Bible "Dispensations" Examined Biblically

[thomas15]

Not to hijack the thread, but I find Hodge easier to understand than Berkhof.

 

[RevGKG]

The only question I now have is what do I do with the 25 or so books I have collected on the subject now that the issue is been made so clear to me?

Send them over, I'll take themoff your hands :wavey:

 

[OldRegular]

BTW, OR, I forget whether it is visible, but my name is Tom Riggle. I have been accused before of hiding behind a monicker (not saying you are doing that).

About Scofield: At BJU we used to quote this variation of The Solid Rock:

"My hope is built on nothing less
than Scofield Bible with King James notes"!

It was an ominous sound - to me at least - when a passage being read from the chapel went to the next page in Scofield. The rustling of all those pages in unison made an impression on me, even then. "Being on the same page" isn't always a good thing.

It took these old eyes a while to figure out your moniker [asterisk tom] but I like it! I am sort of partial to some of your posts also!:wavey::thumbsup:

 

[swaimj]

[FONT=&quot]Examples 6 and 7 (Eph. 3:2 and Col. 1:25) are similar to number 4 in at least one respect: they speak again of God's personally entrusting a mission to Paul on behalf of the saints. There is no evidence of God changing His general dealings with mankind on the whole.[/FONT]

No evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind? I beg to differ and I will point out the difference by asking and answering three questions from the Eph 3 text:

• What is the dispensation spoken of in verse 1? It is (vs 6) that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. The Gentiles and Israel are members of one body. The Gentiles and Israel share together in the promise of Jesus Christ.
• How did Paul know of this dispensation? It was given to him by specific divine revelation. Note also what Paul says about his revelation in Galations 1: “…the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”.
• On what basis does one say that this revelation to Paul is new? Because Paul describes it as such. Note Eph 3:5: the revelation “was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

So this dispensation is a new revelation; never given before; never understood before; whose result—the union of Jew and Gentile into one body—has never been seen before. Yet you see no evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind.

Paul describes something that happened just a few year's prior to the time of his letter:

"But when the FULLNESS OF TIME was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law;"

Using the "literal exactness" that dispensationalists claim to use, they should interpret that phrase in the light of this cross-reference. The two phrases speak of the same time, the time of the incarnation and life of the Son.

But, even given this argument, the "fullness of time" is distinct dispensationally from what preceded it. A change in the way God dealt with men occurred when Jesus came. The law preceded Christ, but grace and truth came from Christ. This is a differenct stewardship for man. Prior to Christ, man was responsible to keep God's law. After the coming of Christ, the demand of God upon men is that they "believe the Son whom He has sent".

 

[kyredneck]

"Being on the same page" isn't always a good thing.

A lot of folks find comfort or solace by conforming with hoi polloi. Few actually 'think outside of the box'.

 

[kyredneck]

So this dispensation is a new revelation; never given before; never understood before; whose result—the union of Jew and Gentile into one body—has never been seen before.

........I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. Mt 13:35

which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; Eph 3:5

There's nothing new about any of the spiritual tenets of the New Covenant. They're new only because the mysteries had not been heretofore revealed until the time came for the removal of the old; i.e. '...the removing of those things that are shaken.....that those things which are not shaken may remain.'; 'In that He saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old...'.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8

 

[ReformedBaptist]

........I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. Mt 13:35

which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; Eph 3:5

There's nothing new about any of the spiritual tenets of the New Covenant. They're new only because the mysteries had not been heretofore revealed until the time came for the removal of the old; i.e. '...the removing of those things that are shaken.....that those things which are not shaken may remain.'; 'In that He saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old...'.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8

This is something even a child understands, but may not understand that they understood!

My 6 year old remarked the other day that his favorite part of the Bible is how Jesus saved the people during the flood. He could not be more correct! :jesus:

 

[swaimj]

When I pulled a book out and showed my three year old pictures of Abraham Lincoln, the pictures were not new, but they were new to him because he'd never seen them before.

The fact that New Covenant revelation was not revealed but now is revealed is what makes it new. Of course, nothing is new to God, but when God reveals Himself in a new way by which he had not revealed Himself before, it is new to us. These new revelations (new to man) are the unfolding dispensations.

