Dispensationalism

[JesusFan]

P. S. I have to say, though, that Gerstner is nasty about his opposition, just like the ignoramuses on this thread! This seems to be a symptom of some kind of, shall we call it, Dispensational Derangement Syndrome, (DDS).

Even though I hold to Reformed Baptist theology, there is a tactful way to discuss things in a cicil manner, and it cuts both ways, as I liked Dr MacArthur, but at times he came off shrill towards those who he disagreed with his views in theology, see Charismatic Chaos, as I also see Charasmatic Theology as suspect, but I do not see Word of Faith same as everyone in that group

It's not just this topic, it's everything. It's a head-on battle with the Reformed with any and everything.

It just puts me in an unnecessary spiritual stress and I don't need that in my condition. I've just had enough of it, I'm out of here.

I ama Baprtist reformed, as are others here, and we are not as "picky" as some of those reformed such as a Dr Gerstner

 

[JD731]

But faith in that blood, that blood that never atoned one sin, is fruitless my friend. It could never atone for sin.

Which is the reason for the sacrifices.

You fellows have a perverted view of the millennial reign of Christ, which is the day of the LORD and is 1000 years long. It is not heaven as you suppose. It is the final day of the week of 1000 years days It is described by the prophets as the sabbath of the LORD and a rest day and the Lord Jesus will be in Jerusalem, the city of the great King, and he will rule under the dispensational principle of Righteousness. There will be no open rebellion of sinners and because of this there will be very little death, although all the citizens who enter initially into this kingdom in Re 20:1 are saved, all unrighteous having been killed by the great tribulation or by the Lord Jesus at his coming. These citizens will have a life span as those before the flood but all those born during this time frame will need to be saved as any other sinner, through faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the sacrificial payment for the penalty of all sin. These sacrificial offerings will be necessary for a visual of the cost of the sacrificial payment of the substitute.

If you fellows say there is no possibility of an earth that sustains life for near a thousand years I will doubt your faith in the historical record of the word of God.

But God has not taken away sin in the 7th millennium and renewed his creation because he has not destroyed all sinners. The 7th millennium is not only the final day of the week but it is also the 7th and final dispensation where all things are final and complete. All his enemies will be destroyed with the last enemy being death.

Take a look at this informative statement.

1 Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Note what we are told is the very last thing to happen before the New Heaven and New Earth.

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Think it through and believe the words.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

And please enlighten us. How is the "dispensational scheme," as you put it, a "denial of the work of Christ"? Christ and His glory is at the center of dispensationalism.

"One sample of the excuseless ignorance betrayed by these Dispensationalists—we quote from E.W. Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible. On pages 108 and 110 he said under “Law and Grace”:

“For those who lived under the Law it could rightly and truly be said, *‘It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us’ (Deuteronomy 6:25).

"But to those who live in this present Dispensation of Grace it is as truly declared, ‘By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be Justified in His sight’ (Romans 3:20).

"But this is the very opposite of **Deuteronomy 6:25. What, then, are we to say, or to do? Which of these two statements is true and which is false?

"The answer is that neither is false. But both are true if we would ***rightly divide the Word of Truth as to its dispensational truth and teaching ....

"Two words distinguish the two dispensations:
*‘Do’ distinguished the former; ‘Done’ the latter.

*"Then salvation depended upon what man was to do,
now it depends upon what Christ has done.”

"It is by such statements as these that “unstable souls” are beguiled. Is it not amazing that one so renowned for his erudition and knowledge of the Scriptures should make such manifestly absurd statements as the above?"

*As if Salvation could be obtained by the keeping of the Law.

**Romans 3:20 and Deuteronomy 6:25 are not opposites.

Romans 3:20 is referring to the souls of lost individuals and telling those lost souls, "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be Justified in His sight"

and Deuteronomy 6:25 is speaking of saved souls given evidence and showing their Righteousness Given to them by Jesus Christ, when those saved souls were commanded to, "observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us."

***Why do not these self-styled “rightly dividers” properly allocate the Scriptures, distinguishing between the different classes to which they are addressed?

"...it was necessary for us to expose and denounce that teaching which insists that much in the Bible has no immediate application unto us today. Such teaching is a reckless and irreverent handling of the Word, which has produced the most evil consequences in the hearts and lives of many—not the least of which is the promotion of a pharisaical spirit of self-superiority.

