the dispensationalism of Irenaeus

[Biblewriter]

Several people in this forum have been insisting that the early Church fathers, as they are called, were all wholly committed to the doctrine of Covenant theology. Irenaeus indeed spoke of the covenants between God and man , saying, “For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book III, chapter XI, section 8.)

But Irenaeus also taught the essence of dispensationalism in the following statements:

“Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away from God altogether, should cease to exist.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XX, section 7.)

Before we go on, we need to notice certain key parts of this statement. Irenaeus said that God has “from the beginning” shown “to the human race prophetic visions” “in regular order and connection, at the fitting time,” and in “a regular succession,” with “suitability to the period.” And we particularly need to notice his statement that the Word was “revealing God to men through many dispensations.”

A little further on in the same chapter, Irenaeus clarified this by saying, “The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him];’ and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel.” And further down in the same section, he added, “Thus does the Word of God always preserve the outlines, as it were, of things to come, and points out to men the various forms (species), as it were, of the dispensations of the Father, teaching us the things pertaining to God.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XX, section 11.)

And a few chapters later, Irenaeus further said, “There is one and the same God the Father, and His Word, who has been always present with the human race, by means indeed of various dispensations, and has wrought out many things, and saved from the beginning those who are saved, (for these are they who love God, and follow the Word of God according to the class to which they belong,) and has judged those who are judged, that is, those who forget God, and are blasphemous, and transgressors of His word.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XXVIII, section 2.)

We already noticed in the first quotation we examined that Irenaeus said that the Word was “revealing God to men through many dispensations,” and that he said that this was done “at the fitting time,” in “a regular succession,” with “suitability to the period.” Now we see that he added that the Word “has been always present with the human race,” and saved various individuals “according to the class to which they belong.”

All of this was about past dispensations, but Irenaeus not only spoke of past dispensations, but of future ones as well, saying, “Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature; and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXII, section 1.)

In this short summary, I have included only a few statements that summarized his thoughts on the matter. But he spoke of these things many times, using the word dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, well over eighty times, just in the text of that portion of “Against Heresies” that was preserved. He explicitly named a few of these dispensations, namely “the dispensation of the law,” (book III, chapter XI, section 7, and again in book III, chapter XV, section 3) which he also called “the Levitical Dispensation,” (book IV, Title of chapter XVII.) “the Mosaic dispensation,” (book IV, chapter XXXVI, section 2.) and “the legal dispensation.” (book III, chapter X, section 2 and the title of book V, chapter VIII.) He used this last term a third time, contrasting it with “the new dispensation of liberty” in book III, chapter X, section 4. Finally, he referred to “the future dispensation of the human race.” (book III, chapter XXII, section 3.) We should also note that he used the term the “dispensations of God,” eight times, in book I, chapter X, section 1, book I, chapter XVI, section 3, book II, chapter XXV, section 3, book III, chapter XI, section 9, book IV, chapter XX, section 10, book IV, chapter XXI, section 3, book IV, chapter XXIII, section 1, and book IV, chapter XXXIII, section 1.

Irenaeus insisted that his doctrine of the dispensations was what the church had always taught, saying, ““The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; 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 dispensations of God, and the advents...” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book I, chapter X, section 1.) He said again that “Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XXVI, section 5.)

We know from the writings of John Nelson Darby that he read the early church fathers, so is it any surprise, then, that when he began to write about how God works in various ways at different times, he should have chosen the word “dispensations” to describe these various periods of time? In so doing, he was not only using the very words of scripture, but the same word used by Irenaeus to describe these same ideas.

Nor is this the only dispensational doctrine to be found in "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus. More of them can be seen in the following statements.

“The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: ‘I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,’ calling Antichrist ‘the other,’ because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one ‘who feared not God, neither regarded man,’ to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 4)

“Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: ‘But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.’” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 2)

“And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 4)

In this series of statements, we notice that in the first of them Irenaeus clearly says that the Antichrist “shall remove his kingdom into” [“the earthly Jerusalem”] “and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ.” In the second he insists that “the temple which is at Jerusalem” is the place “in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ.” And then he quotes Daniel 9:27, “‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away.’” Now Christian worship does not include a libation. So we see that the worship Irenaeus is referring to is Jewish worship in the temple in “the earthly Jerusalem.” We also notice that in the last of these statements he very clearly refers to Daniel’s seventieth week as the week in which the Antichrist will come.

