Yeah, Scofield wasn't perfect, obviously. I think Justin Martyr only wrote of 4 distinct phases for man, not 7.
Theologians have talked about Biblical phases of history, for thousands of years. Indeed one need only to open the book to see the era of Judges here, the epoch of the Davidic kingdom there. It’s really obvious stuff. Recognizing phases and eras of Biblical history is not the contribution of dispensationalism, or covenant theology. But that’s where I think they “get” good meaning Christian folk who merely wanted to study the scriptures. They make pretend that they’ve discovered church eras in the Bible (although they’re visible to the naked eye), and then proceed to smuggle in a train of theological errors under the cover.
There is some poor scholarship going on among some of those folks, to be sure. At least now, after these discussions and some additional reading, I have a better mental image to differentiate between dispensationalism and covenant theology. That's progress, eh?
Can a understanding of Scripture be enhanced by reading what others who came before have written on a subject? Can a theological concept be fleshed out and refined over a period of centuries? (I have been researching diligently!) Although dispensationalism (as it has been systematized) is fairly recent, it builds upon scripture and historical references from the early church writings. Some people have put together what the various fathers have said, and have drawn from the Bible to build upon the groundwork they put into place. This is not to say that none of them have erred in their understanding of what was written, for this indeed happens in all endeavors of man including their attempts to systematize theological concepts. I suspect at least a couple of classic theologists have taken 'wrong turns' at times during the centuries. Theologies tend to be developed in conjunction with interest in certain areas, and this particular one awaited a time of heightened interest in church eschatology. "Solomon possessed the spirit of wisdom, Daniel that of understanding and counsel, Moses that of might and piety, Elijah that of fear, and Isaiah that of knowledge; and so with the others: each possessed one power, or one joined alternately with another; also Jeremiah, and the twelve [prophets], and David, and, in short, the rest who existed amongst you. Accordingly He rested, i.e., ceased, when He came, after whom, in the times of this dispensation wrought out by Him amongst men, it was requisite that such gifts should cease from you;" (Justin, Against Trypho, 87). "But if, Trypho,” I continued, “some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved. Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those who have anathematized and do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues, and everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire." (Ibid, 42) "And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) 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." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:11:8) "12. For all those who are of a perverse mind, having been set against the Mosaic legislation, judging it to be dissimilar and contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, have not applied themselves to investigate the causes of the difference of each covenant. Since, therefore, they have been deserted by the paternal love, and puffed up by Satan, being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God...Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures... Those from Valentinus, however, while they employ names of a more honourable kind, and set forth that He who is Creator is both Father, and Lord, and God, do [nevertheless] render their theory or sect more plasphemous, by maintaining that He was not produced from any one of those Aeons within the Pleroma, but from that defect which had been expelled beyond the Pleroma. Ignorance of the Scriptures and of the dispensation of God has brought all these things upon them. And in the course of this work I shall touch upon the cause of the difference of the covenants on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of their unity and harmony." (Ibid, 3:12:12) "Thus were they perfected who knew one and the same God, who from beginning to end was present with mankind in the various dispensations; as the prophet Hosea declares: 'I have filled up visions, and used similitudes by the hands of the prophets.' (Hos_12:10)." (Note: Irenaeus speaks of dispensations many times in "Against Heresies" and he lays out basic groundwork concerning them such as in the Book 3 quote above.) The editor of Clement's "Stromata" states that Clement "clearly distinguishes the three patriarchal dispensations, as given in Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and then comes the Mosaic," or four dispensations in all. "“First of all, sir,” I said, “explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?” “This rock,” he answered, “and this gate are the Son of God.” “How, sir?” I said; “the rock is old, and the gate is new.” “Listen,” he said, “and understand, O ignorant man. The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councilor with the Father in His work of creation:282 for this reason is He old.” “And why is the gate new, sir?” I said. “Because,” he answered, “He became manifest (1Pe_1:20) in the last days of the dispensation: for this reason the gate was made new, that they who are to be saved by it might enter into the kingdom of God." (Hermas, "The Pastor" 3:12) "The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the unchangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him." (Augustine, Letter 138 to Marcellinus, 1:5) These early fathers appear to have had early dispensational type concepts. Insofar and so long as these concepts have, by later scholars, been fleshed out in accordance with scripture, they should be sound. Wherever someone draws a conclusion that is not harmonious with the word of God, that conclusion can and should be pointed out as error & discarded. The same applies to isolated statements carelessly or inaccurately worded, for some people on occasion write things on the spur which don't really convey a proper picture of their overall beliefs. Yet such erroneous conclusions and poor choices of words should not be cause to discard, revile, or misrepresent the overall theology.