"Consciously or unconsciously, Dispensationalists are, in reality, repeating the sin of Jehoiakim, who mutilated God’s Word with his penknife (Jeremiah 36:23). Instead of “opening the Scriptures,” they are bent in closing the major part of them from God’s people today.

"They are just as much engaged in doing the devil’s work as are the Higher Critics, who, with their dissecting knives, are wrongly “dividing the word of truth.”

"They are seeking to force a stone down the throats of those who are asking for bread. These are indeed severe and solemn indictments, but not more so than the case calls for. We are well aware that they will be unacceptable unto some of our own readers; but medicine, though sometimes necessary, is rarely palatable."

From: https://reformedontheweb.com/pink/a-study-of-dispensationalism.pdf

 

[John of Japan]

It's not just this topic, it's everything. It's a head-on battle with the Reformed with any and everything.

It just puts me in an unnecessary spiritual stress and I don't need that in my condition. I've just had enough of it, I'm out of here.

Yeah, that is why I've always stayed out of the Cal/Arm arguments. I don't need the stress!

 

[John of Japan]

"One sample of the excuseless ignorance betrayed by these Dispensationalists—we quote from E.W. Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible. On pages 108 and 110 he said under “Law and Grace”:

And this is an example of the ignorance of Pink (and you for quoting him) about dispensationalism. E. W. Bullinger was the leading hyper-dispensationalism of the Acts 28 brand. Almost no one nowadays claims to be a Bullinger type dispensationalist, not even the mid-Acts hyper-dispensationalists who have their headquarters right here in the next town over, Germantown, WI! And one of their churches is on our road. (Their college is in Grand Rapids, MI.)

I challenge you to abandon fake expert and fake theologian Arthur Pink, and actually read dispensational authors yourself before condemning them. Start with Charles Ryrie. I have little respect for someone who attacks a doctrine without understanding, or at least trying to understand it. For crying out loud, Pink didn't even attend church for the last 14 years of his life, making him a backslider--and by the way a hyper-Calvinist.

 

[John of Japan]

I like my new term: Dispensational Derangement Syndrome (DDS).

 

[John of Japan]

And you are espousing a saving faith that is not in Christ, but the blood of animals. This is why I loathe dispensationalism so much. It fractures much of God's holy writ.

That is not even a dispensational doctrine. If you think it is, I challenge you to provide direct quotes from dispensational scholars that prove it. I'll even help you. Here is a website with articles from genuine dispensational scholars: Journal of Dispensational Theology at: Journal of Dispensational Theology.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You shouldn't trust anything by Pink, least of all his theology. He was arrogant, and didn't think anyone could teach him anything. If you must be a Calvinist, be a Spurgeon type Calvinist, not a follower of Pink. Besides that, I've read his little book on dispensationalism, and it is badly flawed. If you want to criticize the theology, fine, but don't get your information from Pink. He didn't even know the difference between Scofield and Bullinger (the hyper dispensationalist).

I posted this elsewhere on the BB:

From Richard P. Belcher, Arthur W. Pink—Born to Write (Richberry Press, 2013)​

• As a young man, he enrolled in Moody Bible Institute for summer school, but dropped out without even finishing that class. “Perhaps it was his strong individualistic spirit that made it difficult for him to submit to any human authority” (p. 25).
• “He came to the conviction that God is the primary teacher and that man really needs no one else to teach him” (p. 28).
• “He wrestled with God’s will for his life, and…faced recurring depths of despair and a nervous breakdown” (p. 41).
• He pastored for two years, then quit the church (p. 44).
• In 1919 he suffered from deep depression. He tried to go to the church to preach but could not even make it out of bed (p. 49).
• “He was not a sociable person. He did not seem to enjoy being with and fellowshipping with people” (p. 58).
• He split a church in Australia over his view of predestination (p. 78).
• He and his wife moved to England, and on a ship with 500 people he couldn’t find any Christians he could fellowship with, and evidently did not win anyone to Christ (p. 86).
• “Doors remained shut and he was more convinced than ever that apostasy and darkness had surely settled over Christendom” (p. 96).
• He was “admonishing people to withdraw from their local churches” (p. 111).
• “Twice in 1938 he informed readers that he would not receive visitors who called at his home” (p. 112).
• Living in England at the end of his life, he showed little love for the lost or saved, refusing to go to any church for the last 14 years of his life (Cf. pp. 111-112).