Thus we see in these statements of Irenaeus each of the following concepts:

1. That in the future there will again be a temple in Jerusalem.
2. That Jewish worship will be resumed in this future temple.
3. That this future temple will be “the temple of God.”
4. That this future Jewish temple is where the Antichrist will sit as God.
5. And that Daniel’s seventieth week remains to be fulfilled in the future.

Each of these concepts is unquestionably an element of Dispensationalism, and is incompatible with Covenant Theology.

 

[Biblewriter]

We have already noticed that Irenaeus taught that the temple in “the earthly Jerusalem” would be rebuilt, that he mentioned Jewish worship in that future temple, and that he stressed that God would recognize this temple as his own. These comments, when taken together, indeed show a concept of a future program for Israel, but Irenaeus did not stress this in any portion of his work that was preserved. But the concept of a future blessing for the nation of Israel was also clearly taught, although not in even one document that was preserved. We know this doctrine was taught at that time, not from documents teaching it, but from documents condemning those who taught it. The first of these is a comment by Barnabas.

“Ye ought therefore to understand. And this also I further beg of you, as being one of you, and loving you both individually and collectively more than my own soul, to take heed now to yourselves, and not to be like some, adding largely to your sins, and saying, “The covenant is both theirs and ours.” But they thus finally lost it, after Moses had already received it. For the Scripture saith, “And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord;” but turning away to idols, they lost it.” (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter IV)

Here Barnabas was very clearly condemning some in his day who were saying that the covenant, although it now belongs to the church, also still belongs to Israel. This clearly shows that in that day there were some who were teaching that the promises still apply to Israel. We find this stated even more clearly by Tertullian, where he said:

“Yes, certainly, you say, I do hope from Him that which amounts in itself to a proof of the diversity (of Christs), God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom. Oh, most excellent God, when He restores in amnesty what He took away in wrath! Oh, what a God is yours, who both wounds and heals, creates evil and makes peace! Oh, what a God, that is merciful even down to Hades! I shall have something to say about Abraham’s bosom in the proper place. As for the restoration of Judaea, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof; besides, the subject has been regularly treated in another work, which we entitled De Spe Fidelium.” (“Anti-Marcion,” by Tertullian, Book III, Chap. XXIV)

Here we find Tertullian, who was himself later condemned as an heretic, accusing Marcion of blaspheming Christ by interpreting the Old Testament promises to Israel “just as it is described.” (The logic of this escapes me, but even to this day, dispensationalists are still being charged with blasphemy for the same reason.)

These two quotations conclusively prove that a future program for Israel, including a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, was being taught in the early church.

I need to stress that my ONLY reason for pointing these things out is to disprove the claim that dispensationalism was never taught before about 1830. I do not attach any authority to any of these ancient writings, except authority as to what was being taught at that time. It is serious bad doctrine to attach any authority whatsoever to any opinion expressed by any man, or by any group of men. The only thing that counts is what God Himself said in the Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

But neither of those two handled Eph 1-3 very well! Yes, there are two dispensations, and the previous one belongs to the category 'the weak and miserable elements of the world' (Col 2; Gal 4) to which, thankfully we will not return, because we have maturity in Christ.

there is no need to explain all the possible phases of history if a person is preaching Christ as the fulfillment of Israel's promises; it is powerful and "pulls down all the strongholds assembled against the knowledge of God in Christ" (I Cor 11).

It's too bad those two didn't sound more like the apostle's message. It would have helped.

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

Also, no on the literalism. He said it would be 'tedious to explain the figurative meaning about the spiritual application to Christ and the church' and didn't cite the NT quoting the OT.

Probably not worth reading.