 

[OldRegular]

No evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind? I beg to differ and I will point out the difference by asking and answering three questions from the Eph 3 text:

• What is the dispensation spoken of in verse 1? It is (vs 6) that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. The Gentiles and Israel are members of one body. The Gentiles and Israel share together in the promise of Jesus Christ.
• How did Paul know of this dispensation? It was given to him by specific divine revelation. Note also what Paul says about his revelation in Galations 1: “…the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”.
• On what basis does one say that this revelation to Paul is new? Because Paul describes it as such. Note Eph 3:5: the revelation “was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

So this dispensation is a new revelation; never given before; never understood before; whose result—the union of Jew and Gentile into one body—has never been seen before. Yet you see no evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind.

That sounds a little like the hyper dispensationalism of Ituttut.:thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

When I pulled a book out and showed my three year old pictures of Abraham Lincoln, the pictures were not new, but they were new to him because he'd never seen them before.

The fact that New Covenant revelation was not revealed but now is revealed is what makes it new. Of course, nothing is new to God, but when God reveals Himself in a new way by which he had not revealed Himself before, it is new to us. These new revelations (new to man) are the unfolding dispensations.

I believe that the New Covenant is revealed to the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapter 31?

31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The Apostle Paul thought so since he repeats it in Hebrews, Chapter 8.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I believe that the New Covenant is revealed to the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapter 31?

31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The Apostle Paul thought so since he repeats it in Hebrews, Chapter 8.

Amen. This is the main reason why I reject the new doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

[asterisktom]

Should I place into storage Berkhof or Chafer or both?

Hello. I would say that Berkhof you can still get good use out of significant parts of.
Chafer, personally, I would round file. Or use for reference for articles.

 

[asterisktom]

I agree! It is about time. This really needs to be done. Of course Scofield is with us only in the original notes but those who have been deluded by his teachings should welcome "asterisktom" with open arms.

Thanks for the welcome. It is always good to engage in these discussions because they sharpen us. I would say that email discussion groups over the last - wow..15 years (how times flies!) has really helped me to nail down a lot of doctrine.

One of the first things i was oh so happy to discard was Scofields Bible.

 

[asterisktom]

It took these old eyes a while to figure out your moniker [asterisk tom] but I like it! I am sort of partial to some of your posts also!:wavey::thumbsup:

Thank you. I will try not to wear out my welcome. B. Franklin wrote "Fish and visitors stink after three days". I'm not sure how that transfers to online communities. :tongue3:

"Asterisktom" was a happy choice for me. It is easy to find all my stuff web pages by just searching for the name. That comes in eally handy when we go down to Mexico or CAmerica and need to use a strange computer.

 

[asterisktom]

No evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind? I beg to differ and I will point out the difference by asking and answering three questions from the Eph 3 text:

• What is the dispensation spoken of in verse 1? It is (vs 6) that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. The Gentiles and Israel are members of one body. The Gentiles and Israel share together in the promise of Jesus Christ.
• How did Paul know of this dispensation? It was given to him by specific divine revelation. Note also what Paul says about his revelation in Galations 1: “…the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”.
• On what basis does one say that this revelation to Paul is new? Because Paul describes it as such. Note Eph 3:5: the revelation “was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

So this dispensation is a new revelation; never given before; never understood before; whose result—the union of Jew and Gentile into one body—has never been seen before. Yet you see no evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind.




But, even given this argument, the "fullness of time" is distinct dispensationally from what preceded it. A change in the way God dealt with men occurred when Jesus came. The law preceded Christ, but grace and truth came from Christ. This is a differenct stewardship for man. Prior to Christ, man was responsible to keep God's law. After the coming of Christ, the demand of God upon men is that they "believe the Son whom He has sent".

Thanks for spending good quality time in your response. I am sorry to say that I'll have to postpone my response till (I hope) tomorrow.

Take care.

 

[asterisktom]

When I woke up this morning, I had literally no idea that my entire theological belief system was going to be turned on it's head.

One post on an internet discussion forum brought into focus what 2 years of personal study on the dispensational vs. covenant debate couldn't accomplish. Just in the nick of time I might add, I was on the verge of believing that it is possible (but unlikely) that a Baptist could be a 5 pointer and not an (amateur) covenant theologian.

The only question I now have is what do I do with the 25 or so books I have collected on the subject now that the issue is been made so clear to me?