Belcher's book seems to be a hatchet job. I have recommended in the past that you read the biography by Iain Murray.
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote in around 1950 to a young man considering the ministry; "Don't waste time reading Barth and brunner. You will get nothing from them to aid you with preaching. Read Pink." Apparently Ll-J read Pink's monthly Studies in the Scriptures from around 1942 until Pink's death ten years later.
There is no doubt that Pink suffered from depression (so did Spurgeon) and was mentally fragile for much of his life. However, I have found his writings extremely helpful and would recommend them to anyone; but like any other writer, you have to suck the juisce and spit out the pips.

• He split a church in Australia over his view of predestination (p. 78).

• This is true but misleading; It was the church that was hyper-Calvinist and objected to his calling on sinners to repent. Pink believed, as do all proper Calvinists, in the universal call to repentance and faith. Make sure that you are not suffering from Pink Derangement Syndrome

 

[John of Japan]

Belcher's book seems to be a hatchet job. I have recommended in the past that you read the biography by Iain Murray.
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote in around 1950 to a young man considering the ministry; "Don't waste time reading Barth and brunner. You will get nothing from them to aid you with preaching. Read Pink." Apparently Ll-J read Pink's monthly Studies in the Scriptures from around 1942 until Pink's death ten years later.

Belcher actually claimed to be a fan of Pink, so I don't know about it being a hatchet job. And I have read the biography by Murray also, and it did not persuade me. As for Martyn Lloyd-Jones, not being a Calvinist I do not read his works (though I have read books by Calvinists). And since Pink couldn't hold on to a pulpit for more than 2 years, I don't know why Lloyd-Jones recommended him, except that Pink was a skillful writer.

There is no doubt that Pink suffered from depression (so did Spurgeon) and was mentally fragile for much of his life. However, I have found his writings extremely helpful and would recommend them to anyone; but like any other writer, you have to suck the juisce and spit out the pips.

None of this excuses not going to church for 14 years, even though he was healthy. That is not the kind of theologian I respect. If even half the other stuff in Belcher's book is true, it is shameful.

• This is true but misleading; It was the church that was hyper-Calvinist and objected to his calling on sinners to repent. Pink believed, as do all proper Calvinists, in the universal call to repentance and faith. Make sure that you are not suffering from Pink Derangement Syndrome

Fair enough.

 

[SovereignGrace]

That is not even a dispensational doctrine. If you think it is, I challenge you to provide direct quotes from dispensational scholars that prove it. I'll even help you. Here is a website with articles from genuine dispensational scholars: Journal of Dispensational Theology at: Journal of Dispensational Theology.

I was addressing what he said, not dispensationalism. I never said it was, either.

 

[kyredneck]

The sacrificial system in the OT saved nary a soul my friend. They had faith in the coming Messiah, and that was what saved them. Not faith in the blood of an animal.

Ok, if that's what you choose to believe. I'll not bother you anymore.

Galatians Chapter 3

21​	Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.

Is there something about this that escapes your understanding Charlie?

 

[Ascetic X]

None of this excuses not going to church for 14 years, even though he was healthy. That is not the kind of theologian I respect. If even half the other stuff in Belcher's book is true, it is shameful.

I can relate to Pink becoming a recluse at the end of his tumultuous life. As I understand it, Pink was not attending church because the churches near him were apostate, liberal, or speaking Gaelic language that he did not understand.

Arthur W. Pink ceased attending formal church services during the last two decades of his life (roughly 1934–1952), choosing instead to live in near-isolation in Scotland. He concluded that modern churches were not aligned with his strict Calvinist theology, and that it was better to stay at home and study scripture, focusing on his writing ministry for Studies in the Scriptures.

He believed in separation from "unfaithful ministers," and believed that he was complying with Scripture's call to go "without the camp".

Following unsuccessful pastorates and a perceived failure in public ministry, he shifted his focus entirely to written ministry.

While in Stornoway, Scotland, he left the local church, partly due to finding English services lifeless and feeling like an outsider in a Gaelic-speaking environment.

While some critics regarded this as a self-imposed exile or a result of a difficult personality, others viewed it as a consistent, albeit extreme, application of his theological principles regarding separated living.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You fellows have a perverted view of the millennial reign of Christ

There isn't a 'millennial reign of Christ' that takes place on Earth mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so who is it that's got a perverted view?

which is the day of the LORD and is 1000 years long.

Not in the Book. You don't have Bible on that.