--Inter

 

[Biblewriter]

But neither of those two handled Eph 1-3 very well! Yes, there are two dispensations, and the previous one belongs to the category 'the weak and miserable elements of the world' (Col 2; Gal 4) to which, thankfully we will not return, because we have maturity in Christ.

there is no need to explain all the possible phases of history if a person is preaching Christ as the fulfillment of Israel's promises; it is powerful and "pulls down all the strongholds assembled against the knowledge of God in Christ" (I Cor 11).

It's too bad those two didn't sound more like the apostle's message. It would have helped.

--Inter

It seems that you did not read my last paragraph. I made it very clear that I attach zero significance to what these men said, other than the historical value of their statements.

The entire point of the OP is to disprove the claim that these men were 100% Covenant Theology, and that dispensationalism was never "invented" before about 1830.

 

[Biblewriter]

Also, no on the literalism. He said it would be 'tedious to explain the figurative meaning about the spiritual application to Christ and the church' and didn't cite the NT quoting the OT.

Probably not worth reading.

--Inter

If you want a response to this, give a citation for this alleged statement,and I will consider it.

 

[ebedmelech]

Biblewriter...what does this mean? It means nothing!

However, I won't labor this with you. You're pulling out what Iranaeus said that you *think* supports your approach.

Be genuine in your approach Biblewriter...for you know there are ECF's that say the opposite.

Show "both sides of the coin"...that would be genuine....

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter...what does this mean? It means nothing!

However, I won't labor this with you. You're pulling out what Iranaeus said that you *think* supports your approach.

Be genuine in your approach Biblewriter...for you know there are ECF's that say the opposite.

Show "both sides of the coin"...that would be genuine....

I have already posted the fact that ECF's often said the opposite. This thread is an answer to your denial that they taught both concepts, in some kind of a mixture that seems weird to us.
here is proof, not evidence, but proof, that Irenaeus taught much that is essential to dispensationalism as well as much that is essential to Covenant Theology. It is proof of the error of your claim that the ECF's were 100% Covenant.

 

[ebedmelech]

I have already posted the fact that ECF's often said the opposite. This thread is an answer to your denial that they taught both concepts, in some kind of a mixture that seems weird to us.
here is proof, not evidence, but proof, that Irenaeus taught much that is essential to dispensationalism as well as much that is essential to Covenant Theology. It is proof of the error of your claim that the ECF's were 100% Covenant.

I NEVER denied any such thing Biblewriter...please show me where I denied that.

You're being selective about what I said...which is disingenuous...as I just said "there are ECF's that say the opposite". (read my post #7 again)

 

[Biblewriter]

I NEVER denied any such thing Biblewriter...please show me where I denied that.

You're being selective about what I said...which is disingenuous...as I just said "there are ECF's that say the opposite". (read my post #7 again)

I was responding to the following, from the thread titled "Israel."

No, I cannot escape the fact that Irenaeus and the Early Church Fathers were TOTALLY Covenant Premil, laying the Covenant foundations for Covenant Amil to strengthen. Remember there were groups that disagreed with Premil early on, but we don't have any documents from them.

I don't propose to be an expert on the early church fathers, but just know that what I have read of them is thoroughly Covenant Theology with some of them having Premil eschatology. That is, while they see Jesus fulfilling ALL the promises of God to Abraham and the church as inheriting the title of God's people, they also hold that there will be a rebuilding of the temple, antiChrist figure, and abomination. This is where I would disagree with them, and ask them (if I could jump back in time) to have another look at those passages in light of X,Y, andZ. It's too big a debate to go into, but I, like you, am thoroughly Amil.

But unlike Biblewriter, I don't see their Premil statements indicating they have any dispensationalist elements in their writing. Dispensationalism indicates a certain attitude towards Israel that they simply do not have. No matter how many times Biblewriter asserts otherwise, he has failed to demonstrate anything distinctively Dispensational in their writing, anything that describes God still 'owing' Israel anything. It's all fulfilled in Jesus. WE are the people of God. Biblewriter had conclusively proved that they were Premil, which is pretty well known anyway. But he has a lot more work to do to prove Dispensationalism in the early church.