Those AHA moments are really wonderful. They cause a whole host of verses to show a whole different meaning.

They also suddenly give us more room in the bookshelves!

 

[DHK]

Once again, my complaint is not with new words being used, but with old ones (that is, Scriptural ones) given new slants of meaning. Using "eschatology" or "trinity" is not the same as using "dispensation" since that last term is in the Bible.

We should not use Bible terms and pretend to be acting within the scope of those terms, which is exactly what Scofield does when he appeals to, say, Eph. 1:10 as a basis for his dispensationalism.

First, I hope your not basing your argument as a KJVO would. It sounds like it. The NT was written in Greek, not Shakespearean English.
Secondly, If the word was changed to "period of time," or some other such synonym, would that satisfy you?
Third, as you already inferred, perhaps it was the KJV translators that got it wrong and not the "dispensationalists" in not translating the word correctly.

Dispensationalism as we know it today is a way of looking at the Bible, just as Covenant theology is. If "dispensationalism is wrong, then covenant theology is wrong also. We don't find those two words juxtaposed together in the Bible either. Of course neither the prophets nor the Apostles spoke KJV English, errr...did they? If the KJV was good enough for Paul then is it good enough.....??

 

[asterisktom]

First, I hope your not basing your argument as a KJVO would. It sounds like it. The NT was written in Greek, not Shakespearean English.
Secondly, If the word was changed to "period of time," or some other such synonym, would that satisfy you?
Third, as you already inferred, perhaps it was the KJV translators that got it wrong and not the "dispensationalists" in not translating the word correctly.

Dispensationalism as we know it today is a way of looking at the Bible, just as Covenant theology is. If "dispensationalism is wrong, then covenant theology is wrong also. We don't find those two words juxtaposed together in the Bible either. Of course neither the prophets nor the Apostles spoke KJV English, errr...did they? If the KJV was good enough for Paul then is it good enough.....??

Quick answer for now - actually, two:
I am not KJV-only. I usually use NKJV, but also use others. I don't know where you got this.
Secondly, as far as Disp. vs. Covenant Theology is concerned, it is not a case of either/or in my mind, but neither/nor. Personally I believe that both are wrong.

For the record, I am a New Covenant Baptist. For those who are unsure what type of animal that is, I wrote about it more in detail here:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/510738968/new-covenant-theology-good-teaching-gets-a-bad-rap---and-a-bad-rep/

 

[OldRegular]

Thank you. I will try not to wear out my welcome. B. Franklin wrote "Fish and visitors stink after three days". I'm not sure how that transfers to online communities. :tongue3:

"Asterisktom" was a happy choice for me. It is easy to find all my stuff web pages by just searching for the name. That comes in eally handy when we go down to Mexico or CAmerica and need to use a strange computer.

Ole Ben may be right especially for those who take on dispensationalism right away!!

 

[HankD]

Although I call myself a "dispensationalist" (of sorts), I do not like the term "dispensation". I call my self such out of honesty so people will know where I stand concerning eschatology (or at least a pretty close approximation).

I prefer the term "age" rather than dispensation because the phrase "dispensation" (at least in English) is too limiting and can also be confusing.

e.g. If you eat pork and go to "church" on Sunday rather than the Sabbath you are in the age of Grace and not the Law. This is far wider in scope and implication than a change of "dispensation" or a "new economy".

Same for when Christ comes to rule and reign for 1000 years (assuming the Millenium or Chiliad of Revelation 20 is a literal 1000 years).

Same for the eternal state.

Another thing is that while elements of "dispensationalism" have existed from the early Church (included those convoluted arguments concerning Daniel 2, 7, etc...) many have held some "wild and crazy" ideas.

The fact is that so-called dispensationalism has an intense focus on eschatology which only now seems to be coming into its own much as Trinitarianism developed in the first 3-4 centuries of the church, but unlike Trinitarianism, echatology is still in an undisciplined, unsubdued state even after these nearly 2000 years and far from having the precise dogma and general agreement of Trintarianism.

Personally, I don't belittle the eschatological views of other Christians who are sincerely trying to make sense of "things to come" or "things past (preterists)".

You know, I may be wrong and if I'm nice I won't have to eat so much crow when we meet in the air (or not) .

HankD