It is not heaven as you suppose.

Yes it is, because the Bible says it is and that's all the Bible says about it.

It is the final day of the week of 1000 years days

Not in the Book. You don't have Bible on that.

It's someone's evil nightmare that you have bought into and believed because there are some words similar to what you're saying in the Bible that have absolutely nothing to do with what has been made up from them and invented by their flesh.

It is described by the prophets as the sabbath of the LORD and a rest day and the Lord Jesus will be in Jerusalem, the city of the great King, and he will rule under the dispensational principle of Righteousness.

Not in the Book. You don't have Bible on that.

Nothing in the Bible speaks of "the Lord Jesus will be in Jerusalem", and "will rule", after His Second Coming.

It's just something you have wedged into your brain, that is nothing but a waste of your mind.

There will be no open rebellion of sinners and because of this there will be very little death, although all the citizens who enter initially into this kingdom in Re 20:1 are saved, all unrighteous having been killed by the great tribulation or by the Lord Jesus at his coming.

Revelation 20:1 that you cited, says, "And I saw an Angel come down from Heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand."

There is no mention of your quote from that verse, "all the citizens who enter initially into this kingdom in Re 20:1 are saved..."

Does anything like that even matter to you.

These citizens will have a life span as those before the flood

Not in the Book. You don't have Bible on that.

Why do you just make stuff up?

but all those born during this time frame will need to be saved as any other sinner

Jesus will separate the goats from the sheep at His Return, which is The End of the World, with NO SECOND CHANCE FOR ANY JEW THAT IS LOST WHEN JESUS RETURNS, OR FOR ANY OTHER LOST SOUL TO HAVE ANY HOPE WHATSOEVER.

These sacrificial offerings will be necessary for a visual of the cost of the sacrificial payment of the substitute.

Jesus and His Nail Scared Hands is all the visual that will be 'necessary', and it's blasphemous to suggest any typical Old Testament sacrifice was for anything but a symbolic representation of Who Jesus is and what He would Accomplish.

The 7th millennium is not only the final day of the week but it is also the 7th and final dispensation where all things are final and complete.

Unless there are 40 more millenniums prior to Jesus Coming, since you don't know when He's Coming back and nothing to indicate anything about when He would Return is recorded, other than it'll like in the times of Noah, when Judgment Falls from the Hands of Jesus, for the Last Judgment.

Not in the Book. You don't have Bible on that.

Note what we are told is the very last thing to happen before the New Heaven and New Earth.

The last thing to happen before Jesus' Imminent Return at the End of Time is for those on Earth to see Him Appearing in the clouds as the Apostles watched Him Go.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The End is The End of Time, at Jesus' One and Only Second Coming, which could be at any second.

Then, "He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father..."

JESUS IS HANDING OVER THE PRESENT KINGDOM OF THE SON, AS HE CURRENTLY PRESIDES FROM HEAVEN AS THE KING OVER HIS KINGDOM OF SAVED SOULS ON EARTH, TO BE THE KINGDOM OF THE FATHER THROUGHOUT ETERNITY, AT The End of Time, WHEN JESUS DEFEATS HIS FINAL ENEMY ONCE FOR ALL, at Jesus' One and Only Second Coming, which could be at any second.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

Jesus is Reigning at this very moment from Heaven as the Word of God plainly states; in Revelation 20:4;
"And I saw Thrones, and they sat upon them,
and Judgment was given unto them:

"and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands;

and they lived and Reigned with Christ a thousand years."

'till he hath put all enemies under his feet',
at Jesus' One and Only Second Coming, which could be at any second.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

At Jesus' One and Only Second Coming, which could be at any second.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning:
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0700 GMT (Sat) 2 AM EDT (Sat) 11 PM PDT (Fri)

 

[J.D.]

Six hour warning:
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0700 GMT (Sat) 2 AM EDT (Sat) 11 PM PDT (Fri)

There's a time limit on threads?

 

[Ascetic X]

There's a time limit on threads?

Yes, especially when they get heated, exhausted, repetitive, quarrelsome, insulting, or off topic. This is what I have seen.

 

[Salty]

There's a time limit on threads?

The official limit has been set at 90 - though not strictly enforced.
But normally will give a six hour warning.

In addition - normally no problem to restart a thread.
In fact, you are encourage to link the old thread.

but what happens - often the same thing is said over and over.
and if a member (new or otherwise) comes to such a long thread, he will have to waddle thur a lot.

