significant effort to show that the alignment is inappropriate, then the statements of inaccuracy becomes a point of not presenting the truth.

Darby was not the inventor of dispensational view. What Darby is may be a "type" or one "scheme" associated with dispensational view(s). He was also skillful in presenting and addressing the educational side of the view so that even a common pew sitter could grasp the overview.

The balance may be found in what Dallas Theological Seminary states in their doctrinal statement:

We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time.
Further reading on the statement of faith in full can be found HERE.​

The other is that presented by Ryrie. It must also be noted that Ryrie does a great service to lay out both definition and use which can be found HERE.

In that writing Ryrie states:

"Theoretically, the sine qua non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world. Covenant theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. ...

What, then, is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.

1 A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct
2 This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.
3 A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter that will be discussed more fully later (see chapter 5). It concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world .
...​

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."

​

Charles Ryrie did (does) (imo) give a very decent account of modern (not old Scofield definition but new Scofield definition) Dispensationalism by those who embrace the whole scheme.

However, Ryrie does not speak for all that hold some elements of that scheme anymore than I speak for all that post on the BB.

 

Ok if someone does not agree with Darby, then they really should not have a problem when someone comes along and points out all the problem with what Darby believed and taught. And as far as Dispensatiolism is defined your going to have to forgive us for allowing the leaders of the Dispensationalist movement of defining it. That means we are going to look at Ryrie, and Ice and Lehay, as they are the undisputed leader within Dispensationalist circles. And again if you don't agree with them then it should not bother you when we point out the problems within their system.

 

Because "Darby" is linked on this thread, perhaps it might be wise to let him lay out for himself what he stood for.

Here is a relatively short "what I have learned" that gives Scripture to back up his thinking in most areas. It is not long, but it is extremely thorough.

I would like some of those who would oppose Darby's theological view(s) to look over this list and show exactly that area in which they find him weak, inconsistent, or even un-Scriptural.

In essence, either Darby is wrong, or those who oppose him are wrong. So, let Darby speak for himself, and those who oppose him show the cause and Scriptures to continue their opposition.

"What Do I Learn from Scripture" by John Nelson Darby

(note: I personally never read anything significant from Darby that I recall, but am looking over his work at this last time in living to see what all the fuss is about. So far, I must admit, that his writing and living have shown me he was intellectual, considerate, highly dedicated, and mostly a student of the Scriptures who sought understanding and wisdom. He was also a man of strong opinion, unafraid of confrontation, and atypical of the thinking of that day about station and privilege. But then, I have much more to learn and there are others on the BB that are far more scholarly than I in this matter.)

 

Personally, what I object is that appointment of someone as "Darby dispensational" when they are not.

Darby himself would not sign a statement of faith that he had constructed. He compared such a statement to a "made tree rather than a growing tree."

Certainly there are "leaders" who folks may look at for a definitions, but most of the time (imo) such definitions become as "made trees" and not allowing for growth and modifications that are necessary as time and wisdom of scholarship continues.

Therefore, to attach all dispensation thinking as that "Darby" taught is just inaccurate.

 

Not sure why this thread on what some Plymouth Brethren guy taught wasn't posted in the Other Denominations forum ("Debate other denominations' doctrine/beliefs here") where it belongs!

 

He loses his argument right in his introduction with this statement:
"While preterists claim that premillennialism is new..."
pg viii
On page 3 he then makes it clear that he is uniting premillennialism with dispensationalism without ever proving that they are synonymous which I'm sure would be annoying to our historical premillennialism or chiliasm brothers.

So he started with a straw man, that "preterist" or really anyone who disagrees with dispensationalism claim that "premillennialism is new"
He also is begging the question by uniting premillennialism with dispensationalism .

 

Just as there is more than a single scheme in Covenant theology, there is more than a single scheme in Dispensational theology.

It is true, that all things dispensational did NOT begin with Darby. Just as all things Covenant did not begin with Augustine or some one else.

For example: Within those that hold covenant doctrine, there are those who are traditional or classic, those that are "two covenant" (which has continued to gain popularity from the time of about WWII), and those that are what might be a mixed bag. The same with dispensation teaching. There is that which is classic and can be shown in the early writings up through to the modern age, the "Darby" type, and the "mixed bag."

The claim can be made by folks that extreme holders of both the classic covenant and the "Darby" dispensation views are in fact replacement theology holders, and to that point represent some form of a racist bias against all things Israel. Although, admittedly the "zionist" views of the modern Israel can be found in the writing of either, they never-the-less, have certain reservations towards Jews in general. For example: Although Truman was a Baptist and schooled in dispensation, neither he nor Britain would not directly support Israel in the 1948-9 war. And although both the US and Europe had undergone tremendous upheaval from the early decades of the 1900's the nations actively repatriated untold number of people who would be persecuted and murdered - not just Jews but all racial groupings.

Even on the BB there can be those who consider modern Israel is not a promise being fulfilled in prophecy. That thinking can be taken by some as racist.

No matter the scheme, it is important to remember that no human scheme is ordained by God as Scripture. Rather, it is the reflection of human thought and education superimposed upon Scripture.

For decades, I personally have urged that folks attend to the common ground of Scriptures using any scheme as merely a form in which to outline the emphasis.

It matters very little unless one teaches that Christ has already come, that the millennial reign is now, and that the world is just getting better and better until the "Kingdom" will be supreme. Those things are particularly loathsome to me because I find no foundation for such in Scripture nor in the history of humankind at any time.

From what I have read (so far) of Darby, he definitely was not a heretic, nor the scheme he is attributed as the "father."

 

But dispensationalism did exist before Darby in the likes of Edwards, Justin Martir, and many others it just was not Darby's form but it was dispensationalism none the less.

 

But you misread the chapter on the origins of dispensationalism because as Ryrie did say in the chapter that dispensationalism did exist before Darby and he did not create dispensationalism.

 

But you misread the chapter on the origins of dispensationalism because as Ryrie did say in the chapter that dispensationalism did exist before Darby and he did not create dispensationalism.

 

You read the entire book that fast?? Wow.

 

How about you? Does your church and wife read your posts?

 

"

"The first straw man [that opponents to dispensationalism] is to say that dispensationalist assert that the system was taught in post apostolic times. Informed dispensationalist do not claim that. [Ironic that some are claiming just that on this tread] They recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby..." Ryrie, Dispensationalism pg 62 You were saying?

 

Some have been shown over and again in this thread there is a difference between notating 'dispensations of times' and the system of Dispensationalism. Mentioning of the former does not make one of the latter.

Those who have been shown the above need only say these words: 'I am WRONG' and then move along with their lives.

 

They do not have to make that claim because they believe they see this teaching in scripture. These were good men. I was glad to read Ryrie, and Walvoord, and Pentecost, at that time...

Did I believe everything they wrote on all topics? No...However at first i used them and their schlorship wherever it fit in.
With any trusted guide there are areas they miss. With these men....this system forces them into error. They wind up trying to stay in the system and miss some things that are clear to others who stay outside that system.
Yesterday i heard a random sermon on rev.11....it was on the radio. The man was a classic dispensational teacher....there was no special nuance that some here claim...most on the radio go by the numbers....REV MAC, maybe pastor Bob could give the classic position.
I find it amusing to listen to these men try and stay hyper -literal and work through these passages.
Some here do not know the other views well enough to compare them...some do not understand that dispensation...is different from dispensationalism. ITT and bw318 have pointed it out. If they take the time to search it out it can change their view of everything.