 

[Interplanner]

The Anti-Marcion quote by Tertullian also shows that the restoration of Israel was not accepted everywhere. I mentioned earlier that the Letter of Barnabas seems to have been the divide between north (Damascus, a future for Israel) and south (Alexandria, the promises are experienced in Christ, which is collectively the church). He thought it would be tedious to have to explain the figurative meaning. That means it is really simple if you see it in Christ but that some people don't have any idea what that means hermeneutically.

I would have to know more about the rationale and motives of the fathers Irenaeus refers to in the north and their emphasis. Chances are they meant well, and were thinking pastorally that it would help Jewish believers after such a disaster. Yet everywhere in Paul "help" is never so direct. Everything comes through Christ, the historic event (not future activity that was Judaistic in specifics). For Paul, what helps one ethnos, equally helps another.

BW is right: it demonstrates dispensationalism. The problem is too many dispensations ('oikonomia'), and that the multiplicity is not Paul's explanation of the shape of history. All it is is the un-mystery of his will ('musterion tou thelematos') which any thorough reader of the NT (or Ephesians!) will know is explained in Eph 3, Col 1 and Rom 16. It was the question of how non-Jews enter "Israel" and the promises and the answer is Christ, both the way and thing to be recieved.

That's why there is nothing wrong with the NIV using 'purpose' or TEV's 'plan' about 'oikonomia' and not making it sound like a "system of theology" term. If there is a system it is the mystery-that-is-not-a-mystery-anymore. I'm not sure many early Jews accepted this. My hunch is that it was not accepted in the north.

A future for Israel is never clear in the NT when the material gets close to that kind of subject. It needs to be clear and regular. What is clear is Acts 13 quoting Is 49 as to the purpose and destiny of Israel through Christ (piling on! Paul already did this in the sermon). The un-mystery is very regular and very clear.

--Inter

Yes BW is right there were people who thought that way back then, and it receded. He can have that point, but he can't have it as a major component of the Reformation. That's why historian P. Schaaf has such a negative view of all the speculation about the future that was already going on. I believe his two words were "ineffective and outrageous."

The interest in it by conter-reformation campaigner Ribera did help the Papacy neutralize the Reformation concensus that the Pope was antichrist. Once again, it seems to be forgotten that the negative features of it sound like they are being welcomed!

 

[Biblewriter]

The Anti-Marcion quote by Tertullian also shows that the restoration of Israel was not accepted everywhere.

I will so far as to say that it was not accepted by most of the ancient writers whose writings have been preserved. I only cited the statements by Barnabas and Tertullian to prove that the idea was indeed being taught at the time.

I mentioned earlier that the Letter of Barnabas seems to have been the divide between north (Damascus, a future for Israel) and south (Alexandria, the promises are experienced in Christ, which is collectively the church). He thought it would be tedious to have to explain the figurative meaning. That means it is really simple if you see it in Christ but that some people don't have any idea what that means hermeneutically.

I would have to know more about the rationale and motives of the fathers Irenaeus refers to in the north and their emphasis. Chances are they meant well, and were thinking pastorally that it would help Jewish believers after such a disaster. Yet everywhere in Paul "help" is never so direct. Everything comes through Christ, the historic event (not future activity that was Judaistic in specifics). For Paul, what helps one ethnos, equally helps another.

BW is right: it demonstrates dispensationalism. The problem is too many dispensations ('oikonomia'), and that the multiplicity is not Paul's explanation of the shape of history. All it is is the un-mystery of his will ('musterion tou thelematos') which any thorough reader of the NT (or Ephesians!) will know is explained in Eph 3, Col 1 and Rom 16. It was the question of how non-Jews enter "Israel" and the promises and the answer is Christ, both the way and thing to be recieved.

You are right about "too many dispensations." Irenaeus clearly did not teach anything very much like modern dispensationalism. But he did teach its essential elements, along with the essential elements of Covenant Theology. I suppose his theology made sense to him, although the mixture of ideas seems strange to us.

That's why there is nothing wrong with the NIV using 'purpose' or TEV's 'plan' about 'oikonomia' and not making it sound like a "system of theology" term. If there is a system it is the mystery-that-is-not-a-mystery-anymore. I'm not sure many early Jews accepted this. My hunch is that it was not accepted in the north.