Yes, occasionally, we must immediately close a thread for negative reason. - but that is the exception

In addition, if you see something questionable - please send a PM to one on the admin team..

 

[Ascetic X]

The official limit has been set at 90 - though not strictly enforced.
But normally will give a six hour warning.

In addition - normally no problem to restart a thread.
In fact, you are encourage to link the old thread.

but what happens - often the same thing is said over and over.
and if a member (new or otherwise) comes to such a long thread, he will have to waddle thur a lot.

Yes, occasionally, we must immediately close a thread for negative reason. - but that is the exception

In addition, if you see something questionable - please send a PM to one on the admin team..

Thank you for that explanation!

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Dispensationalism, O.P.​

I like my new term: Dispensational Derangement Syndrome (DDS).

Here is a website with articles from genuine dispensational scholars: Journal of Dispensational Theology at: Journal of Dispensational Theology.

And this is an example of the ignorance of Pink (and you for quoting him) about dispensationalism.

WHAT IS A “DISPENSATION”?​

And first, as regards the meaning of the word 'dispensation' itself, it is easily to be seen, that the Biblical meaning thereof is radically different from that assigned to it by the “Scofield Bible,” where it is stated that:–​

“A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to some specific revelation of the Will of God” (note to Gen. 1:28).​

"LET us at this point inquire what, if any, support the Bible lends to the basic idea of Modern dispensationalism, namely, that God has divided all time (past and future) into seven distinct and clearly distinguishable “dispensations;” and that in each of those “dispensations” He deals with mankind upon 'a special plan' and upon 'peculiar principles that differ from those of all the others'.

"But in our English Version of the Scriptures the word “dispensation” is not in a single instance used to designate 'a period of time', whatsoever.

"Paul says, “A dispensation of the Gospel is committed to me” (I Cor. 9:17); that is to say, the Gospel had been entrusted to him to be dispensed by him.

"And the word has a similar intent, definition, import, and connotation conveying its meaning in other passages, all its occurrences being in the writings of the apostle Paul. Thus in Ephesians 1:10 the word 'dispensation' is a reference to “the dispensation of the fulness of the times”; and the Apostle is there speaking of that which God had Purposed to administer or dispense in these Last Days. (“The fulness of the time,” according to Galatians 4:4, is the Era when “God sent forth His Son.”).

"Again in Ephesians 3:2 Paul speaks of “the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”; the meaning being that the ministry given him was to dispense the grace of God to the Gentiles.

And lastly, in Colossians 1:25 he refers to “the dispensation of God,” that had been given him, “to fulfil the word of God”; the reference being to that which God had made him responsible to administer or dispense, in fulfilment of the word of God concerning His previously concealed Purpose as to the salvation of the Gentiles.

"These are all the occurrences of the word "dispensation",
in the New Testament.

"In the English Version of the Bible, therefore, the word “dispensation” always means administration, or stewardship.

"Our English word “economy” comes directly from the Greek word rendered “dispensation” in the four passages above referred to.

"It is to be deplored that a Biblical word of definite intent, definition, import, and connotation conveying its meaning should have been chosen for the purpose of this New System of Doctrine, and a radically different intent, definition, import, and connotation conveying its meaning assigned to it."

Philip Mauro: The Gospel of the Kingdom (1927) – Preterist Archives

preteristarchives.org

​

Satan apparently leaves some extremely strategic vulnerable loopholes and telling clues in his supernaturally evil schemes that God allows to be left in place for the whole world to see, if you look for them and believe the Bible, instead of him.

Like the Holly Rollers who believe they are Sanctified 'holy', when the Bible says, 'wholly'.

Or the premillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial dispensationalists who think an Earthly Reign of Jesus is contained within the verse in Revelation 20:4, which speaks of 'a thousand years'.

As far as End Times schemes go, God eliminated three of them right there in the one verse they use for their namesakes.

Praise the One and Only Lord God of the Holy Bible.

Almost no one nowadays claims to be a Bullinger type dispensationalist

That's because they have gradually been drawn away from the total cockiness of it assigning new meanings to the teachings of the Bible, including its very name, to wherever extent God has Blessed someone to dispense with it, as some sort of NEW Condescending Conjectural Deranged System of Self-Contridictions.

I have little respect for someone who attacks a doctrine without understanding, or at least trying to understand it.

I understand what the word “dispensation” always means when it is used in the Bible.