Dispensationalism has as a foundational tenet the idea that God communicated His words to the writers for the express purpose of conveying His message to people and of making things known and understood. Therefore we should expect God to have used the languages He created in a manner that is clear and understandable to the readers. The vast majority of Bible words should be assumed to have their normal, usual meaning. Thus, a plain, straightforward interpretation should be applied by default. Symbols, figures of speech, and types present themselves plainly via context and thus can also be interpreted plainly. When the plain, surface meaning yields nothing sensible and nothing symbolic or figurative presents itself on the surface, then of course the hidden, esoteric meanings should be sought. The so-called literalist does not deny figurative language or symbols or spiritual truths, but he does apply this interpretive method consistently and does not make the automatic, false assumption that it should automatically be different for prophecies. For example, look at all the O.T. prophecies of the coming Messiah which came true, but which would be missed by anyone who refused to apply the literal hermeneutic to those prophecies. As a matter of fact, having two rules of interpretation (literal readings of most verses but spiritualizing all prophetic verses) opens the door for the unbeliever to point out our inconsistency and the advantage it gives us, for who can say which spiritual interpretation is the correct one? It is subjective, and competing interpretations abound with this method. When looking for treasure, doesn't it seem reasonable to first see what is lying on the surface (either treasure itself or clues as to its location) prior to spading up the dirt and digging a deep hole? That is what a consistent, literal interpretive method seeks to do. The amillennial view, by contrast, just commences digging a hole whenever it sees "Apocrypha." ("What, look at the surface meaning? No way! This is a prophecy!")
I've gone back all the way to this one because I think it important that straw men should be restrained from stomping all over good theological concepts. I therefore intend to shackle these three straw gentlemen before we go any further. Living today in 2021 we have an already established canon of scripture. That it is established is because we trust the church that decided those books are sufficient to supply the church's understanding of all things salvational. I see no good reason to question that trust or those choices by the church. Straw man No. (1): The obvious answer to this is no, on the grounds first that the canon is fixed and no such suggestion appears anywhere in scripture to that effect, neither does any such suggestion appear in any extant manuscript of any Biblical book, (even in the dead sea scrolls). Straw man No. (2): Likewise, since the canon is fixed and the church that fixed it is trusted by the church of 2021, any such suggestion is obviously inadmissable. Straw man No. (3): The scriptural evidence that St Paul forbade close relationships between men is non existent, he didn't. The notion that St Paul wanted men to marry men is ridiculous considering what St Paul understood 'marriage' to mean and to entail, but what is understood by the term 'marriage' today might not be exactly the same as what St Paul understood by the term. What St Paul forbade was buggery, unclean sexual acts and male prostitution. So St Paul never considered the possibility of men entering into exclusively mongamous, supportive relationships in which they had similar legal rights and obligations, under God and the law, to those of opposite sex couples. Many men assume that penetrative sex must be mandatory within 'marriage', but that is simply not so, even for heterosexual couples. It is only blessed, sanctified and allowed, even endorsed, by God within the context of 'marriage' between man and woman, both by consent. The idea that women MUST always submit to the sexual demands of men within marriage is nothing more than sinfully coersive, manipulating oppression and a spurious excuse for rape, by "lustful brutes which have no understanding". In previous generations, as recently as 50 years ago, both church and law in USA and UK, turned a blind eys to rape within marriage, on the grounds that it was somehow not possible. The church and the law is now thankfully more enlightened by the truth. So it is perfectly possible that a revised theological understanding concerning exactly what St Paul forbade concerning relationships between man and man, and woman and woman, could emerge in the church, and friendship/love (agape), however close and dependent, were not forbidden by him. (all truth is something the church is led into, not something we absolutely necessarily already have John 16:13).