A future for Israel is never clear in the NT when the material gets close to that kind of subject. It needs to be clear and regular. What is clear is Acts 13 quoting Is 49 as to the purpose and destiny of Israel through Christ (piling on! Paul already did this in the sermon). The un-mystery is very regular and very clear.

--Inter

Yes BW is right there were people who thought that way back then, and it receded. He can have that point, but he can't have it as a major component of the Reformation. That's why historian P. Schaaf has such a negative view of all the speculation about the future that was already going on. I believe his two words were "ineffective and outrageous."

The interest in it by conter-reformation campaigner Ribera did help the Papacy neutralize the Reformation concensus that the Pope was antichrist. Once again, it seems to be forgotten that the negative features of it sound like they are being welcomed!

And you are quite correct that the dispensational elements of these documents all but disappeared for a very long time. But they resurfaced long before Darby, or even Ribera. But that is a subject for a different discussion.

 

[Notrash]

You should sldo include Ireneous's beluef that all would be fulfilled uncludung his version of the antichrist, wuthin the 6th millenium, sccording to sept. dates.

You made a good presentation on the point you were trying to make; that being that several perspectves wete floating around even then, including the symbolic or spiritual understanding of Israel.

Some of hid Dispendations would be civanents, such as the mosaic; so its just a matter of semanrics.

I personally view he working of god through history of man through positive and negatve covenants (with positive lessons). Example of negative would be the eden (individually applied) and the mossic ( corporally applied). Examples of the positive are all developments of the proto-evangellion of Gen 3;15 passed as "my covenant" through Noah and Abraham, the rainbow, Davidic and "new" covenants. These all speak of different aspects of fulfillment of the seed promised through Eve fulfilled through Christ. The covenant of circucision could also be considered a negative covt. to contrast with the circumcision of the heart.
There are many other descriptions of tthe fulfilling of the seed promisrd to the woman such as Messiah, Shiloh, Star of Jacob, Issac (only begotten,)
prophet like Moses ...etc
I believe Ireneous had some things right and made some of the same errors of today, that being reading the epistles and some prophets as if they were writteb to his century and not to the first century.

 

[Biblewriter]

You should sldo include Ireneous's beluef that all would be fulfilled uncludung his version of the antichrist, wuthin the 6th millenium, sccording to sept. dates.

I did post that, but not in this thread, as it would have been off point here.

You made a good presentation on the point you were trying to make; that being that several perspectves wete floating around even then, including the symbolic or spiritual understanding of Israel.

Some of hid Dispendations would be civanents, such as the mosaic; so its just a matter of semanrics.

I personally viee the working of god through history of nan through positive and negatve (with positive lessons). Example of negative would be the edeni (individually applied) and the mossic ( corporally applied). Examples of the positivr are all dwvelopments of the proto-evangellion of Gen 3;15 passed ad "my covenant through Noah and Abrahsm, the tainbow, Daviduc snd "new" civenants. The coverage t of circucision could also be onsidered a negative covt. to contrast circumcision of the e heart.

There are many other descriptions of tthe fulfilling of the seed promisrd to the woman
such as Messiah, Shiloh, Star of Jacob, Issac(only begotten, prophet like Moses ...etc
I believe Ireneous had some things right and made some of the same errors of today, that being reading the epistles and some prophets as if they were writteb to his century and not to the first century.

I also saw errors in Irenaeus' work. But no man makes no errors.

 

[shagsnacks]

I'm sorry. Seriously. I know this is an old post but I just have to debunk this argument. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I signed up just to debunk it, honestly. It was the first search on Google and I hadn't seen a post since 2013 and I said "Oh no, I can't let this pass. Let's be faithful to the Church Fathers!" I copied all mentions of the word "dispensation" that were relevant from the original message, which are the one's quoted from Against Heresies.

Let me first state (as I see it) the basic problem. Some people read the Bible and think that the words must mean something different than they do in other books. I disagree with such notions.