Try to understand it, too.

Was it any part of the work of Christ
to revive and reconstitute the Jewish nation?

...to re-establish that people in the land that was once theirs?

...to revive their system of worship, etc.?

Did He come to reinstate the bondwoman
and her son in the family of Abraham?

...and to make the son of the bondwoman
to be heir with the son of the free woman?

Did He come to raise up again, and to make permanent,
that “middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile,

...or to take it away entirely and forever?

Did He come to restore the “shadows” of the old covenant,

...or to abolish them?

 

[J.D.]

Dispensationalism, O.P.​

WHAT IS A “DISPENSATION”?​

And first, as regards the meaning of the word 'dispensation' itself, it is easily to be seen, that the Biblical meaning thereof is radically different from that assigned to it by the “Scofield Bible,” where it is stated that:–

"LET us at this point inquire what, if any, support the Bible lends to the basic idea of Modern dispensationalism, namely, that God has divided all time (past and future) into seven distinct and clearly distinguishable “dispensations;” and that in each of those “dispensations” He deals with mankind upon 'a special plan' and upon 'peculiar principles that differ from those of all the others'.

"But in our English Version of the Scriptures the word “dispensation” is not in a single instance used to designate 'a period of time', whatsoever.

"Paul says, “A dispensation of the Gospel is committed to me” (I Cor. 9:17); that is to say, the Gospel had been entrusted to him to be dispensed by him.

"And the word has a similar intent, definition, import, and connotation conveying its meaning in other passages, all its occurrences being in the writings of the apostle Paul. Thus in Ephesians 1:10 the word 'dispensation' is a reference to “the dispensation of the fulness of the times”; and the Apostle is there speaking of that which God had Purposed to administer or dispense in these Last Days. (“The fulness of the time,” according to Galatians 4:4, is the Era when “God sent forth His Son.”).

"Again in Ephesians 3:2 Paul speaks of “the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”; the meaning being that the ministry given him was to dispense the grace of God to the Gentiles.

And lastly, in Colossians 1:25 he refers to “the dispensation of God,” that had been given him, “to fulfil the word of God”; the reference being to that which God had made him responsible to administer or dispense, in fulfilment of the word of God concerning His previously concealed Purpose as to the salvation of the Gentiles.

"These are all the occurrences of the word "dispensation",
in the New Testament.

"In the English Version of the Bible, therefore, the word “dispensation” always means administration, or stewardship.

"Our English word “economy” comes directly from the Greek word rendered “dispensation” in the four passages above referred to.

"It is to be deplored that a Biblical word of definite intent, definition, import, and connotation conveying its meaning should have been chosen for the purpose of this New System of Doctrine, and a radically different intent, definition, import, and connotation conveying its meaning assigned to it."

Philip Mauro: The Gospel of the Kingdom (1927) – Preterist Archives

preteristarchives.org

​

Satan apparently leaves some extremely strategic vulnerable loopholes and telling clues in his supernaturally evil schemes that God allows to be left in place for the whole world to see, if you look for them and believe the Bible, instead of him.

Like the Holly Rollers who believe they are Sanctified 'holy', when the Bible says, 'wholly'.

Or the premillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial dispensationalists who think an Earthly Reign of Jesus is contained within the verse in Revelation 20:4, which speaks of 'a thousand years'.

As far as End Times schemes go, God eliminated three of them right there in the one verse they use for their namesakes.

Praise the One and Only Lord God of the Holy Bible.


That's because they have gradually been drawn away from the total cockiness of it assigning new meanings to the teachings of the Bible, including its very name, to wherever extent God has Blessed someone to dispense with it, as some sort of NEW Condescending Conjectural Deranged System of Self-Contridictions.


I understand what the word “dispensation” always means when it is used in the Bible.

Try to understand it, too.

Was it any part of the work of Christ
to revive and reconstitute the Jewish nation?

...to re-establish that people in the land that was once theirs?

...to revive their system of worship, etc.?

Did He come to reinstate the bondwoman
and her son in the family of Abraham?

...and to make the son of the bondwoman
to be heir with the son of the free woman?

Did He come to raise up again, and to make permanent,
that “middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile,

...or to take it away entirely and forever?

Did He come to restore the “shadows” of the old covenant,

...or to abolish them?

Mauro wrote some great stuff. I have his Chronology of the Whole Bible and Daniel's 70 Weeks.