1.)"And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations"

Dispensation = something that has been dispensed, which it clearly says in the first part of the sentence (grace that is being dispensed by Christ, the dispenser of grace). That is the third definition from the Google Search of the word "dispensation"

2.) "but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away from God altogether"

Likely it has nothing to do with a system that God had in place for a period of time. It has the same meaning as point 1, something that has been dispensed. In this case, it is talking about God dispensing knowledge, as indicated by the word "revealing" in the previous sentence.

But let's assume that it's talking about a system that God sets up. It doesn't really mean a period of time. It is the Dispensationalist that added the meaning of time to the 2nd Definition (system of order, etc). This comes from a misunderstanding of Ephesians that says "dispensation of the fullness of times",. It's the "fullness of times", that refers to time period, not the word "dispensations. Fullness of the times means "the end; when Christ returns". So the verse is describing the system of government, or what organization of a nation Christ will have when he returns. The point is, it is the Dispensationalists that added the "Christian Theology" definition or anything remotely referring to a period of time. It's certainly not what Irenaeus meant! Words change over time, and Dispensationalists changed the meaning by adding a time frame.

In fact, I'm going to prove this point. I'm going to prove that the time component did not exist before Dispensationalists invented it. Look of the word "Dispensation" in the 1768 Dictionary by Samuel Johnson. The definition is "Dispensation: 1.)Distribution; the act of dealing out anything. 2. The dealing of God with his creatures. 3.) An exemption from law. These are the same definitions as today mostly, but the time component is not there. Dispensationalists are changing the meaning of words all because of John Darby and his views.

3.) "but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel"

Dispensations = System of order. God's way of doing things. See my note for point 2.

4.)"as it were, of things to come, and points out to men the various forms (species), as it were, of the dispensations of the Father, teaching us the things pertaining to God".

Dispensations = System of order/system of community. See note for point 2.

5.) Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, etc

Dispensations = System of order. See note for point 2.

6.) "and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God"

Dispensation = Something that has been dispensed. Through the Holy Spirit, God was leading the prophets. He was dispensing knowledge and truth.

I think I've covered all quotes from Irenaeus but if not and someone actually checks this post, I'll be glad to respond!

 

[shagsnacks]

I wanted to correct one small point. It wouldn't let me correct my post so for point 3, it means "God's way of doing things", the 2nd Definition from the 1768 dictionary.

 

[Biblewriter]

Several people in this forum have been insisting that the early Church fathers, as they are called, were all wholly committed to the doctrine of Covenant theology. Irenaeus indeed spoke of the covenants between God and man , saying, "For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book III, chapter XI, section 8.)

But Irenaeus also taught the essence of dispensationalism in the following statements:

“Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away from God altogether, should cease to exist.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XX, section 7.)

Before we go on, we need to notice certain key parts of this statement. Irenaeus said that God has “from the beginning” shown “to the human race prophetic visions” “in regular order and connection, at the fitting time,” and in “a regular succession,” with “suitability to the period.” And we particularly need to notice his statement that the Word was “revealing God to men through many dispensations.”

A little further on in the same chapter, Irenaeus clarified this by saying, “The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him];’ and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel.” And further down in the same section, he added, “Thus does the Word of God always preserve the outlines, as it were, of things to come, and points out to men the various forms (species), as it were, of the dispensations of the Father, teaching us the things pertaining to God.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XX, section 11.)

And a few chapters later, Irenaeus further said, “There is one and the same God the Father, and His Word, who has been always present with the human race, by means indeed of various dispensations, and has wrought out many things, and saved from the beginning those who are saved, (for these are they who love God, and follow the Word of God according to the class to which they belong,) and has judged those who are judged, that is, those who forget God, and are blasphemous, and transgressors of His word.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XXVIII, section 2.)

We already noticed in the first quotation we examined that Irenaeus said that the Word was “revealing God to men through many dispensations,” and that he said that this was done “at the fitting time,” in “a regular succession,” with “suitability to the period.” Now we see that he added that the Word “has been always present with the human race,” and saved various individuals “according to the class to which they belong.”

All of this was about past dispensations, but Irenaeus not only spoke of past dispensations, but of future ones as well, saying, “Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature; and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXII, section 1.)

In this short summary, I have included only a few statements that summarized his thoughts on the matter. But he spoke of these things many times, using the word dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, well over eighty times, just in the text of that portion of “Against Heresies” that was preserved. He explicitly named a few of these dispensations, namely “the dispensation of the law,” (book III, chapter XI, section 7, and again in book III, chapter XV, section 3) which he also called “the Levitical Dispensation,” (book IV, Title of chapter XVII.) “the Mosaic dispensation,” (book IV, chapter XXXVI, section 2.) and “the legal dispensation.” (book III, chapter X, section 2 and the title of book V, chapter VIII.) He used this last term a third time, contrasting it with “the new dispensation of liberty” in book III, chapter X, section 4. Finally, he referred to “the future dispensation of the human race.” (book III, chapter XXII, section 3.) We should also note that he used the term the “dispensations of God,” eight times, in book I, chapter X, section 1, book I, chapter XVI, section 3, book II, chapter XXV, section 3, book III, chapter XI, section 9, book IV, chapter XX, section 10, book IV, chapter XXI, section 3, book IV, chapter XXIII, section 1, and book IV, chapter XXXIII, section 1.

Irenaeus insisted that his doctrine of the dispensations was what the church had always taught, saying, ““The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; 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 dispensations of God, and the advents...” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book I, chapter X, section 1.) He said again that “Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XXVI, section 5.)

We know from the writings of John Nelson Darby that he read the early church fathers, so is it any surprise, then, that when he began to write about how God works in various ways at different times, he should have chosen the word “dispensations” to describe these various periods of time? In so doing, he was not only using the very words of scripture, but the same word used by Irenaeus to describe these same ideas.

Nor is this the only dispensational doctrine to be found in "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus. More of them can be seen in the following statements.

“The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: ‘I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,’ calling Antichrist ‘the other,’ because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one ‘who feared not God, neither regarded man,’ to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 4)

“Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: ‘But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.’” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 2)

“And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 4)

In this series of statements, we notice that in the first of them Irenaeus clearly says that the Antichrist “shall remove his kingdom into” [“the earthly Jerusalem”] “and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ.” In the second he insists that “the temple which is at Jerusalem” is the place “in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ.” And then he quotes Daniel 9:27, “‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away.’” Now Christian worship does not include a libation. So we see that the worship Irenaeus is referring to is Jewish worship in the temple in “the earthly Jerusalem.” We also notice that in the last of these statements he very clearly refers to Daniel’s seventieth week as the week in which the Antichrist will come.

Thus we see in these statements of Irenaeus each of the following concepts:

1. That in the future there will again be a temple in Jerusalem.
2. That Jewish worship will be resumed in this future temple.
3. That this future temple will be “the temple of God.”
4. That this future Jewish temple is where the Antichrist will sit as God.
5. And that Daniel’s seventieth week remains to be fulfilled in the future.

Each of these concepts is unquestionably an element of Dispensationalism, and is incompatible with Covenant Theology.

I'm sorry. Seriously. I know this is an old post but I just have to debunk this argument. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I signed up just to debunk it, honestly. It was the first search on Google and I hadn't seen a post since 2013 and I said "Oh no, I can't let this pass. Let's be faithful to the Church Fathers!" I copied all mentions of the word "dispensation" that were relevant from the original message, which are the one's quoted from Against Heresies.

Let me first state (as I see it) the basic problem. Some people read the Bible and think that the words must mean something different than they do in other books. I disagree with such notions...

You are neglecting my very first quotation made in demonstrating that Irenaeus was indeed teaching Dispensationalism, which was:

"Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away from God altogether, should cease to exist." (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book IV, chapter XX, section 7.)

The words "a regular order and connection," "at the fitting time,"and "a regular succession," in this quotation, all very clearly designate a series of time periods.

While Dispensationalism indeed calls a period of time a Dispensation, this is only a label, not a definition. Dispensationalism clearly recognizes and uses the word dispensation in its proper meaning, as you have correctly stated it. And it teaches that these various dispensations of God have indeed taken place in "a regular order and connection," "at the fitting time,"and in "a regular succession." And that they all took place in this "regular order and connection" all with a "fixedness" of purpose, exactly as Irenaeeus taught. And Irenaeus went on to say "and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility." It would be difficult to make a more precise definition of the basic, central, concept of Dispensationalism.

This thread is only a part of a long series of quotations that are presented in the book "Ancient Dispensational Truth," by James C. Morris, (myself) and in "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by William C. Watson. Both of these books were written with the distinct purpose of proving, beyond the possibility of rational debate, that the central elements of Dispensationalism were not, as is popularly reported, "invented" by John Nelson Darby, but had been systematically taught throughout the entire history of the church. My book covers mainly the teachings of writers from the second through the fifth centuries. Watson's (much larger) book covers a uch larger number of writers from the 1600s and 1700s.

The sum total of the evidence presented in these two books is that the central essence of Dispensationalism, while indeed lost to the church, along with much other truth, during the dark ages, was present in the very oldest Cristian writings that even touched on the subjects involved, and re-appeared very soon after the publication of the King James translation first made Bibles widely available at a price common men could afford.

The only reason this is even significant, other that as in interesting curiosity, is that it conclusively disproves a argument that has been widely pressed of late, that Dispensationalism could not even possibly be correct because it was never taught before the early 1800s. To which is usually added the comment that "anything that was never taught during the church's first eighteen centuries could not even possibly be correct." Dispensationalism indeed was never formalized into a distinct doctrine before the nineteenth century, but its main opponent, Covenant theology was never formalized into a distinct doctrine before the fifteenth century, so this argument is truly deceitful. For it also applies to the system they are defending with it incorrectly assumed age. Neither system was formally systematized into a system of doctrine before the church was well over a thousand years old.

 

[shagsnacks]

Your response is word salad, and disingenuous . Dispensationalist teach that there are seven periods of time, that for example the current dispensation is the Church Age. They believe there is this future "Tribulation Age" or whatever it's called, where God is dealing primarily with Israel.

I did deal with your first quotation in point 1. That is the first occurrence of the word dispensation in your post. Christ is the dispenser of grace. The action of dispensing the grace could be called the dispensation of grace, which is what the word is referring to.


Dispensationalists made up the time meaning. I proved that in my post by showing that there was no sense of time in earlier English dictionaries, something you did not address. Current dictionaries include a sense of time but earlier ones dont. That's cause dispensationlist changed the meaning of the word.

Irennaeus also used the word catholic. Does that make him Catholic? Just cause he used a word does not mean he was using it in the same sense as it is meant today , and that's what you are failing to understand

 

[shagsnacks]

And yes, John Darby did invent the system of Dispensationalism. Just because Irenaeus used the word "dispensation" shows nothing. In no context is Irenaeus describing the system espoused by Darby or modern day pre-tribbers.

Covenant theology is the correct interpretation. The NT clearly teaches that, but that's for another post

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello All

There is no doubt that Early church Fathers came in all flavours. From full Dispensationalist to partial to Covenant. Anyone who tries to say that this view of scripture was invented in 1830 is just not being realistic from either a lack of familiarity with ECF or a misrepresentation of the facts.

If you spend the time to start with Earliest Apostolic Fathers you will see they all believed that we are the Temple some even going as far as to state that the future destruction and desecration mentioned in Daniel was of the Saints not a building. Even stating that taking away of the sacrifice was taking away the saints prayers and deeds.

This belief slowly transformed over the second century. If you are going to put a date on when this theology began it would be more accurate to say it began between 150-200 AD. But that only represents when it began being written about. No one can say it was not there earlier.

The reason why some people think it was Darby is because the Catholic Church persecuted as heretics, all who taught something not approved by them. This continued right through to the Reformation. After that we slowly start to see more and more theologies come out with this view of scripture.

Lets be clear that what the RCC teaches about straight to Heaven, at least one of the earliest Apostolic Fathers stated was Heresy of the worst kind, even saying they were not Christians at all.